Why do atheists attack the beliefs of theistsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/21/2016 3:09:34 AM, lotsoffun wrote:
The pathetic little weasles that proclaim their disdain for belief in God or greater intelligence always challenge theists to prove faith. This is impossible and the cowardly atheists know it. They show up on a faith based forum to troll and let out their rage at something they are incapable of even remotely hoping to comprehend. These are the type of people that can't t stand freedom of thought. They are out of their league and they know it so they challenge people to prove their faith. To all people of any kind of faith; you owe these scum bags nothing. By attacking you they try to shelter their pathetic selves from ever proving that there is no greater intelligence. I am guilty of engaging them myself. If you ignore them, they will just pat each other on the back for their ignorance and inability to see beyond their small minds. Then they will get bored and go on to the history or science forums where they will be destroyed. Just ignore them and then you can have real debates about faith.

The pathetic little weasles that proclaim their disdain for belief in elves always challenge elf believers to prove faith. This is impossible and the cowardly a-elfists know it. They show up on a faith based elf forum to troll and let out their rage at something they are incapable of even remotely hoping to comprehend. These are the type of people that can't t stand freedom of thought. They are out of their league and they know it so they challenge people to prove their faith. To all people of any kind of elf faith; you owe these scum bags nothing. By attacking you they try to shelter their pathetic selves from ever proving that there are elves. I am guilty of engaging them myself. If you ignore them, they will just pat each other on the back for their ignorance and inability to see beyond their small minds. Then they will get bored and go on to the history or science forums where they will be destroyed. Just ignore them and then you can have real debates about elf faith.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists HAVE FaithPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/21/2016 12:29:33 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 12/20/2016 9:29:54 PM, distraff wrote:
At 12/20/2016 8:56:59 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 12/20/2016 5:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Please show the the books by knowledgeable experts that show that the entire field of paleo-anthropology with their dozens of fossils, dozens of hominid species, and thousands of trained professionals are all completely wrong.


I never said that thousands of trained professionals are all completely wrong, just that their interpretations can be wrong.

If their interpretation of the fossil evidence is wrong and hominids are not hominids then the entire field of paleo-anthropology is a giant waste as this field deals with human-ape transitionals. So if their interpretation is wrong their whole profession is wrong. You simply don't understand the implications of your claims.

In my experience most people are not familiar with any work by non secular scientists and reject their work outright.

You misunderstand the scientists themselves. More than half of scientists are religious so this claim you are making makes no sense at all.

Different interpretations of their fossils, hominid species can be quite different and contrary to one another.

Not all interpretations are made equal and different interpretations have different levels of evidence. You are using "interpretation" to mean what experts call a hypothesis. Hypotheses needs the support of evidence, and to have their predictions tested and confirmed.

For example, the interpretation that australopithecines are just normal apes conflicts with the evidence because their bones show they are clearly bipedal like humans. For example the foramen magnum is located at the center rather than the side of the skull which is convincing evidence of a vertical rather than a horizontal center of balance.

With the scientific method, and a big part of the scientific method addresses that very same question. Lets say you are doing some experiments in the lab and you see a pattern and have a nice explanation for it. Simply having an explanation isn't enough, now you need to confirm it. The problem is that we can't see atoms or see the reactions of the atoms themselves directly to confirm with direct observation.

However with your knowledge of chemistry you can ask if your explanation was right, what else would you expect to see? For example maybe your explanation is true, if alcohol was mixed in we would see some white bubbles forming, at higher temperatures we should see a certain type of Chrystal form, etc. You then conduct experiments to see if these predictions are confirmed and this strengthens your hunch. If your hypothesis makes many falsifiable testable predictions and they all turn out true, then it becomes accepted because it would be unlikely to do all this if it was false.


Yes that is inference which of course influenced by ones bias and presuppositions.

No, it is clear and definitive evidence and is the basis of all of the experimental sciences involving chemistry and is used to create life-saving drugs and new technologies like alternative fuels. Your beliefs if implemented would shut down modern science like the test theories of atomic theory, black holes, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, pre-historic geology and archeology, and drug research.


