Is Atheism a Neurological disorder? Possible prenatal test

[Socialist Tera]

Some people don't understand what disorder is... Why waste resources on trying to make Atheists Christians? You could be fixing poverty and real diseases.

[Radiatia]

The neurological wiring in which one supposedly seeks someone greater than oneself has more to do with our relationship with our parents and our tribe than it does to seeking a deity - in fact the myth of gods and goddesses no doubt stems from a desire to be parented.

As to the statistics quoted by our esteemed OP, well, I suspect that high number of religious people has less to do with a high number of people who still have this psychological need ingrained in them, and more to do with the fact that most of the world is uneducated and illiterate.

[Mahdistan]

A Jewish state, machines which damage the environment, and another big one I didn't mention, space travel, are hardly random predictions. Then there's perhaps one of the most convincing of all, the Hadith predicting ISIS. Read this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1043604/pg1

And someone has to convert before the religion can get to their children. Why did they convert? Because of what's recorded in these books, these recordings which have made pin-point accurate prophesies of events happening right now, from 1,400 years ago. And it's not as though I just left it at 'well, they do it, so it must be right!', that was connected to the point about why they think that way. Of course if you pull every religion apart and just look at individual points, some things won't make sense. It's the combination of factors that makes religion irrefutable.

A Jewish state already existed at the time, Machines that damage the environment already existed at the time, and I don't recall space travel. Not very hard to predict something when those things already existed....

Not a Jewish state, just Jewish tribes, and subsequently, Jewish heads of state of the Khazars, and possibly minor kingdoms in modern-day Ethiopia, none of which enforced Judaism as the state religion. I am not aware of any sort of device that they had in the 7th century which would be so pollutive, but if there were, this also brings up the point that the Quran points to them as a bad thing, while people at that time didn't connect pollutants and physically changing the environment. Then finally, here's the most specific verse:

'Allah says: “O assembly of Jinn and men! If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the Earth, then pass! Not without authority shall you be able to pass!”' [Sûrah al-Rahmân: 33]

Perhaps if it were just referring to flight, then it could be reasonably assumed that it was just something of the imagination. But this specifically refers to passing beyond the zone of heaven and earth, challenging the belief that the sky was simply infinite that was upheld at the time, as seen in the traditional Christian view of heaven.

[Neutraligon]

A Jewish state already existed at the time, Machines that damage the environment already existed at the time, and I don't recall space travel. Not very hard to predict something when those things already existed....

Not a Jewish state, just Jewish tribes, and subsequently, Jewish heads of state of the Khazars, and possibly minor kingdoms in modern-day Ethiopia, none of which enforced Judaism as the state religion. I am not aware of any sort of device that they had in the 7th century which would be so pollutive, but if there were, this also brings up the point that the Quran points to them as a bad thing, while people at that time didn't connect pollutants and physically changing the environment. Then finally, here's the most specific verse:

'Allah says: “O assembly of Jinn and men! If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the Earth, then pass! Not without authority shall you be able to pass!”' [Sûrah al-Rahmân: 33]

Perhaps if it were just referring to flight, then it could be reasonably assumed that it was just something of the imagination. But this specifically refers to passing beyond the zone of heaven and earth, challenging the belief that the sky was simply infinite that was upheld at the time, as seen in the traditional Christian view of heaven.

Since technically the current state of Israel does not force it's citizens to be Jewish, and does not enforce Jewish law in particular on all of the people within it's borders it too fails to meet your description. And at that point there had previously been a few Jewish states (kingdoms if you wish).

You are now changing the claim to pollutants, while before you claimed weapons that change the environment. Please choose which one and support it with quotes.

That final says nothing about space travel. You are using after the fact reasoning to claim the Koran says something it does not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What the fuck is this thread?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As a person who was raised religious but became atheist, it's very easy to realize that everything you were taught as a child is bullshit.

I agree. Let us all forget our education because it's all bullshit!

Summer comes early this year. I forecast a high chance of xenophobia and bigotry, different opinions with frequent outbursts patriotic remarks by President Donald Trump. Weather advisory for June: stay inside, shut your windows, do not play golf.

>theist
>evidence
>hypothesis

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is why nobody takes us Trump supporters seriously.

Oh the irony! You're saying that persecuting people for their beliefs is rude yet you're branding atheists as mentally ill!

No, seriously though. Atheism is NOT a neurological disorder.

Prove it. Thinking that you were came from a single celled organism sounds like you're not in the healthiest shape to me.

