In answer to: How do you know you are right?

That's not what I said. Whether He exists or not, if the belief in him is enough to bring even a small bit of happiness, why should you try to take that away from them?

What do you do to change it? The false hope that you have, that every little bit counts, is similar to that of belief in a God.

I would persist in something I have faith in. Whether you, or anyone else believe in it or not does not impact my beliefs.

I don't come on these forums preaching

Who are you to tell my what I believe in is wrong?

It is straight to the point, this thread's examples all come from a religious standpoint. Every atheist's argument on this thread is about God not existing.
If he does not exist, then why can't you let those who do believe in him live in blissful ignorance?

 

If they had a belief about Santa Claus coming to save them from a comet in 20 years, wouldn't you try to shake them out of their idiocy?

Actually, working towards ending suffering in the world has tangible results. Going to Calcutta, and treating the sick can make a very real difference to dozens of dying people, and perhaps even save their life. I would hardly say that that is a false hope.

Why would you have faith in something? If you do it just for comfort, then you are essentially practicing "doublethink".

Who is a parent to tell their child that Santa Clause is not real?

If religious believers genuinely wanted to believe quietly in ignorance, then fair enough. I'd probably leave them alone most of the time. However, this is the real world. Religious people are large in number, and very active. They don't want to believe quietly in ignorance, they want to believe publicly, loudly, and correct those who don't believe.







No, we're not going to stop. No, we're not going to drop the issue. We're going to keep on fighting, until every single last one of you is defeated.

 

that second last picture is simply embarrassing >_< I hate it when Catholics do that.

Save them from what? Rudolf the red nosed reindeer?

I found out from my friends at school? And technically he is real. St Nicholas was a real person

How is having faith in God because "the idea fills your heart with happiness" a mutually contradictory belief?

Have you actually done this?

 

The specifics aren't important. Just imagine that such a crazy cult exists.

You know what I mean. Who is any person to tell another that Santa Clause isn't real?

I'm talking about Santa Clause, the big red-suited jolly present-giver, not St. Nicholas.

You're basically saying "Yes, I agree, all the evidence is against me, but let us believe, even if we're wrong, because it gives us comfort!" It's almost as if you know you're wrong, but prefer to be in the wrong.

I haven't gone to Calcutta, no, but would you please stop arguing irrelevant points? My main point was that it's not a delusion to help others. It's not false hope.

 

What an unfair double team: Shredderbeam/DropKick Murphys VS. Darkgroove. Once again I feel the need to intervene and join the side of the underdog (in this specific thread at least). Now, again, I see the so called rationale: "My argument is more rational than yours, therefore I am right." How can I say this lightly without insulting the two proclaimed atheists... Have you graduated Middle School yet? I feel like I am constantly repeating myself, not only on this thread, but on others as well. For example, my first post on this thread explained how this topic cannot realistically and logically be debated upon. Yet the clever DropKick Murphys completely bypasses the logic and attacks the last sentence of the argument, in essence, attempting to argue what I just rationally argued was irrational to debate. So here comes some much needed aid in the defense of Darkgroove.

Watch the imagination. As I said in an earlier post on this thread "Irrationality is defined as a point without valid reasoning or accurate judgment." Imagination is invalid because, to state the obvious, it is imaginary, and therefore irrational. So thats one strike against your quest to rationally support atheism. Ouch.

Personally, being the materialistic person I am, I would love to see some hard evidence supporting your ideas. Since I know the likelihood of you actually having that evidence is minimal, once again, you have made an invalid argument. Starting to wish you didn't get into a debate that is virtually impossible to win?

He can stop making irrelevant points when you start making some valid points. Until then, continue the insanity.
____________________________________________________________
Now, to direct your attention once again to the reasoning behind why this cannot be rationally debated, please take some time to read this...

And before you specifically attack the paragraph above...Go directly to the source to make sure it hasn't already been done and responded to.

 

Imagination is useful. If you can postulate a hypothetical, you can use it to make an example. Do you understand what an example is? It helps people to understand some concepts when they are not capable of approaching the original concept directly.