Since evidence never speaks for itself, how it is interpreted can make a world of difference when it comes to conclusions. It's not the scientific method that is a problem, it has produced many good things like medications, electronic devices and so on, but observing an event from 6 billion years ago and testing it in a lab is not possible and unless you know of someone who was around that long ago there was no eyewitnesses confirm the alleged events.

You missed my point entirely. I was showing that the scientific method of prediction testing can be used to verify things we cannot see and showed you an example of how chemists use this to verify reactions of tiny atoms without actually seeing them, and listed to you many accepted theories that are not observed e.g atomic theory, and many practical applications that have resulted from this method e.g. drugs.

If you really accepted my argument you wouldn't be repeating the fallacy that if you can't see it you can't believe it, because I just refuted it. We can test theories about the distant past by making predictions about what we should dig up and see if those predictions are true.

Here is a link that explains how the scientific method and prediction testing works in the field. If this method didn't work we wouldn't get the life saving drugs, and new technology this research brings.
http://www.livescience.com...



The life saving drugs and technology are contemporary products and have nothing to do with alleged pre historical events.

If the bible made very precise predictions about the future like 9/11 or the rise of Hitler then that would be more than just "inference" and "influenced by bias" it would be clear evidence for the bible. Precise predictions being confirmed is clear evidence for a hypothesis and is how the theory of relativity and atomic theory were confirmed.



Biblical prophecy is 100 % accurate and has made many predictions about numerous events.

So it seems you do believe in prediction testing but have arbitrarily decided that confirmed predictions make by scientific theories about the past don't count, but a religious book does.

A prediction to be a true prediction has to be precise, not likely to be true of the theory isn't true, and the confirmation must not be known to the creators of the theory or book. I have not found any biblical prediction that passes this requirement and you are free to provide an example for me.

You didn't respond to my arguments that science can explore the past through fossil and geological evidence. Scientists have also used evidence to explore the lives and environments of dinosaurs by looking at the environments they were buried in and the fossils in their stomachs.

Yes, much can be discovered by studying fossils and geological evidence, but the age of things beyond a certain limit is not one of them. Again, it comes down to interpretation.

We have a dozen radiometric dating techniques that work because there are cases in the natural world when the amount of a certain isotope is known, and we know the rate of decay of the isotope. Multiple techniques confirm each other and line up with ice core dating. That would be unlikely if they were false.
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/21/2016 2:19:37 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/21/2016 1:16:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Basically in this statement you are arguing that what I am saying is not true, so you inherently do believe in truth and there is what is and what is not. You carry around the same inherent belief in your daily life. So as much as you like to ponder and debate you conduct yourself in a way that is in agreement with my position.

So what is your definition of truth and how do only atheists have a problem here?

This is basically the ontological argument for God in a nutshell you're inadvertently arguing for. More to the point, I can simply say that your definitions are true in your opinion, false in my opinion, and whatever in someone else's opinion.

Why don't we just use the dictionary definition as this is the definition used by english speaking society?

If I can conceivably disagree with a statement, then that statement isn't necessarily true.

So if you can disagree with the statement that 1=1 then this isn't necessarily true? How does someone's mere uninformed opinion have any weight on any debate?

My definition of truth is 'being necessarily required, with the negation being a contradiction.' But as you can see, this is still arbitrary and involves a level of subjectivity.

So according to your definition the earth going around the sun isn't true because this isn't necessarily required and the negation isn't a contradiction. How do you know this is the definition of truth? And remember in order to claim your definition of truth is the truth you have to show that the negation is a contradiction according to your own definition. How do you know that in order for something to be true that there must be no contradiction?

To fix this issue, I simply claim that truth is not contingent upon the validity of statements or any affairs internal to the sum of everything that exists. Done.

How do you know truth consists of all necessary things (non-contingent), how do you know that is the definition of truth?

I've cheated truth into existence by claiming it has the property of self-evidence, which is self-defeating for anything non-transcendental.

How do you know the spiritual realm is self-evident or necessary, or that all things physical (not necessarily matter) are contingent, or what the necessary things are?

