|
You made a whole new account because nobody agreed with being intolerant? Sad. And by the way, your hate rhetoric doesn't really advance your point. All you are saying is, "let's assume that there is no god and go from there, otherwise everyone else is an idiot." I don't understand why you are so adamant on proselytizing your atheistic religion. I don’t find you as intellectually curious but rather irrational. Here is the definition of rational you so amazingly provided (thanks for going to a website and pasting the definition. That took a great deal of work and advanced your argument soooo much!):“having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.”
Simply dismissing the possibility of a higher being when you previously stated that scientists claim they “don’t know” sounds unreasonable to me. Come on, you have to at least admit that both views require some type of faith.
You’re probably going to say, “nuh uh! You’re an idiot and atheistic reasoning is infallible!” Which in that case, the conversation is over since you’ve now gained much more faith than many theists.
And same goes to the Bob example: you started with the assumption that the imaginary friend is imaginary, therefore nonexistent. You can’t prove a point through circular reasoning. Sure it’s good rhetoric, but it doesn’t make you right.
Notice how I haven’t been trying to prove theism as the only way to understand the greater truths in the universe. This entire time I’ve simply been arguing that you are intolerant and that there is reasoning (that is, “rational” thinking) involved in theism. You may disagree with the reasoning, but the reasoning is there nonetheless. Basically, you can’t prove it either way; however, I chose to have faith in one direction whereas you chose to put your faith in the other and dismiss everyone else who disagrees with you.
|