Support NeoGAF

[njean777]

You underestimate the power of the human body, and there is much we do not know about its ingenuity.

As you said, that is largely contingent upon the environment that you are in, since I'm sure there are a notable number of cases where the opposite occurs.

Oh very true, I have seen quite a few religious people act ignorant (my dad), but both sides have their rotten apples. TBH I am pretty sure the polite religious people are never heard from since they accept people for who they are, not what they believe.

 

[Kurdel]

Science isn't meant to discredit religion, as a matter of fact science can not discredit the supernatural. It can find arguments for things that were explained as supernatural, but science itself can not prove that god isn't real. Science is not here for that reason.

Science wants to find answers.

Religion wants to give you the answers.

Of course, when they collide, science wins, because it has material evidence to back up it's claims. That is, untill Religion can warp it's way unto the science. "Okay then, God probably planned evolution! Checkmate science!".

 

[The Albatross]

Straw man. That post was in response to the OP, describing people who make claims about empirical evidence for religion, not a descriptor for all religious people.

Funny that you'd consider my post a straw man argument. What, then, would you consider the OPs post that you were replying to, the one that begins with "why do you many religious people believe in magical care bears..." etc, etc.

Frankly, I don't think that you can find a better example of a straw man argument than the OP's post in this thread, so if you were looking to callout straw men, you probably could have done so on post #1, instead of post 180.

 

[EviLore]

Science isn't meant to discredit religion, as a matter of fact science can not discredit the supernatural. It can find arguments for things that were explained as supernatural, but science itself can not prove that god isn't real. Science is not here for that reason.

Non sequitur.

Once again, the OP is about religious people attempting to back up their claims outside the realm of faith. Science is very much concerned with discrediting unsubstantiated claims. "I believe in god because I choose to have faith in it" is irrelevant to science (not counting investigating the psychological and physiological reasons behind this position being taken etc. etc.). "I believe in god because bananas are too perfect to hold in a human hand and must be the result of intelligent design by a supernatural creator" is very much within the purview of science to discredit.

 

[Uchip]

Yes.

boy was i disappointed when i caught my dad eating the cookies we left for santa!

You don't have to be religious to study theology or theologians. Heck, many of world's most well known atheistic philosophers have degrees in religious studies from Yale, Harvard divinity school, etc. I think you're missing something if you think that, to study religion, theology, or god, you have to have been brought up religious.

I didnt say that

 

[Pollux]

Non sequitur.

Once again, the OP is about religious people attempting to back up their claims outside the realm of faith. Science is very much concerned with discrediting unsubstantiated claims. "I believe in god because I choose to have faith in it" is irrelevant to science (not counting investigating the psychological and physiological reasons behind this position being taken etc. etc.). "I believe in god because bananas are too perfect to hold in a human hand and must be the result of intelligent design by a supernatural creator" is very much within the purview of science to discredit.

So you're OK with someone saying "I have faith in God because I choose to, and I don't care if anyone else believes in it or not."?

boy was i disappointed when i caught my dad eating the cookies we left for santa!

Yep.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Can I make a small appeal to Christian folk (this might only pertain to Baptists)? Stop appearing out of the night or showing up on my front doorstep like ninjas with that stupid flyer asking if you are sure if you won't go to hell and cherry picking that quote that “No one gets to the father, but through me.”

It's not a good pitch when this omnipotent God waited a good, long ass time to say, oh yeah, you have to believe in this dude if you want to get into heaven.
Isn't that pretty crucial information to explain if you are a deity? Plus, Jesus didn't condemn people.
That and Jesus didn't really travel that far outside of Judea. That's bad marketing God. WTF.

I don't know. I'd like the idea of a Jesus religion more if it recognized the fact that the dude was a rebel. Organized Christianity seems like a house of new Pharisees' who completely missed the guy's point.

edit: Eh, posted this last night while tired. Apologies if any religious folk took offense. I actually do think a lot of religious folk are good people.

 

[cutmeamango]

Straw man. That post was in response to the OP, describing people who make claims about empirical evidence for religion, not a descriptor for all religious people.

