that is just not true. atheists presuppose that God does not exist.

presupposition is the act of implicitly assuming something about the world.

atheists assume that they are right in not believing God exists. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that. it is just the way that it has to be.

Just as scientists presuppose that humans are capable of observing the world in a rational manner. without that presupposition science could not do what it does.

This site is called two plus two because some truths are just absolutely obvious to anyone with the ability to think logically.

There's an ancient Indian number system that says that because the points on the number line between one and zero, any number is equal to infinity. This is the kind of absolutely wrong logic you would have to believe in to believe there can be an omnipotent God and human free will at the same time.

Besides that, you promised us you were asking for a permban and not coming back. So why aren't you living up to that?

You don't know what an atheist is. Go find out and then come back and we might be able to have a discussion with you on these matters.

you wield the english language as a small child would wield a eight pound scottish claymore.

I will keep this short as I am going out soon and don't feel like writing out a lot of lengthy reasoning that you will either a) ignore or b) not even come close to understanding.

Incorrect. I am an atheist and I do not presuppose this. How do you explain this? Anecdotal, but that is all I need to defeat an unfounded blanket assertion on your part.


Incorrect, I think. I am not even sure you made a statement.


Incorrect. Again, I am an atheist and I assume no such thing. I am fully aware that I might be wrong about God. How do you account for that in your tailor-made definition of atheism? Needless to say, your assertion is made-up and meaningless.


lol. What a silly thing to assume!

lol an. i changed the weight

This number may seem shocking, but it is just one of many. You have to face the fact that most people out there are stupid. They are uneducated. Most people don't go to college, most can't name more than eight US presidents or more than twelve foreign countries. The ignorant and the fearful stick to what they are brought up to believe (a hateful yet loving and forgiving God).

The US is a long way from having an educated electorate, its a sad fact but its true and it won't change for a long time.

FYI...Pacopaco is Splendour's new account, not Jibninjas. If you read a few of Pacopaco's posts, you'll see the Splendourishness of them right away.

Another serious question. We share about 98% of our genes with mice and about 40% with daffodils. Does that mean we are really humifils?

Yes?

Thank you for making my point for me.... again.

I agree with you about Obama and many in congress. At least I really hope you're right and that many just pay lip service to their belief in god. I used to cringe anytime Hillary mentioned god. I would bet my entire bankroll that neither she, nor her husband believe in virgin births and resurrections, any more than they believe in a tooth fairy. But it's what they have to say, I guess.

I definitely don't feel anyone should have to pass a religious test to get elected, but I do think they should be made to answer certain questions that pertain to their intelligence and world view. I'd really like to know for instance, just how old Sarah Palin thinks the earth is, and whether or not she believes dinosaurs lived alongside with man. I think these are fair questions. After all, this was someone who came very close to having control over a world obliterating nuclear armament.

I don't care what religion a candidate practices privately, but I do care about how gullible they are and what their perception of reality is. Would they consider nuclear armageddon as a blessed fulfillment of some ancient scripture? That's very scary to me.

again, so you believe that being "intellectually dishonest" means that someone does not come to the same conclusion as you? That you are so intelligent that you hold all of the answers? So all of the evidence in this world is pointing in one direction, and you are the one that can interpret it properly?

isnt that being "intellectually dishonest"?

so you are saying that there is absolutely 0 evidence that points toward a creator, and absolutely 0 issues with the theory of evolution?

isnt that a little "intellectually dishonest" of you?

when trying to argue with someone, please try to use their words instead of inventing things they said. what you are doing is called a strawman argument and it really doesn't get anyone anywhere

his words, not mine. he was the one that started accusing people of intelectual dishonesty.

so maybe before acussing someone of something, you should check the facts.

I don't mean to barge in on your dialog, but this term intellectually dishonest comes up all the time whenever I talk to a friend about religion (who is trying to convert me ).

If you ask me, how did the universe start, if not by god? The only truthful answer I can come up with is, I don't know. I could go on and on about why I highly doubt that a god needs to be involved, but I honestly don't know. My Christian friend has a very different answer and is very sure of herself. She claims to *know* that god did it, because it says so right there in the bible.

