for Christians and atheists Options

[datass]

I agree with the professor..

The student kinda pisses me off..

[femmefatale4160]

Brilliant? Are you serious?
It's such a terrible thought experiment. Not to mention, an awful misrepresentation and straw man of an actual atheist position. Ridiculous.
Are you f**king serious?

Yes, I'm serious. A debate is an exchange of opinions, and I happen to think that the mand made good points.

1. "See it to believe it," isn't exactly literal. It's more figurative.
2. How is it ridiculous that people try to dispute a position you hold?
3. How is it not ridiculous that you hold a position without evidence and despite contrary evidence?
4. People don't seriously believe that Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny exist, if they did, that would be outrageous.
5. Believing in Christ actually molds human beings in a certain way. It's actually significant to the human experience. Believing in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny: Not so much.
6. Are you serious?!
Great man my ass.

So you mean to tell me that small children DON'T actually believe in Santa Claus, and that their six-year old minds tell them to just go along with the whole thing? I think the real question is "are YOU serious?"
It's merely a comparison, it's not meant to be interpreted as having the same effects on people's lives.
Actually, I DO have evidence. However, it's not physical evidence, which means that it would be automatically dismissed by atheists.
The reason that I think it's ridiculous for people to dispute my position is because in today's woeld, people are actually allowed to think the way they wish, without being harassed by people who don't agree. Can you believe it?

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy. On top of that, it's a very contemptible position. There is nothing admirable about beliving in something simply for fear of death, dummy.

In case you haven't noticed, the idea behind a debate is to discuss opposing ideas and viewpoints, not to insult people through juvenile name-calling.

[MrStrife]

Anyone ever watched "Moral Orel" on adult swim? People just think they're so right when it comes to defending a belief they've been taught all their lives and gets me to thinking about the Salem witch trials "in the name of god". Walking around with the bible deciding whose soul to save and whose to condemn to hell. Then theres the scientists, the ones who don't think outside the box and live in the world of the five senses with no faith at all but in books and theories.

[femmefatale4160]

^You are very good at provoking thought, I hope you know that.

[NoSex]

Yes, I'm serious. A debate is an exchange of opinions, and I happen to think that the mand made good points.

Outline those points, please. So I can form a more meaningful rebuttle.

So you mean to tell me that small children DON'T actually believe in Santa Claus, and that their six-year old minds tell them to just go along with the whole thing? I think the real question is "are YOU serious?"
It's merely a comparison, it's not meant to be interpreted as having the same effects on people's lives.

Are you kidding? I thought it was rather understood that I was speaking of people with reasonable and adult cognitive abilities, not f**king six year olds! You could tell a six year old nearly anything and they would believe it! That's why you have to get them young. The difference is, everyone figures out Santa Clause isn't real because there is no mass delusion on the matter, and needn't be. However, in the case of serious religiousity, people will believe even more absurd things than flying reindeer for the same lack of reason. It happens every day.

Two billion christians can't be wrong, huh?

Actually, I DO have evidence. However, it's not physical evidence, which means that it would be automatically dismissed by atheists.

Empirical, logical, and analytical proof are evidence. What "evidence" are you talking about? Care to give us a demonstration?

The reason that I think it's ridiculous for people to dispute my position is because in today's woeld, people are actually allowed to think the way they wish, without being harassed by people who don't agree. Can you believe it?

I didn't realize a dispute was inherently marked as harassement. Freedom of speech works both ways, deal with it. I hate your religion, and I think your faith is disgusting.

In case you haven't noticed, the idea behind a debate is to discuss opposing ideas and viewpoints, not to insult people through juvenile name-calling.

Wow, you're really good at this.
Selective reading is fun; I noticed you highlighted a single word.
Your style over substance arguments are so cute and meaningless.
Care to address the argument in front of the insult?
It isn't an ad hominem. Just open your eyes; there is a real argument there.
And you're telling me how to debate!

^You are very good at provoking thought, I hope you know that.

