?????Ridiculous Belief????? vs ?????Ridiculous to Believe?????

[_Some Schmo]

I guess I have an issue with thinking the crutch is always necessary, and deciding never to walk on your own two feet. But hey, it doesn’t matter if your ankles are in perfect health; if you think you’re broken, better to have a crutch than to fall over.

This is a classic case of, "my crutch is better than your crutch..."

My response is... oh really? Mine is the infinite creator of all that exists. Yours?

If I have a crutch, it's better by default, because it's real (I'll say my crutch is my family, just to name something I rely on). I'll take the actual medicine over a placebo any day.

[_Hughes]

This is a classic case of, "my crutch is better than your crutch..."

My response is... oh really? Mine is the infinite creator of all that exists. Yours?

If I have a crutch, it's better by default, because it's real (I'll say my crutch is my family, just to name something I rely on). I'll take the actual medicine over a placebo any day.

Which is to say, "mine is better... nah nah nah nah!"

Your claim that mine isn't real is simply your assertion, and is by no means demonstrated by your, "mine is better..." claim.

[_Some Schmo]

This is a classic case of, "my crutch is better than your crutch..."

My response is... oh really? Mine is the infinite creator of all that exists. Yours?

If I have a crutch, it's better by default, because it's real (I'll say my crutch is my family, just to name something I rely on). I'll take the actual medicine over a placebo any day.

Which is to say, "mine is better... nah nah nah nah!"

Your claim that mine isn't real is simply your assertion, and is by no means demonstrated by your, "mine is better..." claim.

A few things:

- I don't really consider my family a crutch (at least, not in the way that god belief is). I was just trying to throw you a bone there.
- I imagine we all have our own special brands of mental crutches. I suppose I think the god crutch is one of the easier ones to identify. I don't mean to suggest I don't have my own kinds of weakness.
- Is it an assertion to say that leprechauns or unicorns aren't real, or is it just a statement that reflects an assessment of the (lack of) evidence? (Think about what 'assertion' means).
- Is it unfair to suggest that something is better if it's real? Perhaps. Maybe to some people, their fantasy is better than reality, so I'll grant that yours might be better for you. Despite the way you read it, I wasn't trying to rub it in your face.

Bottom line is this: I don't mean to say "I know with certainty there is no god." There may be, but I have been shown no compelling evidence to believe there is, so I am highly skeptical. The god thing is your assertion, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It is as fair for me to call what you believe on this subject a fantasy as it is to call believing in leprechauns a fantasy. It's that simple.

[_Hughes]

A few things:

- I don't really consider my family a crutch (at least, not in the way that god belief is). I was just trying to throw you a bone there.
- I imagine we all have our own special brands of mental crutches. I suppose I think the god crutch is one of the easier ones to identify. I don't mean to suggest I don't have my own kinds of weakness.

But, you clearly do mean to make fun of and suggest that your crutch is real and better, and mine is neither.

- Is it an assertion to say that leprechauns or unicorns aren't real, or is it just a statement that reflects an assessment of the (lack of) evidence? (Think about what 'assertion' means).

Seems to me not much difference there. You're making a claim that the existence of God is without evidence, a claim that isn't factual. Of course there's evidence all around, but for you the evidence doesn't rise to the level of persuasion. The difference is who is convinced by the evidence and who isn't. Not that there isn't any evidence.

- Is it unfair to suggest that something is better if it's real? Perhaps. Maybe to some people, their fantasy is better than reality, so I'll grant that yours might be better for you. Despite the way you read it, I wasn't trying to rub it in your face.

Bottom line is this: I don't mean to say "I know with certainty there is no god." There may be, but I have been shown no compelling evidence to believe there is, so I am highly skeptical. The god thing is your assertion, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. It is as fair for me to call what you believe on this subject a fantasy as it is to call believing in leprechauns a fantasy. It's that simple.

The difference is leprechauns having nothing to do with the creation of all that exists. Even primitive peoples look into the sky and understand there is a creator, like the native Americans who believed in a "great Spirit" no one claims that leprechauns are an equal to God. It's a common red herring from Atheists. Nothing is more real that the Creator God, our existence is proof of that.