To me, that's intellectually dishonest. She cannot know any more than I can know, and certainly not more than the world's leading scientists know who still don't have these answers. Yet, there is no talking to her about any other alternative. The scientists are wrong, I am wrong, anyone who doesn't believe what she and the rest of her religion does is wrong. If she just amended herself to say something like, well I don't know for sure, but I place my faith in the bible, that would be fine by me. But she will not admit that. She claims the bible is truth. Period. Not that she has faith it is the truth. That is what I call intellectually dishonest. Being intellectually honest means being willing to admit you don't know or at least, you're not sure. Something very few devout religious people are willing to do.

Sorry for budding in, but I've recently been having some heated discussions with this person. She's my gf's best friend and I'm finding it hard to continue without outright insulting her. I've run out of polite things to say, so I think I'm done with the conversation. Unless anyone here has some suggestions, because I do enjoy contemplating unanswered questions about our reality and universe we live in.

i agree with your definition of intellectual dishonesty, as that was the point i was trying to get across.

As far as your friend, it is hard for me to give you specific answers when i do not know exactly what her argument is. I will say that the bible tells us that you can find evidence for God all around us, so that blind faith is not something that is nessecary in this case. You are right though, that at some point all of us have to admit that we do not know 100%. i believe that there is major evidence that points toward the existance of a creator, and also major evidence that points toward christianity.

If you would like, you can list what her arguments are and what your problems are with those arguments, and i would be more than happy to discuss them with you. there is a good chance that i do not agree with her on her own arguments anyway, so if anything it will give you a different perspective and ammunition against her arguments.

i don't recall anyone saying anything even close to this. you used this statement as if your opponent said it and attacked that. this is the definition of a straw man argument

just because you do not recall does not mean it did not happen. Just like you did not recall him saying anything about intellectual dishonesty. But he did. so it does not mean much that you now claim no one said anything even close to this.

i never said anything about intellectual dishonesty, i was always talking about the argument you made up.

As a psychology student and scientist I just couldn't stay away from this thread. I also didn't bother to read every page so I'm sorry if I repost something that has already been said.

Creationism as a theory has a crucial flaw, which makes it just as worthless as astrology or psychoanalysis. It can't be proven wrong.
Imagine talking to a stubborn creationist. He'll tell you that the earth was created in 7 days and it never fundamentally changed since its creation. You'll tell him that there's significant evidence and data which shows our species evolved to what it is now from single cell organisms by means of natural selection. Now the creationist will tell you that god put that evidence there to test our faith.
You see, it's impossible to prove creationists wrong, because their theory is based on faith, which has no place in modern science.
The same applies for the existence of god itself. Why does god exist? - Because the bible says so. / Why is what the bible says true? - Because god created it.

Then again it's relatively futile to try and argue with someone who's been educated (I'd say indoctrinated but that'd just be rude) with a certain religion. Kevin J's situation seems to be this way. Religious beliefs just like stereotipes have been proven to be especially tough to get rid of as shown in numerous psychological experiments (I don't remember the name of the psychologist who did the initial research but I'm sure you'll find something if you google it). Basically it takes many arguments from many different people to 'convert' someone to a certain point of view. Actually Kevin J, in your case the girl you're talking about might even have her beliefs strengthened by your arguments.

Personally I've resigned myself not to try and convince someone by means of rational arguments unless I want to be told "God, you're annoying!".
By the way this doesn't limit itself to religion, but also political views for example. I'm from Belgium, where most of the 'real' christians are of the previous generations, so I don't get to meet fanatics all that often. I can imagine that in america or the middle east this can be a real problem though.

Phew, long post. I guess I just can't help myself. Anyway good luck and see you at the tables.

Ah, that's nice, and what's your favorite color?

however, in an exchange of ideas it matters not THAT you have a favorite color, or a belief in the supernatural, or that you believe you have evidence. What matters is whether you can lay out a coherent case that would have some power persuasion for the other person, otherwise you can just yell stuff out on a street corner.

awe, isnt that sweet, someone who still believes everything that he hears.

do you still check under your bed for the boogy monster?

srsly, wtf r u talking about