Question for Atheists/Agnostics with Kids

[Ivve]

You seem to be mistaken here. It's ironic, because none of us 3 are religious at all. What we have here is an example of a arrogant atheist playing pseudo-science. e.

Pretty much what it boils down to. It's like you're ignoring all the content of the posts except for the key phrases that you want to see.

1. You're not talking to theists. You're not talking to people who believe in God.
2. You're not listening to anything that's being said.
3. When you say "putt more thought into your posts," you really mean "admit my beliefs are correct."

You're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. Some people believe in God because they just do. There is no science to back it up, there is no hard evidence to back it up. That is well-established. What's your point? You keep saying prove it prove it prove it, when the entire concept and common justifications for it have been spoon-fed to you over and over and over. There is no concrete proof. There is no proof. There is no proof. There is no proof. There is no proof. Have you caught on yet?

The people who believe, continue to believe without proof. I've already explained why that is, and why confronting them with facts and figures does not shake their faith. The problem seems to be that you think you're fighting some epic battle against people who have some sort of belief in God or a higher power, but you're not. God is an opinion, not a scientific theory. You can't prove an opinion wrong.

P.S.

I appreciate you yielding defeat, and respect your submission.

Pretty much proves that people have been correct in saying you're just continuing this argument because you want to be right. You want it so much! You want the last word so so bad!

[Kuya]

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation.

For a moment there i thought we were using the word theory in a scientific background. OH WAIT, WE ARE.

A theory is formed off observation and experimentation, any knowlegible person will attest to that. You cannot observe or experiment with god, therefore the theory cannot be made concrete. You must have been to busy having an outrage once you heard that religion was faux, to listen to that in college.

WOW, so calling god a theory is pseudoscience?

It is in fact pseudo-science because it is not based on real world observable phenomena. It is abstract.

A bad one that you have no evidence for that you continue to argue the validity of.

I was arguing the validity of this "god theory" of yours? Maybe Ivve and MF were right, you aren't putting attention. Let me reiterate. The point of this whole thing is that:
A- Arguing about an abstract concept that cannot be observed or even quantified is pointless, kinda like arguing with a 5 year about Santa Claus.

B-You're clearly an asshole.

C-You're still clearly an asshole.

[Neosutra]

I have no interest in spending the rest of my night in a quote train saying the same things back and forth, so lets sum this up.

You two are still fighting vehimately over this one fact:

Is the concept of god is somehow "outside" the realm of science and thus cannot be proven/disproven.

You believe that, and have stated that it just "is".

I believe it to be a hypothesis just like any concept that describes something, and thus is examinable.

We disagree on this. Who is correct? Obviously I think I am correct, and you think you are. I will not sit here and argue how each of you view the perception of the word "theory".

"You cant prove god doesnt exist" - incorrect and addressed a thousand times.

"You cant prove god is a theory" - just trying to be argumentative here, or moronic

I disagree, sorry that bugs you. And i still do not see what gives you the right(or theists, if your not really theists but actually just defending the rights of those poor poor theists ), to place religious philosophy above examination. It is irresposible logically, scientifically, and holds nothing to your debate.

Since you have no interest in logic, science, debate, or evidence, this discussion is over, sorry you couldnt produce anything beyond a petty argument over the definition of "theory".

[Kuya]

Awww poor baby. Have fun trying to prove magic doesn't exist. I'm going to go over here and focus on more pertinent things, like laws, biology, and mathematics.

[Neosutra]

Awww poor baby. Have fun trying to prove magic doesn't exist. I'm going to go over here and focus on more pertinent things, like laws, biology, and mathematics.

I think we already stated that "complete lack of evidence for a theory" is evidence against it, thus my job is done. Stated like 45 times already

Your just arguing to argue now.

[Elesirdur]

Wow this thread really went to hell (aren't I ironic?) fast.

[Intense]

Im mad and Im taking my toys home

Great, now we can talk about the intended thread topic?

[Blarg]

There seems to be arguments about 'God' in the deist sense where some creator made the universe but doesn't care about us and hasn't interacted with us, doesn't answer prayers or have a heaven or rules to follow. This god, I think, is unable to be disproved in same the way you can't disprove an invisible alien tap dancing on your left shoulder. Then there are the arguments about 'God' in the theist sense, where its a personal god who has rules, loves us, cares about us, and 'wrote' a book for us to follow, which is definitely able to be disproved based on the claims it makes. These 2 definitions for God require different arguments and it looks like they are both being used in the same discussion which just leads to confusion.

[Demosthenes11]

Wtf, this thread never got any better from my ramblings D:

It's useless arguing with Neosutra; there is nothing you can say that will make him happy unless you say "god is such a joke all people who believe are retarded infants hellbent on another crusade"

[Kuya]

Yea i'd like my kids to learn from every religion if possible. They are at least good for teaching social-history. I'd much prefer they be agnostic, but i can't just force em to be. I did always enjoy multi-culturism.

