Theists are Irrational?

[melbourne_guy]

It’s no sin to be stupid, but do you ever think that you might be abusing the privilege? You sound like a little kid. How old are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melbourne_gay
Do you just type the first thing that comes into your thick head. Theres no basis for this statement.

Nice one you change my name to melbourne gay and you call me insulting and childish.

 

[melbourne_guy]

No wonder catholicism is dying out, you guys cant even defend your religion on catholic forum, quite sad really.

 

[mlchance]

No wonder catholicism is dying out, you guys cant even defend your religion on catholic forum, quite sad really.

Defend it from whom? Some person in Australia who can’t actually advance a coherent argument?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[5pintLutheran]

Ah! The Rational Response Squad…
The guys who brought the “Blasphemy Challenge” into the world.
The “blasphemy challenge” was created by them, asking the viewer to send them a video via internet, denying the Holy Trinity. For their troubles… A dvd.
So, to add it all up… You damn your soul for a dvd. Pretty ridiculous right? but also pretty terrifying.

I think that these people are so delusional , that no amount of debating will convince them otherwise. It’s just a bunch of bored Atheist/Agnostic kids with nothing better to do than try to shake someone’s faith with thier anti-religious rants. My advice…
Pay them no heed, and warn others about them.
They should not be allowed to use the internet, or any forms of communication, in my opinion.

 

[dmelosi]

Ah! The Rational Response Squad…
The guys who brought the “Blasphemy Challenge” into the world.
The “blasphemy challenge” was created by them, asking the viewer to send them a video via internet, denying the Holy Trinity. For their troubles… A dvd.
So, to add it all up… You damn your soul for a dvd. Pretty ridiculous right? but also pretty terrifying.

I think that these people are so delusional , that no amount of debating will convince them otherwise. It’s just a bunch of bored Atheist/Agnostic kids with nothing better to do than try to shake someone’s faith with thier anti-religious rants. My advice…
Pay them no heed, and warn others about them.
They should not be allowed to use the internet, or any forms of communication, in my opinion.

Yep, I caught that too…kids laughing as they make fun of anything and everything.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This discussion borders on the kind of lack of charity that will get threads closed and people cited.

I am suggesting that you each take this very general warning to heart and post accordingly.

This thread has been pruned.
MF

 

[clmowry]

No wonder Catholicism is dying out, you guys cant even defend your religion on catholic forum, quite sad really.

The Catholic Church is a billion plus strong and growing. This is a very interesting definition of “dying out”.

So is the only argument you are putting forth that the number of those sharing a belief defines truth and or rationality of that belief?

This is a very weak argument, but ok, if you insist.

Let us see. A quick internet search turned up one source from 2005 has the following:

33.06% of the world’s population was Christian.

Atheists constituted roughly 2.35%.

Even if we give Atheists credit for the 11.9% referring to themselves as “non-religious” (which is of course not that same thing) the numbers still favor the Christians.

Ok.

The vote is in and that settles it then.

Christianity must be the truth and non-theists must be the irrational ones.

Maybe you would like to put forth a stronger “proof” that believing in God is irrational.

Chuck

 

[buffalo]

Why bother with us delusionals? Please be tolerant of our delusions. We are happy experiencing God.

 

[Aleii]

The Catholic Church is a billion plus strong and growing. This is a very interesting definition of “dying out”.

So is the only argument you are putting forth that the number of those sharing a belief defines truth and or rationality of that belief?

This is a very weak argument, but ok, if you insist.

Let us see. A quick internet search turned up one source from 2005 has the following:

33.06% of the world’s population was Christian.

Atheists constituted roughly 2.35%.

Even if we give Atheists credit for the 11.9% referring to themselves as “non-religious” (which is of course not that same thing) the numbers still favor the Christians.

Ok.

The vote is in and that settles it then.

Christianity must be the truth and non-theists must be the irrational ones.

Maybe you would like to put forth a stronger “proof” that believing in God is irrational.

Chuck

Wow, the numbers game
Lets talk about how many people believed the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

[buffalo]

Wow, the numbers game
Lets talk about how many people believed the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth.

Yeah - exactly how many did believe the world was flat?

**The Myth of the Flat Earth

I love my delusions.
**

 

[justinthemartyr]

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. Therefore, anythign that is supernatural isn’t part of reality. God contridicts everything we know about how the world functions.

isn’t part of reality?

so according to you, before we had scientists who could explain the wind and what it is and where it comes from, and why we cannot see, it, would say that it was not aprt of reality? What about the mind? you can’t see the mind. Can you see my mind? no, you can only see the results of my mind, does thta make it a non reality? what about gravity? because you cannot see it, does that make it a non reality? no

The direct effects of God happen all the time, and nature in itself is the greatest proof for God initially. the intelligence behind the existing matter is not explainable in any other way thatn that somethging far greater and much more wise than humans can ever think of being, is behind all that is.

