[sixsix]

Dude, this is at the level of thinking of a child.

It's definitely embarrassing for a grown man.

(By the way, I am conservative.)

Quote:

Religion is designed by motherfucking alphas to keep bitches in check.

If you as a man actually believe it, you're the bitch being kept in check.

[Bad Hussar]

In the vein of sixsix's post above I'm going to quickly look at the top 10 of the Forbes 400 rich list and see if I can find evidence of whether they are theist, atheist or just couldn't care either way.

[MikeCF]

[MikeCF]

(09-05-2013 12:49 PM)sixsix Wrote:  

Dude, this is at the level of thinking of a child.

It's definitely embarrassing for a grown man.

(By the way, I am conservative.)

Quote:

Religion is designed by motherfucking alphas to keep bitches in check.

If you as a man actually believe it, you're the bitch being kept in check.

You can't even have a civil debate.

What's that say about you?

P.S. Shave the neck beard. And take a huge shit. You need to lighten up.

[soup]

(09-05-2013 12:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 12:34 PM)soup Wrote:  

Atheists invented the idea of sky hooks to talk about things that exist that we have yet to comprehend, instead of creating a fantasy answer. They recognize that our perceptive capabalities are actually pretty limited at this time.

Skyhook sounds like another word for "higher being."

Quote:

You can't have something doesn't exist in reality. Nothing can exist outside of existence.

No one knows what exists in reality.

Quote:

Also, if there was some over-arching conscious power, why would you worship it? Do you want a master?

You wouldn't give respects to your parents?

I do. But I also don't go to a giant building where I bow my head to my father, and he wouldn't want me to do that either.

People always say "thank god" if they almost got killed or something. I say "why god, why are you such a sadistic, bored fuck?"

If there is a race of higher intelligence/more powerful beings that created us, they probably laugh at the religious people who worship them.

Let's look into the psychology of this god..

Imagine you are genetically modifying ants in a laboratory, and one day you see the ants create a temple dedicated to you. At first you'd think it was cool, funny, or touching.

Then another group of ants creates a temple dedicated to you, but they do it in a different style.

The two groups of ants go to war over which is the correct style.

They end up murdering each other. All of your ants are dead.

How do you feel now?

Wouldn't you have rather had the ants not kill each other?

-----

Actually, I do know what exists in reality. Me.

My intentions. That's all real stuff. Math is real. 1 + 1 will always equal two regardless how many big bangs we've had or will have. A god will never exist outside of reality.

And if a god will never exist outside of reality, then he is no god. He may be very powerful, but so is Bill Gates.

[sixsix]

(09-05-2013 12:52 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

You can't even have a civil debate.

What's that say about you?

P.S. Shave the neck beard. And take a huge shit. You need to lighten up.

Touché.

Can I shave while I poop, though?

[Tex Pro]

In America at least, a lot of religious people are annoying white knights nowadays. Maybe it wasn't always this way, but today that is very much the case. Every time I meet someone who acts like Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, I just shake my head. Sure, lefty atheists can be white knights in their own way too, but damn if a lot modern Christian conservatives aren't annoying as hell.

I personally am an atheist simply because I am not spiritual. Always have been and always will be, even thought I went to Catholic school as a kid. The religion debate to me looks like a personal philosophy thing, which at some level I don't feel strongly one way or another. If someone wants to believe this thing or that thing about the world, then I don't see the point in arguing about it.

The only time when I can see having a legitimate gripe with religious people is when they are the hardcore fundamentalist types that demand that you also live by their beliefs, whether you belong to their religion or not. That is when they really annoy me.

[TheBlackNarwhal]

The Texas Prophet Wrote:

Always have been and always will be, even thought I went to Catholic school as a kid.

This always seems to be the case whenever religion is forced on another. A lot of my friends grew up in strict religious households only to become apathetic to religion.

Penn Jillette said any rational person who reads the Bible from cover to cover will be more akin to an atheist/agnostic. Seriously has anyone read some of the stories in it?

Of course then you have the people in one camp saying, "Well it's not meant to be taken literally of course..." And to that I say that I do not take God literally. Anything man has ever written or created is a possible fallacy, especially religion and God.

