(September 24, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I had some time, so I came back to pay a visit to my friends over on this forum. Sup.

And I've been thinking about rationality lately. Let me just lay it on you like butter on toast.

Almost all atheism is irrational. Why?

A lot of us point to the supposed intelligence of atheists, but what I've come to realize is that most of us have become atheists at quite a young age. Too young, honestly, to have a full grasp of our logical faculties or the world around us. Age 13 or 14 is simply not when your mind is fully developed. This includes the vast majority of atheist intellectuals who become atheists at a young age and just engage in confirmation bias throughout their academic careers.

Atheists whine. A lot. If you spend time on internet forums, you notice 98% of their time is spent hating Christians and whining about Christianity. For a "rational", "skeptical" group of people, such lack of rationality is alarmingly hypocritical.

About matters of the intellect, atheists are very superficially educated. They have a basic foundation down "EVOLUTION RULZ, GOD SUX HAHA I HAVE BIBEL VURSES THAT SUX LOL" but fundamental nuances are often glossed over or missed because their interest is not in knowing things, but in confirming what they want to be true.

"Ah but Vinny Gabagool, atheists know more about the Bible, look at the stats!" You will say, no doubt pointing to some stats. "Nonsense!" I will reply. While most religions are entirely focused on knowing about their own religion, atheists, for the most part are anti-theists. So everything they need to know is anti-religious dogma. Biblical contradictions, the euthyphro dilemma, wise-ass sayings that are actually nonsensical- these are de facto atheist teachings. So of course, they would "know more" their entire existence depends on their hatred against people who believe in a God!

When I started off as a skeptic, I started with a sense of intimidation. I was scared of all the intellectuals. Now that I'm a little older, a little smarter, a little more educated....I feel sorry for them.

Well you failed to address me, (correct me if I'm wrong as it may be buried)
I was a christian until I was 21, and I have met people that deconverted at much older so I do not understand your assertion about atheists leaving religion at 13-14, as many don't. Infact when I was 14 I was a hardcore jesus freak. As for rational, have you spent any time on religious forums? I do on one and currently have my account on moderator approval because I said hell, that is hardly rational.
In fact often the conversation on here is surprising rational and mature compared to other forums I have visited. The thing about atheists on INTERNET forums bitching about christianity is because most are American, and in America a lot religion gets shoved up ass then in other countries, where people don't care as much because the religious there are not trying to do things like have creationism taught in schools. Also in the other cases outside of that are generally countries where they terrible Internet infrastructure or have such oppressive situations that you get shunned or even killed for saying you do not believe, or both.
I also do not understand why you assert that atheist's do not understand the nuances of the text, as many including me in many cases do; or for that matter why would I want to convince that some whim of mine is true? I want the truth no matter what it is, but as that is no one has provided evidence of a god. Believing something because you want it to be true is just plain stupid and does not well, be it religion or anything else.
How many atheists did you ask wither they are anti-theists? Why are bible contradictions not valid reasons to question the validity of the bible? How do you overcome the euthyphro dilemma? How many have you ask about their hatred of religious people? I certainly do not hate people because they are religious and I think that it is safe to say that many here do not.
Now finally why are earth were you scared by intellectuals?

(September 28, 2013 at 12:36 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Well you failed to address me, (correct me if I'm wrong as it may be buried)
I was a christian until I was 21, and I have met people that deconverted at much older so I do not understand your assertion about atheists leaving religion at 13-14, as many don't. Infact when I was 14 I was a hardcore jesus freak. As for rational, have you spent any time on religious forums? I do on one and currently have my account on moderator approval because I said hell, that is hardly rational.
In fact often the conversation on here is surprising rational and mature compared to other forums I have visited. The thing about atheists on INTERNET forums bitching about christianity is because most are American, and in America a lot religion gets shoved up ass then in other countries, where people don't care as much because the religious there are not trying to do things like have creationism taught in schools. Also in the other cases outside of that are generally countries where they terrible Internet infrastructure or have such oppressive situations that you get shunned or even killed for saying you do not believe, or both.
I also do not understand why you assert that atheist's do not understand the nuances of the text, as many including me in many cases do; or for that matter why would I want to convince that some whim of mine is true? I want the truth no matter what it is, but as that is no one has provided evidence of a god. Believing something because you want it to be true is just plain stupid and does not well, be it religion or anything else.
How many atheists did you ask wither they are anti-theists? Why are bible contradictions not valid reasons to question the validity of the bible? How do you overcome the euthyphro dilemma? How many have you ask about their hatred of religious people? I certainly do not hate people because they are religious and I think that it is safe to say that many here do not.
Now finally why are earth were you scared by intellectuals?

