Cover photo
Vini a.k.a SThrill


Theists stand boldly to defend their religion, to present arguments as if they carried out investigations beforehand. I am yet to meet a religious person who tried to determine the truth of their religion prior to accepting it. I really do want someone, because it means there are some out there whose faith are really justified. What type of investigation doesn't matter just someone who after being presented with religion actually thought about it and tried to verify it's authenticity.
Let's be honest if you did not make any attempt to verify the truths of your religion, you are a charlatan when you try and argue as if you did this beforehand. So many theists pretend like their acceptance of religion was from critical thought and their best case is 'look at the trees'. 
Jeff Watkins's profile phototommi atkins's profile photoBea Alli's profile photoTrustInJesus111's profile photo
+Bea Alli I had this friend at my church, a widow. She was about 20 years older than I was, and we attended the same church services, like Sunday and Tuesday church services. I used to help her do her laundry, and she would make me gelatin, she was kind of poor. We were really strong Christians and so we formed our own witnessing team. Lilian and I went to our pastor and told him our plan for knocking on doors, and he gave us about 5 cards that visitors filled out but who never returned to the church, his church. I learned something about my pastor that day. He knew who all of his constituents were, and who came and never came back. Lilian and I knocked on those doors. The people were so happy and surprised to see us, they told us that they were waiting for people like us to come to their house and invite them back to the church, to let them know they are loved and appreciated, but anther mind boggling revelation happened for me. My friend Lilian was healed of an incurable/inoperable brain tumor. All 5 houses, to all 5 couples she preached about this miracle, I heard the same message 5 times in a row, the same sermon. You don't know the psychological rationales of another person's faith, don't pretend like you do. Maybe it's you we can do without instead of Lilian.
Add a comment...
So you wake up one bright morning and your neighbour who you know to be religious comes out with his son all tied up, confused you enquire what's going on and they tell you they have been told to kill their child by God, what is your plan of action?
Gord Davison's profile photoTrustInJesus111's profile photo
+Gord Davison I've left thousands of scientific lines of data on my page here in this community. One book I keep mentioning is God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis. His science textbook refers the reader to thousand/s of others & scientific articles. Each of those books has a hundred or so at least authoritative case references to other books all supporting arguments/scientific laws/theorems of God. You make two opposing arguments about God, one where the laws of nature are in operation forbidding the supernatural, and one where the laws are not in operation, they are only descriptions because if the laws operate to control nature and are not comprised of any matter, as they obviously are, then the supernatural has been proven. Your arguments are old, tired, stale, and never worked in the first place!
Irrationality of Naturalism by Dfpolis

Theatheistpaladin is saying the objects of physics are the only objects we can know about. He ignores the fact that philosophy allows us to deduce the existence of an immaterial God and he ignores the fact that many people have had direct experiences of God as I've outlined in my video dfpolis #45 Knowledge and Mysticism. Begging the question doesn't really advance the argument. It merely tells us what theatheistpaladin's faith position is. As we're going to see his faith position involves a number of contradictions. Theatheistpaladin says,  "If God was to heal an amputee that would violate the conservation of energy."  This is typical of the kind of inconsistencies I encounter in dealing with atheists. When I offer the laws of nature as realities causing events to happen and forbidding other events from happening, I am told that I am reifying descriptions, that there are no laws operating in nature, but when atheists want to attack the idea of miracles then suddenly the laws of nature become empowered to forbid certain kinds of events while predicting others. You can't have it both ways Theatheistpaladin, either the laws of nature operate in nature and have the force of law or they do not. - dfpolis R-9 Have Reason Will Travel.