You're silly.

[femmefatale4160]

Outline those points, please. So I can form a more meaningful rebuttle.

I simply think that the man's methods of finding a loophole in the professor's theory were intelligent. The whole section where the two were arguing about "something" versus a "lack of something" was interesting, or at least I thought so. Each of us is biased because we stand so strongly on our beliefs (or lack thereof). In actuality, I think both men did excellent jobs proving their standpoints.

Are you kidding? I thought it was rather understood that I was speaking of people with reasonable and adult cognitive abilities, not f**king six year olds! You could tell a six year old nearly anything and they would believe it! That's why you have to get them young. The difference is, everyone figures out Santa Clause isn't real because there is no mass delusion on the matter, and needn't be. However, in the case of serious religiousity, people will believe even more absurd things than flying reindeer for the same lack of reason. It happens every day.

Yes, I'm kidding. The whole thing is a botched joke.

Two billion christians can't be wrong, huh?

Of course they can. It all really depends on one's standpoint on religion. I happen to disagree with you, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong.

It doesn't mean that you're right, either.

Empirical, logical, and analytical proof are evidence. What "evidence" are you talking about? Care to give us a demonstration?

The reason that I don't care to share my "evidence" is because there are two ways to explain it: Spiritual and scientific. Since you hate my religion, you would automatically disregard my comment as ridiculous.

I didn't realize a dispute was inherently marked as harassement. Freedom of speech works both ways, deal with it. I hate your religion, and I think your faith is disgusting.
Wow, you're really good at this.

It's not the dispute, it's the way you talk down to others that I mark as obnoxious. I suppose I could say that I find your lack of faith disgusting, but that would be a lie. Most of my friends are atheists, one is Wiccan, and I don't have anything against "non-believers." You, however, are discriminatory towards perfectly nice people, simply because you don't agree with their religion.

Selective reading is fun; I noticed you highlighted a single word.

I don't use selective reading. I read all of your comments multiple times. My point in higlighting a single word is that we can at least try to be mature about this and have a thoughtful, serious debate.

Your style over substance arguments are so cute and meaningless.
Care to address the argument in front of the insult?
It isn't an ad hominem. Just open your eyes; there is a real argument there.
And you're telling me how to debate!
You're silly.

I don't think that the statement was made for fear of death. I think it's a good point. I already know that you hate Christianity--but think about this objectively for a moment. What harm can having faith in a god (or another higher power) do to someone? It doesn't hurt anyone. And if, when that person dies, they find that their beliefs were true all along, why would that be so ridiculous?

I'm not trying to tell you how to debate, I'm merely making a suggestion.

Yes, I am silly. It's why everyone finds me so cute and meaningless.

[MrStrife]

^You are very good at provoking thought, I hope you know that.

Were you serious or just being silly? either way I'm

[femmefatale4160]

^No, I was serious. You have a point.

[NoSex]

I simply think that the man's methods of finding a loophole in the professor's theory were intelligent. The whole section where the two were arguing about "something" versus a "lack of something" was interesting, or at least I thought so. Each of us is biased because we stand so strongly on our beliefs (or lack thereof). In actuality, I think both men did excellent jobs proving their standpoints.

The work is very obviously christian propoganda. The atheist position is very weak and misrepresented; lowered to a straw man. It doesn't matter how well or poor the christian's "rebuttle" is, because the argument he is fighting is a misrepresentation of the argument from evil as well as a bastardization of an theistic position. Either way, the christian's argument is nearly nonsensical. Cold and heat, light and darkness, can not be compared to immorality and morality.

The reason that I don't care to share my "evidence" is because there are two ways to explain it: Spiritual and scientific. Since you hate my religion, you would automatically disregard my comment as ridiculous.

How can spirtualism explain anything?
Do you know what an explanation is?

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive verb
1 a : to make known <explain the secret of your success> b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of <unable to explain his strange conduct>
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of <explained the new theory>
intransitive verb : to make something plain or understandable <a report that suggests rather than explains>

You can say you have spirtuality, but don't pretend it's an explanation, a reason, or evidence.