[_Some Schmo]

A few things:

- I don't really consider my family a crutch (at least, not in the way that god belief is). I was just trying to throw you a bone there.
- I imagine we all have our own special brands of mental crutches. I suppose I think the god crutch is one of the easier ones to identify. I don't mean to suggest I don't have my own kinds of weakness.

But, you clearly do mean to make fun of and suggest that your crutch is real and better, and mine is neither.

Sometimes I like to make fun of god belief, but that's not the case here. I really mean it when I view it as a crutch.

And I don't know what crutch of mine you're talking about when you assert that I think mine's better, so I'm not sure how it's even possible.

The difference is leprechauns having nothing to do with the creation of all that exists. Even primitive peoples look into the sky and understand there is a creator, like the native Americans who believed in a "great Spirit" no one claims that leprechauns are an equal to God. It's a common red herring from Atheists. Nothing is more real that the Creator God, our existence is proof of that.

No, you're mistaken. Leprechauns are exactly equal to God. I'll prove it right now.

Nothing is more real than the Creator Leprechauns; our existence is proof of that.

Now dispute it. What makes your claim any better than mine? I just happen to acknowledge mine's nonsense.

The difference here is that you're making a claim about the evidence, and I'm rejecting your conclusion. Our existence certainly proves something, but nothing about how we got here (that is, how the universe actually started). My claim that it was creative leprechauns holds as much weight as your claim it was your creative god. Both are equally nonsensical. Both deserve equal serious consideration.

[_Sethbag]

The difference is leprechauns having nothing to do with the creation of all that exists.

Odin. Zeus. Mithras. Go look up more of the hundreds, if not thousands of gods people have worshiped, or are still worshiping. If existence itself proves there's a God, what evidence do you have that it's Jehova, and not one of these others? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you can't point to evidence that Odin doesn't really exist. If not, on what basis do you not worship him?

Even primitive peoples look into the sky and understand there is a creator, like the native Americans who believed in a "great Spirit" no one claims that leprechauns are an equal to God.

Primitive people believe things without good evidence because they are primitive. By definition they don't know any better. Are you really proud to say that you and your beliefs are about on par with primitive people who try to assign an explanation to stuff they have no friggin clue about by just making crap up?

It's a common red herring from Atheists. Nothing is more real that the Creator God, our existence is proof of that.

Then prove it. And "existence" isn't proof of anything more than that we exist. There's no good evidence to support the notion that your Creator God exists, and plenty of good reasons to suspect that he almost certainly does not.

[_annie]

“There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – atheist ad on UK buses

Quentin L. Cook mentioned this in a conference talk:

Recent bus ads in London demonstrate the polarization that exists concerning religion in general. Some atheists, agnostics, and nonbelievers paid to display large posters on red double-decker buses in London that said, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Opposing ads by Christians asserted, “There definitely is a God,” followed by uplifting messages.

What Quentin L. Cook failed to mention was that the atheist bus ad was conceived in response to an earlier ad from JesusSaid.org which stated that all non-believers would burn in hell for eternity.

[_Hughes]

But, you clearly do mean to make fun of and suggest that your crutch is real and better, and mine is neither.

Sometimes I like to make fun of god belief, but that's not the case here. I really mean it when I view it as a crutch.

And I don't know what crutch of mine you're talking about when you assert that I think mine's better, so I'm not sure how it's even possible.

Your crutch is what you trust in. Your beliefs. Could be in your self, could be science, could be anything, but obviously it's not God, and you think it's superior to mine, and likewise.

The difference is leprechauns having nothing to do with the creation of all that exists. Even primitive peoples look into the sky and understand there is a creator, like the native Americans who believed in a "great Spirit" no one claims that leprechauns are an equal to God. It's a common red herring from Atheists. Nothing is more real that the Creator God, our existence is proof of that.

No, you're mistaken. Leprechauns are exactly equal to God. I'll prove it right now.

Nothing is more real than the Creator Leprechauns; our existence is proof of that.

