Atheism is not Logical

[Sculptor1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

[Joshua10]

Well I know that there should be billions and billions of transitional fossilised bones that show to minute detail the transitions from the thing that slithered out of the sea to the bone records of man and beast.Absolutely Nothing to write home about.Ziltch.

Can you describe what has happened in the past and what do fossils show us, if anything?

I refer you back to my previous response.Enough said.What is your point? You or anybody else for that matter don’t need to know anything else other than what I stated.You are not going to bombard me/us with more nonsense assumption science are you?

I'll take that as a no!
Obviously you have not the first clue and you are shockingly ignorant of the work of thousands of scholar and naturalists working in the field.

No I’m not.What I state is absolutely true.

[Joshua10]

They are desperately trying to explain their way out of the skin tissue and blood cells found on dinosaur bones..

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can put 2 and 2 together and come up with thousands of years rather than billions of years.

Not atheists….they don’t have common sense they were born with.We tired to tell them that there single Big Bang theory was utter nonsense but they weren’t having that either.

Idiots never learn.

[Sculptor1]

Idiots never learn.

That is true.

[Newme]

…Also, people who say things like "I don't believe in God" are sometimes told that, in saying that, they're following a herd. They're rarely told that if they say something like "I don't believe it's Friday today". If you were brought up in an environment in which God and religion didn't really feature one way or another, and if you're then introduced to the idea and if you state that the idea, as it's been introduced to you, seems improbable, it's strange to be told that, in saying that, you're following a herd.

It’s assumed that by “herd mentality” - it is something that people follow without good reason. There are plenty of reasonable things many are encouraged to do - eat well, shower, floss, agree to time/calendar schedules, etc. These make sense & help life run smoothly, so there’s no need to point out the poison, so to speak.

That is not the issue though. The herd mentality is to follow these "norms" without thought for their usefulness or meaning. If they follow without regard for their meaning they are following a ritual, if without usefulness they are acting with futility.
Often this useless activity is followed in the interests of "tradition" or habit.
Religion is one of those dirty habits.
If the norms are not challenged society is stagnant.

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

My label is unrequired as it is contentless. It is only a fact whilst there are theists in the world.
Were all others to abandon the idea of god, then there would be no need to call me an atheist, as I usually have no need to refer to that word unless and until I am confronted with a funeral, birth or wedding when it becomes necessary to assert by disbelief.

You fail to consider
1) How much we all have been influenced & helped by religion over the centuries (though I acknowledge religion has also been used for bad) &
2) God is a word representing the highest GOoD, which has evolved. Pretending there is nothing higher than another is simply ignoring real consequences.

Btw sorry for the delayed response.

[Sculptor1]

…Also, people who say things like "I don't believe in God" are sometimes told that, in saying that, they're following a herd. They're rarely told that if they say something like "I don't believe it's Friday today". If you were brought up in an environment in which God and religion didn't really feature one way or another, and if you're then introduced to the idea and if you state that the idea, as it's been introduced to you, seems improbable, it's strange to be told that, in saying that, you're following a herd.

It’s assumed that by “herd mentality” - it is something that people follow without good reason. There are plenty of reasonable things many are encouraged to do - eat well, shower, floss, agree to time/calendar schedules, etc. These make sense & help life run smoothly, so there’s no need to point out the poison, so to speak.

That is not the issue though. The herd mentality is to follow these "norms" without thought for their usefulness or meaning. If they follow without regard for their meaning they are following a ritual, if without usefulness they are acting with futility.
Often this useless activity is followed in the interests of "tradition" or habit.
Religion is one of those dirty habits.
If the norms are not challenged society is stagnant.

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

My label is unrequired as it is contentless. It is only a fact whilst there are theists in the world.
Were all others to abandon the idea of god, then there would be no need to call me an atheist, as I usually have no need to refer to that word unless and until I am confronted with a funeral, birth or wedding when it becomes necessary to assert by disbelief.

You fail to consider
1) How much we all have been influenced & helped by religion over the centuries (though I acknowledge religion has also been used for bad) &
2) God is a word representing the highest GOoD, which has evolved. Pretending there is nothing higher than another is simply ignoring real consequences.

Btw sorry for the delayed response.

I vehemently disagree with both points.

[Joshua10]

How can an individual who doesn’t believe they exist, vehemently disagree with both points?

Hence the idiot reference?

Atheism is illogical.

There is no definitive evidence in the geological records of the billions and billions of minute transitional stages that should be there.Absolutely nothing at all.There are bones with skin and blood tissue still remaining on them which would suggest thousands of years rather than billions of years.FACT.

