The debate is over

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Oh please, Fr0dz, drop the "you don't believe just because you don't understand" argument, that one got old years ago. It got old back when I actually DID believe. The very thing that drove me most from being a believer was having far too many questions, and far too few satisfactory answers. Oh there ARE answers, sure...and they all sound half-assed and far too convenient. The problem with religion is that it tries to simplify everything into the contexts of black and white, and in life there is very little black and white; virtually everything, not literally, but virtually, is in shades of grey. Plus there's the fact that if you look through the bible and any other religious texts AFTER you take off the rose-tinted glasses it all suddenly starts betraying its man-made tendencies. I understand perfectly. It is not a decision I came to because "atheism is cool" or some garbage or because I am a rebellious individual or whatnot, it's a decision I reached because reconciliation is simply not possible. I chose to become religious at a young age. It was not forced nor even introduced to me. I willingly pursued it. I wasn't indoctrinated into it, I pursued it on my own accord. But after accumulated weeks of time of reading through the bible, asking questions of ministers, fellow adherents, even bishops of the Catholic church, the answers I got were always unsatisfactory.

Yes. I understand. I probably understand far better than you, in fact, which is precisely why I don't believe.

You seem to have taken that too personally Creed. How can you be uncommitted to something you fully understand? Are you uncommitted to your current stance? I presume not, and that your current stance represents your best understanding. Or you are the first to declare Cognitive Dissonance as your atheistic stance that I'm aware of. Or does Non Cognitivist cover that??

Curious. So, your position is that even though one fully understands the consequences of eating shit, one should nonetheless eat shit.

---

The thing is, how do you tell the difference between an existent deity that is not empirically testable, and a non existent deity?

You can't.

There you go banging your head against your own wall of empiricism. It stops you thinking.

There you go, N&C, banging your head against your own wall of honesty. Things are so much easier for pathological liars like frodo, who make up whatever shit they like whenever they want.

We can only establish something is true by demonstrating it, by examining it's properties and effects, in reality.

So my belief in God effects my actions. Explain.

Yes, your delusional belief has contributed to and aggravated your being an insufferable, arrogant, asinine pathological liar. We can see that you are indeed delusional and that it makes you even more of an asshole.

Faith, that's all Frodo has. Faith is nothing.

There you go adding in your own fantasies again. Like I said, stick to the topic and we can discuss it.

N&C is analyzing the data and drawing conclusions from it. You reject reality and wallow in superstition and self-delusion. Sad.

[fr0d0]

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[fr0d0]

I see that you have given up even trying to answer my rebuttals.

I praise God in his generosity of you as a gift to all theists.

[Anomalocaris]

Fr0d0's thesis - Because he, Fr0d0, divined from the smell of his own fart god exists, therefore all those who insist his fart simply smells bad is wrong, and god exists.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I see that you have given up even trying to answer my rebuttals.

I praise God in his generosity of you as a gift to all theists.

[Minimalist]

You don't have to take my word for it. All you need do is use your inate reasoning powers.

My innate reasoning powers require evidence to evaluate. Human imagination has no limits. People have thought of all sorts of silly things... from the Easter Bunny to jesus.

[Skepsis]

You know, I find it sort of ironic that a thread entitled "The debate is over" is now over 13 pages long, and currently has ongoing conflict on some issue or another.

Just my ten cents.

[dean211284]

How can anyone say Dawkins is an ignoramus? The guy knows more about the subjects he speaks of than most fools who like to think they know more such as Craig or Lennox. Religion needs to provide evidence of its outlandish claims before it has a leg to stand on. But we all know it can't.

[fr0d0]

How can anyone say Dawkins is an ignoramus? The guy knows more about the subjects he speaks of than most fools who like to think they know more such as Craig or Lennox. Religion needs to provide evidence of its outlandish claims before it has a leg to stand on. But we all know it can't.

Dawkins is a good scientist. This is his specialism. He had some crazy opposition from the usual religious crazies and understandably retaliated. He writes clearly and well, and found himself suddenly a best selling author. Rich on the back of a popularist ignorant perspective. Anyone doing slightly more than scratching the surface sees this for what it is: unadulterated ignorance.