Is Atheism a crutch for people who don’t understand the complexity of God?

[Jayford]

Quote from jonbig04:

That is MY POINT! You wont get anywhere! Thats the frikin point I have been trying to make in this thread.

The thing is, most of us in western civilization were raised to always use logic to support our position in an argument.

I'm pretty much helpless if I can't use it. May explain why I always lose arguments with girlfriends! Women never use it, nor accept it.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Jayford:

The thing is, most of us in western civilization were raised to always use logic to support our position in an argument.

I'm pretty much helpless if I can't use it. May explain why I always lose arguments with girlfriends! Women never use it, nor accept it.

True, which is why you won't see me insulting evolutionists. Logic is what we have and it has gotten us far, why not use it? Unfortunately logic doesn't yet explain any of the really interesting questions...so for now we have religion until maybe one day all the questions of the world are answered. The ultimate question in my mind is initial creation...how did it ALL start?? Maybe one day logic will be able to explain how something can come from nothing (which had to have happened at some point)...until then I will continue to be baffled.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from jem:

wow I thought you were smarter than that.

Prove the non existence of God. use science to prove there was no creator of the big bang. That is just one example why I state science is not on the side of the atheist.

Do you want more?

I just put Gring on ignore, but I saw the part you quoted from him. Man, he is a major league argument stirrer and bizarre statementalist. He may just rival Jayford (also on ignore, out of frustration) for Being an adult version of a toddler (LOOKIT ME!!!! LOOKIT ME!!! I IZ SEW SMART!!!!)

 

[Jayford]

Quote from Thunderdog:

From the little I know about him, I don't think Einstein was irrational in any way. Rather, he was either misquoted a lot or some of what he had said and written was misinterpreted, either innocently or otherwise. Einstein was not a theist. He was a pantheist who, in his wonderment, essentially referred to nature as god. It was a poetic reference rather than a literal one. He had disputed his alleged belief in a personal god.

I am at a loss why both sides need to quote Einstein so much. He was a physicist. VERY bright, but not always correct. He did not believe the universe was expanding for example. That came later, and is now accepted as fact, just as the sun is powered by nuclear fusion is fact. Just wondering.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Jayford:

I am at a loss why both sides need to quote Einstein so much. He was a physicist. VERY bright, but not always correct. He did not believe the universe was expanding for example. That came later, and is now accepted as fact, just as the sun is powered by nuclear fusion is fact. Just wondering.

The fact that time moves at a different pace depending on how fast you are traveling messes with my mind.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Jayford:

I am at a loss why both sides need to quote Einstein so much. He was a physicist. VERY bright, but not always correct. He did not believe the universe was expanding for example. That came later, and is now accepted as fact, just as the sun is powered by nuclear fusion is fact. Just wondering.

It's just that I read Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion a while back, and there were some references to Einstein and his comments having been deliberately taken out of context by those with theist leanings who wanted him on their side. Meanwhile, there were others who were admonishing him for "not being Jewish enough."

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Thunderdog:

It's just that I read Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion a while back, and there were some references to Einstein and his comments having been deliberately taken out of context by those with theist leanings who wanted him on their side. Meanwhile, there were others who were admonishing him for "not being Jewish enough."

Sounds like a book that Freud wrote called "Faith as a delusion" or something to that affect. Good book.

 

[Jayford]

Quote from TraderZones:

I just put Gring on ignore, but I saw the part you quoted from him. Man, he is a major league argument stirrer and bizarre statementalist. He may just rival Jayford (also on ignore, out of frustration) for Being an adult version of a toddler (LOOKIT ME!!!! LOOKIT ME!!! I IZ SEW SMART!!!!)

hey gring, welcome to TZ's ignore list. seems there are a lot of us here. lets have a party!

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from TraderZones:

I just put Gring on ignore, but I saw the part you quoted from him. Man, he is a major league argument stirrer and bizarre statementalist. He may just rival Jayford (also on ignore, out of frustration) for Being an adult version of a toddler (LOOKIT ME!!!! LOOKIT ME!!! I IZ SEW SMART!!!!)

Now, look at you...
With your 158 IQ - you are soooo smart. You can't even stay in a debate. You call evolution and science bizarre - because I am only restating what science has shown as evidence.

I know many religious people ignore science - which makes you all ignorant.

Jayford,
I don't mind TraderZones ignoring me, I welcome it. I also welcome provocative statements, since it gets me thinking - and there is nothing like a little intellectual sparring - although it is very sad about all the light-weights around here...

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

The religious texts say the earth and human are only a few thousand years old, and that the creator deity is perfect - does not make mistakes. That means that a mistake like making millions of years of history "part of the creation" would not be perfect.

Why would creating the earth with age be a mistake?


However, when you come and try to use logics and science in FAVOUR of creationism - that is when you are going to get your loony ass whooped every time. Think about that a little.

I agree, science doesnt not support creationism. Please show me when I have said that it does.

Well, first - creating traces of history contradicting the age of the earth is not perfect. That goes for creating any living creature with traces of millenniums of ancestry before "genesis" as well. Creating millions of years of history inherent in everything is not perfection - it is contradictory to the religious texts that say it was all created a few thousand years ago.
Contradictions, lies or deceit oppose perfection and "absolute truth".

Secondly you said: "How about this. Someone please explain one logical argument you have against a supreme being existing. Just one. I asked for evidence against a supreme being's existence."
As we all know - science and evidence through reasoning and reality - can prove or disprove claims. You were calling on science to disprove creationism and religion - i.e using science and logic to try and support your views.

Finally - there is no support for religion or creationism within science. Science incrementally supports irreligion and atheism - through providing arguments against any creating deity.

You have some fun trying to twist your way around logics and science - however, that doesn't work with me and frankly just shows your lack of knowledge of these fields. That you are a youngster might show in your efforts - and good luck growing up. Don't blow your wad too early.