Pope compares secularism to Nazism - Page 14

On September 20 2010 01:48 Zzoram wrote:


Joke images are not lies, they are obviously parody.

On September 20 2010 01:51 Zzoram wrote:


Burden of proof only goes one way in many cases. The simplest explanation is the default unless there is evidence to the contrary.

No gods exist is simpler than gods creating people in their image and giving them souls and free will to choose to believe in them or not, and punish these souls for not choosing to believe in them.

On September 20 2010 02:02 Valikyr wrote:
(agnostic) Atheism is the only intellectually honest position to take, however much the child-rapist defending Pope wants to make atheism look evil.

Pope is an evil, vicious man who just got nothing to say about other people's morals or acts done in the past. Hitler was a roman catholic, anyone that read mein kampf or other works by Hitler knows this.

On September 20 2010 01:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy

okay, for the record. everytime these discussions pop up, i feel the urge to intervene. Let me say this first and foremost and with extreme conviction; Atheism is stupid and atheist people are stupid. Period. It's as simple as that.

I reject all forms of organized religions, and i obviously admit that religions have historically been an obstacle to our advancement of knowledge. The problem here is that some unstable people will use the failure of religion to declare with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist. Excuse me? The smartest people in the world have always had the same goal; to discover God's well structured laws. Religious failures and the nonexistence of God do not equate. Some idiots will observe the failures of the bunch of morons at the top of their respective clergies, and will find refuge in Atheism.


These fun-loving individuals will observe Christians, Muslims and Jews misbehave and will conclude with absolute certainty that God does NOT exist based on the moronic behavior of a few carefully selected individuals. They happily jump on the "hi!, God does not exist" bandwagon, and reject the existence of a creator from their empirical observation of a bunch of morons living on Earth. How can you imagine the creation of the Universe and it's prefect harmonious structure if no creator is involved? it just happened? sure.

Einstein always thought that the Universe and it's rules are so well organized that the nonexistence of God is unimaginable. He said; "God does not play dice. We just have to find the rules"

Deism is where it's at;

"Deism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."


Atheists are almost as stupid as religious people.

I'm an atheist but I tend to see the world with a lot of pluralism. This comment angers me in a way that no other religious comment ever has.

I guess there is no doubt that atheists without or very low moral values can exist.

On September 20 2010 02:09 Half wrote:



no wtf....

Burden of proof only goes one way. If I say "Unicorns exist", I have to prove it. I can't say "WELL I CANT PROVE IT BUT YOU CANT NOT PROVE IT".

On September 20 2010 01:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy

On September 20 2010 02:21 Cytokinesis wrote:
lol @ this thread

I honestly can't believe it. As a 4th year Philosophy student going to be going for my Ph.D I find this just ludicrous. I honestly don't understand how some people's logic fails so miserably. There are points made to defend theism and atheism, but the theists NEVER use the logical defenses. They always spout the useless tripe and fallacies they were taught by the churches ignorance. It is just jaw-dropping. If you have atheist philosophy professors throwing up better defenses for God and religion than actual theists.

On September 20 2010 02:27 WilbertK wrote:

What would that logical fallacy be? Could you give me an example of that fallacy?

:EDIT: just in case: you might confuse me for a positive atheist, a.k.a. a gnostic atheist, more commonly known as someone who claims to know there is no god. I don't claim to know. I claim to have not been given sufficient evidence to believe, and therefore don't believe religious claims. Is that a fallacy?

On September 20 2010 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:



did you even bother to skim the article I linked?

you can't prove it, I can't disprove it
conclusion: it is unknown whether unicorns exist.

you can safely make a strong inferential assumption that unicorns probably don't exist as there is basically no reliable evidence to believe otherwise, but you can't be certain.

to say you are certain that unicorns don't exist because there is no proof that they do exist is a logical fallacy. it's wrong, simple as that.

tl;dr: just read the article I linked, it has a better chance of enlightening you than I do

burden of proof goes both ways, to believe otherwise is committing a common logical fallacy

On September 20 2010 02:35 Half wrote:


You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.

You originally posted this



In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you "God does not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.

On September 20 2010 02:35 Half wrote:


You appeared to have misunderstood the context of my argument, intentionally or otherwise.

You originally posted this



In other words, if you said to me "Unicorns exist", and I say "No they do not there is no proof", the burden of proof would not fall on me at all. However, if I said to you as an argument "Unicorns do not exist", then indeed, the burden of proof would fall on me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


In fact, nobody in this entire fucking conversation tried to reason god does not exist, only reject the proposition that he does, which is what Atheism is.

On September 20 2010 02:18 Yurebis wrote:
Good thing I'm not an atheist.
My god is Richard Dawkins!

On September 20 2010 02:40 Yurebis wrote:

I agree; I think instead of calling myself an agnostic for that reason, I'd rather have people understand and redefine atheism as "rejection of theism", not "belief in no god".

On September 20 2010 02:43 Deathstar wrote:


And your sacred book is the God Delusion rite?

On September 20 2010 02:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


well, I don't necessarily think the word should be redefined when there's already an existing word for what it intends to be redefined as, which would be Agnosticism

the root of the word "Atheism" in Greek even means "without Gods"

Weak Atheists asking for Atheism to strictly define only Weak Atheism would be like Weak Theists asking for Theism to strictly define only Weak Theism, it's just silly when there's already a word that covers both arguments