What can I cite? How about that science doesn't accept anecdotal accounts from religious texts as fact, or circular reasoning e.g. "the bible is divinely inspired, therefore it's accurate, and it's accurate because it's divinely inspired," because that's what assertions about empirical evidence for religion boil down to. We don't have any significant measure of empirical evidence for supernatural religious claims; if we did, they would be part of science. If you want me to find you a fuckin' citation for "religious claims are fundamentally unscientific" to demonstrate that people who run contrary to this don't understand what a faith-based position is and what an empirical position is, then, uhhh, here you go, have fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

That's not even responding his question!

 

[Uchip]

So you're OK with someone saying "I have faith in God because I choose to, and I don't care if anyone else believes in it or not."?

theres not much we can do about willful ignorance

 

[Pollux]

Can I make a small appeal to Christian folk (this might only pertain to Baptists)? Stop appearing out of the night or showing up on my front doorstep like ninjas with that stupid flyer asking if you are sure if you won't go to hell and cherry picking that quote that “No one gets to the father, but through me.”

It's not a good pitch when this omnipotent God waited a good, long ass time to say, oh yeah, you have to believe in this dude if you want to get into heaven.
Isn't that pretty crucial information to explain if you are a deity? Plus, Jesus didn't condemn people.
That and Jesus didn't really travel that far outside of Judea. That's bad marketing God. WTF.

I don't know. I'd like the idea of a Jesus religion more if it recognized the fact that the dude was a rebel. Organized Christianity seems like a house of new Pharisees' who completely missed the guy's point.

Very sad but 110% true. My biggest complaint with the Church.

 

[njean777]

Science wants to find answers.

Religion wants to give you the answers.

Of course, when they collide, science wins, because it has material evidence to back up it's claims. That is, untill Religion can warp it's way unto the science. "Okay then, God probably planned evolution! Checkmate science!".

Thats fine it wants to find answers, but it can not prove the reality if their is a god or not. You are already jaded on the side for science which is fine, as just from your wording I can tell.

But the proof of their being a god or not will not ever be truly answered. The only way to find out is to die. Which everybody will find out one day.

Non sequitur.

Once again, the OP is about religious people attempting to back up their claims outside the realm of faith. Science is very much concerned with discrediting unsubstantiated claims. "I believe in god because I choose to have faith in it" is irrelevant to science (not counting investigating the psychological and physiological reasons behind this position being taken etc. etc.). "I believe in god because bananas are too perfect to hold in a human hand and must be the result of intelligent design by a supernatural creator" is very much within the purview of science to discredit.

True this isnt the argument at hand.

Very sad but 110% true. My biggest complaint with the Church.

/agree, I am a christian myself and really dislike the mindset of most church going christians. Not all mind you, but a lot.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

Science isn't meant to discredit religion, as a matter of fact science can not discredit the supernatural. It can find arguments for things that were explained as supernatural, but science itself can not prove that god isn't real. Science is not here for that reason.

lol
Just to give an example: you can run experiments in and around churches that pray for the sick to be healed. You can compare the effects of those sitting in the pews to some with one foot outside of the church and one foot inside to others who are a km away to others who are even further away.

Some alleged supernatural events, like Noah's flood, can also be either confirmed or disproven extremely easily.

 

[Kurdel]

Thats fine it wants to find answers, but it can not prove the reality if their is a god or not. You are already jaded on the side for science which is fine, as just from your wording I can tell.

But the proof of their being a god or not will not ever be truly answered. The only way to find out is to die. Which everybody will find out one day.

This comic spells out the difference between me and you.

 

[The Albatross]

I didnt say that

Sorry, it just seemed like a weird reply. Maybe I misread, but it looked like the dude asked, "what theologians have people who bash religion actually read?" And the response was, "I never thought about god because I was never brought up with the idea [of god]." So, in a way, to respond to the question of, "what theologians have you read," with "none" because "I wan't brought up with a thought about God," seems to imply (to me) that you're saying that unless you're brought up with the thought of god, you shouldn't be reading theology.

While, obviously, Theology does end with God (or well, properly understood, it should), theology is terribly revealing about the human condition as well. It's why Augustine of Hippo isn't just considered an incredible Theologian, but also one of the greatest thinkers in Western philosophy.

