Stuart, you simply have too much of yourself invested in this hobby of yours, this atheism thing. Your emotions clearly cloud your ability to engage in a rational discussion, without resorting to attacking me personally.

I'm at a loss as to make you happy at this point. I believe this all started when I asked, pretty much just in passing curiousity,what attracts you to our forum. You know, since you never discuss cars while here. That seemed to expose a rather emotional topic for you, as you then went on to misrepresent my question (while pretending to "know" my motivations for asking it) in any number of different threads. You threw everything you had at it in an desperate effort to distort what I had asked, and why I had asked it.

So, perceiving that you are in fact an emotional man, I endeavored to show some sympathy for what is clearly an emotional topic for you - this whole atheism thing. Now I stand accused of being "childish" in my attempt to soften our discourse a bit, and speak to your emotions. I'm at a loss. I feel as though I'm trying to have a rational discussion with my wife, when she was still young enough to go through PMS.

This thread has convincingly demonstrated the irrational nature of the atheist zealot, if not the irrational nature of atheism itself. At least in the deep end, where you appear to be drowning. You should grab that life preserver called "rational thinking", taking your blinders off to see your position objectively. It's an irrational, unsupportable one. I'm sorry you find that so emotionally distressing. Do try to calm down a bit.

Do you intend to get on point at any stage Jeff, or are you just trying run an attack on me because I offend you ? I dont mind, but I dont think it offerrs much to anyone else, and I dont intend to give you the ammunition to get the thread closed because you dont like it.

"This thread has convincingly demonstrated the irrational nature of the atheist zealot, if not the irrational nature of atheism itself."

The irrational nature of atheism itself. If ever, Jeff, we needed an example of your ability to throw out an unsupported and disconnected "truth", here it is. See what Ive done Jeff- ive taken your own very words- not some twist or distortion on them that suits my purpose- and I call on you to support what you say. Expalin why as atheists, the vast majority of scientists, many of the worlds greatest thinkers and philosophers, past and present, are in your view, irrational. Explain why the "zealots"- Dawkins, Sagan, Onfray are irrational. I wish you more success than you had in the ITAG thread.

When you can say, in the space of a couple of sentences that you consider yourself a "middle of the road" thinker on this and then that "Atheism requires the suppression of the natural man, of his natural knowledge of a god."- you have to at some point acknowledge the gaping logical flaw in these positions which seems to permeate your argument on this entire subject.


And yes, I moderated my remarks in your previous grab in the interests of civility. A waste of time, but the gesture was made.

I tend to agree with Superman here. I have no problems with agnostics or people who choose to believe in a different God than I do. Agnostics have a scientifically supportable and rational position. They simply say they don't know and leave it at that.

The people that crack me up are the ones that take the "I can't prove I'm right but I KNOW you're wrong" position. It's truly indefensible.

Super guy needs faith in the teapots.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1218586213.jpg

Jeff is using his same old tricks from ITAG. He makes up the strawman (Jeff endows Stuart with emotion) and uses that as an excuse to dismiss Stuart's positions as being out of emotional need. Nice debating technique. Too bad it's "baloney." Oh yeah, the detector is pegged.

And that's why I believe in Allah. It is a peaceful religion.:cool:

That would be point of the original question Rick. "Atheist" puts a position. "Rational" is a lot harder hard to dispute.

"I can't prove I'm right but I KNOW you're wrong" position. It's truly indefensible" and yet this describes the Faith based contigent doesnt it?

"I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator." This is a faith based position isnt it?

Agnostics are pansies. They don't believe that god(s) exists, but they wimp out and say that "well, we just can't know" to avoid the kiss of death term "atheist".

What "scientifically supportable position" do agnostics have? That's ridiculous. Agnosticism (as it applies to religious belief) is clearly not rational. Hmm...I really can't know that Zeus doesn't exist, therefore I am going to tell people I am agnostic when it comes to Zeus. Apollo, too. :rolleyes: Do you really think the chances are pretty good that Zeus exists? Really?!? You can't prove he doesn't...

So, Rick, you believe that Hindu gods exist in the same way that you believe that your god exists? Elaborate on that.

Oooh...Rick's in trooouble!!!:rolleyes:

No, Stuart you don't have the faith position correct at all, at least not as it applies to me.

See, I have faith in God. I fully understand and accept that there is no scientific evidence for that God. I'm ok with that. I don't have a need to scientifically prove my God, I understand that the proof of God lies in the proof of the spirit, not the proof of physics or chemistry.

Also, I don't say "I know you're wrong" to others in regards to their faith. I respect someone's right to believe in whatever they choose. It really isn't my place to try and convince them I'm right.

Lastly, you might notice that my quote says I BELIEVE. Yes, it sure is a faith based opinion. It's an opinion just like you have your opinion that there is no creator.

The problem is that very very few agnostics can leave the argument where it should be left, scientifically. The discussion would be very short if you stick to the science. The answer is "I don't know." That's it. The vast majority of those who call themselves athiests or agnostics feel the burning need to take it the one step further and say "I don't know, but you are wrong."

That's where the argument fails.

Agnostics simply make the only scientifically supportable statement which is "I don't know". Period. Any thing else isn't supportable.

And to answer the second question, no I don't personally believe in Hindu gods. The difference is I'm not seeking out threads on Hindu gods and telling them how stupid they are for believing in their gods. See?