It's not the dispute, it's the way you talk down to others that I mark as obnoxious. I suppose I could say that I find your lack of faith disgusting, but that would be a lie. Most of my friends are atheists, one is Wiccan, and I don't have anything against "non-believers." You, however, are discriminatory towards perfectly nice people, simply because you don't agree with their religion.

I don't use selective reading. I read all of your comments multiple times. My point in higlighting a single word is that we can at least try to be mature about this and have a thoughtful, serious debate.

I'm trying to have a serious debate, that doesn't mean I can't call you a moron in-between. I'll respect you once you have said something respectable, until than, don't ask for something you don't deserve.

I don't think that the statement was made for fear of death. I think it's a good point. I already know that you hate Christianity--but think about this objectively for a moment. What harm can having faith in a god (or another higher power) do to someone? It doesn't hurt anyone. And if, when that person dies, they find that their beliefs were true all along, why would that be so ridiculous?

Pascal's Wager is very well known as a logical fallacy for numerous reasons.

1. Which god should I devote belief to? There are countless.
2. The nature of belief and epistemology doesn't exactly relate to a kind of wager. Gambling doesn't bare true belief in the bet, just a risk over reward relation, generally.
3. The risks involved in non-belief in no way support a deductive, or inductive, case towards belief.

What harm can it have? Are you serious? Do you know nothing about sociology, history, or psychology?

[femmefatale4160]

How can spirtualism explain anything?
Do you know what an explanation is?

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive verb
1 a : to make known <explain the secret of your success> b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of <unable to explain his strange conduct>
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of <explained the new theory>
intransitive verb : to make something plain or understandable <a report that suggests rather than explains>

You can say you have spirtuality, but don't pretend it's an explanation, a reason, or evidence.

Well, by that definition I have no evidence.

Pascal's Wager is very well known as a logical fallacy for numerous reasons.

1. Which god should I devote belief to? There are countless.
2. The nature of belief and epistemology doesn't exactly relate to a kind of wager. Gambling doesn't bare true belief in the bet, just a risk over reward relation, generally.
3. The risks involved in non-belief in no way support a deductive, or inductive, case towards belief.

Fine, you win. You have outmaneuvered me in every subject. Have fun gloating.

What harm can it have? Are you serious? Do you know nothing about sociology, history, or psychology?

Again, yes. I am serious. If you're referring to situations such as the Crusades, the Salem Witch trials, etc. then that isn't to be blamed on Christianity entirely. The Catholic church, which is only one branch of Christianity, had such a strong hold on society that they forced people to convert by filling them with fear. Another cause of those horrible crimes was people who have something wrong with them other than being Christians.

[TheRisingSun16]

I've read something like this before...

[NoSex]

Well, by that definition I have no evidence.

It's entirely analytical. What you think of as "evidence" simply is not. You're just confusing your emotionalism for proof. Nothing you have yet presented, or could present, will resemble proof in the least.

Fine, you win. You have outmaneuvered me in every subject. Have fun gloating.

Neener neener neener.

Again, yes. I am serious. If you're referring to situations such as the Crusades, the Salem Witch trials, etc. then that isn't to be blamed on Christianity entirely. The Catholic church, which is only one branch of Christianity, had such a strong hold on society that they forced people to convert by filling them with fear. Another cause of those horrible crimes was people who have something wrong with them other than being Christians.

Augh. Way to have a narrow overview.
I'm talking about irrational belief in general. It's wrong, it's dangerous, it's counter-productive, and it's a great disease upon mankind, and always has been. Where are we to go, and how are we to advance when people believe absurdities for the mere sake of emotional security and comfort.

To hell, if we don't change our ways. Har har har.

[sweetangel2128]

First of all, if God really does exist, he doesn't help with EVERYthing that happends in our world...I believe that everything happends for a reason and prayers are not always answered when we want them to be answered.