So that's it for the election.

[Lucky]

There are so many gaps in the theory of evolution that it cannot even be considered science.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

Nobody has said it's true -- just that it's a rational hypothesis. Science is an ever-evolving discipline and conglomeration of knowledge. It is entirely rational to believe that science will one day disprove the existence of any god. It is also entirely rational to believe that science will one day prove the existence of a god. Either way, science has very little to say on the subject as of now.

You said "people who believe in god."
be·lief/biˈlēf/
Noun:
1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
So, yes you did say it was true. :P

[Hasbinlulz]

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

There are so many gaps in the theory of evolution that it cannot even be considered science.

Hyperbole.

[Ravager]

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

It does stand to reason. It is a rational belief. But that doesn't make it factual.

Much like saying "god exists" or "no god exists", you are expressing a rational opinion with less than compelling supporting evidence. If you believe, pre-birth and post-death, that there is no degree of consciousness and you simply cease to exist, you are very possibly correct. However it is reasonable to consider that you are not correct.

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, will the denizens of this forum please stop being so stupid so that Alawen will stop replying intelligently, causing me to agree with him please? I feel very uncomfortable with this new state of affairs.

[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 Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course it's reasonable to consider I am not correct. There are an infinite number of possibilities that can be considered, but only the ones that come with verifiable evidence are worth considering. What is unreasonable is ignoring evidence for one argument in favor of another argument that has no evidence or anecdotal evidence which is the same as no evidence since it is not verifiable.

"A subject being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

[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.

[Hasbinlulz]

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

"A subject not being worth considering" and "a subject being wrong because of lack of evidence" are two different things.

Stupid no edit.

[Lucky]

atheists are the biggest dummies