I might have failed to address you, and I'll grant it. I intend to make no universal claims that exclude exceptions; there's always somebody who deconverts aged 95. But that's several standard deviations away from the mean. If you think I'm wrong in assuming the mean of the bell curve is at around 13-14, I'm wondering what you think the statistical mean is.

I also honestly don't feel like religion gets shoved down my throat. Granted, I've lived most my life on the east coast, two years in the midwest and six months in the "Bible Belt". Most religious people have been super-nice to me. Especially when I was in trouble and needed help. Lost, needed help moving boxes, car broke down, etc. The most reliable place to get help is church, in my experience.

Maybe it's just families or particular close-knit communities that are problematic? What do you think?

On and on do the unfounded claims go, backed by nothing but mere claim after mere claim, supported by arguments born of logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

No point engaging in debate someone who will not even adhere to the basic tenets of logical discourse; leave 'em to their delusions, and hope they don't start a cult.

Have fun believing whatever you wanna believe, Vinny. I'd tell you to not be surprised when even many faithful theists will disagree with your idea that the burden of disproof lies on the one denying a claim that itself has no proof...but I imagine when they do it, it will all be A-OK.

Go back to not being here like you were before. Nobody missed you, and you don't contribute a thing to any kind of intelligent conversation or rational discourse other than to just make hollow claims.

Still, even if there were no atheists anywhere in the world, and everyone was a theist (let's say Christian as one of the millions of beliefs out there) who believed in something that had no evidence to back it up, that doesn't thus mean they're right.

But, everyone knows that already.

(September 28, 2013 at 8:40 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: On and on do the unfounded claims go, backed by nothing but mere claim after mere claim, supported by arguments born of logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

No point engaging in debate someone who will not even adhere to the basic tenets of logical discourse; leave 'em to their delusions, and hope they don't start a cult.

Have fun believing whatever you wanna believe, Vinny. I'd tell you to not be surprised when even many faithful theists will disagree with your idea that the burden of disproof lies on the one denying a claim that itself has no proof...but I imagine when they do it, it will all be A-OK.

Go back to not being here like you were before. Nobody missed you, and you don't contribute a thing to any kind of intelligent conversation or rational discourse other than to just make hollow claims.

---

(September 29, 2013 at 4:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Still, even if there were no atheists anywhere in the world, and everyone was a theist (let's say Christian as one of the millions of beliefs out there) who believed in something that had no evidence to back it up, that doesn't thus mean they're right.

But, everyone knows that already.

Precisely this.

Except, it applies to all sides.

(September 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Except, it applies to all sides.

False. If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence.

It would be unreasonable to believe in everything for which there is no proof to support their existences, especially considering how many fairy tales in which humanity does not believe. If one is to follow the erroneous logic that a belief in something must be held in spite of the lack of evidence to support its existence, then everyone would be unreasonably attributing to reality everything that the mind concocts no matter how absurd the idea.

This is what *all* christians think about their god, and they want to share... how nice!





* some exaggeration may have leached into this statement.

(September 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 29, 2013 at 4:40 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Still, even if there were no atheists anywhere in the world, and everyone was a theist (let's say Christian as one of the millions of beliefs out there) who believed in something that had no evidence to back it up, that doesn't thus mean they're right.

But, everyone knows that already.

Precisely this.

Except, it applies to all sides.

But atheism isn't making a claim...

I don't need evidence to 'support' my lack of/disbelief in a deity. I need someone else to provide evidence to me that they're right.

What would that constitute, you say? I have no idea, and I don't care. The onus has never been and will never be on me. I don't care or think about any form of deity.

(September 29, 2013 at 4:25 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(September 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Except, it applies to all sides.

False. If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence.

It would be unreasonable to believe in everything for which there is no proof to support their existences, especially considering how many fairy tales in which humanity does not believe. If one is to follow the erroneous logic that a belief in something must be held in spite of the lack of evidence to support its existence, then everyone would be unreasonably attributing to reality everything that the mind concocts no matter how absurd the idea.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "If there is no evidence to support the existence of something, the logical step would be to adhere to the atheistic position in regards to its existence."? Until you can meet the burden of proof, reasonable people can reject your claim.

If you would rather not go in that direction, you could always acknowledge that the real position based on lack of evidence would be agnosticism. It would not be "a-"theism, but "indifference-to-" theism, which agnosticism essentially amounts to.

After all, if you have no evidence that my middle name is Theodore, are you an "a-Theodorist"? Or are you an "agnostic as to the question of what Vinny's middle name is"?

To answer this honestly, you have to lay aside your preconceived notions and think about the question itself.

(September 29, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: To answer this honestly, you have to lay aside your preconceived notions and think about the question itself.

To have anykind of social contact here which will not be filled with a broad consensus of content towards you amongst the members of this forum, you should learn to lay off this very kind of arrogance with which you write as if you were looking down on all and everyone here as infirior.