As you can see, anyone who doesn't believe in the ability for things to have the transcendental property cannot accept this.

You will find many atheists believe that math is necessary and won't claim that there isn't anything that is necessary.

Incorrect. One can make truth statement about the world around them. For example, is there is predator in the area or not.
This statement doesn't require objective truth to exist in order to be valid.

Lets say that there is a pack of wolves 10 feet away from you. Is them being close to you and you being in danger objectively true or false?

What I am saying is that even if there is no objective reason to pursue the truth many atheists pursue it purely for the enjoyment of it. What is so wrong with that? The meaning is their subjective enjoyment.
I didn't say it was wrong to pursue the truth, it's not a part of my argument. My argument is completely self contained in the syllogism I made.

You talked about meaning but meaning is purely emotional and subjective. If you don't believe me then find me an example of an objective meaning. Since it is subjective and emotional then it is possible for the search for truth to be meaningful to an atheist simply because of its emotional qualities.

What you have done is given truth an arbitrary and restrictive definition not found in any dictionary and then arbitrarily decided that atheists would never believe in anything under that definition thus refuting their belief in truth.
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/21/2016 12:20:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/20/2016 5:27:36 PM, distraff wrote:
At 12/20/2016 7:28:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/20/2016 7:17:32 AM, distraff wrote:
At 12/19/2016 3:03:59 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually that's a poor way to state it. Here:

1. Irreligion denies transcendentalism.
2. Objective truth is transcendental
C: Irreligion is incompatible with objective truth

If you're an atheist, it means you deny religions because they are not true. Fudamental to the atheistic case however is the idea that truth is meaningless to begin with. Thus only transcendental beliefs afford the ability to deny meaning. In short, atheism is a paradoxical lack of belief that attempts to match a truth whose existence it denies.

This argument is easily refuted. First off, the truth is the truth whether it is meaningless or not. Second, pleasure and happiness objectively feel better than pain and suffering thanks to our senses and these things are purposes and goals without religion, so atheism doesn't say everything is meaningless.

Third, those who are better at figuring out the truth are better at survival. Fourth, because of the before mentioned advantage of being skilled at deducing the truth, it often gives great pleasure to figure out the truth, and pleasure is the highest end without religion.

Lol. What did you say the truth was? Just... the truth? So I'm not looking for circular definitions here mate, in case you noticed.

The truth is that which is in accordance to reality or that which is. That which is not is falsehood.

Again, when we're talking about objectivity, this is still circular. You have presumed that reality is true, you have presumed that your senses tell the truth and so you have defined truth into existence.

Basically in this statement you are arguing that what I am saying is not true, so you inherently do believe in truth and there is what is and what is not. You carry around the same inherent belief in your daily life. So as much as you like to ponder and debate you conduct yourself in a way that is in agreement with my position.

So what is your definition of truth and how do only atheists have a problem here?

2. Pleasure and happiness don't objectively feel better. They subjectively feel better. A prime example of a universal subjective.

They subjectively feel better but that still affects you and you alone, that is your reality. Every choice that we make boils down to pain or pleasure. For example, I get a college degree to get a good job, I get a good job because I want money, I want money because I want to be able to afford housing and food and stuff, I want housing because I don't want to be out in the cold. I want food so I won't be hungry and food tastes good. I buy stuff because they give me pleasure, the cold gives me pain I want to avoid, hunger gives me pain, and tasty food gives me pleasure. Also I can get a good wife and friends if I have money and being with them gives me happiness. All our choices even for the religious boil down to pain or pleasure. That is everyone's ultimate goal whether we know it or not.

Subjective truth.

3. wtf?

How do you not understand? If I can figure out the truth, like what college degree is good for me, who to marry, what car to get, then I will be better at surviving and not getting into trouble. Being good at figuring out truth is vital for survival. Without it is equivalent to a mental disability.

Objective truth is an abstract and nonsensical idea that humans came up with. No animal ponders it in order to survive.

Incorrect. One can make truth statement about the world around them. For example, is there is predator in the area or not.

4. nonsense.

