Send a Message
to critical-thinker

Comments

35

Joined

Aug 17, 2010

critical-thinker's Favorites

critical-thinker Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Religion

'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma

You are correct about this, but unfortunately in America as a whole the religious do donate and volunteer more than secular individuals. See the following study: http://www.hoover. org/publications/p olicy-review/artic le/6577  (Jul 8, 2013 | post #25)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

Give me a fact based argument for a-unicornism that shows not believing in them is true? Give me a fact based argument for a-mermaidism that shows not believing in them is true? Give me a fact based argument for a-Toothfairyism that shows not believing in them is true?" Your question is illogical. You constantly spew illogical fallacies all over the place and expect others to be able to respond or answer them. One cannot answer an illogical question like the one(s) you present with a logical answer.You constantly change the 'goalposts' for what you will accept from others for 'answers', and you constantly assert things with no logical reasoning or evidence to support it. Nothing anyone here says to you will ever fulfill your 'moving goalpost, illogical' requirements enough to 'convince' you of anything. Do everyone here a favor and read up how to actually argue logically and then you can continue(if you must). For the last time....YOU are making a claim. Claim: Deity exists and interacts with us in ___way. YOU have the burden of proof for said claim. YOU are required to support your claim with evidence if you wish to convince others to beleive you. YOU do not get to dictate what you want from the people who not believe you. Give us evidence for your claim.(Only if you can do it logically) We're waiting.  (Jan 13, 2011 | post #1000)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

I don't think you understand how science works. We take observations/testi ng/study about the universe using the scientific method and draw conclusions from it. We don't take assumptions or assertions on what some individuals want to exist and make up a 'separate realm' for these asserted things to exist in. You don't assert what you want/like to be true and then invent apologetics, illogical reasoning,theology , 'holy books' 'metaphysical explanations' etc. as supposed facts/truth/eviden ce for your already drawn conclusions. Science doesn't claim 'a supernatural realm could/should/can' exist because it has observed nothing and collected no evidence for such a thing. The concept of 'making something up because people assert there has to be something' isn't what science does. You use the word' could' as if science has to say that ANYTHING is 'possible'. No, it doesn't have to say that. It tells us what there is. What there isn't is any evidence of deities and other such 'supernatural magical' things. Saying that 'you' personally think/want/wish there 'is a deity/supernatural thing' is no different than a child personally thinking/wanting/w ishing that there is a Santa Clause or a Tooth Fairy. It is completely illogical to make the assumption that a deity/supernatural realm exists because you want it to or can't/don't understand how science actually works.  (Jan 13, 2011 | post #935)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

No, it cannot be both ways. Science and the supernatural contradict one another. Science and the 'supernatural' are mutually exclusive. If there were 'supernatural things' interacting with our known reality then we would see it everywhere and nothing could be observed repeatedly,predict ed, etc. by anyone and the study of science(our reality/universe) would be impossible. Ask any scientist about the supernatural's ability to exist/interact with reality/science and they will tell the same thing. Nothing has ever been attributed to a 'supernatural', 'magic', 'deity' cause. You cannot claim that there are 'supernatural' forces constantly at work in the universe.You have no evidence for that claim. Things that can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  (Jan 13, 2011 | post #821)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

I don't need to 'rule out the possibilities' of anything. The odds 'for or against' something are completely irrelevant. Things that do not have evidence for them do not require and won't get my 'belief' or acceptance of them.That would be illogical and irrational to believe something without evidence. Why does science have to know the answer to everything in order to 'rule out deities' for you? The study of science would be IMPOSSIBLE with supernatural forces/beings etc. existing. Nothing would require physical laws, theories/laws would not be able to predict or observe something more than once etc. because 'magic/supernatura l' wouldn't be bound by any sort of 'rules'. If there were such things interacting with us/reality etc., then we would have evidence of it, and nothing would follow any set of 'laws/rules' of physics/chemistry, biology etc. Science(our reality) and the supernatural are mutually exclusive. Both things cannot occur or 'be' at the same time/place. Either the world is 'magic/supernatura l' and be manipulated and changed at any moment by anything 'supernatural', or it is observable, predictable, and able to be studied because it adheres to the same natural laws/theories/proc esses all the time. What we see is the latter. We have a universe that has no evidence of the supernatural and no requirement for anything supernatural what-so-ever. There. I just logically deconstructed the entire concept of anything 'supernatural', 'magical', or 'above-outside-or beyond our reality in some 'other realm' that interacts with ours'. I don't even have to get specific.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #770)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

