As a rational human, and most especially a scientist, one is forced at some point to contemplate the God hypothesis. A rational person concludes that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, and rejects it.

As the video says, that does not mean that we should attempt to "disprove" God. It's a waste of resources on a rejected hypothesis. Read a book or play some guitar instead. Similarly, it is a poisonous waste of time to attempt to "prove" the God hypothesis. It can't be done, and when you couch dogma in quasi-scientific terms as an attempt at offering "evidence" for an unscientific premise, it just makes you look ridiculous.

Hence, Banana Guy. And all of the "Intelligent Design" crap. And anyone that ever tries to tell you the Bible is an accurate primary source of historical events. And so on and so forth. What's worse, if you already are a "believer" and are trying to come across as an "expert" with "evidence", you have two immediate problems; inductive logic and an existing predisposition to constructing your global perspective and moral code on faith.

You accept a hypothesis that can't be proven as sacred from the beginning and then pervert the scientific method in the hopes that people will take you seriously.


/waits for gorgonheap

/cracks knuckles



Actually, fuck it.

Tina Fey is hot.

yeah, kinda lame

My first sift. Be gentle.

His videoblog is stellar. The man has a gift for language. If you liked Ze Frank, and you like hip hop and the politics therein, check it out.

Don't miss Bill O'Reilly is Mad, Doggie either.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VaOz2XeCAyA

I never said that 80% of the world is an idiot.

And yet again, you can't back up the shit you say.

Your first entry into this thread was to call the debate that had been going for 40 posts before you showed up a "tired and ridiculous pissing contest". Certainly you had to know that was going to engender a response.

If you can't take the response to your claim, if you can't handle being called on falsifying statistics and making up bullshit to support illogical points, then just don't talk at all.

And I think you know where you can store your advice. Just write it all down, fold it into little pointy corners....

/cracks knuckles

I did check my facts and, yes well over 90% of the world subscribes to a religious view of life.

You need to cite a source for that.

What holier then thou source are you using anyway?

Source 1. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Source 2. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Source 3. http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/mystat.html

The numbers vary from 70% to 81%. The statistics quoted in my previous post come from Source 1. Where are your sources for your claim of "well over 90% of the world is religious"? Back it up, kiddo.

I wasn't saying "no one goes to hell"

To quote you, "God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap."


I was saying no one mortal should be so arrogant to say he can determine such a thing.

Thank you for clarifying your position on the going to hell issue. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold water. The Bible is supposed to the the word of God. The pope and various clergy are supposed to be holy men with a mystic understanding of that word. And it's pretty clear throughout the Bible that if you break any of the Lord's divine rules, hell is precisely where you are going.

I can sit here and say your full of shit but that doesn't prove anything.

You're right, it doesn't. You would have to, say, offer evidence and supporting rational arguments in addition to calling me full of shit for it to prove anything. Which is exactly what I am doing. I am saying you are both full of shit, and offering citations and rational arguments as to why you are full of shit.

Which is why your arguments are invalid because your format and strong bias on issues.

Unfortunately for you, that is not how logic works. Arguments are not invalidated based on format, kiddo. Arguments can only be invalidated by proving they are either illogical, irrational, or by countering them with contrary evidence in a logical fashion. Just because you don't like what you read doesn't mean it ain't true, but by all means go stick your head in the sand and act like it does. It would fit with the religious mindset I've come to expect from you nutjobs.


think your unwilling to compromise your emotional position on the subject

My emotional position? What the fuck does emotion have to do with anything? Did you even read this thread before you decided to come in here and prance around like a high schooler who just read Ayn Rand for the first time? Pray tell (no pun intended) what my emotional position is?

and resort to adding a "bullshit" and "idiots" to everything. that's why you have no valid points because you resort to name calling and childish tantrums.

Again, you seem to have no concept of logic. The validity of an argument exists independent of the intended audience's reaction to it's format. And as far as name calling and childish tantrums goes, you need only look to the beginning of this thread to see who threw that gauntlet down first. At least I have facts and logical arguments to back my "tantrums" up, whereas you have only....what? You haven't made a coherent point yet, you've only seen fit to rebuke my tone but not my argument.

You have strong feeling about stuff, kudos, but emotion without reason is nothing more then a immature rationalizing of behavior.


Oh snap, you are breaking out the polysyllables! Kudos to you. However, I can't help but think again that you didn't read this thread. I've set forth a number of coherent rational arguments contradicting the claims made by the religious in this thread, which I will sumarize AGAIN since you are incapable of reading.


The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.
7. Well over 90% of the world is religious.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

You'd be more persuasive if you didn't exhibit so much hate and anger in your speech.

