"Arrogant Atheists"

Answering to imaginary supernatural entities is a way to come up with many different sets of standards. Those of Jesus, Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, Baal, Thor, Zeus and the thousands of others are NOT the same sets of standards, they all differ. Morals are the creation of MAN, not imaginary gods and they change, from society to society. Most of us accept the majority of our societies moral values, differing in ways we find valid for our personal beliefs. Those values are slightly different between Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, Atheists and others, but they are basically the morals of the local society.

 

You are right, prayer is untestable and will always be invalidated by any test, because prayer is nonsense. It is nearly impossible to come up with a valid means of testing nonsense, or meaningless drivel.

 

I found them on the Internet about 5 years ago during one of my "religion research" periods. I am sure they are still around somewhere.I believe the study was authorized by DUKE university.

Oh, here is one I did not find before it tests many things, funny that music seems to do much better than prayer, lol
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9136

 

And what does that prove? It is a well known fact that such studies are biased and will publish falsified information solely for the purpose of maintaining there financial input for research purposes. So where is the PROOF?

 

Calling something biased does not make it so. It is obvious that you are not interested in anything that contradicts your own opinion. Facts, to you are meaningless, drivel or biased. Proof is imaginary or false.Information has no validity, since it disagrees with you.
We have no more need of attempting communication, since you do not seem able to actually communicate--ignored.

 

Calling something non-biased does not make it so.

Projecting again?

No! Since it disagrees with the logic of "PROOF". Science cannot prove anything.

Your final projection is merely your last infantile effort to assert your supposed correctness.... all without any PROOF. Science cannot prove anything.

 

The use of the word 'natural' goes with the scientific phrasing claiming the it deals with the natural world and can be explained, studied, researched and observed. Anything that does not fall under those is classified at 'supernatural' meaning it exists outside the natural world; its existence is based more on theories and opinions rather than any fact or observable medium. This could be said for god, spirits, demons etc etc etc.

Point being nothing can be done to prove that they DO exist and nothing can be done to orive that do DON'T. It isn't something we can research and observe in everyday life. The theistic folk purposely put god outside the realm of mankind. Like what I said with the pink elephant example. You CANNOT prove there isn't a mystical pink elephant floating on cupid wings in the room. However I could not prove there was one. If we spent all day arguing about it we would seem like idiots wasting our time.

So, why do we constantly debate the existence of god with science, if science serves as no medium to contradict it? The best we can do is contradict the specifics in a person faith, for example; We could prove the world never did have a great flood as the bible proclaims.

But where would that get us? We didn't contradict the existence in god itself with that example. Only that the specific event of a world flood never happened. So why attempt to use this arguement with a theist?

Until either side of a theist vs athiest argument can provide inarguable proof. The argument is pointless. So why bother?

 

Ascendent ideas influence political and social policy.

Therein ultimately lies the point.

 

I can only speak for myself here, and as a person on the atheist side of the equation, I see the value in chipping away at faith based mythology as a hope that it may prevent in some small way at least one person from strapping a bomb to their chest with visions of paradise flashing before their eyes, or flying a plane into a skyscraper or getting parents to take their child to a doctor instead of just praying while it dies in front of them. I understand that I can't possibly expect to reach out to these extreme cases myself personally through a forum, but I might be able to affect a change in the attitude or presumption of someone close to them, or a friend of a friend just by introducing an element of doubt as a seed in the person I do reach. While I don't know if it's ever successful, and I certainly can't even think of taking credit even if it ever is, there's a small part of me that would feel guilty if I had done absolutely nothing where i could have and the worst possible thing occurred, even though it was no fault of my own, and not my responsibility.

That's why I bother.

Is that fair enough?

 

Because atheists we are much better than religious. We use something that religious will never use, or use less(for the less radicals):

- The reason!!!

Faith goes against reason. Faith is believe things without asking it why. SImply you accept that. You don't question the things. Is conformism.

And moreover, religious people are subjugated to an authority, God. THey must give obedience to their God. They are not free. They are slaves of their God.

So yes, atheists we are morally superior Because we think for ourselves, and we don't depend to any one else, more than ourselves.

 

OK, let me say this again. The supernatural does NOT exist, it is a figment of the human imagination and there is no evidence other wise. The natural world includes EVERYTHING in the universe, including the unknown. Just because something is unknown does NOT make it beyond the natural. The trouble with gods is they are NOT unknown, we KNOW they do not exist that they are the simple construction of humans and nothing more.

 

More than fair, I wish I could say the same, but I chip away because I despise stupidity, ignorance and superstitious belief and the actions it causes.

 

There is no direct relation between arrogance and religion or atheism.

 

Once again. the natural world (that which can be measured by science) deals with things that we can observe in everday life, study, research and form an hypothesis based on facts. Things that are considered 'supernatural' are those which do not fall into that category. They are things that , yes we could esily consider to be human imagination at work, but have no way of proving or disproving.

Yes, the nutural world does consist of unknown things as well as those which are known, so long as we can come up with observations methods correlating to them. Something we can observe again and again and research and study. That is the natural world. An idea, like god or satan or ghosts (etc etc etc) are considered 'supernatural' because they cannot be observed in this manner.

Let me say this in a way that is simple. Science deals with the physical universe (which is just another way of saying 'natural world' with 'antural being interchangeable with 'physical' and 'world' being interchangeable with 'universe') Anything that is observable through physical means; known or unknown is considered part of the physical world. Things such as god are not observable in this manner. They are not neither provable nor disprovable and exist soley on faith. This is considered metaphysical (which is just another way of saying supernatural)

Something being unknown has nothing to do with the matter in any way shape or form. I cannot for the life of me even see why you would use this as a point in your rebuttal as I never mentioned the unknown as a quality of the supernatural before.