Even Darwin himself would have given up on his useless theory by now if he were still alive.

The arguments for evolution are mere speculation and guess work.

FACT,Creationist have all the counter arguments for evolution with solid scientific counter evidences backed up by scientists with with PhD’s.So much so that evolutionists have given up debating with these creationists because they win every single debate.

Read up on it in ….Answers in Genesis and then you will at least have an alternative view to a fool.

[Joshua10]

HaHa creationist win every single debate I mean.For clarity,

[Belindi]

…Also, people who say things like "I don't believe in God" are sometimes told that, in saying that, they're following a herd. They're rarely told that if they say something like "I don't believe it's Friday today". If you were brought up in an environment in which God and religion didn't really feature one way or another, and if you're then introduced to the idea and if you state that the idea, as it's been introduced to you, seems improbable, it's strange to be told that, in saying that, you're following a herd.

It’s assumed that by “herd mentality” - it is something that people follow without good reason. There are plenty of reasonable things many are encouraged to do - eat well, shower, floss, agree to time/calendar schedules, etc. These make sense & help life run smoothly, so there’s no need to point out the poison, so to speak.

That is not the issue though. The herd mentality is to follow these "norms" without thought for their usefulness or meaning. If they follow without regard for their meaning they are following a ritual, if without usefulness they are acting with futility.
Often this useless activity is followed in the interests of "tradition" or habit.
Religion is one of those dirty habits.
If the norms are not challenged society is stagnant.

My opinion is that the majority (at least most I’ve come across) of both Theists & Atheists - have defined God in ways that are unreasonable, not helpful - & often, psychologically unhealthy. And why? Because others have paved the broad way & they go along. They don’t think for themselves, about what they believe… If- they did, they wouldn’t be so quick to label themselves & others “pantheist,” “Catholic,” “Atheist,” etc. Eg., I agree with SOME aspects of all those - but none entirely.

My label is unrequired as it is contentless. It is only a fact whilst there are theists in the world.
Were all others to abandon the idea of god, then there would be no need to call me an atheist, as I usually have no need to refer to that word unless and until I am confronted with a funeral, birth or wedding when it becomes necessary to assert by disbelief.

You fail to consider
1) How much we all have been influenced & helped by religion over the centuries (though I acknowledge religion has also been used for bad) &
2) God is a word representing the highest GOoD, which has evolved. Pretending there is nothing higher than another is simply ignoring real consequences.

Btw sorry for the delayed response.

"The highest GOoD" ambiguously fits sets of religious doctrines and also individuals' hopes for the future.
I'd probably agree with Newme if Newme would define the highest Good as the virtue that transcends definition but, like hope, constantly awaits manifestation in thoughts, words, and deeds.
In other words, God is not what any religion says God is, but is the will to seek purposes for living.

It can be objected that rapists, mass murderers, sadists, and so forth seek purposes for living which they undoubtedly do. People who subscribe to entire cultures of belief such as misogyny, ethnic cleansing, or racism seek their purposes for living. It's always easy to identify evil and good is always tainted by a smidgin of evil. However the moral compass depends and always did depend on reason plus biological kindness.

[Joshua10]

HaHa creationist win every single debate I mean.For clarity,

Matter is neutral.

The introduction of electromagnetic fields produces 2 forces of nature which DO NOT cancel they balance.

Therefore as I keep mentioning, the only way to balance these 2 natural magnetic forces of nature is by alternating +/- magnetic forces and interacting them with other alternating +/- magnetic forces which produces a vibratory balance.Everything vibrates in the cosmos.

Interestingly, there are strong parallels in the Christian scriptures in Exodus 7:8-13 to what I am trying to explain here.

+/- represents a sinusoidal waveform or snake.

So we have the formula:

Snake = Snake with alternating +/- forces balancing with alternating +/- forces

Interestingly, Aaron’s Staff swallowed up their staffs it says.

I am of the opinion that there are deep rooted scientific references within these passages.

[Joshua10]

Don’t trust a word a person says who has previously claimed that they don’t exist.

By opening their mouths they prove they are a liar.

[Newme]

"The highest GOoD" ambiguously fits sets of religious doctrines and also individuals' hopes for the future.
I'd probably agree with Newme if Newme would define the highest Good as the virtue that transcends definition but, like hope, constantly awaits manifestation in thoughts, words, and deeds.
In other words, God is not what any religion says God is, but is the will to seek purposes for living.

