Theists are Irrational?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your faith in spelling makes you delusional. There are TWENTY SIX LETTERS all with the same probability of being right.

P.s. Spelling atheists 4 evar!!!
 
Mersenne said:
No, when I was a child I had many childish beliefs.

There is no god.
Click to expand...
If there is no God, then how do you explain… everything?

Let me guess, 4 billion years ago lightning struck a pile of crapola, and the rest is history, right?

Oh I know, it was the aliens who made everything.

Or maybe we’re not really here at all. :hypno:

:rolleyes:
 
Mersenne said:
Yes it is. That’s how it is defined by most people. It’s not a strawman, it’s reality.
Click to expand...
Please present evidence that:
  1. Most people define faith as being belief without evidence, and
  2. That what most people define something as determines what reality is.
A quick check of the dictionary will reveal about 8 definitions of faith, IIRC. Almost all don’t fit your supposed “most people” definition. More important to the discussion at hand, in order to make a substantive point, you need to address not your strawman definition of faith, but rather the definition of faith used by the Church.
Mersenne said:
The natural is the percievable world. Anything that isn’t part of something we can percieve or might percieve in the future isn’t part of reality. Therefore, anythign that is supernatural isn’t part of reality.
Click to expand...
So, IOW, your “logical demonstration” above requires that you be able to accurately predict what we might not “percieve in the future”. You’re arguing a priori that “supernatural” means and will always mean “imperceptible”.

BTW, you do know that science regularly involves things that are imperceptible. No one, for example, has ever actually perceived an electron.
Mersenne said:
And no, I’m not kidding. There are no compelling proofs of god, and the vast majority of the scientific world agrees with me.
Click to expand...
Please present evidence that “the vast majority of the scientific world agrees” with you. Then demonstrate that you’re not engaged in a fallacious ad populum argument.
melbourne_guy said:
yeh attacking my grammar is probably your best and safest argument.
Click to expand...
What argument? You’ve not presented anything close to an actual argument. All you’ve done is dismiss and insult.

Please present an actual argument. If you want to demonstrate that someone who believes in God is irrational, you need to present convincing evidence that it is irrational to believe in God. Whinging about old books and bragging about how logical atheists are hardly constitutes an argument.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I actually posted my reason to why theists are delusional on the first page.
 
melbourne_guy said:
I actually posted my reason to why theists are delusional on the first page.
Click to expand...
You mean this?:
40.png
melbourne_guy:
Atheists call theists delusional because not only do you have no evidence for God but you then go ahead and assume how he would act and what traits he would have, who he would smite and who he loves. You make these assuptions based on a 2000 year old book where you need faith not only in the supernatural but in the men or organisation who wrote it i.e the catholic church. Even with all the absurd claims like a 6000 year old earth and a global flood you still persist to believe excusing all the errors as metaphors or misinterpretations.

Its not delusional to have belief that there may have been of a creator that started the big bang, but nobodys 100% sure of that because theres no evidence! to then attach a personality to it and have a relationship with it is DELUSIONAL!!
But i dont blame anyone for being delusional because life is lonely and scary and the thought of something looking out for us is comforting.
Click to expand...
That’s not an argument. It’s just a string of insults and unsupported claims packed into a straw-stuffed man. Please advance an actual argument that involves the presentation of evidence.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
R_McGeddon said:
Not this old chestnut again.

Atheism is the absence of faith.
Click to expand...
Faith is belief in things not proven. To believe the universe exists without God is just as unproven as to believe it exists due to God. Every worldview has faith at its core. If you disagree, offer your proof as to how the universe exists without God.
 
Mersenne said:
Okay, now what is natural?

I’ll speed this up a bit.

The natural is the percievable world. Anything that isn’t part of something we can percieve or might percieve in the future isn’t part of reality.
Click to expand...
This is just inventing definitions to arrive at the desired conclusion.
 
Mersenne said:
I’m not, I’m saying if you are going to run on that logic, maybe you should.

It makes you delusional, as I pointed out in my first post.
Click to expand...
Then I shall be a little more clear…Feel free to think I’m delusional. Matters not to me. A great many people have thought a great many things about me…some of them true, so not. I have the distinct advantage of knowing who among them is right. I’m afraid you don’t fit into that category.
 
ATTENTION:

The tone of this thread is very rapidly deteriorating and it has been pruned and posts edited.

If the discussion does not improve, effective immediately this thread will be closed.

Please review the Forum Rules and Banned Topics and insure that every post from now on complies with them.
MF
 
Originally Posted by Mersenne
God is supernatural and supernatural things by definition are incredibly unlikely to exist.

Newbie2:
:confused: By who’s definition? That’s hogwash. Show me a reference (objective) where supernatural is defined as such. :rolleyes:
Mersenne said:
Define supernatural in such a way that it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
OK:
  1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
  2. a: departing from what is usual or normal expecially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost of spirit)
    From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Says nothing about the liklihood or unliklihood of anything supernatural existing. Your definition is your own opinion, not supported by anything authoritative, which is fine, as long as you are intellectually honest and admit it is merely your unsupported opion and not widely held as fact.

Your turn. Let’s see something to back up your definition 🤷
 
Originally Posted by Mersenne
God is supernatural and supernatural things by definition are incredibly unlikely to exist.

Newbie 2’s reply:
:confused: By who’s definition? That’s hogwash. Show me a reference (objective) where supernatural is defined as such. :rolleyes:
Mersenne said:
Define supernatural in such a way that it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
OK:
  1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
  2. a: departing from what is usual or normal expecially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost of spirit)
    From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Says nothing about the liklihood or unliklihood of anything supernatural existing. Your definition is your own opinion, not supported by anything authoritative, which is fine, as long as you are intellectually honest and admit it is merely your unsupported opion and not widely held as fact.

Your turn. Let’s see something to back up your definition 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top