Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And — to be clear — I *never* said that I “invented” Pascal’s wager nor did I say that “only atheists have the problem of hard solipsism” — infact, I was very clear that believers have the same issue. It always amazes me how atheists so frequently jump to putting words in your mouth that you never said.

You presented the premise of Pascal's wager like it was original thought. It isn't. I never said you said it literally. Who is putting words in who's mouth now?

As for hard solipsism, it's a ridiculous position that is only taken when people want to try and equate the position of "There is a god" with "I don't believe in god". Only questioning the presuppositions of logic puts those on an equal footing. It's stupid. Like the "brain in a vat" argument. And I didn't say you said it, I said you must think it to only bring it up to accomplish that false equivalence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

That’s entirely your prerogative. As I stated, I completely understand why you would not want to participate. But as I also stated, i am finished respecting dumb arguments and stupid and illogical positions supporting them. I am at the point where I think the only way out of this mess is to call them as such.

I called the arguments stupid and dopey, not you personally, by the way. But I do sneer condescendingly at Bronze Age myths and the people who expect policy decisions to be made on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because religion infringes on the rights of atheist in the US, and all over the world.

What are the "rights of atheists" and how does posting here help?

Rights for gay people to marry

Rights for women to receive health care

Do you live in Pakistan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because religion infringes on the rights of atheist in the US, and all over the world.

What are the "rights of atheists" and how does posting here help?

Rights for gay people to marry

Rights for women to receive health care

Do you live in Pakistan?

Almost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because religion infringes on the rights of atheist in the US, and all over the world.

What are the "rights of atheists" and how does posting here help?

Rights for gay people to marry

Rights for women to receive health care

Do you live in Pakistan?

Fun fact: abortion is permitted up until 120 days in Islam. Even later, if the mother's health is at risk.

Fundie Christians are, in many ways, much more barbaric and restrictive when it comes to women's healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

That’s entirely your prerogative. As I stated, I completely understand why you would not want to participate. But as I also stated, i am finished respecting dumb arguments and stupid and illogical positions supporting them. I am at the point where I think the only way out of this mess is to call them as such.

I called the arguments stupid and dopey, not you personally, by the way. But I do sneer condescendingly at Bronze Age myths and the people who expect policy decisions to be made on them.

Thanks for putting up a good fight. I sense religious pp is feeling defeated. He is also putting up arguments that he knows, thanks to your efforts, are weak. Perhaps someday he will give your rejoinders more consideration. Right now he is dug in, using all his intellect to fight. Eventually, I hope he puts his intellect to better use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

That’s entirely your prerogative. As I stated, I completely understand why you would not want to participate. But as I also stated, i am finished respecting dumb arguments and stupid and illogical positions supporting them. I am at the point where I think the only way out of this mess is to call them as such.

I called the arguments stupid and dopey, not you personally, by the way. But I do sneer condescendingly at Bronze Age myths and the people who expect policy decisions to be made on them.

Thanks for putting up a good fight. I sense religious pp is feeling defeated. He is also putting up arguments that he knows, thanks to your efforts, are weak. Perhaps someday he will give your rejoinders more consideration. Right now he is dug in, using all his intellect to fight. Eventually, I hope he puts his intellect to better use.

I don’t even know why I am responding again, but, perhaps just to be clear — no, I am not feeling “defeated” but I am not going to engage with someone who on multiple occasions uses abusive ad hominem attacks in a response to me. Its a waste of my time — and his or hers as well. Why write out a reasoned response — even one that you might disagree with — only to be told — this is “stupid” or “dopey” — for which there cannot really be any logical reply then.

And that’s true if you call the person stupid or his argument stupid.

“A common way to attack an opponent, while appearing to attack the argument, is to attribute personal qualities to the argument, as in "That's a stupid argument!" Since arguments are not persons, they cannot literally be stupid (or intelligent). Saying "That's a stupid argument," really means, "Only a stupid person would offer such an argument," so this really is an Ad Hominem - Abusive, even though it appears to be directed at the argument rather than at the person.”

It’s also just plain rude.

