Theres sufficient scientific reason to go atheistic

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

You brought up just one good point so I didn't erase it.

That is a convenient way for you to justify ignoring my other points, which I have noted you have done more than once when replying to my posts. It's almost as if you avoid the points you don't want to address...

Quote:

The idea is each religion has the same amount of zero evidence for their claims, to assume for instance its a safe gamble to be believing in Jesus for instance, to avoid the punishment of hell, one has to realize the other factors, such as all the other competing religions with the same amount of zero evidence. So when looking at all the contradictions there, then yes.

If you're going to equate being religious to some sort of game theory analogue (assuming I agreed with your "zero evidence" claim, which I don't) and then claim that based on this your odds of picking any one religion correctly drop, it follows that the least logical choice would be the one that confers no additional benefit for choosing it and no real lasting consequences for failing to choose it.

Quote:

And I find it, well, disagreeable that you can say yours is true, when you have no evidence for it.

Where did I say the bold?

Quote:

As for my evidence, theres been enough atheism studies. I shared some on page one.

And I tore it apart on page 3, and you replied simply saying that I had "some good points" while not refuting any of them, so your evidence remains torn apart.

Quote:

The 'evidence' you claim is either fallaciously trust the bible, in which case yes we need to trust the other holy books as evidence just to humor the thought that yours is 'true'.

Which evidence that I have claimed are you referring to, exactly? Can you quote it so that I know which evidence you are objecting to, so that I may defend my own words and refute your objection?

Quote:

Then one needs to factor all the times religions changed over time. Making the odds any man made religion is true at 0% chance.

Please show me how you calculated those odds. It appears you pulled them out of nowhere.

Quote:

Which is why I chose atheism over agnosticism. Although realistically agnosticism is the safer choice for someone who both wants to avoid potential hells and wants to at the same time be accurate. But it was too middle of the road for me, why choose agnosticism as a safe out just in case hell is real.

How exactly did you determine that agnosticism provides the maximum benefit in your game theory scenario? Did you make a list of how every world view can possibly intersect with every historical religion?

Quote:

Which is why religions occur in the poor more, because they cannot have faith in themselves they seek faith detached, its nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism being passed down socially through culture, and adapting as culture does. A god reaching down giving humans the opportunity is a symbol of a way out of the poor destiny they had resigned themselves to.

Bulverism

Quote:

Even that idea which may be false has a thousand times more evidence than your religion.

Ok, I will bite. What is the thousand times more evidence that atheism has? I am still waiting for you to present one piece.

Quote:

Many people were crucified, why the ******** is Jesus special? Because a book said so?

Clearly you need to educate yourself on the bare basics of Christianity, as you do not seem to grasp its central concept. Off the top of my head, I can easily tell you the significance of the central figures of the top 5 world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Traditional Religion, Buddhism) as well as some choice others (Mormonism, Judaism). I am a bit surprised that someone as clearly educated as yourself does not even know the importance of the central figure of the #1 religion.

Quote:

Then theres contradictions galore no christian will admit to because hey, ignorance is bliss.

What do alleged contradictions have to do with the claim in your OP (nay, your thread title) that there is sufficient scientific reason to become an atheist?

Quote:

If you really wanted to be correct and accurate and honest you would research all religions to see the patterns between them to decide which is truely truest

What makes you think that I haven't? And if there is so much scientific reason to accept atheism, why is your argument centered around attacking some image of me you've drummed up in your imagination?

Quote:

you should notice its a waste of time because that is not what dictates what is true, what dictates the truth is bare reality.

I agree with this statement. Do you have any information on what reality dictates is true?

Quote:

Open your eyes, molecules interact with each other, mountains erode over time, the sun rises and sets, species change

I am aware that these are all things that happen.

Quote:

where the ******** is there a need for a god?