Why don't you guys believe Jupiter or Zeus is your lord and savior? Most of the civilized world did a couple thousand years ago. I believe God is a fallacy and completely artificial because he is based on human nature. God gets angry, so he kills. God gets sad, so it rains. God feels love, so he rapes a virgin and has his son killed. Many great thinkers had brilliant ideas and made great discoveries, but when they came to the limit of their knowledge they invoked God to fill in the blanks. i.e Isaac Newton, Galileo.

Every God in every society is based off an aspect of the human condition, so to me the right to say no God is perfect, and if no God is perfect then they cannot exist.

Interesting video on the topic of "Intelligent Design" promoted by religious pseudo-intellectuals:

[jaakkeli]

Posting a few pictures of ugly atheists as proof that religion isn't an irrational and feminine way of thinking, damn, you've convinced us all, girls. Reminds me of the time when feminists convinced me that game is fake by posting bad pictures of pick up gurus on Jezebel or the time when feminists proved that women are just as strong as men by posting a few pictures of female weightlifters on the internet.

In any case, this thread is hopelessly derailed now. A discussion on whether religion tends to promote red pill or blue pill thinking could have been interesting but the usual discussion on whether religion is rational, well, after a few thousand years of debate I'm pretty damn sure we aren't going to see any new ideas on it.

[MattW]

I think a few people missed the point. It's not about who is a player - plenty of world class players are very blue pill. This also isn't about a belief in god being red pill. "Religious people ... better understand gender differences and the natural order of man."

[Bad Hussar]

1) Carlos Slim
Maronite Christian. Apparently devout.

2) Bill Gates
Atheist/Agnostic. Has repeatedly stated there is no eveidence for existence of god/s.

3) Amancio Ortega
Born Catholic Christian. Difficult to get an idea of current practice.

4) Warren Buffet
Atheist/Agnostic. Much like Gates.

5) Larry Ellison
Atheist/Agnostic. Born Jewish, but does not personally believe in any of it's supernatural tenets.
"While I think I am religious in one sense, the particular dogmas of Judaism are not dogmas I subscribe to. I don't believe that they are real. They're interesting stories. They're interesting mythology, and I certainly respect people who believe these are literally true, but I don't...I see no evidence for this stuff." At age thirteen, Ellison refused to have a bar mitzvah celebration

6,7) Charles and David Koch
Unknown/Private. Reports they are Catholic, but this has been denied.
"Although private about their religious beliefs, neither Charles Koch nor David Koch are members of the Catholic church, let alone “profess” it."

8)Li Ka Shing
Practicing Buddhist. Doen't answer whether he is a theist/atheist. Buddhism isn't about god/s apparently.

9) Liliane Bettencourt
Unknown. Presumably born Catholic. Can't find anything about current practice/beliefs.

10) Bernard Arnault
Catholic (of convenience it seems)
"She says that while the couple, who are Catholic, don’t go to church on Sundays, they feel that religion is an important element in raising their children, all of whom attend Catholic schools in Paris. “We believe it’s important to give them a religious upbringing because if you don’t, you’re forcing them not to have any religion.”

***
So. Interesting. 3 pretty much confirmed atheists and 3 confirmed theists. The other are uncertain, or Buddhist. I like this balance. The rich aren't like the scientists that sixsix mentioned. A hard scientist today is much less likely to believe in god/s than an average person since their very training makes them look for evidence. And god/s, almost by definition, must be believed in without, or even despite, the evidence.

The quote by Einstein is very noble, and he seems to have been an admirably modest and obviously great man. But he is really saying that "god/s" is/are what we don't currently understand. This is very different to what 99.9% of the religious imagine god/s to be. If you have never flown in the sky, the gods are up there looking down. If you have, then they move into space. When you've been to space and not found any there then they become the great quantum mechanics existing between the dimensions. If we ever get a good understanding of quantum mechanics what will it be then? It's all too clear it is a constantly shifting definition of convenience.

[j r]

To try and get this back on track, I'll say that there is a stereotype that religious people tend to e traditionalists and atheists tend to be progressives. There's a bit of truth to this stereotype, but I don't know that it really holds.

There are plenty of people who reject religion because they are turned off by the idea of the big daddy/shepherd in the sky who demands reverence from his earthly children/flock. Thatvis a red pill version of atheism.

