Theists are Irrational?

[Mersenne]

funny how scientists prove the existence of dinasours with the fragments of their remaining bones and us Theists prove the existence of God by miracles which have happened (and many are open to the public) and of course people think we should be locked up in a mental hospital.

Well I won’t believe in dinasours until I see one eating my roof

We have plenty more then fragments, and dinasours eating your roof would be good evidence against our current understanding of evolution. That you demand such evidence is further proof that believers should be classified as delusional, just as those who talk to chalkboards or believe that fairies are trying to control their brain would be. And where is this proof of miracles?

Funny how believers take simple parlor tricks as proof of god while they reject the most solid certain theory of all time simply because their interpretation of the bible says it can’t be.

 

[Schultzz]

I provided plenty of arguements. The only arguement you have provide is YOU ARE BLIND GET OUT. You are proving my point. You are a prime example of someone who needs serious mental help.

A statement that you need to believe so you do. Exactly the kind of mentality that is typical in the self-deluded.

Why come to the apologetics section if you’re insulted by the concept of defending your faith. You’re awfully angry, judgemental, and insulting for someone who is suppose to be adhering to a Christian belief system.

I should go to an athiest forum is what indicates to you that I’m a troll? That doesn’t make any sense.

That insult would be more biting if you didn’t write like you were very young. Do you have any idea how poor your grammar is?

As an atheist you may be comforted by the fact that it is no sin to be stupid. But have you ever considered that you may be abusing the privilege?
So you want to hold me to a set of “Christian Rules” yet you claim to not believe in Christianity? What dichotomy! You have just proved that you are a living, breathing, oxymoron. If I need “mental help” you need mental equivalency! (arguement) ? argument Spell much?

 

[fdmilkis]

We have plenty more then fragments, and dinasours eating your roof would be good evidence against our current understanding of evolution. That you demand such evidence is further proof that believers should be classified as delusional, just as those who talk to chalkboards or believe that fairies are trying to control their brain would be. And where is this proof of miracles?

Funny how believers take simple parlor tricks as proof of god while they reject the most solid certain theory of all time simply because their interpretation of the bible says it can’t be.

michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

I think your good-old science is becoming delusional, could it be that logically all those who follow science and reject Theism are being deluded?

I mean a blood coming out of a bread? Did those scientists forget the *most solid certain theory of all time *?

And having faith isn’t all that bad I still get 8 hours of sleep and play billiards and much less anger

 

[R_McGeddon]

Faith is belief in things not proven.

The fact that God is not proven is the reason atheists lack the belief there is a God.

To believe the universe exists without God is just as unproven as to believe it exists due to God.

This is flawed, nobody "knows" how the universe came to be. Science is trying to find out how, theism just assumes how.

Every world view has faith at its core.

Not every world view does.

If you disagree, offer your proof as to how the universe exists without God.

There is no proof how the universe exists. The theist assumes God, the atheist doesn’t.

 

[mlchance]

My point does not require reality to warp to fit definitions.

So, IOW, you can’t back up your assertion about how most people define “faith” or justify you frequent use of fallacious arguments from popularity.

Typical religious tactic, you like to switch usages half way. “I can believe in god using faith because faith is believe without evidence” then when the ridiculousness of that is pointed out you switch to “Oh, but faith isn’t believing without reason.” You can’t have it both ways. Either you’re delusional or present your proof.

Considering I’ve made neither statement, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Since you can’t demonstrate your definition of faith is the one most often used, your argument collapses. Furthermore, you continue to beat on that strawman, choosing an obviously weak definition to attack rather than deal with how the Church defines faith.

So, to keep track of fallacious arguments you’ve advanced so far:

1. Argument from popularity about the alleged most common definition of faith.
2. Strawman that refuses to deal with the Church’s explanation of faith.

That’s how people use it and how it shows up in the dictionary.

There’s that argument from popularity again.

They perceive it indirectly, and all perception is indirect. Consider that sight is just photons hitting the eye.

Observations of electrons extremely indirect. They are imperceptible, much like a whole host of phenomena related to quantum physics. So, then, quantum physics must be supernatural, at least according to you.

The demonstration is right there in my post, because if you don’t take it out of context, I wasn’t trying to prove my case by saying “the majority of the scientific world agrees with me”…

You made a claim, namely that the majority of the scientific world agrees with you. Please present evidence that this claim is true and not just another fallacious argument from popularity. You can do that, can’t you?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Thing]

Mark:

BTW, you do know that science regularly involves things that are imperceptible. No one, for example, has ever actually perceived an electron.

Mersenne:

They perceive it indirectly, and all perception is indirect. Consider that sight is just photons hitting the eye.

Y’know…I may be wrong but if you attempt to measure an electron then it is no longer present and if you cannot measure it directly how can you be scientifically sure that its there.

There are theoretical physicists who have said; I do not know if reality is a dream - in their own words.

 

[royal_archer]

So are you asking what started life? I’m not particularly sure. I guess that means it must have been god. You know what else. I’m not sure what I’m going to eat for breakfast tommorow. I guess that means I’m going to eat god.

Just because we haven’t discovered something doesn’t mean the answer is automatically god. We have no reason to believe god had to have started life. You’re the one suggesting a ridiculous cop-out “blam, everything is here” theory.

Isn’t the “Blam, everything is here” theory AKA “Big Bang” the theory put out by scientist. What about the laws of the conservation of mass and energy? What was the trigger or th e prelude to the Big Bang? An Arrow flying is significant (although not absolute) proof of a Bow and an Archer.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who have participated in the discussion. This thread is now closed.
MF