You have never field the joy of discovering something new and learning? If not, then I feel sorry for you. Why shouldn't I pursue the things that make me feel happy for the short time I am alive?

Because this is still in the realm of subjectivity, and the elusive objective truth is what I was asking for.

What I am saying is that even if there is no objective reason to pursue the truth many atheists pursue it purely for the enjoyment of it. What is so wrong with that? The meaning is their subjective enjoyment.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists HAVE FaithPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/20/2016 8:56:59 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 12/20/2016 5:49:40 PM, distraff wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Please show the the books by knowledgeable experts that show that the entire field of paleo-anthropology with their dozens of fossils, dozens of hominid species, and thousands of trained professionals are all completely wrong.


I never said that thousands of trained professionals are all completely wrong, just that their interpretations can be wrong.

If their interpretation of the fossil evidence is wrong and hominids are not hominids then the entire field of paleo-anthropology is a giant waste as this field deals with human-ape transitionals. So if their interpretation is wrong their whole profession is wrong. You simply don't understand the implications of your claims.

In my experience most people are not familiar with any work by non secular scientists and reject their work outright.

You misunderstand the scientists themselves. More than half of scientists are religious so this claim you are making makes no sense at all.

Different interpretations of their fossils, hominid species can be quite different and contrary to one another.

Not all interpretations are made equal and different interpretations have different levels of evidence. You are using "interpretation" to mean what experts call a hypothesis. Hypotheses needs the support of evidence, and to have their predictions tested and confirmed.

For example, the interpretation that australopithecines are just normal apes conflicts with the evidence because their bones show they are clearly bipedal like humans. For example the foramen magnum is located at the center rather than the side of the skull which is convincing evidence of a vertical rather than a horizontal center of balance.

With the scientific method, and a big part of the scientific method addresses that very same question. Lets say you are doing some experiments in the lab and you see a pattern and have a nice explanation for it. Simply having an explanation isn't enough, now you need to confirm it. The problem is that we can't see atoms or see the reactions of the atoms themselves directly to confirm with direct observation.

However with your knowledge of chemistry you can ask if your explanation was right, what else would you expect to see? For example maybe your explanation is true, if alcohol was mixed in we would see some white bubbles forming, at higher temperatures we should see a certain type of Chrystal form, etc. You then conduct experiments to see if these predictions are confirmed and this strengthens your hunch. If your hypothesis makes many falsifiable testable predictions and they all turn out true, then it becomes accepted because it would be unlikely to do all this if it was false.


Yes that is inference which of course influenced by ones bias and presuppositions.

No, it is clear and definitive evidence and is the basis of all of the experimental sciences involving chemistry and is used to create life-saving drugs and new technologies like alternative fuels. Your beliefs if implemented would shut down modern science like the test theories of atomic theory, black holes, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, pre-historic geology and archeology, and drug research.

Here is a link that explains how the scientific method and prediction testing works in the field. If this method didn't work we wouldn't get the life saving drugs, and new technology this research brings.
http://www.livescience.com...

If the bible made very precise predictions about the future like 9/11 or the rise of Hitler then that would be more than just "inference" and "influenced by bias" it would be clear evidence for the bible. Precise predictions being confirmed is clear evidence for a hypothesis and is how the theory of relativity and atomic theory were confirmed.

You didn't respond to my arguments that science can explore the past through fossil and geological evidence. Scientists have also used evidence to explore the lives and environments of dinosaurs by looking at the environments they were buried in and the fossils in their stomachs.
Forums Home > Religion

Atheists HAVE FaithPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/20/2016 4:04:51 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 12/20/2016 1:11:56 AM, distraff wrote:
If you want a detailed scientific explanation you will need an advanced textbook, read the scientific literature yourself, do a lot of searching on the internet, or ask an expert. Sometimes just reading a few books or watching youtube videos doesn't give detailed explanations.



I have read the textbooks, because, like virtually all born again Christians, I was once a non believer, but after realizing there was more than one interpretation of the same evidence (the same rocks, the same fossils, the same sedimentary layers) I went with the one that made most sense and explained things clearly.