It can be objected that rapists, mass murderers, sadists, and so forth seek purposes for living which they undoubtedly do. People who subscribe to entire cultures of belief such as misogyny, ethnic cleansing, or racism seek their purposes for living. It's always easy to identify evil and good is always tainted by a smidgin of evil. However the moral compass depends and always did depend on reason plus biological kindness.

For the most part, I agree, Belindi!
I interpret the moral compass as inherent intelligent design - our neurological & intuitive ability to sense when something is right or wrong. I agree that this standard of right or wrong can “transcend definition” because it can vary. Eg: “The Good Lie.” I also agree that religion is not the gold standard. Sometimes religion is used in more evil ways than other forces that don’t deceptively portray themselves to be so righteous. If you consider seeking purpose as seeking the highest good for all involved - then yes, I’d say that’s another way of manifesting or defining God.

Your point about murderers striving for purpose (or what they see as good) is valid & is a reminder that
1) What is good considers not just oneself, but truth and others too &
2) There are some pearls of wisdom in religious accumulation like the greatest purpose is to strive to love or prioritize truth/God, and others as well as oneself.

[Newme]

…Atheism is illogical.

There is no definitive evidence in the geological records of the billions and billions of minute transitional stages that should be there…

Atheism and Theological Creationism are both illogical.
(Gasp!!)

Adam and Eve is a story that may have roots in a more ancient Chinese culture, which Hinduism borrowed, then Judaism, Christianity & Islam. It’s symbolic, not literal. Come on, a dragon turned into a snake?? Parable!

Also there is evidence to suggest some inter-species ancestry like chickens having genetic possibility of teeth, dinosaurs similar to chickens and tailbones in humans etc.

This is not to negate but, IMO, helps prove Intelligent Design.

[Fanman]

From my perspective, religion is a powerful vehicle, capable of being used for good or evil (relatively). Its validity will always be under scrutiny because the things it claims are not evidential and any efficacy it has in people’s lives can be reduced to the placebo effect. Where I see validation in religion, is when the scriptures accord with people’s lives and experiences. If that correspondence cannot be refuted, then the believer has a reason to believe the “truths” their religion purports. Aside from making claims about how the world came to exist, religion can be a personal affair, where God is perceived as taking interest in the lives of people. That’s why religion can be a deeply personal affair. When a person makes their beliefs pertaining to a particular religious belief personal, it tends to be more of a spiritual practice than conforming to the mainstream aspects or generalised practices that the religion advocates.

An example of that could be a hypocritical clergy member that engages in heinous activities. And in contrast, a devout believer who adheres to the core principles of the scriptures, but doesn't have anything to do with the church. As such, there is a difference between outward and inward religiosity. In both aspects, there are things to be gained. Which is one of the reasons why religion thrives, despite not being logically consistent with many empirical facts.

[Joshua10]

i would suggest that the problem atheism has is that it’s arguments are not convincing.Therefore it will always be under scrutiny because the things that it claims are not evidential.

I would suggest that the problem atheists have is that they only think and believe they exist in a dualistic binary form.

Simply put, I would suggest that they believe they are nothing more than data,nothing more than 0 and 1’s,nothing more than automated thoughts created by 0 and 1 binary software.

I would suggest that they believe that the 0 and 1’s cancel, that 0=1 and 1=0 at the end of the day and nothing exists beyond a hopeful cancelling out.

I would suggest therefore that atheists have a belief system that is comparable to a machine.A machine exists at least.

I would suggest that atheistic science and philosophy reflects this belief system.

I would suggest that there is more to the cosmos,more to our make up then just + and -

Neutrality doesn’t have to mean a cancelling, it can also mean a BALANCING.

I would suggest that the cosmos and everything in it is in a balanced state and not a cancelled state.

I would suggest that you absolutely CANNOT cancel out the electromagnetic force interactions NN,NS,SN,SS in nature.You can only balance them.You can pretend that these interactions don’t exists I suppose but then I would suggest that you will have an eternity to dwell on that falsehood.That’s the individuals choice I would suggest.

Logically,you can’t still have an opinion if you have cancelled yourself out or have switched yourself off.

I would suggest that atheists haven’t cancelled themselves out.They have merely taken sides within the cosmos balanced state and are still expressing their opinion within this balanced state.

I would suggest that if one still has an opinion after a suggested cancelling out then this is definitive proof that one hasn’t cancelled oneself out at all and is definitive proof that ones science,beliefs philosophy don’t work.

I would suggest that it would be best to remain in a silent state therefore.

That would be more convincing.

I would suggest that atheists need to recognise the monumental flaws in their own science,philosophy and beliefs as well.