Atheists, why are you atheist?

Granted, Hagon is generally mischievous... but DOLL seems to have some real indignation behind his words.
If you had proof then I don't think anyone would be joking around and we could have a cool conversation. It's shameful that we have someone capable of saying "God isn't real" here but we are still left without anything other than carbon dating of rocks (I am not a catholic or orthodox so it isn't a conflict for me). Hopefully someone joins the forum soon that can defend atheism because it'd be more fun than this.
 
If you weren't seeking to spread your beliefs, then evolution wouldn't be taught as fact in schools. It's a new religion in itself.
It's true, people love truth. It's the love of truth that God bestowed us with, and so people are inclined to search for and spread it. It makes no rational sense why someone would dedicate time to spreading their beliefs, yet we do it because we're creatures motivated by spiritual inclinations. This is what separates us from animals
 
If you weren't seeking to spread your beliefs, then evolution wouldn't be taught as fact in schools. It's a new religion in itself.
Evolution does not have to equate to atheism. Many religious folk even believe in evolution. Christians just passed a law forcing the ten commandments to be placed into schools. Again, you're just being silly here.

"Evolution is a new religion"

I don't even know how to respond to that. It is absurd.
 
If you had proof then I don't think anyone would be joking around and we could have a cool conversation. It's shameful that we have someone capable of saying "God isn't real" here but we are still left without anything other than carbon dating of rocks (I am not a catholic or orthodox so it isn't a conflict for me). Hopefully someone joins the forum soon that can defend atheism because it'd be more fun than this.
You would always be "joking around"

Again, the banter is amusing, but I just find it funny how you can call someone arrogant while throwing insults as soon as you see their posts (which have been pretty respectful for the most part)

I think arrogance would describe your actions better.
 
Evolution does not have to equate to atheism. Many religious folk even believe in evolution. Christians just passed a law forcing the ten commandments to be placed into schools. Again, you're just being silly here.
Religious folk who believe in evolution are really in conflict with their own beliefs. They themselves would deny it but that's just how it is. So I don't see how this is a compelling argument. Conquerors often give the conquered a way to cooperate with the new normal. That's what theistic evolution is. You can be a "normal" person by believing in evolution while vaguely clinging to the old order of things aswell. It's just a cope.
 
You would always be "joking around"

Again, the banter is amusing, but I just find it funny how you can call someone arrogant while throwing insults as soon as you see their posts (which have been pretty respectful for the most part)

I think arrogance would describe your actions better.
You keep disregarding semantics, very weird for a supposed high grade debater. Arrogance doesn't mean throwing insults. Arrogance means a false sense of superiority or self worth. Overestimating one's worth and ability. I think this would be an apt description for someone who says "religion can be easily disproven" and then fails to disprove it. I think this to be much more arrogant than someone mocking another for, ironically, being arrogant
Careful... Many Christians disagree on certain values. You may find yourself at the gallows with the atheists too under such a regime.
epic martyrdom moment, sign me up
 
Religious folk who believe in evolution are really in conflict with their own beliefs. They themselves would deny it but that's just how it is. So I don't see how this is a compelling argument. Conquerors often give the conquered a way to cooperate with the new normal. That's what theistic evolution is. You can be a "normal" person by believing in evolution while vaguely clinging to the old order of things aswell. It's just a cope.
The natural world provides for evolution within species. A snake that lives in a forested area tends to evolve traits such as being flat to keep itself from disturbing the leaf litter, brown or green to disguise it from attacks from birds, and smaller than an anaconda to preserve energy in a colder environment.
Evolution of a species into another species is another question entirely that scientists have real trouble with as well. It's a hotly debated topic between many different fields of scientific study between "Uhm this banana shares 67% of its DNA with humans so actually you are a banana" and others saying it can't happen with varying gradients in one direction or another. If it's not clear then I fall in the latter category.
 
The natural world provides for evolution within species. A snake that lives in a forested area tends to evolve traits such as being flat to keep itself from disturbing the leaf litter, brown or green to disguise it from attacks from birds, and smaller than an anaconda to preserve energy in a colder environment.
Evolution of a species into another species is another question entirely that scientists have real trouble with as well. It's a hotly debated topic between many different fields of scientific study between "Uhm this banana shares 67% of its DNA with humans so actually you are a banana" and others saying it can't happen with varying gradients in one direction or another. If it's not clear then I fall in the latter category.
The only reason evolution is propped up so aggressively is because it's the only alternative to creation, as a theory it makes zero sense
 