Religion would be more persuasive if they didn't murder and rape anyone that didn't agree with them, but hey, you don't see me complaining. Or wait, I suppose I am. Oh well. I guess you'll just have to fucking deal with it, and if you don't like it, offer some evidence or logical arguments to prove me wrong.

Until then, as before, go back to feeling guilty that you can't make your imaginary friend in the sky happy. If you can't cite a source for your bullshit, if you can't actually read the arguments set forth by the religious and my response and then formulate a logical rebuttal based on evidence, then you are just spouting off bullshit.


The time for politeness and eggshell-stepping on the subject of religion is way, way over. Militant, in your face, logical, rational atheism is the only chance we have of salvaging the shambles you religious wingnuts have made of this planet.

Get an argument that makes sense, or get the fuck out.

No.

Sweet. Now I can go back to watching videos of cats acting like people.

neither points validate anything. Seeing as well over 90% of the world is religious of course 90% or more of those events are going to include that party.

Do you even bother to fact check the statistics you are making up on the fly?

"Well over 90% of the world is religious" is simply not true. You're making up bullshit to support the idea that we should not use religion as a causality for tragedy because "well over 90% of the world is religious".

Do some research before you spout off fake statistics.

16% of the worlds population does not claim a religion. 6% are primal-indigenous. 7% are in the "other" category.

That leaves 71% to be spread around the various religious sects including such winners as Scientology.




Is there a single religious person here capable of offering a coherent refutation without making up bullshit statistics to prove non-existent points?

All your points attack something, they don't support your position. Simply mocking or deriding someones beliefs does not constitute a solid argument.

Perhaps you are confused as to what exactly a rebuttal is. It is an attack, a refutation, of another argument using evidence and examples. If your problem is with the tone of voice (text?) that I have used to convey those ideas, then I need only direct you to the multiple ad hominem attacks made by the proponents of religion in this thread.

And again, you have not offered anything of substance. If you are saying my points are invalid, then make a case for it citing examples and offering an alternative viewpoint. But saying "X=Y because I said so" doesn't mean anything.

God loves everyone, anyone who says your going to hell is full of crap.

Then I suppose Jesus and the old testament God are full of crap as well.

Which I happen to agree with.

But it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is rife with examples of God threatening eternal damnation and hellfire to anyone who doesn't follow his rules.

Sorry, Christians can't have it both ways.

Obey God, or spend eternity in unimaginable suffering.

I'm most interested in your suggestion that you can use current events to detail how non-religious groups have fucked the world up. I would LOVE to see a cogent argument concerning current geopolitical messes that doesn't involve religious nutjobs. Seriously. Back up your bullshit.

Imayliffe - Your posted comments detail an extensive history how those claiming to be Christians have screwed up multiple times. While you may want to blame Christians for everything, we could use history or current events to detail how other groups of people have messed up too. Your statement that this is "good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt" ignores the very facts you've tried to use to bolster your own claims.

Your fake progressivism makes me sick Imayliffe; intellectual rebels coming out of the woodwork. Repeating old folksy arguments, and claiming supreme truth.
This is sooo 19th century...

just goes to show you that the unthinking mass will remain the unthinking mass.

More rhetoric and no substance.

Let's recap this thread for those playing at home.

The "arguments" set forth by the religious nuts so far amount to the following:

1. Atheists are more annoying than Christians.
2. Atheists are more evangelical than Christians.
3. All humans, both atheistic and religious, are irrational beings ruled by emotions with their beliefs as thinly veiled icing on a primordial cake.
4. Christians have not been responsible for mass genocide.
5. God wants us to have free will.
6. Atheists use "old arguments" that have do not hold water.

All of these arguments I have refuted with supporting evidence.

And yet, not one of the religious types have been able to offer a compelling rebuttal using evidence and logic to support their reasoning.

So until you are going to actually provide some substance and evidence for your claims that "other groups have messed up too" and use facts to contradict the points I have made, dismiss with the hyperbolic ad hominem bullshit and man up.

All I've heard so far is "No, you're wrong" from the religious crowd without a scant piece of logical argument to back up their ridiculous claims.

Grow a pair and make a coherent point, or shut the fuck up and go back to feeling guilty about existing because you can't please your imaginary friend in the sky.

Oh spare me. Yeah, God has tried his hardest and people keep fucking it up. That's some good old fashioned bullshit religious guilt if I've ever heard it. How sad.

Dude - link, don't cut and paste.

When people make claims like, "Tell me one instance where Christianity was responsible for mass genocide" it makes me think they haven't picked up a single history book in their entire lives, suggesting that linking them to information will most likely be useless, forcing me to cut and paste in the hopes they will actually read some information. Thankfully these wacky wild interwebs are big enough to handle lots of information.