Which ideas do you want evidence for? If it's the non-existence of God, you would do well to be familiar with the term "burden of proof".

All of my posts have been valid.

The irrational cannot exist in reality. If you accept the irrational, you are irrational. There is then no use arguing with you.

 

I'm to tired to even be dealing with this useless topic in the first place, and somehow you all manage to throw some pointless response back into my face. How many times do I have to rub each and every theory of yours into the ground... If I need to specifically prove that each and every one of the points you have made cannot be considered evidence, much less even rational in my opinion, then I will do it. Atheists seem to have an inability to understand that THERE IS NOT AN ANSWER OR SOLUTION TO THIS DEBATE. You cannot prove to me in any way God does not exist, nor can I prove to you God does exist. You cannot give me any rationale as to why it is impossible because you would just be theorizing which IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. Therefore any argument you have either supporting the existence of God or visa versa is IRRATIONAL by definition. Sure imagination and theories are useful ONLY if they can eventually be proven. Well guess what buddy... its not gonna happen so you can buy your ticket back to the real world now. Once again, to prevent any further confusion; in case you didn't understand my first post, which was quoted in my last post, allow me to sum it up in one sentence, yet again: Debating this topic without proof or evidence to support either end of the arguments, makes every argument invalid due to the infinite impossibility to test your "hypothesis." Now by definition, what does that make every post on this thread as a whole that argues the existence of God?... Oh ya I know... Irrational.

Sure, like I said in the above paragraph, useful if the idea can be tested or in any way proven. In this case, it is not a valid way of arguing your belief.

See above paragraph.

Ya O.K. I will prove them all to be irrational in my next post. To tired to deal with hypothetical situations at the moment when there are greater things to worry about...such as the state of the American Economy and Politics.

Then, as your game would be played, you are paradoxical, and can therefore cannot exist in reality. That puts us on equal ground considering our inability to exist in reality. This is where things become interesting.

 

I will say this again. The burden of proof rests upon the believers. Can you understand that? If you believe in Santa, grand, but I won't until you prove it to me.

No, it is logic. An all-powerful God is logically impossible. Concede this most minor of points!

Postulating a hypothetical is a perfectly valid way of arguing a belief.

I am not an irrational thing. I don't see how I cannot exist in reality.

 

I agree with you here, when you say that God must be rational. If the concept of God is irrational, and a contradiction, then that God cannot exist.

The concept of God can be rational, though. I believe in a God who is very powerful, but not all-powerful, very knowledgeable, but not all-knowing. There is no contradiction in this God, so it can exist in reality.

 

Sure, that is possible. Though, I am unlikely to believe without evidence.

 

What if God spoke directly to you, impressed upon you the fact of his existence, and left, leaving you with no evidence. Would you then believe?

 

If I had reliable people around me so I knew I did not hallucinate, then yes, I would. I would be irrational not to. The problem is, that hasn't happened.

 

That's actually an interesting question. For this I would have to make the assumption that upon his visitation he left me with undeniable proof of his own existence, so as to eliminate the possibility of hallucination, etc.

I'm fairly certain I would believe in his existence, but it wouldn't really affect me in day-to-day life. See, a God whose existence cannot be proven, and one whose effect on life cannot be predicted or verified will, for all intents and purposes, not exist. That is, until I have evidence that using theistic models to explain and predict behaviour is somehow more accurate, I have no reason to incorporate him into my decision-making mechanism.

 

If god was to exist, then he would have to exist out-side reality. Therefore, religious people could be thought of as crazy.

 

Saying anything exists outside of reality is not only useless and detrimental to progress, but it's also rather delusional.

Not to mention, if scientists wanted to use their method of argument they can just say "the big bang occured outside of the constraints of reality". Except that they know better.

 

If it occurred out-side reality, it would be probable as imaginary. And its been proved that it occurred.

 

It has not been proved that it occurred. Note, it is called: "The Big Bang Theory."

 

AHAHAHAHAHA. You don't even know what a scientific theory is.