The natural world provides for evolution within species. A snake that lives in a forested area tends to evolve traits such as being flat to keep itself from disturbing the leaf litter, brown or green to disguise it from attacks from birds, and smaller than an anaconda to preserve energy in a colder environment.
Evolution of a species into another species is another question entirely that scientists have real trouble with as well. It's a hotly debated topic between many different fields of scientific study between "Uhm this banana shares 67% of its DNA with humans so actually you are a banana" and others saying it can't happen with varying gradients in one direction or another.
I prefer calling the former part simply adaptation. I suppose my opinion of how you see things depends on whether you accept the latter part or not. I believe Genesis is to be understood literally first, so a Christian who believes the earth to be billions of years old or believes one species can turn into another is extremely far from what the fathers of our church believed in. Catholics mostly ditched Holy Tradition and most of them believe in evolution, but for Orthodoxy this is simply not the case. We do not have a single saint who approved of any sort of evolutionary theory, to the contrary each saint who spoke up about this matter defended young earth creationism. Even if the entirety of the world accepted evolution tomorrow I would reject it. That is simply what Orthodox dogma binds me to do.
 
The natural world provides for evolution within species. A snake that lives in a forested area tends to evolve traits such as being flat to keep itself from disturbing the leaf litter, brown or green to disguise it from attacks from birds, and smaller than an anaconda to preserve energy in a colder environment.
Evolution of a species into another species is another question entirely that scientists have real trouble with as well. It's a hotly debated topic between many different fields of scientific study between "Uhm this banana shares 67% of its DNA with humans so actually you are a banana" and others saying it can't happen with varying gradients in one direction or another. If it's not clear then I fall in the latter category.

ezgif-5-4ef95ebfc6.gif
 
Maybe people aren't looking down at you due to pride but because you're acting like a fucking retard

You can't pretend to be some high grade debate bro and then call accuracy a "gotcha"

Why do you care about these things? What motivates you, aside from emotion, to care about truth and injustice? Are you just an emotion motivated actor? Doesn't seem very compelling to me
1. Can you try to get through a conversation without out hurling these juvenile insults? It isn't banter, it is just annoying

2. I never said I was a high grade debate bro... Maybe your mind is somewhere else.

3. I don't really feel a need to be compelling to you? Sorry. I have already posted my motivations, but frankly they are entirely irrelevant.

The "high IQ euphoric fedora tipping neckbeard" you hate appears to have a lot in common with you.
 
You keep disregarding semantics, very weird for a supposed high grade debater. Arrogance doesn't mean throwing insults. Arrogance means a false sense of superiority or self worth. Overestimating one's worth and ability. I think this would be an apt description for someone who says "religion can be easily disproven" and then fails to disprove it. I think this to be much more arrogant than someone mocking another for, ironically, being arrogant

epic martyrdom moment, sign me up
I am not in a position to disprove religion using terms which would satisfy anyone in this thread.

You have already thrown out all logic... How can we disprove something with the scientific reason which operates against it.

If I said... There is an invisible pink unicorn that you will only see when you die, you would not be able to disprove that under the scientific method as it does not operate in that realm. All you have are philosophical opinions that argue as to why God must exist to give mankind purpose. That is of no interest to me.
 
I am not in a position to disprove religion using terms which would satisfy anyone in this thread.

You have already thrown out all logic... How can we disprove something with the scientific reason which operates against it.

If I said... There is an invisible pink unicorn that you will only see when you die, you would not be able to disprove that under the scientific method as it does not operate in that realm. All you have are philosophical opinions that argue as to why God must exist to give mankind purpose. That is of no interest to me.
>i can disprove God
<ok do it
>YOU HEKCIN THREW OUT THE LOGICS I CANT... but do you want to hear about the burden of proof again? it's REALLY gonna compel you this time I swear.
 
>i can disprove God
<ok do it
>YOU HEKCIN THREW OUT THE LOGICS I CANT... but do you want to hear about the burden of proof again? it's REALLY gonna compel you this time I swear.
Under the scientific method how would anyone be able to fully "disprove" the existence of a supernatural entity which we can only see or interact with after we die?
 
that's what I'm wondering
View attachment 23838
Again... I should have been more clear with my words. For your world view nothing will disprove the existence of God. You do not believe in logic or certain parts of science. That can be said of many things. We cannot disprove any Gods or man-made fables which do not operate in the realm of science.

If you believe that gives credit to religion... I pity you. I genuinely do. Again, do you want to have a conversation? Or do you want to go play these juvenile games? I have told you several times what I truly meant in my comment. This is not the win you think it is.
 
Back
Top