Have a great night everyone!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

That’s entirely your prerogative. As I stated, I completely understand why you would not want to participate. But as I also stated, i am finished respecting dumb arguments and stupid and illogical positions supporting them. I am at the point where I think the only way out of this mess is to call them as such.

I called the arguments stupid and dopey, not you personally, by the way. But I do sneer condescendingly at Bronze Age myths and the people who expect policy decisions to be made on them.

Thanks for putting up a good fight. I sense religious pp is feeling defeated. He is also putting up arguments that he knows, thanks to your efforts, are weak. Perhaps someday he will give your rejoinders more consideration. Right now he is dug in, using all his intellect to fight. Eventually, I hope he puts his intellect to better use.

I don’t even know why I am responding again, but, perhaps just to be clear — no, I am not feeling “defeated” but I am not going to engage with someone who on multiple occasions uses abusive ad hominem attacks in a response to me. Its a waste of my time — and his or hers as well. Why write out a reasoned response — even one that you might disagree with — only to be told — this is “stupid” or “dopey” — for which there cannot really be any logical reply then.

And that’s true if you call the person stupid or his argument stupid.

“A common way to attack an opponent, while appearing to attack the argument, is to attribute personal qualities to the argument, as in "That's a stupid argument!" Since arguments are not persons, they cannot literally be stupid (or intelligent). Saying "That's a stupid argument," really means, "Only a stupid person would offer such an argument," so this really is an Ad Hominem - Abusive, even though it appears to be directed at the argument rather than at the person.”

It’s also just plain rude.

Have a great night everyone!!!!

You seem awfully angry and your repeated wish for everyone a great or wonderful night seems insincere.

I realize that you're not changing your mind as a result of this discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised if you change your mind about religion sometime soon, because you seem smart enough to see that your own arguments for religious belief are not good ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t know where you are drawing any of these points.

Really? Would you like me to outline them one by one?

What Atheists Believe and Burden of Proof : But atheists CANNOT scientifically prove that there isn’t a God either
Pascal's Wager: If you are intellectually honest as an atheist, you have to admit that there is at least some small chance that you might be wrong
Hard Solipsism: We make all kinds of decisions in life without 100 percent belief and the rest of that dopey paragraph

My argument was in response to his claim that you can’t rationally assert that there is a God, when, in fact, you can.

Well then why haven't you done that?

I am a former atheist. I know very well what most atheists believe. I used to believe these things myself. I used to mock people of faith until I realized how all of my own beliefs were based on faith. I couldn’t prove any of them.

This is stupid and false. What other beliefs did you have on faith? That your marriage was a good idea? Most people make those decisions based on evidence.

All we can do is rationally examine the evidence and different people land in different places after doing that. But it is entirely rational for an individual to reach the conclusion that they think it is more likely than not that God exists and they are going to live their life accordingly. Just as it is entirely rational for an individual not to believe that. But neither side has a monopoly on rationality. That’s my main point.

And I think your point is completely incorrect, evidenced by the fact that you don't hold any other beliefs to that standard. You don't believe in Leprechauns. You don't believe rubbing a talisman will make your lottery numbers come out. You don't believe I have a heard of tiny flying pink elephants in my garage, even though I assure you, I do!

Actually, almost all major decisions in life are held to that same standard and involve some combination of looking at the evidence and then having faith in your ultimate decision.

Again, you are talking about hard solipsism here. For all of those decisions, there is sufficient evidence, as you admit. For a belief in god, there is not.

You have no real rebuttal to my marriage example (you can gather all the “evidence” you want but it’s always a leap of faith when you walk down the aisle), my example about my wife being under deep cover, or my example about legal standards.

Yes, I do - you have evidence your wife is a good person, and loves you, and you vow to be committed to each other and the marriage. Plus, you have evidence your wife exists!

As for your example about legal standards - that point is for my position, and weakens yours. Are you actually a lawyer? "Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the standard in a court of law, and that is NOT the standard you use for your god.

I served on a jury once and our decision led someone to go to prison for a very long time. Do I scientifically know that he did it? No. I looked at the evidence and faith filled in the gap.

No it didn't! Logic and reason filled the gap. If you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no need for faith!

That’s how all legal decisions are made in fact — reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, etc.

Again, that's MY position, not yours when it comes to your god. Why not?

