Heads up advice for atheists.

[His_Majesty]

Having debated online for 13 years on a daily basis you start seeing a pattern from apologists no matter what religion they are trying to defend.

I see a pattern from unbelievers also.

While it can be fun to tear apart their books

It is also fun to defend my book (The Holy Bible)

I have heard the same arguments from Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and just yesterday my first Rastafarian.

I've heard the same arguments from atheists, agnostics, naturalists, and just yesterday my first materialist.

So a huge red flag to look for is when a theist starts an argument by attacking science. The slick insidious crap does not fool sane people who accept science as universal. But it can work on laypersons and even newbie atheists.

So basically, theists worship God, and naturalists worship science. Gotcha.

There is no Catholic theory of evolution.

Because evolution is a lie.

There is no Allah theory of gravity. There is no Hindu thermodynamics. There is no Buddhist physics.

Good. There is also no scientific theory of supernaturalism either.

There is no Rastafarian cause for the big bang(yes that was a real argument some nutfuck made yesterday).

There was also no naturalistic cause for the big bang.

There are simply humans who make shit up and do not want to accept our finite existence.

Christians do accept the fact that living organisms have a "finite" existence.

So when you see an argument start off with "science doesn't know everything", there is a salesman behind it trying to distract you from their end goal that they are ultimately trying to sell you their club and their superstition.

"A salesman behind it trying to distract you from their end goal..", oh, so making a factual statement such as "science doesn't know everything" is part of this big salesman strategy?

No, science does not claim to know everything. But it also requires confirmed data as the starting input. It also does not gap fill like religion does.

Religion doesn't gap fill either. There are some things that science is incapable of explaining, and the God Hypothesis is simply the most plausible explanation based on what we know.

To my theist friends, yes I am being blunt. No this is not about your rights, but your ability to demonstrate the credibility of your claims. So if you think you have something, fine, make whatever claim you want, but until you get it confirmed in a lab, and universally confirmed beyond your own personal bias, do not expect others to swallow it blindly.

Ok, so I'd like for you to go in a lab and confirm abiogenesis (life from non-life). So until you can do that, you shouldn't believe in abiogenesis, right?

[Whateverist]

Ok, so I'd like for you to go in a lab and confirm abiogenesis (life from non-life). So until you can do that, you shouldn't believe in abiogenesis, right?

But to be fair you too should produce some evidence for your ridiculous god claims.

[fr0d0]

I am not the one basing my "point of view" on an old book written in antiquity by humans who had no clue of modern science.

A book who's subject isn't science. Yeah. And which modern science has no comment on.

Brian, you are the worst kind of fundie.

[Aoi Magi]

I am not the one basing my "point of view" on an old book written in antiquity by humans who had no clue of modern science.

A book who's subject isn't science. Yeah. And which modern science has no comment on.

Brian, you are the worst kind of fundie.

Modern science did suggest that whatever verifiable scientific info is in that book seems rubbish, and how most of it doesn't match historical or geographical records, and how yet other portions are not possible based on what we know about reality, all the while ignoring the fact that those who made the claim that the book is true didn't provide any evidence of it being true whatsoever.

[fr0d0]

Did you ever wonder if that's because NONE of the truth it contains has anything at all to do with science.

[Mudhammam]

Did you ever wonder if that's because NONE of the truth it contains has anything at all to do with science.

In other words, it has everything to do with a narrow and speculative interpretation of facts, and nothing to do with a comprehensive empirical knowledge of facts.

[Aoi Magi]

Have you ever thought science is just a process of inferring and understanding "truth"?

[Brian37]

Did you ever wonder if that's because NONE of the truth it contains has anything at all to do with science.

NO, you fish for pretty stories and gap fill for instances of lack of explanation when you luck out. This is our species flawed perceptions because of selection bias and sample rate error.

Most humans prefer a comforting lie than a harsh truth, you are simply one of most.

Now again, you were not around 4 billion years ago, or 13 billion years ago and none of us as a species will be around 10 billion years from now. When our species goes extinct all our man made superstitions and god beliefs will go extinct with us. The universe will continue with no record of our existence. Our planet's core will burn out and our sun too. And again, the universe will go on with no capability of caring about our finite existence.

I do not need to fill in gaps with gods about a fictional afterlife anymore than I worry about my non existence before my birth.

[Ben Davis]

I see a pattern from unbelievers also.

It is also fun to defend my book (The Holy Bible)

I've heard the same arguments from atheists, agnostics, naturalists, and just yesterday my first materialist.

So basically, theists worship God, and naturalists worship science. Gotcha.

Because evolution is a lie.

Good. There is also no scientific theory of supernaturalism either.

There was also no naturalistic cause for the big bang.

Christians do accept the fact that living organisms have a "finite" existence.

"A salesman behind it trying to distract you from their end goal..", oh, so making a factual statement such as "science doesn't know everything" is part of this big salesman strategy?

Religion doesn't gap fill either. There are some things that science is incapable of explaining, and the God Hypothesis is simply the most plausible explanation based on what we know.

Ok, so I'd like for you to go in a lab and confirm abiogenesis (life from non-life). So until you can do that, you shouldn't believe in abiogenesis, right?

Hmm, fairly standard apologetics here. Nothing that hasn't already been thoroughly rebutted elsewhere in this forum. I'll tackle your 'atheism is unreasonable' thread first.

[Brian37]

It is absurd for religion to think by attacking science it will prop any religion up. It does not work when any religion does this, and absurd to think only one religion uses the tactic to attack science to fill in their sky hero in it's place. All religions are learning that science is leaving them in the dust. They do not like this so they attack science or try to co opt it in order to stay relevant.

Again Christians, you are not the only ones who try to pull this shit. Muslims and Jews and Hindus try to pull this shit too. Attacking science or trying to co opt it does not work when anyone tries it.