So that's it for the election.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

Now we're having fun. The above represents a reasoned argument. The majority of your posts in this thread have been intentionally inflammatory and dismissive.

Now allow me to explain the point you're missing.

We have agreed that proving or disproving the existence of god is impossible at present. Thus, we have agreed that there are no experts on the subject -- not theists, not atheists, not scientists, nobody. But again, we are NOT discussing the existence of a god. This discussion is NOT about whether a god does or does not exist. You seem to be moving the goal posts. We haven't been discussing the existence of god, and we certainly have not been limiting ourselves to a god in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim image. And when I discuss intelligent people that believe in a god, I have never once limited the matter to Christians, or even members of any organized religion. You seem to assume I'm a Christian -- I am not.

This discussion is and has been about whether or not it meets the basic threshold of rationality to believe that a god -- essentially, a creator of any kind -- exists. If I were citing scientists and mega-minds in order to prove that a god exists, your Oprah comparison would fit well. We can agree that most of the smartest theists in the world have no more specific knowledge regarding a deity than most of the smartest atheists. But that's not what I'm doing.

The appeal to authority is meant to demonstrate rationality -- not validity. It is not fallacious. You can erase the notion of god entirely. There are a vast number of extremely intelligent, highly rational people that believe in the same concept. The concept itself is immaterial. You need not accept them as experts on god -- simply on rational thought. I contend that these experts on rational thought, spread over time, culture, and geographic location, are not united en masse in irrational delusions when it comes to god or religion. They may certainly be wrong, but they haven't all abandoned the rational thought that has marked their careers in coming to their conclusions.

And again, I have made my own arguments regarding the rationality of belief in a god. I have explained that even mankind, in our extraordinarily limited scientific capacity, could rather easily set in motion the process for evolution on other planets. I have explained that we have not been able to demonstrate organic life forming from inorganic material. It stands to reason that, at some point, there must have been an initial organic life form. Whether that life form be infinitely simple, infinitely complex, or somewhere in between, we have no explanation for how it came to be. In the absence of evidence, I wouldn't dare to call any reasonable explanation 'irrational'. It is rational to believe that there is some yet undiscovered process that could convert inorganic material to organic polymer life. It is rational to believe that in "the beginning", extraordinarily basic life forms existed and slowly spread throughout the universe and evolved. It is rational to believe that an infinite life form -- sentient or otherwise -- served as the source of organic matter which spread throughout the universe and evolved. You don't have to believe any of this, but that doesn't make it preposterous.

This is a lot of words to say very very little.

Buh buh buh bwaaaaaaah!!

[Daldolma]

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

This is a lot of words to say very very little.

Correct.

The point is simple, only complicated by those hostile to a fairly basic, entirely untestable, and extremely common belief. I suppose marginalization must be avoided via volume.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

Correct.

The point is simple, only complicated by those hostile to a fairly basic, entirely untestable, and extremely common belief. I suppose marginalization must be avoided via volume.

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

[fishingme]

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

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

You realize it's the same delusion that you're under right? The basis for atheism is the fact that we cannot test for his existence, therefore he isn't there.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

You realize it's the same delusion that you're under right?

No, I do not realize that. Please explain.

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

The basis for atheism is the fact that we cannot test for his existence, therefore he isn't there.

Right, that's a logical leap and therefore invalid.

[fishingme]

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

No, I do not realize that. Please explain.

Right, that's a logical leap and therefore invalid.

The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.

Your gradeschool conception of the possibility of a god needs to graduate bro. Go take some mushrooms and expand your mind.

[Alawen]

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

The validity of god. How is logic invalid? It's logical to believe that when turn a light on by it's switch that it will turn on unless the light bulb is burnt out. However, imo it's pretty easy whether or not to tell if there is or isn't a god simply by praying for the most unselfish thing possible. Religion in god was built as a control mechanism to get everyone to cooperate. The validity of god may not be fully testable in the "does he exist or doesn't he" But there is some major reasoning behind why he doesn't exist.

Right now, I suspect there are many people voting for Obama's re-election. I suspect there are at least as many people voting for Romney's election. What is a loving and merciful God to do?

Sorry, it's not a paradox, it's a joke. We get this unbelievable nightmare of free will, complete with manipulation and corruption.

[Alawen]

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

Agnosticism FTW

The validity of the existence of god is untestable, therefore I won't take a position on it.

Everyone else (theists and atheists equally) are under operating under a shared delusion.

That's right. I'm throwing 99.99% of all people into the crazy bin.

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

This is false dichotomy and false equivalence. The absence of belief in deities is neither equivalent to nor incompatible with belief in the absence of deities. Your position is sloppy and lazy thinking.

Atheism is NOT the lack of belief in a deity figure, no matter HOW modern atheists try and make it so. The lack of belief in a deity figure is far closer to agnosticism.

The simple roots of the word atheism, and historical usage of the word until the last decade or two is the denial of possibility of the existence of a deity.

The above is the definition by which I crucify (lol) atheism on the same cross with jesus.