It’s also very interesting how the response immediately jumps to juvenile name-calling — “stupid” — which is how I have found many atheists tend to debate these issues.

I am done not calling stupid arguments stupid. Don't wanna hear it? Stop making stupid arguments, and stop your stupid arguments from infringing on the rights of others.

“Are you actually a lawyer?” — the arrogance in your responses is astounding.

Sorry you feel that way. Please tell me the cases you have argued using "faith" rather than evidence, and I will apologize.

Actually, almost all civil cases are based on a standard of a preponderance of evidence which means 50.1. And, yes, after looking at all of the objective evidence, my belief in God absolutely exceeds that standard. It actually goes higher than that — but it is not 100 percent. I freely admit that. But it doesn’t need to be.

EVIDENCE. You keep saying it, you MUST think it matters - so why not apply it to your god position? Really?

As for my marriage — I never said that there’s no reason or logic or evidence. But at the end of the day it’s a leap of faith and most married people, believers or not, would say that, I think.

No, it's not a "leap of faith", you are using vernacular for "confidence based on the evidence". Just like when you open a bottle of water, you have confidence, and reason to believe, it is not poison inside. Not faith.

There can be smart people who come down on different sides of this issue. That was the only point I am making when I even started to respond to this thread. But if you sincerely do not believe that, then there’s no reason to further discuss this topic. Have a wonderful day.

You still haven't made your rational case for the existence of god. You still haven't accepted that your unfounded religious beliefs are infringing on the rights of others. There is much reason to further discuss the topic as it has literal importance and effect. But I understand why you would not want to participate.

I dont want to participate with someone who calls me “stupid” “dopey” and has a sneering, condescending, sarcastic attitude. It is not talking about a subject in good faith and so there’s really no point.

I also don’t like talking with other believers who have the same attitude — which many do.

Again, have a wonderful night.

That’s entirely your prerogative. As I stated, I completely understand why you would not want to participate. But as I also stated, i am finished respecting dumb arguments and stupid and illogical positions supporting them. I am at the point where I think the only way out of this mess is to call them as such.

I called the arguments stupid and dopey, not you personally, by the way. But I do sneer condescendingly at Bronze Age myths and the people who expect policy decisions to be made on them.

Thanks for putting up a good fight. I sense religious pp is feeling defeated. He is also putting up arguments that he knows, thanks to your efforts, are weak. Perhaps someday he will give your rejoinders more consideration. Right now he is dug in, using all his intellect to fight. Eventually, I hope he puts his intellect to better use.

I don’t even know why I am responding again, but, perhaps just to be clear — no, I am not feeling “defeated” but I am not going to engage with someone who on multiple occasions uses abusive ad hominem attacks in a response to me. Its a waste of my time — and his or hers as well. Why write out a reasoned response — even one that you might disagree with — only to be told — this is “stupid” or “dopey” — for which there cannot really be any logical reply then.

And that’s true if you call the person stupid or his argument stupid.

“A common way to attack an opponent, while appearing to attack the argument, is to attribute personal qualities to the argument, as in "That's a stupid argument!" Since arguments are not persons, they cannot literally be stupid (or intelligent). Saying "That's a stupid argument," really means, "Only a stupid person would offer such an argument," so this really is an Ad Hominem - Abusive, even though it appears to be directed at the argument rather than at the person.”

It’s also just plain rude.

Have a great night everyone!!!!

Yet another stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because religion infringes on the rights of atheist in the US, and all over the world.

What are the "rights of atheists" and how does posting here help?

Rights for gay people to marry

Rights for women to receive health care

Do you live in Pakistan?

Nope good ole USA.

You know some states don’t let gay people foster children? In USA… not Pakistan

You know you can refuse to make a gay person a wedding cake? In USA , not Pakistan.

[Anonymous]

Atheist and religious people are pretty much the same.

A Christian believes in Jesus, but they don’t believe in Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, ….

Atheist also don’t believe in allah, Vishnu, Zeus…. They just also don’t believe in 1 more god, the Christian one.

When an atheist speaks about not believing in Jesus, or that Jesus is god, that their god exists…. It’s really no different than a Christian saying they don’t believe allah exists