So that's it for the election.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This was more about the Alarti dumbfuck saying anyone who has ever believed in a God is some irrational nutcase whose ideas we should completely object so I threw out Ben Franklin and Einstein but obviously you can go down the list of millions of these kind of examples. Positive atheism is as blind as a faith.

Belief in God is a cultural thing generally propogated to kids by parents. A mind virus, if you will. The fact that some smart people (eg you forgot Newton, Leonardo, etc.) does not provide positive proof of the existence of God, it just means smart people can as readily compartmentalize bat-shit crazy ideas as not so smart people. People that believe in God in the face of absolutely zero evidence have simply stuck their belief in the "believe without evidence" bucket even if the same people thing belief in UFOs, Bigfoot and Santa Clause are stupid.

Read "The Believing Brain" By Michael Shermer, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and similar books if you want to see what the other side is saying. If not, try to snatch a breath occasionally while your head is shoved up your ass.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Belief in God is a cultural thing generally propogated to kids by parents. A mind virus, if you will. The fact that some smart people (eg you forgot Newton, Leonardo, etc.) does not provide positive proof of the existence of God, it just means smart people can as readily compartmentalize bat-shit crazy ideas as not so smart people. People that believe in God in the face of absolutely zero evidence have simply stuck their belief in the "believe without evidence" bucket even if the same people thing belief in UFOs, Bigfoot and Santa Clause are stupid.

Read "The Believing Brain" By Michael Shermer, "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and similar books if you want to see what the other side is saying. If not, try to snatch a breath occasionally while your head is shoved up your ass.

Regards,
Mg

See, this is the problem with atheism. You have some retard on a gaming forum that can't get through a paragraph without a typo trying to explain that Newton, Da Vinci, and a good number of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind are "bat-shit crazy" with their heads shoved up their ass, all the while explaining that a guy who was a door-to-door evangelist 30 years ago has all the answers.

Yes, Michael Shermer was a door to door, born again evangelist until ~1980. He went from one of the retards knocking on your door to tell you about the glory of Jesus to the founder of Skeptic magazine in 12 years. And he's your first reference? Really?

Yeah, that's totally the guy to set Isaac Newton straight.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See, this is the problem with atheism. You have some retard on a gaming forum that can't get through a paragraph without a typo trying to explain that Newton, Da Vinci, and a good number of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind are "bat-shit crazy" with their heads shoved up their ass, all the while explaining that a guy who was a door-to-door evangelist 30 years ago has all the answers.

Yes, Michael Shermer was a door to door, born again evangelist until ~1980. He went from one of the retards knocking on your door to tell you about the glory of Jesus to the founder of Skeptic magazine in 12 years. And he's your first reference? Really?

Yeah, that's totally the guy to set Isaac Newton straight.

I'm not a retard, my mom had me tested. And you're not worth editing for.

He obviously got better, went to school, got a degree in Psychology, and started making perfect sense. Amazing how education destroys religiousity.

Why don't you stop the ad hominum attacks and try attacking his ideas? Oh, you've never bothered to read his book? The Bible is good enough for you? Too bad.

Look at it this way - until very recently (and how safe it is to come out of the closet as an atheist is today is debatable) you could be burned, tortured, jailed, or at very least ostracised and shunned for not being the most fervant religious drone possible. So it makes it pretty hard to guage the religiosity of smart people until the 1800s.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So it makes it pretty hard to guage the religiosity of smart people until the 1800s.

And oh by the way it doesn't fucking matter anyways, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that proves nothing.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He obviously got better, went to school, got a degree in Psychology, and started making perfect sense. Amazing how education destroys religiousity.

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, he didn't get better, and education doesn't "destroy" religiosity. Plenty of people as educated or more educated than Shermer are still religious.

He was an unbearable zealot that tried to force his religion down other peoples' throats, then he grew disillusioned and became an unbearable zealot that tried to force his anti-religion down other peoples' throats. The common theme is that he's an unbearable zealot. He's not some enlightened genius leading the unwashed masses to rationality. He was once just as fervent for religion as he is now fervent against religion.

Also, lulz at a degree in Psychology. A master's degree in experimental psych takes one year to complete. He completed a shitty master's program at a shitty state school.

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by mgellan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ad hominum. Attack his arguments, not him personally, and I might take you more seriously. My suggestion to educate yourself was an invitation to examine the other side of the argument, and make an informed decision. Don't like Shermer? How's Sagann? The point is if you get all of your Science from the Discovery Institute you're willfully remaining ignorant.

Regards,
Mg

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Haha -- okay, chief. You referred to people with religious beliefs as batshit crazy with their heads shoved up their asses. Let's not get too sensitive about personal attacks (or pretend you're open-minded).

I'm plenty familiar with "the other side of the argument", as if there is anything to argue. There is a discussion going on in this thread that deals with whether or not a belief in god is rational -- not whether or not that belief is true or provable. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that there is no compelling reason to believe in a god if you do not, and certainly no conclusive evidence to prove any such existence. By referencing Sagan, you are arguing a point that is not being contested. Sagan was an agnostic -- not an atheist. He didn't believe in a personal god, but that's not the discussion in this thread. He routinely explained that no man could possibly be certain whether or not a god exists. His contribution to the subject was to point out that an inability to disprove a god did not mean that the god in question exists. We all agree about that.

Again: the issue at play is the rationality of belief, not whether a god actually exists. There is no scientific reason to exclude the possibility of a god, or creator. It is a perfectly rational -- although untestable and perhaps unlikely -- hypothesis. If you are hostile to the notion, it is you that is being unscientific. Agnosticism is the only rational and scientific stance to take. There is nothing irrational about being an agnostic theist.

Agnosticism is the belief that man can not distinguish whether or not there is a god and which one is real. Atheism is the scientific stance.

Also you are getting the term confused we are using reason now not rationality.