 

[Radec]

This is like explaining something that the OP could never understand even if he want to.

 

[njean777]

lol
Just to give an example: you can run experiments in and around churches that pray for the sick to be healed. You can compare the effects of those sitting in the pews to some with one foot outside of the church and one foot inside to others who are a km away to others who are even further away.

Some alleged supernatural events, like Noah's flood, can also be either confirmed or disproven extremely easily.

Is there a god... How did the universe start? What caused the universe to form? The argument from science is invalid in proving if their is a god, since science is not in the business of trying to prove if supernatural beings exist. Events can be discredited, but not the question of "Is there a god or not?"

You may try to argue the side from quantum mechanics, but that is a false argument since physicists themselves are still trying to figure out quantum mechanics.

 

[The Albatross]

That's not even responding his question!

He's actually right that my post is a bit of a straw man, if Evilore's post was merely referring to the "religious people" in the OPs post.

The problem is, though, that the OP's post is the most ridiculous strawman in this entire thread. So, to wait until post 182 to call out a strawman ... when he's affirming a ridiculous "care bear believing religious person" straw man, is just absurd.

You simply can't find a bigger straw man than the op's post. And if Evilore is affirming that post with his, then frankly, he's building far more strawmen than I am.

 

[njean777]

This comic spells out the difference between me and you.

This comic spells out that you are very smug with your argument, you still have not proven there isnt a god, nor can you.

 

[Sayah]

There are plenty of religious people who didn't grow up with heavy handed bible thumping parents and came to their decision of their on volition. They were allowed to question and doubt and wonder, and probably have a stronger "faith" than those rigid fundies that were indoctrinated.

Sort of what I was getting at but not really.
I think it's quite insulting to tell religious people that they are only religious because they were born into it. It's like assuming they don't do any sort of thinking of their own and question their own beliefs. That's why I brought up converts as an example because they aren't born into it and follow whichever faith with their own thinking and questioning.

Then there's also the other posts questioning critical thinking skills and discussing schizophrenia. It's quite sad that such overarching generalizations are made. There is a certain kind of arrogance in claiming people of faith to be delusional and claiming yourself to be far more intelligent and "above the influence."

And then I'm seeing statistical studies for I.Q. tests. It's far too absurd and this whole thread is a mess.

 

[foodtaster]

this thread failed before i finished reading the title. by very definition faith cannot be "backed up"

 

[Zaptruder]

I absolutely agree, and that is the reason why I favor the exploration of scientific knowledge more so than anything else. I guess my point is that, in the defense of theists, we should be able to entertain ourselves with the possibility. Science and faith in my opinion, should never separate as they make the perfect combination. And I appreciate Zaptruders response as well as other individuals because if any of you were too argumentative, you'd probably accuse me of backtracking at this point. I tend to slightly shift my opinions and ideals by the minute as I am always trying to find the right answer to something(as silly as that may sound).

No, not at all. We should always be willing to adapt our beliefs and understandings in the face of compelling new evidence/thinking. The mechanism that allows for this is the same mechanism that allows us to get at the most accurate answers as we possibly can.

 

[njean777]

Sort of what I was getting at but not really.
I think it's quite insulting to tell religious people that they are only religious because they were born into it. It's like assuming they don't do any sort of thinking of their own and question their own beliefs. That's why I brought up converts as an example because they aren't born into it and follow whichever faith with their own thinking and questioning.

Then there's also the other posts questioning critical thinking skills and discussing schizophrenia. It's quite sad that such overarching generalizations are made. There is a certain kind of arrogance in claiming people of faith to be delusional and claiming yourself to be far more intelligent and "above the influence."

And then I'm seeing statistical studies for I.Q. tests. It's far too absurd and this whole thread is a mess.

Yep, I have questioned god many times and was never brought up to believe or not. I believe from my own experiences which is not a great argument in these kind of threads. The only person that was ever really religious in my life was my dad, and he didnt get heavy handed in it until I was a teenager.

 

[EviLore]

So you're OK with someone saying "I have faith in God because I choose to, and I don't care if anyone else believes in it or not."?

Yes, of course.