I may jump in at any minute...



KT

This is a thread about atheism, and you are indeed seeking out atheists and telling them their position is not supportable and is indefensible.

Re you post above. Your position is faith based. After all you say "I fully understand and accept that there is no scientific evidence for that God. I'm ok with that. I don't have a need to scientifically prove my God, I understand that the proof of God lies in the proof of the spirit, not the proof of physics or chemistry."

Its faith based in the sense that you require no material evidence or support- you have the proof of the spirit. Can we agree on that?

My position is rational. I see no evidence to support the existence of your god, so I conclude it is highly improbable that your god exists. And wouldnt we be in furious rational agreement if we applied, as IROC indicates, that statement to Ball, Odin, Thor or Allah?

First, you started the thread with a question. This isn't an "atheist only" thread last I checked. If you would prefer to start a thread where no one disagreed with your position then you should either a). go post on iloveatheists.com or b). not ask a specific question when starting a thread. If the thread title was "Atheists rock!! (Only atheists allowed)" then you might have a point. Second, I'm not telling atheists they are wrong or stupid for their beliefs. I'm simply saying that according to the scientific method, making the leap to say there is no God because we don't have physical evidence for God isn't supportable or defensible.

Third, your position is rational and supported up to the point you say that there is no God. Lack of evidence is not proof of the absence of something.

Take bacteria for example. 1000 years ago, man could not prove the existence of bacteria. The technology and knowledge had not yet been developed to document their existence. Does that mean bacteria didn't exist 1000 years ago? Of course not. Therefore, the correct scientific answer to any question to which there is no proof is simply "I don't know" or "I don't have any evidence for that". If you stop there, everything is hunky-dory. Unfortunately you (and most other atheists) feel the need to take that next step and say "I have no evidence, therefore there is no God." That position is no more defensible than if you would have said you had no evidence for bacteria 1000 years ago, therefore they did not exist.

I wonder if the superstitious and non-superstitious live in the right places.

I'll start, I am non-superstitious and live in the blue. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo.../crucified.gif


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1218591423.gif

Congrats on another insightful and fact packed post, dipso.

Shouldn't you be skateboarding? The adults are talking here...go play.

I live in the blue and have my ego in check enough to realize that there are things I don't know...and that analysis falls short in a number of areas of living.

Beyond that I'm not willing to say - other than I believe in karma.

No you're not. You're arguing and wondering if the invisible man you feel in your soul , exists somewhere else in the universe as well.
Does it really matter?

Naval Gazing at best.

You're just mad that you are in the red.
If the shoe fits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

i'm kinda mad you're in the blue, but it's a free country...

Rick- we’ve done “is there a god.” , you were a participant IIRC. This thread is about the nature of atheism and rationalism. You’ve put it that the premise of atheism is unsupportable. Though the original question was addressed to “Atheists”, I welcome your contribution. Im interested in expanding the idea. “Atheism” only deals with theism. Rationalism applies to many other things that we might dismiss on the basis of irrationalisim. Tarot, fortune telling, creationism, psychic pehnomomea, religion, ouija, god.

I think your bacteria analogy is a good one. Not dissimilar to the one made earlier about life elsewhere in the universe. Its OK for the rational mind to say “we don’t know”. Look at evolution. There is a chain of evidence, and there are gaps. As the gaps are filled, the chain of evidence alters, the theory of evolution is expanded. The Faith Based are highly critical of these scientific “flip flops” as new knowledge is gained. These are "Just Guesses", after all. And are you seriously going argue about the wealth of scientific advancement brought about by faith based thinking?

But – I hope you are not taking a leaf out the schoolgirl debating team handbook- I explicitly did not say "I have no evidence, therefore there is no God.". I said “I see no evidence to support the existence of your god, so I conclude it is highly improbable that your god exists.”

Is this a fiddle, weasel words, dishonest? I don’t think so, because in saying it, I acknowledge that you are correct. No rational man can conclusively say, on the evidence, “there is no god.” To do that would make him as guilty of accepting a faith based proposition as you are.

We only ask that you apply the same acceptance criteria to every other god that you apply to your own- and if you cant, please explain why not.

Again, Stuart, I think I've said it before in this thread...I personally have no compulsion to tell people of other faiths that they are "wrong". I have belief in my God, they have belief in theirs. Everyone is happy.

In the end, I believe that it is my job to live my life according to my beliefs and offer those beliefs to others when asked. I don't think it is my job to walk around bashing other people who have other beliefs. When they are ready to talk about my God, they will talk about him.

So yes, I apply the same criteria to other gods. I have a BELIEF (non-scientific) that my God exists, created the universe and rules over it now. I accept that others may have beliefs in other gods and while I BELIEVE that they are incorrect, I certainly cannot offer them any proof that they are wrong. Moreover, I certainly would not try to use some sort of scientific basis for that argument.

By the way, atheism IS unsupportable...at least scientifically. Atheists are the same as theists, they both have belief in something they cannot prove. Again, if there were bacterialists and abacterialists 1000 years ago they would be having the same types of arguments. Turns out the bacterialists would have been right. I may be right about God, I might be wrong. I do know that in my lifetime there is likely not going to be a scientific answer either way and I'm ok with that.