The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[MerlinsByte]

STARRYBOY And I could be the scum of the earth but this still doesn't mean that you are not the shit below me.

RICKSP..Ok, Starboy. Enough. I see no reason to waste my time with this sort of nonsense. I shall trouble you no further. I'll waste my time elsewhere.

Merlin sez..trust me starboy has no concept of what a debate is. When he loses the debate he resorts to personal insults. He never wins a debate so most of his posts are only empty insults and slurs that only serve to illustrate what most losers do best, nothing.

mb

ps If starboy is a good example of what an atheists is I feel for all atheist out there. He is a hate filled bag of hot air.Sorta like a poor dog that has been kicked down so many times he doesnt know who is on his mangy pathetic side or who is against him. wuff!

mb

[fedfem]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin sez..trust me starboy has no concept of what a debate is. When he loses the debate he resorts to personal insults. He never wins a debate so most of his posts are only empty insults and slurs that only serve to illustrate what most losers do best, nothing. mb ps If starboy is a good example of what an atheists is I feel for all atheist out there. He is a hate filled bag of hot air.Sorta like a poor dog that has been kicked down so many times he doesnt know who is on his mangy pathetic side or who is against him. wuff! mb

Well to be honest, most posting here on the site do not "debate" according to established standards.

Starboy is an atheist--aren't we all what we want to be? I think terminology is causing confusion in most places. For example, no many scientists are theists but there are some deists. Science is not atheistic it is based on logic and reason which religion is not--it is based on faith.

Spirituality is a human characteristic and one does not have to be religious in order to be spiritual. Although many find the exercise of their spirituality in religion, an educated, rational, logical thinker may enjoy the fellowship but it is highly doubtful they take the doctrine serious.

The burden of proof is on the theists not the atheists.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fedfem Well to be honest, most posting here on the site do not "debate" according to established standards.

There are established standards? What are they and what is the official body that established them? Just curious. I suppose there must be just as there is an official body of the rules of chess.

Starboy is an atheist--aren't we all what we want to be? I think terminology is causing confusion in most places. For example, no many scientists are theists but there are some deists. Science is not atheistic it is based on logic and reason which religion is not--it is based on faith.

Well it depends on what you mean by atheist. Unfortunately the word has been defined by theists and not by atheists. But if you go back to the original Greek root of the word it meant a-theist, as in without theism. Not against theism or a rejection of theism. Just as a-sexual means without sexuality not against or the rejection of sexuality. Words like apolitical, asymmetrical and so on are similarly parsed. The "a" followed by the word simply means "without" – the word. So in this sense science is atheistic. It is without a belief in god(s). Some time in the Middle Ages the religious of the time decided to make atheist mean something else. It is unfair, it is not as if theists allow atheist to define what they mean when they use the term theist. So to all you theists out there, I will not pretend to tell you what you mean when you call yourself a theist if you will not pretend to tell me what I mean when I call myself an atheist. If you want to know all you gotta do is ask.

Spirituality is a human characteristic and one does not have to be religious in order to be spiritual. Although many find the exercise of their spirituality in religion, an educated, rational, logical thinker may enjoy the fellowship but it is highly doubtful they take the doctrine serious.

I have also found that those who pretend to understand spirituality in this way are completely unable to express what they mean by the term in any coherent way. Care to give it a try?

The burden of proof is on the theists not the atheists.

Not unless you are trying to say that god is some sort of a mathematical concept. In any case science doesn't prove anything; that is for mathematicians, philosophers and theologians. The problem that all theists face is not god so much but the entire concept of supernatural. If we discovered god it would be just another natural phenomenon. Who is to say that we have not already done so? No one really knows since no one has any idea as to what the supernatural actually is. It is not as if one could say with any confidence that you would know it if you saw it. It is not as if what is being discovered is not already very weird and amazing. What theists need to own up to is that their belief is nothing more than a feeling. It is a hope. It is a very human reaction to reality.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin sez..trust me starboy has no concept of what a debate is. When he loses the debate he resorts to personal insults. He never wins a debate so most of his posts are only empty insults and slurs that only serve to illustrate what most losers do best, nothing.

mb, my bet is that your idea of a good debate is an excercise where everyong bows down to your brilliance and hangs on every word you say.