There are the larger scale implications of how I'd rather humanity move past faith-based thinking toward skeptical thinking, but I have no interest in proselytizing atheism whatsoever. Being an atheist because you were convinced by a strong orator or through arbitrary reasoning is no better than being a theist because you were convinced by a strong orator or arbitrary reasoning. Coming to the conclusion of atheism naturally as a result of skeptical thinking after critically examining the evidence (or lack thereof) is the way to go.

 

[Zaptruder]

This comic spells out that you are very smug with your argument, you still have not proven there isnt a god, nor can you.

It's a duck!

 

[The Albatross]

There are plenty of religious people who didn't grow up with heavy handed bible thumping parents and came to their decision of their on volition. They were allowed to question and doubt and wonder, and probably have a stronger "faith" than those rigid fundies that were indoctrinated.

I would agree with this. I've been lucky to personally know several Catholic Theologians, and all of them had periods of extreme doubt in their lives. WHile most were brought up in "catholic" families, it was the sort of casual Catholicism that typifies Catholicism. Heck, the most religious guy I know, who is also my best friend, was a pretty devout non-theist/agnostic when we started in college. He has the strongest faith that I know, largely in part because he knows his theology inside and out.

 

[njean777]

It's a duck!

Hey man it was a picture of a duck, and I wanted to believe.

 

[Pollux]

Yes, of course.

There are the larger scale implications of how I'd rather humanity move past faith-based thinking toward skeptical thinking, but I have no interest in proselytizing atheism whatsoever. Being an atheist because you were convinced by a strong orator or through arbitrary reasoning is no better than being a theist because you were convinced by a strong orator or arbitrary reasoning. Coming to the conclusion of atheism naturally as a result of skeptical thinking after critically examining the evidence (or lack thereof) is the way to go.

Got it, I just wanted to clarify.

 

[SlipperySlope]

The amount of anti-religion threads on GAF is starting to bother me.

Do you guys REALLY have to make a new one every single day?

 

[Kurdel]

This comic spells out that you are very smug with your argument, you still have not proven there isnt a god, nor can you.

I am not smug.

If you willfully associate with ignorance and think I am being harsh by championing science and reason then you should take a moment and really think this through.
.

 

[Kinitari]

Thats fine it wants to find answers, but it can not prove the reality if their is a god or not. You are already jaded on the side for science which is fine, as just from your wording I can tell.

But the proof of their being a god or not will not ever be truly answered. The only way to find out is to die. Which everybody will find out one day.

First - particular ideas, depending on your religion and your beliefs on the literalism of some of the ideas put forward in your religion, can be discredited by science. I.E. - Adam and Eve as literal beings and 6,000 year old earth.

Second - You do understand that this argument can be applied to any cockamaney idea out there right? Science can't prove a lot of crazy ideas, do you really want your religion being held up to the same level of authority as pastafarianism and worse?

Third - If we die and nothing happens, we find out nothing - because you can't find out anything when you're dead.

 

[Pollux]

The amount of anti-religion threads on GAF is starting to bother me.

Do you guys REALLY have to make a new one every single day?

Got to hammer that point home bro. Can't have people believing in wacky myths.

 

[Kalnos]

This is true of any gnostic OP, even atheists.

 

[njean777]

I am not smug.

If you willfully associate with ignorance and think I am being harsh by championing science and reason then you should take a moment and really think this through.
.

Not I do not think you yourself are smug, just your posting of a comic bothered me (and led me to that reasoning), I have no problem with your beliefs as long as you are open to all arguments. Which it seems you are.

First - particular ideas, depending on your religion and your beliefs on the literalism of some of the ideas put forward in your religion, can be discredited by science. I.E. - Adam and Eve as literal beings and 6,000 year old earth.

Second - You do understand that this argument can be applied to any cockamaney idea out there right? Science can't prove a lot of crazy ideas, do you really want your religion being held up to the same level of authority as pastafarianism and worse?

Third - If we die and nothing happens, we find out nothing - because you can't find out anything when you're dead.

That is my argument, science is not here to discredit all religion. Also no, science can not discredit God, it can discredit him creating the universe, Adam and Eve, creationism, but him/her itself can not be disproven. He/she is a supernatural being, which science only adheres to the physical world, not the metaphysical. Pseudo science may try to disprove him/her but it is pseudo.