You didn't answer my question. Please show the the books by knowledgeable experts that show that the entire field of paleo-anthropology with their dozens of fossils, dozens of hominid species, and thousands of trained professionals are all completely wrong.

Simply interpreting scientific evidence differently has no logical validity, you can interpret anything all day, but you need evidence to actually make predictions and present evidence for your conclusions like scientists do every day. You have no idea how science works if you think we can discard whole fields of science with evidence and confirmed predictions by just deciding to interpret differently.

What parts of the science would you like explained to you?


How one can observe and reach conclusions about that which can't be observed.

With the scientific method, and a big part of the scientific method addresses that very same question. Lets say you are doing some experiments in the lab and you see a pattern and have a nice explanation for it. Simply having an explanation isn't enough, now you need to confirm it. The problem is that we can't see atoms or see the reactions of the atoms themselves directly to confirm with direct observation.

However with your knowledge of chemistry you can ask if your explanation was right, what else would you expect to see? For example maybe your explanation is true, if alcohol was mixed in we would see some white bubbles forming, at higher temperatures we should see a certain type of Chrystal form, etc. You then conduct experiments to see if these predictions are confirmed and this strengthens your hunch. If your hypothesis makes many falsifiable testable predictions and they all turn out true, then it becomes accepted because it would be unlikely to do all this if it was false.

and their conclusions can be false based on their sometimes misinterpretations of the evidence/facts. As far as being self correcting I have seen a number of articles in the links you provided that have been refuted, even by the evolutionists themselves. Science, when properly applied can be very successful,

We have found dozens of hominids fossils and species and now have a whole scientific field, paleoanthropology, that studies them. What articles refutes the validity of this whole profession and shows it isn't any more valid than astrology? Are they written by people experienced in this field?

Again the interpretation of the fossils differ among scientists and not just between evolutionists and creationists but there are evolutionist scientists who question the validity of some conclusions.

So how does having a few different interpretations debunk an entire field in science? It would have to be that these interpretations showed these fossils to be non-hominid, were happening to all the fossils, and had better evidence than the conventional theories. Do you have specific examples?

but verifying pre historical events is not the realm of science but is detective work.

How do you set the line of what is pre-historical and post-historical, and why can't prehistorical events be studied?


That for which there are no records for are pre historical, anything before about 6,000 years ago.

But we have fossils and geological layers in the ground that go back much further than 6,000 years. For example, we have ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years that we can use to determine CO2 concentrations and these are central to the global warming debate.

The definition of science is:
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

This definition includes no time limit.

The definition is irrelevant when something cannot be directly observed and experimented on. Who observed the origin of everything other than the one who originated everything?

Now how do you know God made everything or that spirits exist if you have never observed them? How do you know wind exists, atoms exists, black holes exist, or Paris exists with this restrictive mindset you have that only observation is valid?
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/20/2016 7:28:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 12/20/2016 7:17:32 AM, distraff wrote:
At 12/19/2016 3:03:59 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually that's a poor way to state it. Here:

1. Irreligion denies transcendentalism.
2. Objective truth is transcendental
C: Irreligion is incompatible with objective truth

If you're an atheist, it means you deny religions because they are not true. Fudamental to the atheistic case however is the idea that truth is meaningless to begin with. Thus only transcendental beliefs afford the ability to deny meaning. In short, atheism is a paradoxical lack of belief that attempts to match a truth whose existence it denies.

This argument is easily refuted. First off, the truth is the truth whether it is meaningless or not. Second, pleasure and happiness objectively feel better than pain and suffering thanks to our senses and these things are purposes and goals without religion, so atheism doesn't say everything is meaningless.

Third, those who are better at figuring out the truth are better at survival. Fourth, because of the before mentioned advantage of being skilled at deducing the truth, it often gives great pleasure to figure out the truth, and pleasure is the highest end without religion.

Lol. What did you say the truth was? Just... the truth? So I'm not looking for circular definitions here mate, in case you noticed.

The truth is that which is in accordance to reality or that which is. That which is not is falsehood.

2. Pleasure and happiness don't objectively feel better. They subjectively feel better. A prime example of a universal subjective.

