Atheism is a religion

I do not say I submit proofs. But I understand you are using standards of science and reason the ones I proved for anyone who has brain were fataly flawed.
Let me repeat the answer

You don't need to replace a sickness or parasies. You need to exterminate them. You don't need to replace garbage, you need to through it in the dampster.

I do not propose rejection of veracity. I propose to reject rewritten standards which has made science a religion of half educated ignoramuses.

 

Ladies and gents let me bring to your attention an atheist reduced to the state of denial and spitting saliva. And let me bring to your attention the "true " creation of the earth he promised in the previous post.

 

Most homosexuals are religious. You'll find more of them at your local Episcopal, Catholic, United Church of Christ, etc. congregations than you will at any atheist get-together.

 

At this moment I will invoke the favorite theist rebuttal;

Prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

 

Why should I prove that it does not exist? You have made it up and has refered to it. It certainly exists. Do you want it to be accepted as universal truth and prove something? OK. I am accpeting it as universal truth in our conversation. Now what are you proving?

What does not exist is it to be a theist rebuttal. Proof: you are not a theist.
I have never submitted such a rebuttal.

 

Another atheist spitting saliva.

Your reaction to the paper written by a catholic priest and puttuing the foundation of the Big bang theory is a proof.


P.S. (Obviously I read not only the title but all the paper)

 

I am a theist, I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe from a spilled bowl of pasta. Now that we have both accepted the FSM as our Lord and Savior, you can address this,

I am not shifting the goal posts, you should probably read Genesis and you will realize this. I am simply citing Genesis. Red herring is usually conducted when a debate is not going well for Joe, and Joe decides to move Jim's attention.

Given that you are expecting me to consult a secret biblical dictionary to figure out what it means for the earth to exist before light, or for birds to exist before fish, I do not see a need to use red herring. Genesis is irrelevant due to its irreconcilable inaccuracies.

 

Why is his version of creation any less viable than yours?

 

Empiricism. Sense experience is the basis for some people, I was just using a lot of different alternatives.

IF God exists, then God would be above science, and reason (maybe). But as human beings we shouldn't just assume God exists and then say God is beyond our understanding. That is a complete dodge. You would need some sort of method, and there are problems with every method. That is why I am pressing you to tell me why your method is superior when it is fraught with so many problems. The method would have to be defended. And if you fall back on faith, you would need to explain why the particular faith you have chosen and not another one.

Isn't discussion/argument among different views positive as long as it doesn't devolve into personal attacks? Agreement is good, but it's impossible to agree on everything.

So the Church and someone who hasn't learned any science are free of bias, but scientists are complete biased? Everyone has bias, and The Church would be no different.

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. You said science was flawed and the Bible, the Church, and myself before God were superior methods to understand God rather than science and reason. And you are right I did agree that IF, IF IF IF God exists then it would be true. But you are failing to answer why I should trust The Bible, the Church, and myself before God (which REALLY seems to presuppose God already) are superior to modern science or any other method really. Your methods don't seem to escape the human bias we all have. Why is the Bible divinely inspired when we know it was written by human beings? Why are they reliable?

So either we have a HUGE problem here, in that we have no method to know that God exists because God is above everything human beings have at their intellectual disposal, or your method method will "prove" God exists. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why it's better. How is your method superior when it is still based on humanity? Or you could fall back on faith,but that opens up another set of problems. Human beings cannot overcome their own humanity. God could be a creation of our minds, or God's attributes could be completely different than what we think. So start with the idea that we cannot overcome human bias, and tell me how the Church and the Bible will be reliable.

 

There you go again.... making presumptions regarding things that you know nothing about. That subject thing being me.

 

Why is his version of creation any less viable than yours?

 

No, what you are doing is advocating the guilt by association fallcy to be a dick about saying, "I disagree with your faith for these reasons."

The fact that you think God is fake - no crap sherlock - we ALL know how you feel. The fact that you need to be a jerk about expressing your opinion, like its fact, is about your charcter flaws - not about the evidence for God.

But go ahead a prove it. You prove that adding a little butter to God at the end of cooking process will make God taste creamier and more delicious. Go ahead.

Go ahead and prove that fresh basil is better for God than the dried stuff. Go ahead.