And yes, while I agree with you that the supernatural does not exist (I never said otherwise so; again I am not quite sure why you used this) we have no way of PROVING it does not exist. It is a matter of perspective and nothing but a theological debate that has no end.

Alright! On to the next one!

as I mentioned before chipping away at faith as a whole is useless. It served no purpose but leadsing to a never ending arguement. If, instead of attacking faith as a whole you simply attacked the part which made them think it was necessary to plant a bomb on their chest you would have alot more luck. It is extreamly difficult to change a persons religious perspective as whole. If someone thinks Allah exists,and thoroughly believes in Allah, calling him stupid for having that belief in something which has no proof will get you nowhere. But through persuasion you may be able to get him to think that Allah wouldn't want him to plant a bomb on himself or whatever.

I think that in your case it is at least understandable. However I see people all the time picking at little peices of the bible. For example; I recall a thread of someone using scientific evidence to prove that the 'great flood' in the bible never happened and proclaiming it as a massive victory for his athiestic views while calling thiests stupid.

First of all: This is not a victory for athiesm in the slightest. It denounced a certain event in the bible, not god as a whole and such evidence wouldn't effect thiests of different views in the slightest.

Secondly: Why would someone do this except to hurt another person? I can understand simply stating it as a fact but in the way it was put it was there to specifically target christianity and its offbranches on a matter that wasn't harming anyone.

So by engaging in an arguement you can never win nor support with evidence you are proving you are intelligent? Bravo

 

The point remains the same. I’d rather have a beer with an addle-minded simpleton than with a typical college professor/intellectual full of lies and perversions. I have a fine sense of smell.

The point is proven again.

I like you. Make your next post on PF to prove my point.

 

Making up lies and saying as a proof that they are not lies is typical for Marxists, Muslims and pederasts. At least you could refer to a scientific publication, like the one made by a pederast college professor who was arrested for selling cocaine next to a pederasts bar because police did not know that he was a professor. He made up a scientific proof accepted by scientific community about Crusaders eating children. Scientists are certainly sick people; global warming alone is a living proof that they are…
Repeating Communist lies about Catholics and Croatia does make you a Marxist, but does not make your lies true.

Over 1000s years Catholic Church held together this civilization against attacks of Mohammedans and betrayals of Jews, against plague, hunger and little ice ages. Catholics had established universities and taught medicine and philosophies, they created most inspiring architecture and buildings, bridges and paintings, music and hospitals, the office of the Holy Inquisition used to stand strong against science; when Marxists-Darwinists and Mohammedans can create only destruction, looting, genocide and slavery as such are built in their ideologies. This is not a historical theory. This is what everyone who is not a mental deviant can observe today.

Other founding fathers found these ridiculous accusations to be ridiculous, wrong. This is how they did, they exchanged ideas and they accepted some and rejected some. As the factual consensus and the tangible, final result of the exchange the state you live has the Constitution claiming existence of God as the highest governor of your state and its citizens.

FYI. If you had an ability of reading and if you cared to read Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 and you’d see how you have perverted the whole idea of this paragraph which fully confirms my original point that Xns do not convert less shove their religion in throats of non-believers.

Open the Constitution of the state you live in. See the Big Elephant?

Open the Constitution of the state you live in. Open my post and read: “How does it come that you have no clue about Xty which is in the foundation of this country, of your freedom from my religion?” Your statement is direct prove that your side has a reading comprehension problem; only college professors, scientists and intellectuals can claim that “The constitution was more concerned with "freedom from religion" and that the state did not make laws based on religious beliefs” reading the text “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

I’ve told you, - This is the United States of America. It is the Union of States each of which bases its State Constitution on God. Go to CA, change its Constitution and re-name it Utopia or Pederastia.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


The people of California have exercised their freedom to believe in God and they have chosen to live under His ruling. At this moment a pederast judge has overturned their will and you have a good chance to change the Constitution for your purpose of living under the ruling of the pederast. Don’t bring your grievances to me, act on them. I have no problems with you. I know where the path you are on will end. I did not send you on it. I cannot take you off it. It is not in my power.

 

I know this is off topic, but what can we do about bigoted, hateful, ignorant, religious nuts?

 

Handle with care.

 

How about we draft them and send them to Iran?

 

All that would accomplish is building a greater army serving the God of Abraham. Think you have problems now... wow... what a horrible thing to wish upon those others that are non-Theists.

 

Where do I begin...

Your so called "christian bible" commands you to kill...

What's your point with this sort of argument? Most religions talk about murdering people under certain circumstances... What difference does that make to the truth? We still kill people in wars as well as allow our own people to die, how is it different? Because your justification is different than it used to be?

You Atheist believe arrogantly there is no god...

Arrogance is a common theme for these kinds of arguments...
Atheists are arrogant for not believing you Theists.
Theists are arrogant for not believing you Atheists.

To believe that everyone else is not just wrong but arrogant and stupid to hold their baseless beliefs while you have no evidence to back up your own belief, is true arrogance.

I don't care if a person holds a belief they may never be able to prove. In a way its admirable for them to have that kind of conviction. However to judge others as less than you for having an identical trait is arrogant.

This is a combative sort of subject however, wishing ill will onto people who have differing belief systems, including those who do think everyone else in the world is "wrong" is a toxic way if thinking.

 

Don't know which 'christian bible' you are reading, but the one I use does not command me to kill.

 

Well for example the bible directly says homosexuals should be put to death.

 

And by saying this I'm not suggesting all christians demand homosexuals be killed in the streets. In fact the most anti-homosexual people wouldn't want that.
I'm just saying, it says that... and some people try to use that as a argument against religion.
An argument I consider flawed.

 

What passage of scripture?