Atheism is stupid

Self | 6-28-02 | Matt Festa

[Festa]

point well taken, but I am not arguing that

[RobRoy]

Why can't humankind understand that belief in a God - whether you call that superior being God, or Allah, or JuJu Bean for that matter - still shows faith of some form?

Based on your statement, I don't see what difference it makes whether or not someone has faith in any god or not. There has to be a reason for faith to exist for it to even be a topic of discussion.

In a nut shell, what is the point or use of "faith in some form?"

[RobRoy]

re: YOUR POST 50: I don't see how a supernatural entity enters into the meaning of any of the above.

This does not surprise me, considering your definitions are wrong. I'm guessing your under 25, or 30 at the most. Keep it up, there's lots more to learn, as there is for me as well.

BTW, in American media, love may be a feeling. But it isn't really. Love is an action! Love is something you do, not something you feel...

[B4Ranch]

complex as a protein molecule

(This is what I said, notice the word YOUR)
Prove to me that YOUR God was behind the protein molecule and then we'll have something to talk about.

You seem to fit the word DUH quite well.

[RobRoy]

Why? How would things be different than they are now, except that we would have longer life expectancies? I don't think that illnesses are the sole impetus for people progressing.

Makes sense to me, except my mind is a limited human one. And this life is not the end-all be-all of why we exist. So your position is based on an incorrect assumption - that the preservation of this temporal life is de-facto a good thing.

[www.makingyouthink.com]

Truth requires no gods, it is a binary descriptor -- either any given proposition is true or it is false.

Would you be open to there being a basis for truth, something that reality is measured up to? Such as zero, anything that is greater than zero exists, right? There also is a need for this basis to "hold everything together." So that reality is based on two different foundations. Not some sort of supernatural force that defies the laws of the universe, but just a basis. I know that sounds wierd and kinda out there, but what do you think?

[Stone Mountain]

So your position is based on an incorrect assumption - that the preservation of this temporal life is de-facto a good thing.

So when the church called the healing of the woman mentioned above a "miracle," it wasn't defacto a good thing?

[AndrewC]

are all the people who died after being prayed for evidence against God?

No, because all people die after being prayed for, eventually.

[Festa]

Your skirting the issue with this. No one should be arguing whether or not it is a good thing. Only that science has no explanation for it. None. Something, somewhere, out of the ordinary, happened. If you want to believe it is blind chance (when this is not even the only case) go ahead.

[RobRoy]

So when the church called the healing of the woman mentioned above a "miracle," it wasn't defacto a good thing?

Everything God does is good, and if it does, in fact defy the laws of physics, it is, then, a miracle. I believe God performs miracles primarily to demonstrate who he is, not to eliminate suffering, which can be quite instructive. Otherwise, why just some and not others? It is obviously not based on who deserves to be healed. If it was Gods will to answer all prayers for healing, there would be very little death in the world.

On a side note, God healed my wifes back a few months ago. She had had the pain for decades and one night I felt compelled (I couldn't explain why at the time) to lay my hand on her back and pray for the Lord to heal it. Her back felt hot for almost a whole day afterwards and she thought she had really messed it up somehow. Anyway, the next day she caught herself moving in ways she had not moved in decades, without pain! This is not a coincidence that in the thousands of days she has had this pain, the day I prayed over it it was healed. I give credit to Him whom I asked for Healing: Jesus Christ.

She will have the occasional minor back ache now like most people our age do, but the ongoing one no longer exists. It's gone!

[Dimensio]

Er, I'm not really sure what you mean. Truth really doesn't need an absolute frame of reference.

[Dimensio]

You replied to the wrong person.

[Dimensio]

This does not surprise me, considering your definitions are wrong.

Which of my definitions were wrong? Could you point out just where I went wrong? I'm going to stand by my definition of "sound", I'm pretty sure I got that one right.

BTW, in American media, love may be a feeling. But it isn't really. Love is an action! Love is something you do, not something you feel...

Love is an emotion, a result of chemical reactions in the brain. It might directly lead to a person taking an action but it itself is not that action.

Er, well, unless you're using the term "love" as a verb to describe sexual activity. In that case I can agree that love is "something you do", though personally I think that such a simplistic usage for love cheapens the meaning.

[Dimensio]

The burden of proof has always been on you.

What assertion do I make that carries a burden of proof?

Are you saying that creationists have a burden of proof but atheist evolutionists don't?

No, I am not saying that. I am not even suggesting that non-atheist evolutionists have no burden of proof.

The protein molecule is there - it's real - now explain to me how it self-assembled! If you can't explain it, then you PRESUME it did with zero evidence.

I can't explain how the protein molecule self-assembled or how it assembled with the assistance of any external forces. As a result, I don't have any assertions to make regarding it. If you ask me where it ultimately came from I will tell you "I don't know". I don't "presume" that it self-assembled because I personally don't have evidence that it did any such thing. You apparently do have an assertion to make regarding its formation: God did it. As such, you are making an assertion and I would like to see evidence for that assertion.

[B4Ranch]

I apologize for that. The other person doesn't seem to comprehend the thinking of agnostics, does he?

[Misterioso]

Your suggestion that agnosticism is faith-based is stupid. Faith is synonymous with belief, but since the agnostic doesn't even have an opinion on the matter, he doesn't believe in anything.

Well, let me clear one thing up. I'm an atheist. My disdain for agnosticism resides in its unwillingness to address the issue of faith vs. reason. When an agnostic says he has no opinion, he is saying nothing--but hopes that his position will be taken seriously. I point out that his equivocation is a demonstration of his belief in the proposition that there is no way to know if God exists. Of course there is no way to know, since there is no evidence. That's why the belief in God is taken on faith. But instead of recognizing the importance of the lack of evidence, he takes, on faith, that his position is viable and will be understood by everyone as valid. That's how I view agnosticism--faith-based and mealy-mouthed.

[Misterioso]

If your wife was suffering from back pain for so long, why did you wait so long to come to her rescue?

[Misterioso]

The reason that religion is detrimental to a person's outlook on his life is that it encourages him to feel that the world around him is ultimately unintelligible. He then begins to evade the responsibility for resolving some of the more confounding issues that he faces. He allows himself to act in a kind of fog from time to time, telling himself that
it doesn't matter what he does, since his ultimate fate depends on an unknowable force. Our consciousness cannot operate that way. It is designed to provide us knowledge. When we short-circuit our reasoning ability by resorting to faith, in any area of concern, we undermine the sense of control we need to maintain the feeling of competence to deal with living. By closing our minds off to the difficult or perplexing issues that always face us, we implicitly admit that our ability to deal with them is weak. That's not
the path to happiness. It's better not to know something and
accept it, than to pretend to know, especially if you feel you must, so as not to suffer the disapproval of others.

[Festa]

http://www.puretolerance.com/# Introduction