As I've said a number of times naturalism is irrational. Naturalists actually want to have laws that work in nature when they're doing some things like explaining the Big Bang, or the evolution of species. At other times they want the laws to be nothing but mental concepts & descriptions which do nothing in nature and which exist only in the human mind. But if the laws existed only in the human mind they couldn't act to conserve energy and momentum, they couldn't act gravitationally to draw objects towards each other and so on.  The laws of nature actually operate in the world and the way in which we know them is by observing those operations. Now, naturalists would have you believe that these laws really aren't laws that they don't really force anything to happen. They want you to believe that when we're discussing God as we are here, but as I said when they're trying to explain the natural processes they don't use that logic. When they're attacking the idea of miracles they change the laws from being descriptions of what actually happens to being normative laws. They will argue that the laws of nature will not allow miracles to happen. So if the laws don't allow some things to happen and allow other things to happen then aren't they normative? Don't they operate in the real world? It's totally inconsistent to switch back and forth between these two views. - Dr. Dennis Polis dfpolis R-3-3 How I Dare Part 3. God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, available from Lulu & Amazon.

Irrationality of Naturalism

"I argue that the laws of nature are real because they act in nature. Victor Stenger's stance (The Intentional Stance) that objects are real if they can "kick back" shows that, he too, sees existence as dynamic. In fact, any "thing" unable to affect thought is unknowable in principle. This is naturalists' objections against God, and the soul: They have no causal role, are unknowable and effectively, if not ontologically, non existent. Footnote 108 This logic is applied very selectively. We have seen that it is not applied to the multiverse. In probabilistic reasoning "possible worlds" are custom made to support the position being defended, and are used as though we could know them as easily as the real world." - God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis.
Add a comment...
Some theists attack evolution like proving evolution wrong means that much to an atheist as proving their religion wrong means to them. It might come as a shock to theist but most atheist do know the theory has gaps to be filled......yeah Third World problems. Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of species, if you want to make a real good point come up with a better explanation, because in science the best explanation will automatically destroys the rest. 
Sacerdotus Sacerdotvs's profile photoVini a.k.a SThrill's profile photoNaturallyskeptic's profile photoJimmy B's profile photo
Jimmy B
Classic SOME theists' tactic from Sad Sac. Don't have any argument against the real point? Why not take a tiny nitpick about grammar or something and make a MASSIVE issue out of it!?
Add a comment...
Morality is not a number, it is rather a sum of an equation. You cannot claim to be moral if you do not understand the equation or attempt to solve it even if you do have the right answer. Even if you do appeal to an external force it is imperative to make your own deductions else you cannot claim you are moral. 
Boris Borcic's profile photo
That's my reading of Gn 2:17. Evidence-based hygiene to prevent harm to others and self, rather than lazy pickup of arbitrary do and don't that nobody takes responsibility to justify.
Add a comment...
There is often lots of debates on evolution but I want to ask theists whether they believe in extinction, not man inflicted but natural extinction. 
David Brown's profile photoann brown's profile photoPaul Howard's profile photoValdas Vaigauskas's profile photo
Yes, there's evidence, that it happened couple times before.
Add a comment...
Beats me how Christians don't realise their religion are an insult to the very image of the god they claim to worship.

They believe this god is all knowing all powerful blah blah but this god asked a man to kill hixs son to prove his loyalty. This is the type o shit kings used to pull, where parents would offer children as sacrifice or to serve in the palace as a symbol of loyalty. No one would respect a man who does this, but yet Christians believe this attitude is displayed by their god.

Out of anger he floods the world, really? An all powerful, eternal being with anger issues who's been existing for eternity but gets angry with his creation less than 3000 years? Really?
Let's imagine we start interplanetary travel and we come across a planet where they do the worse things imaginable, and our world leaders decide to nuke them, can we honestly respect this kind of action?
You trying to tell me that's the only resolution an all knowing god has in his book of options?
Kill them all and keep the virgins for yourself?
Men didn't need a god to tell them to commit genocide and take virgins they were handling that just fine.
Beats me how Christians can puff out their chest shamelessly preaching this image of a god to people and they have the balls to talk about morality.
You are immoral if you are too religiously blinded to realise this is no god, this is the writing of men.
thetruth 777's profile photoChild of God's profile photoThomas Stanalonis's profile photoPTR “The Street Dog” Rants's profile photo
+Child of God
I find the actions of that god immoral, and a poor example of what humans are allowed to do.

to put it another way, we're forbidden to do certain actions that the god does anyway. killing, abortions, jealousy, stuff that doesn't even fit with the commandments from Jesus. that's not leading by example, or an objective standard. cause god is above the rules. 
Add a comment...
The only reason we are arguing with theists is because religion dominated our past. When we were crude, religion was crude. I find it funny now religious have become all scientific but yet only have as much information everyone else has but want to boast about some connection to higher power.