Likewise, there are lots of religious people who go to. churches with women pastors where guys with ponytails play sappy folk songs about world peace and social justice on ther acoustic guitars. Those people are absolutely blue pill.

And then there are all the traditionally conservative religious people who are basically white knights. The kind of people who believe that female virtue is unassailable and that evil men or a small population of sluts are to blame whenever anyone strays from the righteous path. Those people have an understanding of women that is absolutely based on pretty lies.

Bottom line: the stereotype is unfounded. There's too much variation within the two groups, especially the religous, to say anything for certain.

[Wutang]

To get things back on track:

A common theme that's been mentioned here is that the people who were initially behind religions are red pill while the followers are not. I guess you could say this about any sort of movement, the leaders of any movement must have red pill qualities to begin with in order to be able to lead and sway people. But what about the average person on the pew. Let's say there's some devout Catholic guy in the pews. He does not have any sort of leadership position, he respects and listens to his priest but at the same time when he's at home he leads his home in a way where it's clear that he's the boss and he expects his wife and children to have the sort of role they are meant to have biblically. Is this guy red or blue pill? After all he is following teachings that were handed down to him and he's basically a beta provider guy but at the same time he still demands respect as head of his household.

[TheSlayer]

I definitely disagree with the premise that religious people are more red-pill than atheists. Religious people believe in more traditional households which is all fine and well but most religious people also tend to be white knights. They certainly don't approve of the player lifestyle. The red-pill isn't just about the role of women in society but it is an all encompassing view of society which the religious people do not share.

For the members here who do believe in god and religion (I have no problems with that), which religion is the one true religion then? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Judaism? Or all of them? Is there one god or different gods from different religions? I know you don't have the answers to those questions. I am just asking because when I think about the different religions and know what I know about society, mankind, and our history, I agree with others who say that god and religions are just devices created to control man.

[Veloce]

There's a lot of generalizations going on in this thread...

There are many facets involved with being "red-pill". Just like there are many facets to religion.

You might as well say, "Conservatives are more red pill than Liberals". (a debate which has happened repeatedly)

You can find examples from both sides that are red-pill. To me, red-pill supercedes both. You can find red-pill religious adherents and you can find red-pill atheists. There are both great and piss-poor examples of men in any ideological camp.

Myself, I'd most associate myself as a Buddhist. I've got a ROK article about it I've been meaning to post forever...maybe I'll get around to it today. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a greater spirit within all of us, but not in any metaphorical sense. I mean that in the most tangible, scientific, observable sense, because it is something that I have EXPERIENCED. That is a key factor in religion; the true religious adherents are those that have experienced a different state of being through prayer or meditation.

Religion is different than teachings. Just like a guru is different than a teacher. In Christian religions, a guru could be equated to a saint; someone that is the physical manifestation of god and represents godliness in their existence. Everything that the Bible preaches about Heaven and Hell are true, but not in the literal sense that people prescribe. The teachings of Christ and the Buddha are very similar if not identical.

Bit of a digression there but the idea is that these teachings are very much red-pill. Whether or not humanity interprets them or applies them correctly is a whole other matter.

Blue pill religious adherent: Clings to their cross, prays to Jesus every night for salvation for their sins, thinks that one day they're going to die and float up to the clouds in the sky and be happy forever.

Red pill religious adherent: Finds peace and heaven within themselves through prayer and meditation, rejects outside authority and influence, rejects materialism, false leaders, and false idols. Finds their own happiness and walks on this earth with a sense of calm and power.

Blue pill atheist: modern progressive social anarchist gender studies major with a neckbeard

Red pill atheist: Thomas Edison.

[soup]

One thing that I can say I agree with most religions is that God would definitely be a man, not some female.

Also, if I had to choose a religion, it wouldn't be some centralized power structure; I think it would be more fun to worship pantheism or pagan stuff.

I think that having a separate god for every force/intention/voice you encounter could be cool. Like right now, I hear the porn god beckoning me to sacrifice some man milk.

Later, I will make a pilgrimage to the chapel of the Day Game God.

[soup]

(09-05-2013 02:00 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

There's a lot of generalizations going on in this thread...

There are many facets involved with being "red-pill". Just like there are many facets to religion.

