Why I am Not an Atheist

...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• atheist
• paganism
• pagan
• spirituality
• religion

[scubandre1]

Beleivers look at atheist like they are fuckin idiot too!!!! The only difference is, atheist have what beleivers cant have........EVIDENCE

[Celephaith]

That "force" that you were talking about, could have been the result of two universes colliding with each other. Why do we humans, when confronted with an unknown, tend to jump to the supernatural to explain it? When every fucking thing in our history that once had a mystical, supernatural explanation now has a logical, perfectly natural explanation, don't you think, given that track record, that it's time to give up on the supernatural bullshit?

[ultramerton]

I think many atheists need to be less aggressive and insulting. Atheism is fashionable right now and a lot of people just like to get online and berate each other, but that doesn't help convince anyone.

I'm an atheist, so I'm not trying to condemn all atheists. I think more of us just need to recognize that not all theism is the same: deists, wiccans, buddhists, etc. often are secular, moral, and rational individuals with harmless beliefs. These are our friends, not our enemies.

[chemerich]

"What exists in this world is not limited to what can be measured. Experiences that cannot be verified should not be dismissed"

This is why scientists do research and make new discoveries.

[scubandre1]

@toobsucker well said, so let's apply your brilliant logic to a murder trial.... "your honnor, we are unable to proove that this man is not guilty of murder so "by default" it is logical that he did the crime.....put is ass in jail"

[scubandre1]

@MegaJaycop i beleive a flying speghetti monster create the universe......can you "disprove" my beleif???

[MegaJaycop]

@scubandre1 evidence for what? evidence that humans can try to grasp what is around us? evidence is not based around science because science is based around what is around us which doesn't disprove God...lol

[diffusionskonstante]

No, you got rid of the stupid faith, so you are not an idiot.

Faith on something nobody can be sure of, is just taking an assumption. Everybody does it. But i really didn't get what you believe in.

[toobsucker]

@Cheapshot420420 "you have no idea what you are talking about"

To the contrary I know exactly what I'M talking about, that's why you did not address my points. The fact is the cell & species were either a result of the mindless selection of total randomness or they were intelligently designed. If the selection of randomness can be ruled out (which it can), intelligent design wins by default.

I.D. is the only hypothesis that can explain the existence of functional conserved elements

[Cheapshot420420]

@toobsucker you have no idea what you are talking about. humans have had thousands upon thousands of gods, and only one could possibly be right? couldnt none be right as well? as for the set of rules, its written by men in bronze age times, with primitive understanding of the world, its pretty obvious. half the rules overlap, many obvious ones we live by are missing, and the rest are pointless. bats are birds. the earth rests on 4 pillars, god made light before he made the sun.. etc etc

[toobsucker]

@Cheapshot420420 ""probably isnt, but its possible" beats out your "its a guy in the clouds with a gray beard and white skin"

Wrong on both counts. The chances of constantly changing chemical reactions creating conserved (unable to evolve) proteins and multiple overlapping information systems is nil. Evolution requires 100% of the biological system to evolve, the conserved elements can not evolve.

I,D. does not identify the designer, and a "set of rules" is not a logical reason to reject God