Go ahead an prove that mixing flour, egg, and water, and little bit of atheist magic, will make a God. Go ahead.

Go ahead a find a universal bowl that spilled. Go ahead.

Oh, you can;t do that? We Christians are totally unaware taht you can not do that even as you advocate this fallacy?

No crap. Now you know why so many people think atheists are nothing but angry, uneducated jerks - you nothing of either God or spaghetti, but you'll never miss a beat to lecture anyone from ignorance. Nice.

 

Because one side is using a brain. The other is just mocking from ignorance.

Apparently, super educated and hyper aware atheists are the only ones who cannot figure this out. Go figure.

 

How can you say this? How do you know what's in the poster's heart? How do you know he doesn't have a personal relationship with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and loves him as you love Jesus?

Apparently ignorant Christians think they have a monopoly on believing fairy tales. Go figure.

 

Are you suggesting above that 'ignorant' Atheists and other non-theists also participate in their own 'fairy tales'?

 

How has all this scientific knowledge made us better humans? Sure it has helped improve our standard of living, eliminated many diseases, prolonged our lives, but has science generally made men more moral? No. It hasn't.

The Genesis account if taken absolutely literally is proven wrong by modern science. Some may assume that Christians started claiming that the creation story in Genesis was not meant to be taken literally once science proved such an interpretation impossible. This is simply not the case. Several Early Church Fathers from late antiquity did not believe in such an interpretation. St. Augustine was actually vehemently opposed to it.

 

Flying spaghetti monsters, magical teapots orbiting the earth all come from Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." The only people I hear talking about them are Atheists. I also notice that they use this supposed deity to make fun of Christians. They never pray or show reverence to this flying spaghetti monster.

 

I must say, I enjoy your rants. More so when its a meltdown with little or no relevance to the discussion at hand and shines with irony, in all of its glory.

Do you have anything constructive to say? My issue was with Genesis being out of order, do you have the same issues? Or are you going to rant about dried basil before passing out on your keyboard from over exertion?

 

Actually they all predate Dawkins book.

The Church of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a religion, just as valid as any other, courts have even allowed its image to be displayed on government grounds along side the ten commandments. It is not used to make fun of the oppressed Christians, but to make a point that it is just as real as any other religion, and should the Ten Commandments or any other religious doctrine be displayed on government property, that this should be too.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/04/flying-spaghett/

Russel's tea pot is a argument concerning a inability to prove a negative. You cannot prove that Russel's teapot does not exist based on its very premise of existence, just as you cannot prove that a god does not exist, again, based on its premise. The burden of proof is on those who are advocating the affirmative.

Its not your job to disprove the man shark living under my bed, its my job to prove that it exists should I claim it does.

Its not aimless atheist wanderings, but arguments used to make a point.

 

A proton is an alleged positive. Prove that it exists. Show me a singular proton and provide to me the weight, dimensions, atomic structure, and any other physical attributes that it might have.

 

:/

This has already been done, what is your point?

 

No this has not been done. No-one has ever handed me a single photon, labeled, tagged, identified, and asked me to examine it. My point rests in your declaration:

"The burden of proof is on those who are advocating the affirmative. " Ask any scientist as to whether or not he believes in the existence of protons and he/she will say 'yes'. So show me one.... ONE... not a mass of them... just one.

 

Mass 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg[1]

938.272046(21) MeV/c2[1]
1.007276466812(90) u[1]
Mean lifetime >2.1×1029 yr (stable)
Electric charge +1 e
1.602176565(35)×10−19 C[1]
Charge radius 0.8775(51) fm[1]
Electric dipole moment <5.4×10&#8722;24 e·cm
Electric polarizability 1.20(6)×10&#8722;3 fm3
Magnetic moment 1.410606743(33)×10&#8722;26 J·T&#8722;1[1]

1.521032210(12)×10&#8722;3 &#956;B[1]
2.792847356(23) &#956;N[1]
Magnetic polarizability 1.9(5)×10&#8722;4 fm3
Spin 1&#8260;2
Isospin 1&#8260;2
Parity +1
Condensed I(JP) = 1&#8260;2(1&#8260;2+)

Here you go.