You might as well say, "Conservatives are more red pill than Liberals". (a debate which has happened repeatedly)

You can find examples from both sides that are red-pill. To me, red-pill supercedes both. You can find red-pill religious adherents and you can find red-pill atheists. There are both great and piss-poor examples of men in any ideological camp.

Myself, I'd most associate myself as a Buddhist. I've got a ROK article about it I've been meaning to post forever...maybe I'll get around to it today. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a greater spirit within all of us, but not in any metaphorical sense. I mean that in the most tangible, scientific, observable sense, because it is something that I have EXPERIENCED. That is a key factor in religion; the true religious adherents are those that have experienced a different state of being through prayer or meditation.

Religion is different than teachings. Just like a guru is different than a teacher. In Christian religions, a guru could be equated to a saint; someone that is the physical manifestation of god and represents godliness in their existence. Everything that the Bible preaches about Heaven and Hell are true, but not in the literal sense that people prescribe. The teachings of Christ and the Buddha are very similar if not identical.

Bit of a digression there but the idea is that these teachings are very much red-pill. Whether or not humanity interprets them or applies them correctly is a whole other matter.

Blue pill religious adherent: Clings to their cross, prays to Jesus every night for salvation for their sins, thinks that one day they're going to die and float up to the clouds in the sky and be happy forever.

Red pill religious adherent: Finds peace and heaven within themselves through prayer and meditation, rejects outside authority and influence, rejects materialism, false leaders, and false idols. Finds their own happiness and walks on this earth with a sense of calm and power.

Blue pill atheist: modern progressive social anarchist gender studies major with a neckbeard

Red pill atheist: Thomas Edison.

I don't believe there is a greater spirit. What does that mean?

Ahd to those that have heard god's voice: how do you know it wasn't the devil impersonating god?

[Teedub]

(09-05-2013 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

On the topic of atheism "being the rational choice": Not even close.

Theists believe in a higher power that exists outside the detection of our five senses.

Atheists believe that nothing exists outside of our five senses.

Obviously, according to current scientific research, atheists are already wrong. We know from current Quantam Theory that the world operates much different than how we percieve it. What we know from our senses (sight sound touch taste smell) is only a very limited picture of how the world actually is. The world is almost certainly vastly different than how we percieve it.

Most atheists haven't put much thought into the matter, and are intellectually lazy who just want to take the path of least resistance. Saying, "there is no god" is really easy when you bury your head in the sand.

But if you actually take the time to think about the limits and scope of human knowledge, you'll quickly see that the odds are far higher in favor of there being a God than not.

- Giant fucking universe with over 1 trillion galaxies (no one knows what is out there)
- Age of universe billions of years old (no one really knows how old this place is)
- Some shit about a big bang? (I.e. no one knows wtf is going on)
- Huge mess of inter-space matter that collides to form stars and planets (no one knows what is going on)
- Optimal conditions arrive on a planet in the middle of the universe we call earth and somehow life develops (more guessing)
- Life is structured in a way that it can evolve into more complex lifeforms (no one knows what is going on)
- Somehow a lifeform evolves that is self-reflective and rational, i.e. man (the human mind is still one of the greatest mysteries in existence)


And people want to tell me this is all an accident?



Guys... if you traveled to the middle of the anartatic and saw a house, would you just assume it magically appeared out of the sky? Or would you assume someone created it?

Althought it cannot be "proved scientifically" that the universe was created by a being, science is really pretty worthless when it comes to human knowledge and sometimes you have to figure things out without science before it becomes scientific fact. (A great example of this is Game; all figured out without controlled experiments.)

The vast majority of great scientists were all believers in some kind of ultimate God. Not a surprise really, because the longer one studies how amazing this universe is the easier it becomes to believe in a God.

Quote:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

- Albert Einstien

Are you religious Sam? If so, do you actually believe the stuff in the Holy Books?

The things people say, as you have above, which basically say "Well, God must have started the Big Bang" or whatever...That may be true, but it also certainly means the God of the main religions cannot be true because those teachings reject things like the Big Bang (think Young Earth Creationists).

I don't know if there is some otherworldy being who set the rules of our universe...but I do know that the 2870 Gods listed since recorded history, are absolutely most probably bullshit.

You mentioned "Optimal conditions arrive on a planet in the middle of the universe we call earth and somehow life develops" - Well, the answer to that is that out of the (Insert ridiculously large number) of planets, one (possibly more) having the right conditions for life is fairly good odds.