Now dispute it. What makes your claim any better than mine? I just happen to acknowledge mine's nonsense.

The difference here is that you're making a claim about the evidence, and I'm rejecting your conclusion. Our existence certainly proves something, but nothing about how we got here (that is, how the universe actually started). My claim that it was creative leprechauns holds as much weight as your claim it was your creative god. Both are equally nonsensical. Both deserve equal serious consideration.

There are actually two separate issues here.

1) Does God exist?
2) Who is he?


Since you get off the boat on question 1, any answers to question 2 are irrelevant.

So, since you think that belief in a Creator God is "nonsensical" let's look at that.

What do we observe on this planet?
1) Intelligence and information
2) Life based on DNA


First, where do we see intelligence derived from? Do we ever see it come from non-intelligence sources? How about information used to control or communicate a message?
Are ether of these ever observed as arising out of non-intelligent sources? So as far as observational science is concerned, we can safely conclude that intelligence is only seen to arise from other intelligent sources, right? The SETI project uses the same assumption with information or a message communicated.

Second, what about life? Where do we observe life to come from? Does it ever come from non-living matter? Does the fact that DNA is used a communication code between cells indicate an intelligent source?
So far the answer is no. We've never observed life to come from non-living matter, only from living matter. What can we conclude then?

That the source of life must be both intelligent and living.

My conclusion is based on observable science.

[_Some Schmo]

Your crutch is what you trust in. Your beliefs. Could be in your self, could be science, could be anything, but obviously it's not God, and you think it's superior to mine, and likewise.

You don't seem to know what a crutch is. It's not a crutch to believe in yourself. In fact, that's the opposite of relying on a crutch.

And there is no question that it's superior to rely on yourself rather than a product of your imagination as though it's real. How you could argue otherwise is mindboggling, and just goes to show how messed up god belief can really be.

As for science, I'm sure you rely on that just as much as I do. Any time you take medicine, board a plane, use a computer, or pick up the phone, you trust that the science behind those things will work. I don't consider that a crutch either (unless you're addicted to prescription drugs, the internet, etc).

So, since you think that belief in a Creator God is "nonsensical" let's look at that.

What do we observe on this planet?
1) Intelligence and information
2) Life based on DNA


First, where do we see intelligence derived from? Do we ever see it come from non-intelligence sources? How about information used to control or communicate a message?
Are ether of these ever observed as arising out of non-intelligent sources? So as far as observational science is concerned, we can safely conclude that intelligence is only seen to arise from other intelligent sources, right? The SETI project uses the same assumption with information or a message communicated.

Second, what about life? Where do we observe life to come from? Does it ever come from non-living matter? Does the fact that DNA is used a communication code between cells indicate an intelligent source?
So far the answer is no. We've never observed life to come from non-living matter, only from living matter. What can we conclude then?

That the source of life must be both intelligent and living.

My conclusion is based on observable science.

No, your conclusion is based on ignorance and incredulity. You don't know and can't imagine how it could have happened naturally; therefore, it can't have happened.

Fortunately, nature is not limited by your imagination.

[_Hughes]

You don't seem to know what a crutch is. It's not a crutch to believe in yourself. In fact, that's the opposite of relying on a crutch.

And there is no question that it's superior to rely on yourself rather than a product of your imagination as though it's real. How you could argue otherwise is mindboggling, and just goes to show how messed up god belief can really be.

As for science, I'm sure you rely on that just as much as I do. Any time you take medicine, board a plane, use a computer, or pick up the phone, you trust that the science behind those things will work. I don't consider that a crutch either (unless you're addicted to prescription drugs, the internet, etc).

The opposite of a crutch of religious belief is the crutch of your belief about where you came from, and who you are, and where you are going... it hasn't anything to do with your phone technology being accurate.

No, your conclusion is based on ignorance and incredulity. You don't know and can't imagine how it could have happened naturally; therefore, it can't have happened.

Fortunately, nature is not limited by your imagination.

So, what you're saying is science is based on what we can imagine, not what we observe and can demonstrate. Got it.