Atheism is stupid

Self | 6-28-02 | Matt Festa

[Physicist]

As for the spelling, would ya give ma break here, I just had oral surgery this morning.

I see. So you're dictating this, then? <g>

[B4Ranch]

My sincerest condolences to the poor victim you're marrying. Did your mommies and daddies arrange it? I'm sure you'll bring her lots of pamphlets, tracts, and animated, neck straining rants about the godlessness of society.

Hopefully she won't waste too much of her good years and youth on you.

Without any hesitance whatsoever I will publically say, "You are a sick sonofabitch."

[B4Ranch]

Didn't the dentist give you any pain relievers?

[Dimensio]

I like to respond to inanity and stupidity by trying to be purely analytical and rational and throwing as little emotion in as possible.

Those who are simply incapable of intelligent thought (like f.Christian) usually keep responding with the same tripe, but it helps to provide a frame of reference that demonstrates just how devoid of thought their postings are.

Those without reasoning ability who are running on pure emotion either get aggrivated with my attitude and my constant pointing out of logical fallacies and they either make up a reason for ignoring me -- sometimes by answering my questions with the lie "I already answered that" -- or they simply never respond.

Those who may have simply not thought their position through clearly sometimes manage to come up with intelligent or at least reasonable responses to my questions.

[BMCDA]

No we do not know that no intelligent agent had nothing to do with it. We have no proof of that.

OK, then let's say it this way: an intelligent agent is not required to explain these reactions. Maybe there are tiny leprechauns who are responsible for this but there is no evidence in their favor nor against their existence, so they are not needed to explain chemical reactions.

ALL I am saying is that it is more logical to believe in God than not to and it is not appealing to ignorance. Atheism does. Atheism wants people to ignore their logic, their faith, their reason and ASSUME all things were by a random accident.

No, the only thing that is required to qualify as an atheist is the lack of a belief in deities, i.e. you simply don't believe something for which you see no evidence.

[Festa]

wow my sophmoric view was attacked by attacking the relationship between my fiancee and me. It is people like you that make debate impossible. You are a diseased, cancourous human being. For your information, I am not a religious nut, I do not want to force my beliefs on anyone. I regret the title "atheism is stupid" because I know I offended people. But since you have no religion and believe in your atheism, you seem to have no sense when to "shut the hell up". I have been trying to lay out my case for God (which by the way is not sophmoric, unless you consider St. Thomas Aquinis, Pope John Paul II, and a host of other great men sophmoric.

You truly are a jerk. A gutter debator that lowers himself to name calling

[Festa]

no, but sometimes the screen becomes a bit fuzzy, I guess its the anasthesia (ok, if that is spelled wrong, its just spelled wrong)

[BMCDA]

Yeah, start a thread with the title "Theism is stupid" or "Christianity is stupid" and it'd be deleted before the first two replies were made.
Heck, I think even "Islam is stupid" would get it deleted, though I'm not so sure in this case.

[Festa]

but there is evidence--not the type of evidence that says "look over there there is god" but the type of evidence that suggests to think otherwise does not make much sense. Look, if you want to believe that there is no god. Fine, I do not care. But I guess the whole point of my article has been lost (sadly, it is my fault for making the title "atheism is stupid" and for adding in the last paragraph.) What I am saying is that evolution in no way contradicts the exidence of God. In fact, it is perfectly compatable and makes logical sense when thought out. If scientists choose not to believe in god because it has not been proven, fine by me. They have done great service to this country. But, in my humble opinion, I think they believe it because they rely too much on the science factor and not enough of the faith factor.

[Festa]

I am neither ministering nor am I trying to convert anyone. It is inconsiderate losers like you that drive people to atheism more than anything else. (Would you like to consider with the gutter talk or end it?)

[BMCDA]

it is mathmatically impossible for it to be any other way

If it is mathematically impossible then it could easily be proven but no one has ever shown this proof.

[Festa]

Dimensio, my arguement can be summarized in a paragraph from about.com on the reason the scientific method is a poor way in which to judge whether or not there is a God. If you do not like this statement that is fine by me. But it summarizes everything. And I am by no means a fool.

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact. Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_. Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.

[Stone Mountain]

because god is an intelligent being and the scientific method does not work with intelligent beings becuase circumastances change with intelligent beings.

And this is what is supposed to make my question dumb? Why? I'm using the same evidence for God that you did. Your evidence was a prayer answered; I referenced a prayer that was unanswered. Why would you think the prayer that was answered proof of God, but the unanswered prayer not proof of the opposite? I am using the same type of evidence you are.

As for your spelling, I never would have brought it up except that you called my question dumb - in fact, the dumbest thing you have ever heard. When you resort to ad hominem attacks, it is best to have your own house in order.

[Festa]

I know, but it still makes sense to believe it. If you want to wait until math proves the exitence of God, fine. But I find that rather silly when philosophy can do it for you

[Festa]

If God were to act and cure all illness, then we would all be drones with no reason to progress further. The fact that he answered one and not the other does not in any way that the greatness of what he did is lessened

[Festa]

and neither are you apparently. If you think the people I mentioned are below 20th century thinking. You haven't offered one substantial comment to this post