Also your last point can be argued from both sides. If we die and there is something you are wrong, if we die and there is nothing you are right. So we wont know the outcome of that argument until we both die.

 

[Laughing Banana]

The Albatross: where do you work, if you do not mind me asking?

 

[SlipperySlope]

Got to hammer that point home bro. Can't have people believing in wacky myths.

That's the problem. Extreme Atheists are so much more annoying than religious nuts.

 

[Zzoram]

Lack of critical thinking skills.

Lack of understanding of the scientific method and standards of rigor for evidence.

Desire to address the shortcomings of asserting a purely faith-based position and the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Desire to provide a stronger argument to more effectively proselytize.

You are well spoken. What is your educational background?

 

[Mario]

This comic spells out that you are very smug with your argument, you still have not proven there isnt a god, nor can you.

While science has not and cannot prove there is no god, the comic points to the fact that science has been able to discover and prove things attributed to godly powers as not of divine origin. The "necessity" of a god or gods with respect to everything around us is diminishing, and the gaps for him/them to live in are increasingly marginal, eventually likely relegated to only the event of creation, a point beyond which science may never be able to peer or infer for.

The Bible, for example, makes many claims which have been proven scientifically false. God, as described literally in the Bible, cannot exist according to what science has proven. Some people want to remain in denial and claim otherwise e.g. Young Earth Creationists. Some move on, accepting what we have learned, and adjust their interpretation of the Bible and their definition of God accordingly.

 

[The Albatross]

Yes, of course.

snip

I know you're busy moderating the forums and checking other threads, but I don't want to let this post to get lost:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34331014&postcount=203

I'd agree that my post questioning your original post would be a strawman in so far as your first generalizing post only referred to "those religious people from the OPs post." But, wouldn't you agree that "Those religious people from the OPs post" are a ridiculous strawman, far more ridiculous than the strawman that I incidentally built up in my own reply?

And, if my post is a straw man (in so far as your's only referred to the op's post), wouldn't you be affirming the OPs post from your reply? In effect, building straw men?

If I can be blunt, it really "lacks critical thinking skills" to call out one innocuous straw man (mine), but not call out a very grievous straw man (OPs).

 

[Bungalow Bob]

He's actually right that my post is a bit of a straw man, if Evilore's post was merely referring to the "religious people" in the OPs post.

The problem is, though, that the OP's post is the most ridiculous strawman in this entire thread. So, to wait until post 182 to call out a strawman ... when he's affirming a ridiculous "care bear believing religious person" straw man, is just absurd.

You simply can't find a bigger straw man than the op's post. And if Evilore is affirming that post with his, then frankly, he's building far more strawmen than I am.

You want me to call out people on neogaf who have, in other threads, claimed to be able to back up their religious beliefs or have claimed that their beliefs are more sophisticated than a small child's belief in Care Bears?
Why don't you just try to answer the questions? Especially the 2nd; it should be right up your alley.

 

[Zzoram]

This.

But one can validate their beliefs with their own experiences, it doesn't really work in a grand debate, but for their personal beliefs it's fine. Their beliefs could also be experimented or tested to see if it works (with said person). This empiricism is pretty important in some religions too(buddhism is one, while not really theistic does rely on one examining their beliefs) if I remember correctly..

Well, prayer doesn't work, I'm pretty sure everyone has tried that experiment. Two-way communication with dieties doesn't work either. What else is there to test?

 

[njean777]

While science has not and cannot prove there is no god, the comic points to the fact that science has been able to discover and prove things attributed to godly powers as not of divine origin. The "necessity" of a god or gods with respect to everything around us is diminishing, and the gaps for him/them to live in are increasingly marginal, eventually likely relegated to only the event of creation, a point beyond which science may never be able to peer or infer for.

The Bible, for example, makes many claims which have been proven scientifically false. God, as described literally in the Bible, cannot exist according to what science has proven. Some people want to remain in denial and claim otherwise e.g. Young Earth Creationists. Some move on, accepting what we have learned, and adjust their interpretation of the Bible and their definition of God accordingly.