We come from a past where word of mouth was considered as evidence, where smartest person knew less of the universe than our present day 10 years old. We come from a past where sex was so important all the holy books are littered with ridiculous stories and instructions.

There really is nothing to debate when is comes to religion and the only reason we are debating is because it dominated our past, it's time to move on. 
Patrick O'Shea's profile photoEvan James's profile photo
+Patrick O'Shea That flat earth crap again...why are some atheists so stupid that they actually believe that the bible teaches science?
Add a comment...
Religion is very interesting, it shows you the fragility of the human mind and how slow our growth has been. To actually base your life on a book from a time where word of mouth was evidence and rumour was truth is fascinating. I am often told I am "un-African" because I am not a Christian....I find it fascinating that religion can take over someone's psychology to even consider that as something thoughtful.

We gained nothing until we began thinking critically, learning and educating more, questioning more, asking more, investigating more. It is fascinating.....the human mind, truly. 
Vini a.k.a SThrill's profile photoTrustInJesus111's profile photoSacerdotus Sacerdotvs's profile photoSean Allen's profile photo
+Vini a.k.a SThrill God is our ultimate and concurrent cause, and atheism has absolutely no existential penetration. Telling me you're an atheist has zero power in my life. It tells me nothing. "I lack belief in God", sure you do.
I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, though it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things that they are nothing but power. - Plato, The Sophist.
This leads us to formulate a dynamic ontology. One in which existence is the ability to act in the world. Anything that can act certainly must exist. What cannot act can never be known and would never therefore be thought of as an instance of existence. So, to exist is to be able to act. In the same way we can explain the idea of essence of what a things is by looking at the specification of it's possible acts. If something can reflect red light, it's red. If something can act like an apple then it's an apple. This gives us a very clear way of thinking about essence and existence in terms of acts and the specification of acts. It need not be any more complicated than that. dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.
Add a comment...

Vini a.k.a SThrill

Shared publicly  - 
find the error, its impossible

Oh Wow Now I See It, I'm so dumb....
171 comments on original post
Bea Alli's profile photo
Add a comment...
Religious be proud of your cherry picking because you have every right to but at the cost of telling others what to do!

Let's be honest the religious books are full of bull, what I don't understand is why more religious people don't simply say 'even though god was giving the message, man is more likely to add his own shit to it'.

If you believe in a loving god why not discard the junk about a hateful god? It might be from my non religious position but I ponder why even though there are some really nice religious people out there they feel the need to argue everything written down has to be true because it's quite understandable even though a god may want to communicate man, man will include shit according to his own agenda. For instance god could've told the Israelites to be patient with their enemies and teach them but their leaders wanting more resources and virgins delivered a different message.

This is just my point of view as a non believer because sometimes I know some believers are conflicted.
Lee B's profile photothetruth 777's profile photoPaul Howard's profile photoVini a.k.a SThrill's profile photo
+Paul Howard very Paul you actually said something I can agree with. I think people can learn some positives from religious teachings and stories and principles just like we do with most things and personally that's why I love being an atheist because I can pick freely whatever I feel is relevant for me and ignore the rest and that was exactly my point, the fact that just because you are religious doesn't mean you have to accept everything.
Add a comment...
Theists always seem to accuse atheists of having faith...we can't have morals but faith they always want to chuck our way like there is something wrong with it? 
Ashley Forman's profile photoHunter Richardson's profile photoTimothy Morrison's profile photoVini a.k.a SThrill's profile photo
+Ashley Forman it's a very suspicious behaviour. 
Add a comment...
Where does your god get his morals? 
DJ Nourse's profile photoJimmy B's profile photoKarma Action's profile photoPaul Howard's profile photo
Kṛṣṇa doesn't need morals, because He owns everything. However pure goodness is Kṛṣṇa inherent nature. 
Add a comment...
Apps with Google+ Sign-in
  • Lara Croft:Relic Run
  • Driver Speedboat Paradise