In fact, teaching your kids about every religion, lessens the chances they'll be completely brainwashed by any sect, and assures that they will probably become agnostic. In my opinion, from seing every religion and observing that they all have their positive and negative sides, and no side really has the "perfect" truth in it's grasps. Not to mention, most of them have similar roots.

[Neosutra]

Im mad and Im taking my toys home

Ive offered nothing to this thread but am going to pop in and display my ignorance of every concept presented within this thread

Wow I can do it too .

And to demos, you got out of this a long time ago because your arguments were too weak to stand, dont chime in at the end when weve agreed to disagree and attempt to add a tidpit of insight.

[Neosutra]

Yea i'd like my kids to learn from every religion if possible. They are at least good for teaching social-history. I'd much prefer they be agnostic, but i can't just force em to be. I did always enjoy multi-culturism.

In fact, teaching your kids about every religion, lessens the chances they'll be completely brainwashed by any sect, and assures that they will probably become agnostic. In my opinion, from seing every religion and observing that they all have their positive and negative sides, and no side really has the "perfect" truth in it's grasps. Not to mention, most of them have similar roots.

Quoted for truth.

[Intense]

Im mad and Im taking my toys home

Ive offered nothing to this thread but am going to pop in and display my ignorance of every concept presented within this thread

Wow I can do it too .

Actually I have, if you check the first page. I posted a RELEVANT response to the OP, you fucking twat.

[Neosutra]

Im mad and Im taking my toys home

Ive offered nothing to this thread but am going to pop in and display my ignorance of every concept presented within this thread

Wow I can do it too .

Actually I have, if you check the first page. I posted a RELEVANT response to the OP, you fucking douche.

As did I. But I guess you only read your own post. Douche.

There we go, I did it again, copied your baseless attempt at insult, what a tool, GTFO.

[Intense]

Im mad and Im taking my toys home

Ive offered nothing to this thread but am going to pop in and display my ignorance of every concept presented within this thread

Wow I can do it too .

Actually I have, if you check the first page. I posted a RELEVANT response to the OP, you fucking douche.

As did I. But I guess you only read your own post. Douche.

I never accused you of not posting relevant material.

[Neosutra]

I never accused you of not posting relevant material.

No, but you did alter my quote and attempt to belittle my argument in a childish and immature way that avoids directly answering my counterpoints. You dont find that offensive?

[Intense]

I never accused you of not posting relevant material.

No, but you did alter my quote and attempt to belittle my argument in a childish and immature way that avoids directly answering my counterpoints. You dont find that offensive?

Find it offensive or dont, thats neither here nor there. Youre insults towards me are the baseless ones, since I did post relevant stuff to the OP..

[Neosutra]

I never accused you of not posting relevant material.

No, but you did alter my quote and attempt to belittle my argument in a childish and immature way that avoids directly answering my counterpoints. You dont find that offensive?

Find it offensive or dont, thats neither here nor there. Youre insults towards me are the baseless ones, since I did post relevant stuff to the OP..

I meant added to the discussion that encompassed the other 7 pages >.>.

Or are you of the same opinion that validity has nothing to due with wether a concept should be taught?

And I would have to say Kusa has the best approach so far, as in planning to teach their children all religions, thus giving them insight into other cultures and shielding them against any zealotry from any specific dogma.

[Intense]

I never accused you of not posting relevant material.

No, but you did alter my quote and attempt to belittle my argument in a childish and immature way that avoids directly answering my counterpoints. You dont find that offensive?

Find it offensive or dont, thats neither here nor there. Youre insults towards me are the baseless ones, since I did post relevant stuff to the OP..

I meant added to the discussion that encompassed the other 7 pages >.>.

Or are you of the same opinion that validity has nothing to due with wether a concept should be taught?

Im of the opinion that its not my job to try to convert people to my religious/non-religious ideals. Its a personal subject and not for me to tell anyone how or what they should or shouldnt believe. I dont want that responsibility.

[Neosutra]

Im of the opinion that its not my job to try to convert people to my religious/non-religious ideals. Its a personal subject and not for me to tell anyone how or what they should or shouldnt believe. I dont want that responsibility.

I dont think I would consider a debate on specific aspects of any specific religion and their historic/physical foundations to be a "conversion" tactic. I enjoy to debate religion with people, because typically, after you filter out all the banter, angry insults, and foreplay, you get down to the meat of the subject and determine what motives really drive an individual to believe/not believe.

Only problem is, if you dare to ask why a person believes, you cross into asshole zone, because your questioning their foundations. As you can see, people dont like that.

I dont question because im trying to be a jerk, im questioning because im looking for a deeper answer then "just because". People have stated that religious people just have "faith" and thats it. But that faith was built on something previous, parental instruction, friends, religious books, something inspired them to believe in such an abstract concept, and that is what I am looking for.