Starboy

[fedfem]

Quote by: Starboy There are established standards? What are they and what is the official body that established them? Just curious. I suppose there must be just as there is an official body of the rules of chess. Well it depends on what you mean by atheist. Unfortunately the word has been defined by theists and not by atheists. But if you go back to the original Greek root of the word it meant a-theist, as in without theism. Not against theism or a rejection of theism. Just as a-sexual means without sexuality not against or the rejection of sexuality. Words like apolitical, asymmetrical and so on are similarly parsed. The "a" followed by the word simply means "without" – the word. So in this sense science is atheistic. It is without a belief in god(s). Some time in the Middle Ages the religious of the time decided to make atheist mean something else. It is unfair, it is not as if theists allow atheist to define what they mean when they use the term theist. So to all you theists out there, I will not pretend to tell you what you mean when you call yourself a theist if you will not pretend to tell me what I mean when I call myself an atheist. If you want to know all you gotta do is ask. I have also found that those who pretend to understand spirituality in this way are completely unable to express what they mean by the term in any coherent way. Care to give it a try? Not unless you are trying to say that god is some sort of a mathematical concept. In any case science doesn't prove anything; that is for mathematicians, philosophers and theologians. The problem that all theists face is not god so much but the entire concept of supernatural. If we discovered god it would be just another natural phenomenon. Who is to say that we have not already done so? No one really knows since no one has any idea as to what the supernatural actually is. It is not as if one could say with any confidence that you would know it if you saw it. It is not as if what is being discovered is not already very weird and amazing. What theists need to own up to is that their belief is nothing more than a feeling. It is a hope. It is a very human reaction to reality. Starboy

I agree with your statements regarding defining atheists. I am an atheist because I see no proof nor do I see a need for a god. It is impossible to prove a negative so theists must prove the existance of the particular god they say exists. Because there are so many different belief systems and deities, it is hard to debate theistic thought as a whole.

Spirituality is hard to define. There is a good book called, "The God Gene" which does a good job in defining how and why spirituality is part of our evolution.

Spirtuality to me is the sense of being part of something bigger than just myself. Some tend to gravitate towards a group or religion, I tend to see myself as part of the universe as a whole. I don't believe in an afterlife yet I know I am eternal through seeds of thought I plant, my genes, and my biological remains.

I do understand the importance of religion for some though. Religion can give hope and purpose to those who feel they have neither.

As far as standards of debate, there are rules. Debate societies and clubs follow them. I will try to find a link if you are interested. I don't think this board needs to follow them however since it would be boring.lol

[Starboy]

Quote by: fedfem Spirtuality to me is the sense of being part of something bigger than just myself. Some tend to gravitate towards a group or religion, I tend to see myself as part of the universe as a whole. I don't believe in an afterlife yet I know I am eternal through seeds of thought I plant, my genes, and my biological remains.

I understand your use of the term. People cannot help but be spiritual in that way. It is not as if we were not connected in a very real way to our surroundings. The word as you use it is not more significant than saying that you are a living person. I have no idea why you would consider such spirituality to be significant enough to comment on.

As far as standards of debate, there are rules. Debate societies and clubs follow them. I will try to find a link if you are interested. I don't think this board needs to follow them however since it would be boring.lol

Debate Rules and suggestions
British Parlimentary Style Debating Rules
NPDA Rules of Debating (Modified January, 2005)
Tilbury House Debating Rules
Debate
Wikipedia - debate

By the looks of it the only way that Volconvo could ever host any type of formal debates is if it set aside a judged forum that restricted access to debators that followed some set of formal rules. There have been those in the past that have proposed such a thing but no one seemed all that interested.

Starboy

[fedfem]

Quote by: Starboy I understand your use of the term. People cannot help but be spiritual in that way. It is not as if we were not connected in a very real way to our surroundings. The word as you use it is not more significant than saying that you are a living person. I have no idea why you would consider such spirituality to be significant enough to comment on. Debate Rules and suggestions British Parlimentary Style Debating Rules NPDA Rules of Debating (Modified January, 2005) Tilbury House Debating Rules Debate Wikipedia - debate By the looks of it the only way that Volconvo could ever host any type of formal debates is if it set aside a judged forum that restricted access to debators that followed some set of formal rules. There have been those in the past that have proposed such a thing but no one seemed all that interested. Starboy

Not significant, I agree, but you did ask.

re: STARBOY:I have also found that those who pretend to understand spirituality in this way are completely unable to express what they mean by the term in any coherent way. Care to give it a try?

[LetThereBe]

that was not worth reading. Just because the majority of the "religious" are not the truly faithful in no way "proves" there is no God.