They subjectively feel better but that still affects you and you alone, that is your reality. Every choice that we make boils down to pain or pleasure. For example, I get a college degree to get a good job, I get a good job because I want money, I want money because I want to be able to afford housing and food and stuff, I want housing because I don't want to be out in the cold. I want food so I won't be hungry and food tastes good. I buy stuff because they give me pleasure, the cold gives me pain I want to avoid, hunger gives me pain, and tasty food gives me pleasure. Also I can get a good wife and friends if I have money and being with them gives me happiness. All our choices even for the religious boil down to pain or pleasure. That is everyone's ultimate goal whether we know it or not.

3. wtf?

How do you not understand? If I can figure out the truth, like what college degree is good for me, who to marry, what car to get, then I will be better at surviving and not getting into trouble. Being good at figuring out truth is vital for survival. Without it is equivalent to a mental disability.

4. nonsense.

You have never field the joy of discovering something new and learning? If not, then I feel sorry for you. Why shouldn't I pursue the things that make me feel happy for the short time I am alive?
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/20/2016 4:00:09 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 12/20/2016 7:19:09 AM, distraff wrote:
At 12/19/2016 6:51:17 AM, Hiu wrote:
***Identifying my idea of God***


I do not believe in the "conventional God" as in the Abrahamic faiths although the concepts from within the Abrahamic faiths I believe in (e.g Omniscient, Omnipresent, incorporeal). But I also believe God is deistic in physical reality but since the universe emanates from him I think actions tend to reward and punish people themselves and not necessarily God. I think souls that have passed tend to guide human beings or "angelic beings."

***My reason for believing in God***

The complexity of the brain and the functionality of the animal from the smallest organism to the largest organs all function to sustain life. The body is in constant motion for sustaining its own existence. I believe something of metaphysical intelligence can only design something like this.

What about the theory of evolution that postulates that complexity formed by mutations, and the positive mutations built up because of natural selection?

I'm an agnostic-theist so I'm not bound to any dogma but I do not believe the concept of evolution would not conflict with my belief in God. My former philosophy teacher once told me that "what if God allowed life to create itself without personal intervention?"

So we both agree that all life evolved by natural selection and mutations from a simple common ancestor and the complexity we see in humans evolved. So if natural selection and mutations created the body, why do we need a designer?
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/19/2016 6:51:17 AM, Hiu wrote:
***Identifying my idea of God***


I do not believe in the "conventional God" as in the Abrahamic faiths although the concepts from within the Abrahamic faiths I believe in (e.g Omniscient, Omnipresent, incorporeal). But I also believe God is deistic in physical reality but since the universe emanates from him I think actions tend to reward and punish people themselves and not necessarily God. I think souls that have passed tend to guide human beings or "angelic beings."

***My reason for believing in God***

The complexity of the brain and the functionality of the animal from the smallest organism to the largest organs all function to sustain life. The body is in constant motion for sustaining its own existence. I believe something of metaphysical intelligence can only design something like this.

What about the theory of evolution that postulates that complexity formed by mutations, and the positive mutations built up because of natural selection?
Forums Home > Religion

What are your reasonsPosted 2 years Ago

At 12/19/2016 3:03:59 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Actually that's a poor way to state it. Here:

1. Irreligion denies transcendentalism.
2. Objective truth is transcendental
C: Irreligion is incompatible with objective truth

If you're an atheist, it means you deny religions because they are not true. Fudamental to the atheistic case however is the idea that truth is meaningless to begin with. Thus only transcendental beliefs afford the ability to deny meaning. In short, atheism is a paradoxical lack of belief that attempts to match a truth whose existence it denies.

This argument is easily refuted. First off, the truth is the truth whether it is meaningless or not. Second, pleasure and happiness objectively feel better than pain and suffering thanks to our senses and these things are purposes and goals without religion, so atheism doesn't say everything is meaningless.

Third, those who are better at figuring out the truth are better at survival. Fourth, because of the before mentioned advantage of being skilled at deducing the truth, it often gives great pleasure to figure out the truth, and pleasure is the highest end without religion.
Forums Home > Religion