You also said "Somehow a lifeform evolves that is self-reflective and rational, i.e. man (the human mind is still one of the greatest mysteries in existence)." I don't know where you got that from, but the human mind has been looked at in detail and is certainly not one of the greatest mysteries in existence. Just look at the other Great Apes, and it is obvious we are related to them - watch their societal behaviour, watch that Gorilla 'Koko' using sign language. Human arrogance is truly astounding, and it usually comes from the religious who want to believe we're some divine creature - we're not. We're just apes with big brains.

Nice Einstein quote, but just so you know - in terms of believing in 'God', he most certainly was an atheist:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

"In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

[Acute Angle]

Samseau cited the vastness and incomprehensibilty of the universe as an argument for the existence of God. But why should the universe be comprehensible to the few pounds of grey matter residing between anyone's ears? It is human conceit that expects life and the universe to be explicable in our terms. So the average human, struck with wonder, is faced with cognitive dissonance - the discomfort of perceiving, but knowing that he cannot comprehend. And into this gap wades religion, in all its various guises. Religion brings the universe down to human size.

Now, getting to the point, it seems to me that one aspect of red pill thinking is to challenge conventional thinking, to be willing to step into the unknown, to reject the comforting nostrums of normative social constructs (which all religions are IMHO). Therefore, if a person's atheism comes from a place of demanding evidence, being willing to dig for truth even if it causes some psychological discomfort, then I would imagine they are more likely to be described as red pill than someone who believes what is written in a big book supposedly dictated by God but bearing the inky paw prints of human sophistry on every page.

[Wadsworth]

(09-05-2013 12:51 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

If he's guided by reason as opposed to being guided by dogma, then yes, he is intellectually superior.

(09-05-2013 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

On the topic of atheism "being the rational choice": Not even close.

Theists believe in a higher power that exists outside the detection of our five senses.

Atheists believe that nothing exists outside of our five senses.

No, atheists merely avoid building their worldview around a belief for which there is no evidence. You can make the argument that being limited to the world of reason and skepticism is limiting, and I would agree with you. But you cannot claim that atheism is not more rational than religion, it is more rational by definition. Rational means guided by reason, atheism is about being guided by reason. Religion is not guided by reason, it is guided by faith.

[mental]

[Veloce]

(09-05-2013 02:11 PM)soup Wrote:  

I don't believe there is a greater spirit. What does that mean?

Ahd to those that have heard god's voice: how do you know it wasn't the devil impersonating god?

It can't be described in words. You either experience it or you don't. For anyone wanting to experience it, there is plenty of literature out there on spiritual experiences.

"god's" voice is your voice.

In Christian religions it's explained with:


In Buddhism, it's explained that "God, guru, and self are One."

But again, to anyone who hasn't experienced any of this, it's just going to come across as religious-freak mumbo jumbo. That's why religious principles are often conveyed through metaphors and anecdotes.

What I'm describing is a tactile and real experience for many people on this earth, with everyone else looking at them and shaking their head like they're crazy.

[jaakkeli]

(09-05-2013 01:40 PM)MattW Wrote:  

I think a few people missed the point. It's not about who is a player - plenty of world class players are very blue pill. This also isn't about a belief in god being red pill. "Religious people ... better understand gender differences and the natural order of man."

Yes, it would be nice to get back to this.

I'd say this is simply not true. It's an illusion coming from paying attention to the loony internet social constructionist progressives who are actually a completely marginal and ignorable fraction of humanity. I didn't know any of these gender constructionist people when I grew up, I only met some in the university, and wherever they came from they've disappeared since I stopped going to the university.

Religious people simply have sets of rules that were often set by people who understood gender differences very well but that doesn't mean that the people who follow the rules understand gender differences at all. They just *insist* on particular gender roles which is not the same thing as having insight to gender differences. I grew up in a rural area with plenty of VERY traditionalist Christians and from the obsession these people had with their version of gender roles it's extremely obvious that they have no understanding whatsoever.

