Video: religious claims more ludicrous than conspiracy theories. Why does religion get a pass?

[Underseer]

People deserve respect, but ideas never do. Any idea that is not subjected to the harshest possible criticism is an idea that is not worth having. Anyone who asks you to respect an idea is asking you to not examine its support too closely.

 

[Lion IRC]

Any idea that is not subjected to criticism isn't worth having.
Atheism isn't subjected to criticism because it doesn't make a positive assertion (non-stamp collecting)
Therefore atheism isn't an idea worth having.

Have I got it right underseer?

 

[phands]

People deserve respect, but ideas never do. Any idea that is not subjected to the harshest possible criticism is an idea that is not worth having. Anyone who asks you to respect an idea is asking you to not examine its support too closely.

Most conspiracy theories involve real entities...unlike religions, which wank off about figments.

 

[phands]

Why on earth are they "Theories"? They are not even hypotheses...just made-up shit, like religion.

Religiturds often decry Evolution as "just a theory", although they seem to be OK (out of ignorance) with Relativity. But they take conspiracies as more fact than theory. Religion IS brain damage.

 

[Underseer]

Any idea that is not subjected to criticism isn't worth having.
Atheism isn't subjected to criticism because it doesn't make a positive assertion (non-stamp collecting)
Therefore atheism isn't an idea worth having.

Have I got it right underseer?

You are more than welcome to prove atheism wrong by providing good evidence for your religion. I've seen your counterarguments and they're not very good.

 

[Jobar]

Demonstrating atheism is wrong would be dead easy, Lion. Just show us factual evidence for your god. Answer our questions, such as the Riddle of Epicurus, honestly and directly. But we never see those facts, and we never get those answers- from you, or any other theist.

 

[ideologyhunter]

According to God's word, eighteenth chapter of I Kings (or One Kings, as Trump says) it couldn't be easier. Have the atheists put a bonfire together. And have the true believers do the same. God will light the one that the believers made -- even if you throw buckets of water on the believers' wood pile. Shit, he'll burn the water, too. Then at the end (at least in God's word), all the unbelievers are put to death.
Forgodislove.

 

[Underseer]

Why on earth are they "Theories"? They are not even hypotheses...just made-up shit, like religion.

Religiturds often decry Evolution as "just a theory", although they seem to be OK (out of ignorance) with Relativity. But they take conspiracies as more fact than theory. Religion IS brain damage.

Well, to be fair, scientists themselves confuse things by using the same word to mean different things.

• Idea that produces explanations for facts and/or laws. (Example: string theory)
• Idea that produces explanations that can be tested, has been tested, and passed the tests. (Example: Evolution)

Also, there's the colloquial meaning of theory, which is like a hypothesis except without the falsifiable requirement.

 

[Lion IRC]

Demonstrating atheism is wrong would be dead easy, Lion. Just show us factual evidence for your god. Answer our questions, such as the Riddle of Epicurus, honestly and directly. But we never see those facts, and we never get those answers- from you, or any other theist.

"Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist."

I've answered this many times. And it is dead easy. God can be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent notwithstanding the existence of beings who are free to spontaneously enact evil - evil that God then punishes because He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

But you will say things which God calls evil are good in your opinion (because you are not omniscient) so Epicurus is moot.

And you will be permitted by God to express your free will and defy God (because God doesn't punish people before they have even done evil) so again Epicurus is moot.

And when someone says they experienced evidence for God(s) you will either say, that's not evidence or you will say it's not factual which is you gainsaying the sensory (corroborated) evidence of billions and billions of humans who have ever lived.

 

[abaddon]

And when someone says they experienced evidence for God(s) you will either say, that's not evidence or you will say it's not factual which is you gainsaying the sensory (corroborated) evidence of billions and billions of humans who have ever lived.

Corroborated in what ways?

Apparently God must be believed to be seen (or for the "evidence for God" to be interpreted as evidence for God). That's confirmation bias. If it's not then make these experiences available to skeptical minds.

 

[steve_bank]

I love the Ancient Aliens series in History Channel. Apparently JC was an ET sent to guide humanity.

The interpretation of free speech in the 1st Amendment allows most anything except for the obvious like inciting a riot or revolution, or yelling fire in a theater. People are free to believe what they will.

Anyone who thinks thought can be controlled on the scale of humanity even a large company is dreaming. I look at it as Mutually Assured Survival. The idea is we tolerate that which we think absurd in order that we express beliefs without fear.

I take that as a fundamental part of our foundation. Attempts to control beliefs resulted in Soviet and Chinese communist authoritarianism.

The problem is always where is the line drawn and who sets it. Exactly who becomes the arbiter of truth? In science that is relatively easy. Theories have to be demonstrated in some way.

Human imagination is unrestrained.

Hawkings ventured into the fantastic and strange once in a while. There is a credentialed scientist who does pop sci shows, Mako?, who lays it on thick with some to me nonsensical and unsupportable suppositions based on theories. Jt is not just religion. Pop science for many has become a form of religion and escapism. People quote authors like theists quote scripture.

 

[Lion IRC]

And when someone says they experienced evidence for God(s) you will either say, that's not evidence or you will say it's not factual which is you gainsaying the sensory (corroborated) evidence of billions and billions of humans who have ever lived.

Corroborated in what ways?

Corroborated as in two people both independently reporting the same evidence.
(Yeah, yeah, I know. Skeptics automatically gainsay this claiming "That's not evidence, they are mistaken, they are lying..")

Apparently God must be believed to be seen

Nope. People throughout history have experienced evidence for God that caused their belief.

That's confirmation bias. If it's not then make these experiences available to skeptical minds.

Nope. Not confirmation bias.
...unless atheists are biased in the opposite direction.

Atheists say they don't think God exists because they say they haven't seen evidence.
The corollary of this would be that theists believe because they have.

 

[bilby]

Corroborated as in two people both independently reporting the same evidence.
(Yeah, yeah, I know. Skeptics automatically gainsay this claiming "That's not evidence, they are mistaken, they are lying..")

Apparently God must be believed to be seen

Nope. People throughout history have experienced evidence for God that caused their belief.

That's confirmation bias. If it's not then make these experiences available to skeptical minds.

Nope. Not confirmation bias.
...unless atheists are biased in the opposite direction.

Atheists say they don't think God exists because they say they haven't seen evidence.
The corollary of this would be that theists believe because they have.

Evidence is more than just impressions or feelings. It's more even than mere observations.

If what you have cannot be shown to others, then it's not evidence, in the scientific sense.

And as such, it is valueless as a guide to truth.

Evidence imposes belief on the unwilling. If you must be willing to believe in order to see it, then it's not evidence.

Reality is that which remains whether or not you believe.

You needn't believe in gravity in order to fall off a cliff. Falling off a cliff requires no bias towards science.