So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

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

The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.

Oh.... do tell me how the constitution is being eviscerated [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Alarti0001]

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

Ohm 5 mentions, Tesla 2 mentions, Edison 4.

AKA Ben Franklin most important person in the field of electricity

MMM i see the results of and obviously if someone gets mentioned more that means their work is more important?

U dum

[Daldolma]

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

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

true atheism does not say, "i know there isn't a god or creator" it does say, "there is no reason to believe in a god/creator"

You've just recreated the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is begging the question. (Really begging the question, not raising the question, which is what most people mean when they use the phrase in error.

Atheists come in a lot of varieties. We're not a cult with associated dogma.

[Alarti0001]

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

I don't know where you think you read this, but it's absolutely ridiculous. There are a dozen sources that reference Jesus during his lifetime and the immediate aftermath, including non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus both discussed Jesus extensively. We're as sure Jesus existed as we are sure about essentially anything that happened 2000 years ago.

It's also, again, extremely condescending to say that people believe in religion "because their parents told them to or they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives." You're less intelligent, less rational, and less fulfilled than a great number of people that believe in religion. That's not an insult, it's a fact -- and it goes for everyone else on here, too, so don't worry about it. There are verifiable geniuses, including scientific geniuses, that believe in the existence of a god. It's not because they haven't considered the notion that, hey, maybe there isn't one. It's not because their mom and dad told them to and they can't shake it after 50+ years. It's not because they can't handle the idea of a life without a god. You talk about remarkably intelligent adults like you're their all-knowing parent. Respect viewpoints other than your own.

Why do they believe, then? Because it is a logical belief. Because it is entirely rational to believe in the existence of a creator. The only life humans have ever been able to prove exists has come from other life. We've even created new life ourselves. Since all existing evidence has shown that life comes from other life, it is entirely rational to believe that there was a proto life form that birthed all the others. The image of that life form differs greatly, but that doesn't mark illogic. Many scientists believe life began on Earth with organic monomers condensing into polymers. There is no evidence for this, but they believe it -- because it had to start somewhere. What's the difference between believing in an infinitely simple organic polymer jump starting the evolution of life on Earth and an infinitely complex life form birthing the building blocks of life in the universe? Why is one more likely than the other? Because one adheres more easily to our 150 year old theory of evolution? The arrogance of humans is astounding to me sometimes. We've been kicking around this theory for a few generations in the midst of a 13+ billion year old universe and we think we've got a handle on it now. Yup, must've been ooze. Done and done. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain telling you that if we're assuming the spontaneous formation of complex polymers constituting life, then we may as well assume the spontaneous existence of any form of life. Neither has a basis in known science. We've tried to create organic polymers from monomers by replicating the early period of the Earth -- doesn't work.

Anyway, religion and god are very different. Believing that Mary was a virgin is much closer to bordering on the irrational. That's not to say it's not possible, because it is. But the canon of organized religion is often "irrational" without granting the initial conceit that a god exists in the image of that religion. Believing in a god, or a creator of some type, is very different and entirely rational. But if you're granting the rationality of a god, then you should be willing to grant the rationality of a few of the more common images of god. You don't need to grant that he was an interstellar conqueror named Xenu, but the image of a personal god is rational enough. If there were a personal god, it would be conceivable that he would try to impact mankind -- possibly via a messenger. Etc, etc. You can keep going down this road forever. But the genesis of it all is a belief in a creator -- which is objectively rational, even if it may ultimately be untrue.

Prove your claims, all i got from your was hyperbole.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prove your claims, all i got from your was hyperbole.

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

[Alarti0001]

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

You've just recreated the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is begging the question. (Really begging the question, not raising the question, which is what most people mean when they use the phrase in error.

Atheists come in a lot of varieties. We're not a cult with associated dogma.

If atheists come in a lot of varieties it includes "cults" with dogma.

Real atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You start corrupting the term when you invoke belief that their are no gods since you can not prove a negative. At this point we have not been able to prove 100% the origin of the universe.

You were also incorrect about the existence of jesus and buddha. Buddha was a real hindu who started his own teachings on hinduism. He is revered but not a god.

The other forms of "atheism" are generally not true atheism.

[Alarti0001]

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

Idiot, it's a belief. I'm not telling you god exists. I still haven't even stated my own beliefs. I'm saying that it is rational to believe that god exists. It is also rational to believe that there is no god or creator. You don't have to prove either viewpoint in order for them to be considered rational -- both are inherently unprovable.

If someone was telling you god definitely exists, yes -- the burden of proof would shift to him. If someone was telling you god definitely doesn't exist -- again, burden of proof is on him. Nobody is saying that here. We're talking about beliefs and the rationality of those beliefs.

oh no you claimed facts in your rant, the burden of proof is on you to support those claims.

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

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

oh no you claimed facts in your rant, the burden of proof is on you to support those claims.

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

I used the word "fact" once to refer to the concept that there are smarter, more rational, and more fulfilled people than Alawen that believe in a god. I also referenced the fact that humans have been unable to recreate the supposed spontaneous formation of polymers given organic monomers. That is, in fact, a fact -- you can look it up yourself.

I never once claimed it is a fact that god exists or anything even remotely close to that.

I don't understand how you can spend 18 hours a day on these forums and still be functionally illiterate.

[Tecmos Deception]

It doesn't matter who wins. Everybody is going to lose.