Ugh! I can't believe you don't believe in wood elves! I mean come on, the evidence for them are everywhere! You know in your heart-mind that they exist, but you just refuse to admit it to yourself!You're refusing the truth of them all around us! I don't believe in water elves,fire elves,mountain elves, or ground elves, but I HAVE to believe in wood elves because they just have to exist! *sarcastic eye roll* Sorry,I just had to satire that.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #709)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

Humans being intelligent is not evidence for your specific deity known as 'God'(or any deity). Plenty of other species(extinct or not) have a certain amount of intelligence. Other species can easily defeat any one of our other particular traits,but you assume that because we're simply more intelligent right now than other species that the only explanation for that is 'God-did-it'? Your argument is flawed in it's basic requirements. You are,yet again, asserting that there is a deity in the beginning of your argument. Your premise is that 'God created humans to be intelligent' and your conclusion is 'so that's why there is a God'. That's illogical circular reasoning and 'begging the question' logical fallacy. Try again.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #696)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

You don't believe in Thor,Isis,Mithras, Vishnu etc. You're argument can be applied to yourself then as well. It is illogical to expect those who don't believe in a diety to 'prove' their 'non-belief'(one cannot prove a negative regardless). Explanation/justif ication for everything someone could possibly not believe in is irrelevant and unnecessary. It is completely logical to not accept something that has no evidence. Calling someone's argument(or someone) 'pathetic' is (once again) an appeal to ridicule.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #688)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

What's absurd? (Calling someone's argument absurd is a logical fallacy known as appeal to ridicule. Mocking a claim/argument does not show that it is false.) Your ability to make logical debate seems to be flawed. I would suggest reading up on logical fallacies so you know how to make sound/logical arguments in the future. In addition,I must contest that it is unreassonable to constantly assert that 'everyone knows the 'truth' about a deity in their heart-mind(I'm not sure what a heart-mind is exactly) but they simply refuse to 'acknowledge' it. That's not an argument, it is just an assertion which can be rejected.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #686)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

Making the claim that a 'deity exists, and does ______ things' puts the full burden of proof on those making that claim(or claims). Theists have not met the burden of proof for any/all deities. What are you claiming is evidence for your specific deity? Do not assert that there's tonnes of it everywhere and never actually give any of what you claim as 'evidence'. One logically can only accept claims for which there is evidence. It is the default position to not accept claims(aka not believe things) unless they meet the burden of proof.  (Jan 12, 2011 | post #683)

Religion

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope

We have evidence for the current scientific theories. There is no evidence of anything supernatural of any kind,ever. If science works for space travel,machines,ma th,medicine,evolut ion etc, then it works for cosmology/astrolog y and the Big Bang theory too.It doesn't stop working because some people don't like what it says.  (Jan 6, 2011 | post #3)

Religion

Christianity is Older than Judaism

You don't make any sense. Please learn proper punctuation/capita lization,sentence structure,and how to argue a logical point before responding to anyone's posts. All you ever say is 'blah blah TheTorah, blah blah G-d' in some nonsensical way.  (Jan 6, 2011 | post #8)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

Thank you. :)  (Jan 6, 2011 | post #263)

Religion

Atheism 101: Trivia for and about non-believers

There are plenty of extinct hominid species. See here http://www.talkori gins.org/faqs/homs /species.html Evolution also doesn't work in the way that 'every member of a particular species' 'turns into' a new species. Only particular members/groups of a species will change over time and evolove into a new spcies. The previous species can still exist at the same time as the new one.  (Jan 6, 2011 | post #260)