because the argument cannot be won by the Atheist. No matter how much logic, reason or evidence the Atheist has the religious person can respond with" I know in my heart God exists. The religious require no evidence to create an argument and therefore cannot be beaten in an argument. Surely it's better for atheists to discuss religion with others who see reason, rather than those who don't. Leave the religious to their own hallucinations.
rationalism vs. anti-rationalism is usually what the debate boils down to once it' gone on long enough and all the surface points have washed away. Both make good points, but one is based on reason and one is based on intuition, I don't really see why the two have to be at such odds.
Because the athiest needs to find a purpose for living, so they figure "Hey, yelling at people who give their life purpose via religion (perhaps not true, but a purpose nevertheless) will satisfy my need to make my life purposeful."
That's exactly why nihilism is the enemy of a healthy mind. The religions usually moved away from pose themselves as the only answer to the questions we have, I'd have a hard time believing that an ex Buddhist would be quite so vocal or direct in their criticism. Perhaps the arguing stage is a phase we pass through after leaving these all encompassing religions.
I hate stupid atheists who bash religion. In my eyes, they're just as ignorant as those christians who shove everything down your throat (and in no way am I saying that they all do) I am personally atheist, but I dont even like calling myself that because of the idiots out there who are atheist. If you believe in it and it helps you with life and to be a better person, then I will respect that greatly.
I think its because Atheists can't understand why religious people do not require reason, and if they do require reason then they are stuck in circular reasoning... Not too mention religious people often carry themselves around as better and will try to convince others through logical arguements that they should believe in God, which of course is impossible because there is no reason with faith. Meanwhile the atheists believe that reason is on their side and are certain that God doesn't exist and see the evils of religion as outweighing the good of religion. Largely though the problem is people think they are wise when they are not, a sort of certainty at opposite ends of the spectrum which collide. No one knows the answers to the big questions, we can only speculate
i don't understand why irrational people insist on making irrational comments around rational people when they already know from experience that rational people will want to find a way to rationalize what they're hearing. what boggles me even more is when such people act annoyed or confused, as if they really didn't know that rational observers would object to their irrational bleating. on the other hand, if say a Christian community had a Muslim move in and start talking Muslim superstitions all the time, and some Christians found some of those Muslim superstitions appealing, the rest of those Christians might begin to understand what inspires atheists to object to religious exaltation.
it may look pointless but really it's an elaborate attempt to boost the religious thinker's self esteem
Postal Blowfish put it best...Rational people are always looking to rationalize every concept that is presented. In science, this is vital.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=related]YouTube - Why does faith deserve respect?[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSZYN8UV6yg&feature=related]YouTube - What have I got against religion?[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly62n36nn0k&feature=related]YouTube - What's good about religion?[/ame]
I'm done arguing the point, there's nothing left to be argued. The bottom line is this, make up your own mind on what you'd like to believe and that will be that but don't continue to push your ridiculous dogma on people who do not welcome it; And for the love of all that is real please stop indoctrinating children into the church. Children do not even possess the mental capacity to understand everything they can see and feel, more or less grasp the concept of an omnipotent creator and everything involved with 'insert religion here'. Perhaps they deserve to make a choice on their own? I think people are afraid without indoctrinating children logic would eventually triumph faith.
Personally I don't understand the logic behind denying a god. Have you ever seen the person who made the computer screen you're looking at right now? Then how do you know it had a designer? For all we know this computer screen evolved from natural processes from absolutely nothing.. We live in a creation which had a beginning and is currently winding down. If there is a painting, there is a painter, if there is a musical piece there was a composer, if there is a creation, there was a creator. Our universe is governed by constant physical laws which precisely allow for the existence of life. Even just the precise setting of the nuclear strong force allows physical matter to exist, if it were altered just 1 to 10^40 or something along those lines physical reality would not exist anything as is does today and life definitely would not be here. We also find irrefutable traits of intelligence in even the most simplest life forms. To date there is no natural explanation for specified information such as written languages or encoded messages. The only known source that we have actually observed is through intelligence. Yes I know the universe is absolutely enormous, but if you were god why wouldn't you spend you're time creating masterpieces of art throughout space? You have eternity to do or create anything you wish..
ffs, you seem to think your intuitive argument will get smarter the more you post it, but it just gets dumber. "you can't deny that there is information." who defined the word "information?" WE DID. WE DEFINED SOMETHING WE OBSERVED. granting your dim witted premise only invites the infinite regression of "who created" questions. if you want to say "wow, lots of questions..." yeah, i'm down with that. but you're saying "here is my assumption about the answer to all those questions." fuck that. you don't know anything with the kind of certainty you're about to start demanding from science, so seriously... come off it. you call beauty art, which is like saying that a sunset is art - IS ISN'T. it's a fucking event. you're assuming there is an artist, and supposing this "art" is the proof. if i say it was my brainless stone that created it all, you're in no greater position to invalidate my claim than you are to validate your own.
..what exactly does it matter that we define information? Does it still change the fact that specified information has only been observed to come from intelligence? We have intelligence to recognize intelligence. What shred of evidence do you have to show forth that specified information such as written language which holds a non materialistic form of information actually can come from natural processes and not the observed fact of intelligence?
no evidence will be provided to disprove your unproven claim. you will fail once again to provide evidence, probably touching upon hoaxes of different kinds and posting links to vanity-published papers which do nothing but advance a single person's views. then various people will laugh, and after a few more months of schooling you'll finally sit down and stfu for another month.
....your stuck on it. How do you know it was a , "He?"....what if it was an, "It?"....how can you convince yourself either way?