Allow me to remind you that, per your own assertion that I just finished agreeing to, what is true is what is dictated by bare reality. Whether or not you personally feel a god is needed has no bearing at on on whether a god exists. What dictates whether a god exists is whether or not a god actually exists. Again, you pointed this out exactly one sentence earlier.

Quote:

A truely neutral organizer of information would quickly learn god was made up. and changing from a nomadic to a settled society is where a larger belief change occurred.

I see. So let's say that I am aiming to become a truly neutral organizer of information. Via what process would I learn that God was made up?

Quote:

The evidence clearly points to fiction, the concept of a god is fictitious.

What evidence do you speak of? Can you cite it so that I may review it?

Quote:

And I again did share the links in post one, and if not like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html Its not unheard of information.

And I refuted it, in this post, which you replied to admitting that it contained "some good points" while not refuting any of them.

Here was one of the articles I listed.

I also predicted that, as more people became atheist, the trend would start to reverse. And lo and behold, it appears that such a thing is already being observed! Whoops!

But that's neither here nor there, because your argument resting on the idea of intelligence is an argument from authority, and you have yet to provide a sound reason why atheism should be the choice of an intellectual.

Quote:

So, instead of trying to eternal dance of rationalization, lets just do an evidence share, itll save our breath.

By all means, feel free to share. I've been waiting for you to do so.

[rei hotaru]

Had a feeling this forum would be a mess.

[ArcaneEldritchNeurons]

Mooby the Golden Sock

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

You brought up just one good point so I didn't erase it.

That is a convenient way for you to justify ignoring my other points, which I have noted you have done more than once when replying to my posts. It's almost as if you avoid the points you don't want to address... yeah out of lazyness

Quote:

The idea is each religion has the same amount of zero evidence for their claims, to assume for instance its a safe gamble to be believing in Jesus for instance, to avoid the punishment of hell, one has to realize the other factors, such as all the other competing religions with the same amount of zero evidence. So when looking at all the contradictions there, then yes.

If you're going to equate being religious to some sort of game theory analogue (assuming I agreed with your "zero evidence" claim, which I don't har har you think theres evidence for some more than others then post it, I am talking about claims which go against other religions or against history or against science specifically) and then claim that based on this your odds of picking any one religion correctly drop, it follows that the least logical choice would be the one that confers no additional benefit for choosing it and no real lasting consequences for failing to choose it. there can be negative consequences, not just benefits for choosing religions, compared to choosing other things, or in general

Quote:

And I find it, well, disagreeable that you can say yours is true, when you have no evidence for it.

Where did I say the bold? I remember you saying it briefly on a side to the main point of one sentence but im too lazy to go through it n find it for you

Quote:

As for my evidence, theres been enough atheism studies. I shared some on page one.

And I tore it apart on page 3, and you replied simply saying that I had "some good points" while not refuting any of them, so your evidence remains torn apart. Meh, maybe im being alittle unfair

Quote:

The 'evidence' you claim is either fallaciously trust the bible, in which case yes we need to trust the other holy books as evidence just to humor the thought that yours is 'true'.

Which evidence that I have claimed are you referring to, exactly? Can you quote it so that I know which evidence you are objecting to, so that I may defend my own words and refute your objection? I disliek chopping up posts, so I will reply as such as this for your convenience and my convenience.

Quote:

Then one needs to factor all the times religions changed over time. Making the odds any man made religion is true at 0% chance.

Please show me how you calculated those odds. It appears you pulled them out of nowhere. 100% of religions change over time hence there was a time, assuming evolution is true, no religions existed, and a time before christianity existed since humans were around far longer than the bible suggests. Hence pre-christian religion changed to christian religion, those two would disagree, they are contradictory non compatible, and the same is true of all religions.

Quote:

Which is why I chose atheism over agnosticism. Although realistically agnosticism is the safer choice for someone who both wants to avoid potential hells and wants to at the same time be accurate. But it was too middle of the road for me, why choose agnosticism as a safe out just in case hell is real.