For example, we had a lot of trouble with a long haired male high school teacher at school as it was completely impossible to explain to some of a particular Christian sect that long hair on a man is not dangerous. GOD HAS DECREED THAT MEN CUT THEIR HAIR SHORT, you see, so any long haired man is a dangerous homosexual predator, and they WILL NOT HAVE THEIR CHILDREN IN THE COMPANY OF A MAN WHO WEARS HIS HAIR LIKE A WOMAN. It was impossible to explain to them that long hair isn't some dangerous signal: to them long hair on a man means that the man does not follow Godly commandments so he probably also doesn't follow the commandment to not fuck teenage boys. All sexual rules, no sexual understanding.

As teenagers it quickly became obvious that the guys who grew up in very religious homes were *utterly fucked* when it came to game: even if they weren't into religion as a belief most of them were just stuck with the belief that women only sleep with men to have babies in a marriage and so on. They made some unbelievable white knights, I don't know how many times I made some mildly sexual joke to make some girls laugh and then these dolts would rush to tell me that I can't speak of such things in the presence of good girls.

By now most of them have married, of course, their religion is good for matching monogamy-oriented men and women (after the *women* have played the field a bit, of course), but the idea that these people *understand* anything at all about gender differences is just beyond crazy to me.

[Veloce]

(09-05-2013 02:38 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Religion is not guided by reason, it is guided by faith.

Faith is an interesting aspect of religion and spirituality. Again, it's become a convoluted concept that generally refers to a Faith in higher power, or Faith in heaven, or quite simply, "make-believe". The Faith that there is a heaven and a god, and that's where we go when we die.

My understanding of Faith is: Faith in the spiritual process. Faith that when I sit a certain way, avert my gaze to a certain degree, and start doing various meditative practices, certain things start to happen.

I don't KNOW that they're going to happen. If I kick a ball, I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. If I strum a guitar string, I have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. But even in those cases, some amount of faith is required. Ever shoot a basketball and hope it goes in? That's faith. It's a hope, DEVOID of reason or logic, that something will happen, so you do your best and make your best shot. When I play a string, I HOPE that it sounds the way I want it to, but there are factors beyond my control or understanding that factor into the event.

Religious faith is Faith in the religious experience. There is no rational or objective reason why we should expect to have a religious experience by doing certain things, it requires FAITH to do those acts.

Religion is guided by faith in a causal relationship. Religion is REALLY guided by the experience, but to have that experience you must have faith.

This is going to make sense to some people, to others I probably sound like an acid burnout from the 60s.

[Samseau]

The armchair atheists in this thread continue to astound me with their ignorance.

It's as bad as talking to feminists. I could spend all day debunking the myths and crap atheists spout, but just like it is a waste of time to argue with feminists I'm not sure there's point to arguing with atheists.

So far, not a single person who quoted my original post on this subject actually understands what I said. I'm going to come back later and make an earnest attempt to reveal how deep human ignorance goes.

But a few points till then:

Wadsworth:

Quote:

No, atheists merely avoid building their worldview around a belief for which there is no evidence.

Guess what dude? Evidence means nothing. There is no such thing as proving things, things can only be disproven. Moreover, you miss the fact that what we call "evidence" is just the stuff that we can observe with our 5 senses, when we know for a fact that the world consists of more than what we can observe with our 5 senses.

Additionally, "evidence" is a shit reason to do anything.

Where's the evidence that I should go out and bang young hot girls?

Where's the evidence that it's wrong to murder for profit?

Where's the evidence that it's wrong to rape a woman?

Where's the evidence for any moral claim?

Evidence is a meaningless term used by people who are too weak to make beliefs on their own. They need the crutch of "science," which by itself proves nothing because science has never proven anything and never will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcatio...ifiability

Quote:

atheism is about being guided by reason.

If by "guided by reason" you mean asserting there is no God when there is no evidence of theism except a giant universe, that's about as reasonable as game denialists telling me there is no game and I get women because of other factors like looks or money.

Teedub:

Quote:

Nice Einstein quote, but just so you know - in terms of believing in 'God', he most certainly was an atheist

No, read the quote I cited by Einstein. He says he is not an atheist. He says he is an atheist by Jesuit standards, but that's just one group's opinion. By conventional standards he's not an atheist and he admits as such. He puts himself more in the Spinoza pantheist camp.

Quote:

Well, the answer to that is that out of the (Insert ridiculously large number) of planets, one (possibly more) having the right conditions for life is fairly good odds.

No one knows what the odds are.