Yes, I agree, I have moved on (and fitted him in my life accordingly to my beliefs). I just find it funny that people point to science to disprove god, when science can not do this. It does not deal with supernatural beings, nor should it ever.

 

[foodtaster]

While science has not and cannot prove there is no god, the comic points to the fact that science has been able to discover and prove things attributed to godly powers as not of divine origin. The "necessity" of a god or gods with respect to everything around us is diminishing, and the gaps for him/them to live in are increasingly marginal, eventually likely relegated to only the event of creation, a point beyond which science may never be able to peer or infer for.

The Bible, for example, makes many claims which have been proven scientifically false. God, as described literally in the Bible, cannot exist according to what science has proven. Some people want to remain in denial and claim otherwise e.g. Young Earth Creationists. Some move on, accepting what we have learned, and adjust their interpretation of the Bible and their definition of God accordingly.

If you want to equate religion to that puzzle comic. Then imagine man being the two characters and the puzzle being "The Ultimate Question." The answer shown on the box is "God." Now the puzzle would be on the scale of hundreds of trillions to the power of hundreds of trillions and we have about 30 pieces put together...


...




... it's a duck!

 

[Mario]

Yes, I agree, I have moved on (and fitted him in my life accordingly to my beliefs). I just find it funny that people point to science to disprove god, when science can not do this. It does not deal with supernatural beings, nor should it ever.

There are an infinite number of things science will never disprove. Something both sides should come to understand, with different implications for each.

If you want to equate religion to that puzzle comic. Then imagine man being the two characters and the puzzle being "The Ultimate Question." The answer shown on the box is "God." Now the puzzle would be on the scale of hundreds of trillions to the power of hundreds of trillions and we have about 30 pieces put together...

The number of claims made in the Bible is both finite and limited, and science has explored many of them.

 

[The Albatross]

You want me to call out people on neogaf who have, in other threads, claimed to be able to back up their religious beliefs or have claimed that their beliefs are more sophisticated than a small child's belief in Care Bears?
Why don't you just try to answer the questions? Especially the 2nd; it should be right up your alley.

By 2nd question, do you mean this:

"And also, why do they often claim that their own magical beliefs are more sophisticated than the magical beliefs of others?"

Without prescribing to the individual beliefs of various religions, I think that I could explain why somebody considers their beliefs more sophisticated than somebody else's. I just wonder whether you'd really care to read a few possible answers? Personally, I don't think that you have any interest in somebody answering your question, just throwing out vapid insults in the guise of questions.

 

[njean777]

There are an infinite number of things science will never disprove. Something both sides should come to understand, with different implications for each.

Yep, I agree with you 100%. PREACH IT BRO!!!

 

[Zzoram]

I always have the (kind of) reverse question of why atheists (at least those I've encountered) are always claiming to be purely "scientific/logical." (To the best of my experience/knowledge atheism being the belief that no gods exist, usually coupled with a denial of all spiritual/supernatural possibilities. If there's anything wrong in there, feel free to correct/ignore, as I'm definitely not well versed in religious discussions.)

I mean, if you want to be scientific about things you should be agnostic, far as I can tell, and atheism is just as much of a "faith" as most other things.

Well logic dictates that the default position is always that something DOES NOT EXIST unless some evidence suggests that it does. Therefore, atheism is the default position, and requires no faith.

By default, we don't assume Zeus exists until we find evidence to suggest he does. By default, we don't assume Captain Planet exists until we find evidence to suggest that he does. Since these things are impossible to prove or disprove, due to a lack of evidence of any sort, there is no logical reason to believe any of them exist.

We have no evidence that any gods exist as anything but fairy tales ancient peoples told each other to explain things they didn't understand. Hence, the default position is to assume no gods exist until we get some real evidence that they do. An inability to explain something isn't evidence for divine intervention.

 

[EviLore]

Let's drop the civility a notch!

I would agree with this. I've been lucky to personally know several Catholic Theologians, and all of them had periods of extreme doubt in their lives. WHile most were brought up in "catholic" families, it was the sort of casual Catholicism that typifies Catholicism. Heck, the most religious guy I know, who is also my best friend, was a pretty devout non-theist/agnostic when we started in college.

