Beleiving in God is the Norm

[Messenger]

I'm on your sheet of music with you, Faithless. See my post regarding his ban. I got tired of his incessant babbling and failure to comply with forum rules. We'll see if a "time out" helps.

I think you should add another rule for this forum

"Any theist with strong arguments against Atheism should be banned"

You can allow people with weak arguments, so you can practice your blind religion (Atheism)

I can understand Athiests who are looking for the truth, but who blindly believe in Atheism are very weir

It is like defending and encouraging unemployment  

[Asmodean]

You can allow people with weak arguments, so you can practice your blind religion (Atheism)

Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

I can understand Athiests who are looking for the truth, but who blindly believe in Atheism are very weir

Arguments for "Blindly", please

It is like defending and encouraging unemployment  

Do you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

[Messenger]

Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion
In English we can say, Done by nobody=not done  So Believing in No God=Not believing

Arguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

Do you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

Same as above
Non-employment=Employed by nobody
It is only if you can prove No God then you can defend your position, for now you should look for the truth

[Whitney]

As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion

Messenger, I think you just disproved your own statement. Zero is a number we use it to identify a lack of quantity.  However, no religion cannot be a religion.  Don't you see where your statement doesn't make sense?  Look at it this way, is no hair (bald) a hair color?  Of course not.  Atheism is a religion only as much as bald is a hair color.  

That said, an atheist could be religious.  For instance, many Buddhists are atheists but are religious due to their buddhist beliefs.  The Ralians (sp) are religious atheists because, while they don't believe in a god, they do believe that aliens creaated us and have organized a ritual around that belief.  However, the large majority of those who describe themselves as atheist are not religious.

Btw, if we are only allowed to debate gods if we can definately prove one exists or not; then both sides should be quiet.  The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.  If I told you that I believe a giant cat lives on the moon you would demand that I show you proof before you'd accept my claim.  But what if I told you, no I have faith that a giant cat lives on the moon and so do all these other people.  YOU! have to prove to me that a giant cat does not live on the moon...btw, he's invisible and only selectively communicates with his chosen few but we all know he loves us.  I bet you'd think I was crazy and didn't understand logic; but it's differnet with your giant cat, your giant cat (god) is 'real.'

[curiosityandthecat]

Dude, you are a terrible logician.  

[Recusant]

I think you should add another rule for this forum

"Any theist with strong arguments against Atheism should be banned"

That's funny!  If that rule were to be instituted, and if you complied with the other rules of the forum, you could stay here indefinitely, from what I've seen of your arguments.  And I think I've read most of them.

[VanReal]

Arguments for Atheism being a religion, please..?

As ZERO is a number, no religion is a religion
In English we can say, Done by nobody=not done  So Believing in No God=Not believing

Arguments for "Blindly", please

A blind belief is when somebody defend his beliefs, despite refutations and proofs

Do you have anything solid to support that statement and to support the comparison?

Same as above
Non-employment=Employed by nobody
It is only if you can prove No God then you can defend your position, for now you should look for the truth

What?  I think you must be typing faster than you can think because your arguments make no sense?

No religion is a religion - NO! No religion is lack of any religion.

Non-employment = Employed by nobody - What? That one is total nonsense, I can't even correct it.

You can only defend your belief if you can prove God doesn't exist?  No person can determine what another believes.

I thought this guy was gone - sounds like messenger needs a hobby and a little book-learnin"  

[Messenger]

Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

Proof that normal equals correct please?

Kyu

[Sophus]

Remember.... the masses following everything else thought Milli Vanilli was a good idea.

In Nazi Germany antisemitism was normal. Were they correct?

[Kylyssa]

Getting back to the topic

I claimed that the normal (correct) way of thinking would lead to God

What are your objections, regarding this matter only?

Proof that normal equals correct please?

Kyu

Beautifully stated, Kyuuketsuki.

[Messenger]

Proof that normal equals correct please?

This is another subject, This thread in not about proving God
It is about your claim that "Believing in God is ridiculous"

If you see every thing in the universe is following the rule "More complexity means 1-Creation 2-More intelligence"
Would that leads normally to believe in a very intelligent creator or not?

Maybe it does not prove it, but it is very near to that

[Kyuuketsuki]

Proof that normal equals correct please?

This is another subject, This thread in not about proving God

Nope ... YOU are the one that advanced this, I am simply asking you to justify your assertion ... please do so.

Kyu

[Messenger]

Nope ... YOU are the one that advanced this, I am simply asking you to justify your assertion ... please do so.

This thread is more like a question not a proof

If you eat apples and every time you eat a red apple you find it sweeter and every time you eat a one that its color towards green you find it not
Would you assume (with a high probability) that sweetness relates to redness or not?

No one of you answered this question; are you afraid?  

Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

[bowmore]

Then, if every complicated thing we see in the Universe  we find that it is made by some intelligence and this intelligence relates to the degree of sophistication;
Would that make us think that the Universe is made by a very high intelligence?

I wonder : how do you measure/define complexity in this context?

BTW would a person who is more intelligent than his parents, not simply refute your alleged observation? i.e. we can observe lesser intelligence yielding higher intelligence.