(December 5, 2012 at 1:48 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 1:39 am)Rayaan Wrote: Explain why you think so.

Because I see justifications for atheism boiling down into two categories:

a) Motivations that contain a lot of emotion.

b) Motivations that contain reason. Rationale. Thinking. Arguments.

I see almost no discussion of (b) on this forum.

But emotions? Anger? Hate? Tons of it. I do my fair share of trollerskating and mock the anger and hate with even more anger and hate.

But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.
...

It's usually a combination of two reasons: (1) the theists' arguments posted here are often so lame and inane it's laughable and (2) the theist has made it obvious in their demeanor and in their reasoning that any attempt at calm rational discourse with them will be a fruitless and pointless endeavor. So we make the best of it and just use them as our playthings.

(December 5, 2012 at 1:48 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

JUS SAIYAN.

Back that up.

(December 5, 2012 at 1:48 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But let's face facts. Most atheists here are driven by anger and hatred, not rationality and critical thinking.

Ah. I am now almost fully convinced that you are indeed a Christian in disguise.

(December 5, 2012 at 1:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

For science to be against atheism it would've found verifiable evidence for god.

So I for one would accept the existence of said "god".

As to whether I would worship this entity, that's another thing.

I used to think this.

But I think most sophisticated Christian philosophers and academics posit a new probabilistic avenue for science supporting God.

It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.

What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.

In fact, this has become something of a mainstay in Cosmology (study of the universe), being called "the anthropic principle". Anthro = human.

I had to look this up, but Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the initial conditions of the universe coming about in such a way is 1 in 10^10^123.

10^10 is 10 billion, by the way.

(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

You are either a disingenuous cunt or hopelessly stupid.

Science and reason don't start from an ancient text telling us what to believe. Science contains a self refuting mechanism that the absolute truth merchants can't touch.

I wouldn't be atheist if science and reason concluded that a god was real. I doubt you understand the distinction.

(December 5, 2012 at 2:17 am)cato123 Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

You are either a disingenuous cunt or hopelessly stupid.

Science and reason don't start from an ancient text telling us what to believe. Science contains a self refuting mechanism that the absolute truth merchants can't touch.

I wouldn't be atheist if science and reason concluded that a god was real. I doubt you understand the distinction.

Then you'd have a coherent response to the fine-tuning claims made by theists.

Atheists have been around alot longer than the religious would like to think.

There have always been those of any tribe/ society/ culture who have questioned the "beliefs" of the majority.

To isolate only science and reason as the fundamentals of atheism is to show that you have no real concept of ... science...reason...people... societies... or anthropology.

But then this is only my opinion and according to you this is law?? (*see sarcastic point scoring smile)

(December 5, 2012 at 2:19 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Then you'd have a coherent response to the fine-tuning claims made by theists.

You just proved my point.

(December 5, 2012 at 2:25 am)cato123 Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 2:19 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Then you'd have a coherent response to the fine-tuning claims made by theists.

You just proved my point.

And you just proved mine.

Rationality is very rare to find among atheists.

We need to inculcate children against growing up with this kind of irrationality underpinning their atheism.

(December 5, 2012 at 2:30 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: And you just proved mine.

Rationality is very rare to find among atheists.

We need to inculcate children against growing up with this kind of irrationality underpinning their atheism.

WE The unified and united marching monolithic block of non individual! ATHEISTS!!!!

damn! you might not ba a stooge but maybe just a fashist