I have been blessed (in the colloquial sense) to study under, know, graduate with, and (now) work for hundreds of gifted students, who have gone onto become doctors, lawyers, physicists, biologists, teachers, social scientists, theologians, philosophers, authors, and more. And while, of course, many had different belief systems and waivering levels of religiousness, being a Catholic College, a great many were very religious. When I think of, for instance, two of my best friends, who both now have their PhD's in a physical science (one in engineering from a good school, he also has a masters in Catholic Theology, where he wrote his masters thesis on something so mindnumbingly complex, I couldn't keep up with it) another in one of those biologies (admittedly, I am more of a soft-science guy and have trouble remembering one from the othr), both have strong levels of faith belief, but both are also brilliant young scientists.

Religious people: "brilliant, awesome, enlightened, respectful, and also even-handed and carefully considerate of the evidence on both sides!"

No, just scanning videogame forums, imgur, and reddit. Again, I think you have the one "Christianity" thread here, I've seen the one "Islam" thread, and then, what, like 10 threads a day on how religious people strangled OP's cat and think the Earth is flat.

In the past, sure. But, on the internet sites I'm on most regularly, they're pretty much all filled with dickhead atheists who preach to the choir about religious strawmen, and I never hear a peep from the religious folks. There's like that one Christianity thread here, that one Islam thread, and then ~20 threads a week of some antitheist or atheist complaining about what some other person believes. And usually the lone justification of it is because, one day, they heard about a door to door religious person, or maybe they'll link to an article about the crusades.

It is ironic, which is really a bad case for the atheists who make repeated threads like this one.

(and, just to clarify, nontheist, non-religious here)

Frankly, if the people who constant made and contributed to these threads were so sure of themselves and their own personal belief systems, then I don't think that they would need to bring it up so often. Just as the anti-theists will discredit every religious person or theistic person in the world as being delluded or suffering from psychosis (painting broad brushes) I suppose we should just deduce that the anti-theists must, then, suffer from self-confidence daddy issues.

Atheists: "aggressive, smug, ignorant, immature! Oh by the way I'm not an atheist, I'm a 'non-religious non-theist.'"

Self-loathing atheists, sigh. If you're a non-religious non-theist you're an atheist, as much as you don't like the word. A great deal of religious people are nice people, and a great deal of non-religious people are assholes, none of which is relevant to a theological discussion on a message board where participants should be treated at face value whenever possible, and none of which changes the reality of the empirical evidence for religious belief.

 

[njean777]

Let's drop the civility a notch!





Religious people: "brilliant, awesome, enlightened, respectful, and also even-handed and carefully considerate of the evidence on both sides!"





Atheists: "aggressive, smug, ignorant, immature! Oh by the way I'm not an atheist, I'm a 'non-religious non-theist.'"

Self-loathing atheists, sigh. If you're a non-religious non-theist you're an atheist, as much as you don't like the word. A great deal of religious people are nice people, and a great deal of non-religious people are assholes, none of which is relevant to a theological discussion on a message board where participants should be treated at face value whenever possible, and none of which changes the reality of the empirical evidence for religious belief.

I would argue that any religious person that chooses to come into these debates usually tends to be open to argument from atheists (as long as its civil). Something I see a lot less from atheists in these threads.

 

[Kurdel]

Yes, I agree, I have moved on (and fitted him in my life accordingly to my beliefs). I just find it funny that people point to science to disprove god, when science can not do this. It does not deal with supernatural beings, nor should it ever.

So ghosts, UFOs, Sasquatch, the Jersey Devil and Jesus are off limits to science because they don't have any proof?

Things that seem supernatural have been debunked as natural thanks to science. Lighting, rain, floods, heat waves and desease have all been shown to have real explanations.

If you choose to believe certains religious beliefs are impossible to disprove with science, you are delusional. God can never be disproven or proven, you do have a point. All we can do is stack the odds.

 

[Kinitari]

I would argue that any religious person that chooses to come into these debates usually tends to be open to argument from atheists (as long as its civil). Something I see a lot less from atheists in these threads.

Can you give an example? I don't even know what being 'open to argument' means. Atheists on this board love to argue, we're very open to arguments.