How exactly did you determine that agnosticism provides the maximum benefit in your game theory scenario? Did you make a list of how every world view can possibly intersect with every historical religion? Its simple, most religions contradict, if theres values one can have from religions they can still hold most of them, so as to be nice enough to satisfy them, and to claim he does not know would mean for one you are correct, two you might be more easily forgiven than if choosing a wrong religion than the correct one, and three dont waste time on religious thoughts gullibilities or activities that would otherwise provide less benefit than other activities.

Quote:

Which is why religions occur in the poor more, because they cannot have faith in themselves they seek faith detached, its nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism being passed down socially through culture, and adapting as culture does. A god reaching down giving humans the opportunity is a symbol of a way out of the poor destiny they had resigned themselves to.

Bulverism I guess

Quote:

Even that idea which may be false has a thousand times more evidence than your religion.

Ok, I will bite. What is the thousand times more evidence that atheism has? I am still waiting for you to present one piece. Evolution for instance any creationist would disagree with, yet has much evidence, and is a reason to be atheist, for the religions that do not doubt evolution there are still logical fallacies involved in reincarnation and such that can be discredited by the fact that many species died more than are alive

Quote:

Many people were crucified, why the ******** is Jesus special? Because a book said so?

Clearly you need to educate yourself on the bare basics of Christianity No, this point is legitimate, alot were crucified and I have no reason to accept jesus, or any other crucified person, why that is so important? One can be good without Jesus, so who cares, obviously things in myths are exaggerated, why is jesus assumedly different? Surely you can support that., as you do not seem to grasp its central concept. you are assuming too much, and insulting me thus into an ad hom Off the top of my head, I can easily tell you the significance of the central figures of the top 5 world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese Traditional Religion, Buddhism) as well as some choice others (Mormonism, Judaism). I am a bit surprised that someone as clearly educated as yourself does not even know the importance of the central figure of the #1 religion.

Quote:

Then theres contradictions galore no christian will admit to because hey, ignorance is bliss.

What do alleged contradictions have to do with the claim in your OP (nay, your thread title) that there is sufficient scientific reason to become an atheist?because empirically/scientifically/logically minded individuals would acknowledge it as less scientific, some of the contradictions are contradictions against science for instance

Quote:

If you really wanted to be correct and accurate and honest you would research all religions to see the patterns between them to decide which is truely truest

What makes you think that I haven't? because christianity isnt original, and nomadic religions tended to fit patterns sedentary didn't and there was a time before sedentary thus there was a time said religion was not even existing when people were existing which contradicts itself and thus why believe it And if there is so much scientific reason to accept atheism, why is your argument centered around attacking some image of me you've drummed up in your imagination? Im discrediting belief not attacking character

Quote:

you should notice its a waste of time because that is not what dictates what is true, what dictates the truth is bare reality.

I agree with this statement. Do you have any information on what reality dictates is true? Oh the general stuff Im sure you've heard by now, the physical processes of the universe do not suggest a god who makes actions on a whim is needed, for one.

Quote:

Open your eyes, molecules interact with each other, mountains erode over time, the sun rises and sets, species change

I am aware that these are all things that happen.

Quote:

where the ******** is there a need for a god?

Allow me to remind you that, per your own assertion that I just finished agreeing to, what is true is what is dictated by bare reality. Whether or not you personally feel a god is needed has no bearing at on on whether a god exists. What dictates whether a god exists is whether or not a god actually exists. Again, you pointed this out exactly one sentence earlier.

Quote:

A truely neutral organizer of information would quickly learn god was made up. and changing from a nomadic to a settled society is where a larger belief change occurred.

I see. So let's say that I am aiming to become a truly neutral organizer of information. Via what process would I learn that God was made up? Via studying of archaeology and history and finding the themes leading to beliefs in various gods along with the changes of said cultures during the times

Quote:

The evidence clearly points to fiction, the concept of a god is fictitious.