 

[R_McGeddon]

isn’t part of reality?

so according to you, before we had scientists who could explain the wind and what it is and where it comes from, and why we cannot see, it, would say that it was not part of reality? What about the mind? you can’t see the mind. Can you see my mind? no, you can only see the results of my mind, does that make it a non reality? what about gravity? because you cannot see it, does that make it a non reality? no

You should re-read his post, he said perceivable. All the things you mention are perceivable.

The direct effects of God happen all the time, and nature in itself is the greatest proof for God initially. the intelligence behind the existing matter is not explainable in any other way that something far greater and much more wise than humans can ever think of being, is behind all that is.

The "I can’t explain it, so it must be God" argument, is old, tired and not really up to much.

 

[Mersenne]

According to whom? You? well i had better get on the band wagon and join your club of assumers. AA? Assumers anonymous?

No, that’s just reality, no assumptions required.

I was raised with no faith. Became an alcoholic and drug addict thief at an early age.
Stole for a living, did two years in jail after a boys home. Was homosexual from as early as I could remember. Did everything to try to escape these things, but nothing human, no scientist, no drugs, no nothing human helped.

I said a prayer one day when I was at the end of the option reduction process, and decided to ask God, specifically Jesus christ to forgive me for the wrongs I had done and come into my life, and within 15 seconds, the desires for all those things left me, and my whole thought process, everything that previously drove me as a human, reversed in the blink of an eye.

The ONLY remedy for alcoholism and drug addiction, is of a spiritual nature, God if you will. proven by ages of examples.

Now THAT is supernatural reality shared by millions and millions of people. You sir are in the vast minority.

yours is the god of reason, insufficient at best.

What about all the people who quit addictions without god?

 

[Mersenne]

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:

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.

 

[Mersenne]

Please present evidence that:

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.

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

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.

It’s the definition used by religious people when they make statements like “All your evidence means nothing in the face of my faith” 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.

So, IOW, your “logical demonstration” above requires that you be able to accurately predict what we might not “percieve in the future”.

No

You’re arguing a priori that “supernatural” means and will always mean “imperceptible”.

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

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

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

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.

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” I was asking for evidence for the claim that they made. But dishonest tricks seem common for good ol’ honest christians.

 

[Mersenne]

Originally Posted by Mersenne
God is supernatural and supernatural things by definition are incredibly unlikely to exist.

Newbie2:
By who’s definition? That’s hogwash. Show me a reference (objective) where supernatural is defined as such.

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

Okay, that’s your definition, great, cause that’s the definition I used in my proof.

 

[Mersenne]

isn’t part of reality?

so according to you, before we had scientists who could explain the wind and what it is and where it comes from, and why we cannot see, it, would say that it was not aprt of reality?

I never said the unexplained wasn’t part of reality.

What about the mind? you can’t see the mind. Can you see my mind? no, you can only see the results of my mind, does thta make it a non reality? what about gravity? because you cannot see it, does that make it a non reality? no

I can indirectly percieve the mind through the effects that it causes. Gravity I can certainly percieve happening. Simply being transparent doesn’t make something supernatural. Glass is not supernatural. As pointed out to another poster, everything we are aware of is indirect.

The direct effects of God happen all the time

Then you should be able to scientifically prove his existence. Something that has a constant direct effect on the universe is within the purview of science, so stop using the “god is outside of science” everytime it proves he doesn’t exist.

and nature in itself is the greatest proof for God initially. the intelligence behind the existing matter is not explainable in any other way thatn that somethging far greater and much more wise than humans can ever think of being, is behind all that is.

Prove intelligence is behind existing matter.

 

[Schultzz]

can indirectly percieve the mind through the effects that it causes. Gravity I can certainly percieve happening.

I can perceive that you are a troll who cannot spell but might actually be under one. You have made yourself blind to faith. The only argument you can come up with is “prove God to me scientifically”? I suppose it is possible yet not likely to the average person. Let me suggest that even if that proof were laid at your feet, you would still not believe. You have made the choice to NOT believe. That is your free will. Fine. So go your own way. Why come to this site at all? Are you trying to justify your choices? If so then I suggest you go to an Atheist forum. They will agree with you all day. This is what indicates to me you are a troll trying to stir the pot of self-discontent.
Stir away. But a word of advice. You might appear to be a little more credible if you used “Spell Checker”.

 

[fdmilkis]

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

 

[Mersenne]

I can perceive that you are a troll who cannot spell but might actually be under one. You have made yourself blind to faith. The only argument you can come up with is “prove God to me scientifically”?

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.

I suppose it is possible yet not likely to the average person. Let me suggest that even if that proof were laid at your feet, you would still not believe.

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

You have made the choice to NOT believe. That is your free will. Fine. So go your own way. Why come to this site at all? Are you trying to justify your choices?

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.

If so then I suggest you go to an Atheist forum. They will agree with you all day. This is what indicates to me you are a troll trying to stir the pot of self-discontent.

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

Stir away. But a word of advice. You might appear to be a little more credible if you used “Spell Checker”.

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?