What evidence do you speak of? Can you cite it so that I may review it? ughhhh

Quote:

And I again did share the links in post one, and if not like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html Its not unheard of information.

And I refuted it, in this post, which you replied to admitting that it contained "some good points" while not refuting any of them. yeah that happened

Here was one of the articles I listed.

I also predicted that, as more people became atheist, the trend would start to reverse. And lo and behold, it appears that such a thing is already being observed! Whoops!

But that's neither here nor there, because your argument resting on the idea of intelligence is an argument from authority, and you have yet to provide a sound reason why atheism should be the choice of an intellectual.

Quote:

So, instead of trying to eternal dance of rationalization, lets just do an evidence share, itll save our breath.

By all means, feel free to share. I've been waiting for you to do so.

The links you shared are to studies not peer reviewed. Are exceptions to the main patterns, as they were called odd colleges, and with education increaseing the amount abandoning religion may do so before college, and he excluded people aged 18-30 in his study, if they did in college abandon belief more in the past then why when trying to dissuade that exclude that group when this is the college group that is most likely to provide relevant information? Sounds like they purposely altered it to fit their claim.

http://www.queen.clara.net/10.html

This generally ^

Plus, you know, evolution discrediting many claims of religions, archaeologically/historically they are inaccurate in some claims, I discredited your suggesting the trend is changing, so Atheists are still smarter, The only reason anyone still believes in the christian god is to avoid hell, for social circles (which there are non religious social circles one could always join for social stuff).

But why atheism, over agnosticism? That is harder to prove than why atheism over religion. But my justification for atheism is to counter the lack of progress religions can cause. If they are not opposed less people will know the more correct alternatives. When the logical christians notice the only arguments for defending christianity for instance are full of fallacies, or that atheists bring up biblical contradictions they never knew existed, some convert, even if most of the time they will not. As an agnostic theres no reason to make an antireligious claim since you are leaving your beliefs open in case when you die there happens to be heaven hell reincarnation or whatever else, so as to be more accepting of the truth revealed in their death from eliminating bias. But atheism would save more people long term, even if a single religion were true, the odds we have that religion on earth today as opposed to a planet somewhere billions of lightyears out away from us, were correct for instance, we would have no chance of knowing and atheism would prevent religious mistakes faster. Some interpretations of christianity are that others of different religions will go to hell too, because theres one true god bla bla, if the other religions are like that (it was generally invented to prevent outsiders commanding the population tho so theres a logical explanation for that, but still) then why choose a religion at all when itd be choosing possibly eternal damnation, even when theres hundreds of christian denominations alone, choosing one automatically contradicts many aspects of the religion, and with such a spiteful god, who is to say you wouldnt go to hell for that either, tho living in such fear is retarded, catholics are known for such retardation, hence Its relevance.

[Xiam]

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

That fact along with the fact that Christians think god will simply forgive their lies for them believing in him, is great reason to not take their claims seriously. And that is if we simply forget all the bible's documented contradictions, logical fallacies, immoral behavior, impossibilities, etc. Most religions are probably as non-logical.

You don't sound so certain. Perhaps it is because you have not actually studied other religions, have not put any real thought into how they work, and make the assumption that because the one you're familiar is a certain way, it must therefore follow that the others do the same?

[olisea]

Ironically, being in the studying sciences and working as a biomedical lab tech turned this former Atheist of almost a decade towards Christianity... Among other life experiences.

Now working on going onto become an RN and eventually bridging over to become a PA.

[The New Wineskin]

Lady Kariel

NewtonsFlamingLaserSword

Lady Kariel

Where did the universe come from?

That does not change the facts I have presented.

Ok cool. I asked a simple question. I would just like to hear your answer.

I'd hardly call that question simple. Hell, based on how loaded and full of s**t the intention behind that question was, I'd hardly call it a question, let alone a simple one.

[The New Wineskin]

Fullmetal Gurren Titan

Atheism rocks!

^ Perhaps the only argument on this thread I find even remotely convincing.