More than likely most of your education is bullshit.

Also, abiogenesis makes far more sense than voodoo magic when it comes to the origins of life.

[Godular]

I would dissect and eviscerate your silly post more thoroughly had I not just turned off my computer and nickel-and-diming a post straight to hell is bloody difficult on an iphone. I will however point out two things:

1. Claiming prophecies have been fulfilled is like saying it is an accomplishment if some random gent claims that the sun will rise in a roughly easterly direction sometime before noon the next day. You'll pardon me if I find scientific theories both better supported and more accurate in their predictive power.

2. Looking into why so many people 'believe' is simple enough. There is substantial extant infrastructure behind a religion's practitioners indoctrinating children before they are old enough to question such things. This arrangement is so prevalent that a great variety of parents and churches take issue with exposing children to different cultures and viewpoints. One simply need to look at how certain groups take issue with homosexuality, women's rights, or even the teaching of evolution.

Flailing about trying to justify an argument from popularity as 'there must be SOME reason for it' does you no favors.

A Jewish state, machines which damage the environment, and another big one I didn't mention, space travel, are hardly random predictions. Then there's perhaps one of the most convincing of all, the Hadith predicting ISIS. Read this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1043604/pg1

And someone has to convert before the religion can get to their children. Why did they convert? Because of what's recorded in these books, these recordings which have made pin-point accurate prophesies of events happening right now, from 1,400 years ago. And it's not as though I just left it at 'well, they do it, so it must be right!', that was connected to the point about why they think that way. Of course if you pull every religion apart and just look at individual points, some things won't make sense. It's the combination of factors that makes religion irrefutable.

This doesn't aid your case worth shit and you should honestly know better than to give such things any weight. The prophecies in general are so phenomenally vague that one could find any number of things that mesh with them. So you'll pardon me if I have no cause to adjust my position because you went and proved my point for me.

Prophecies are worth their weight in hot air.

[The Romulan Republic]

What the fuck is this thread?

Anti-atheist hate speech and advocacy of Eugenics to create a populace that is incapable of dissenting against the poster's views.

[Chuukango]

What the fuck is this thread?

Anti-atheist hate speech and advocacy of Eugenics to create a populace that is incapable of dissenting against the poster's views.

TL;DR

This thread is bait.

[Alaizia]

Fundamentally, I think our disagreement is based on how we respectively interpret the whole "life and deeds" of the Jesus fellow.

I am of the opinion that a lot of the "good morals" are read into the text by subsequent readers. Jesus was "obviously a good guy" therefore look at all the good stuff he said and done.

If you remove the culturally ingrained presumption that he was just the best hippie ever and let the Biblical account speak for itself you get very much less than a "wise moral teacher", and much more of a millenarian nut-job with happy flavour on top (as opposed to the millenarian nut-job with sad flavour on top that was Charles Manson). That is why I drew the comparison between them. Quite obviously they have different moral valences. But they are the same kind of nut-job.

I think I haven't given you my whole picture yet: just strip, for the sake of arguement, everything supernatural and religious about Jesus' teachings. If you manage to do that for now, then keep reading.

While what you say isn't far from the truth, I think that you hold too much on the religious aspect of his life and teachings. Of cource, the thing about "enlightened" persons like J or Buddha is where the moralistic teachings end and the supernatural ones begin. For example, throughout the New Testament, we get the impression that Jesus is a miraculous healer that performs....miracles. Regardless of the supernatural aspect of these events, we can assume that J had at least some knowledge about healing and wished to assist those in need. Now, whether that makes him just another Rasputin-like charlatan or a genuinely nice guy, is your call to make.
And, ultimately, what was so wrong about being a kind of a millenarianist back in those days? The Romans had nothing of contempt for the majority of their subjects, calling them "barbarians" (a kind contribution from the Greeks). The world wasn't perfect under the Romans, like the famous "Pax Romana" implied. So, what was so wrong about a guy who wished a united altruistic world with no conquerors in it? Just forget about "Jesus the Religious Zealot" for a moment and focus on "Jesus the Humanist Reformer". Only then you'll fully get what I mean.

As for our disagreement over good intentions, I think the disagreement is over objective good intentions and subjective good intentions. You are correct to say that really objectively good intentions are rare amongst humans. I should have said more precisely that everyone thinks their intentions are good. Well, for the most part. But Hitler seems to have been pretty convinced that the Holocaust was a good thing (for the German people).

That is why I am not interested in people's good intentions. Do things that make life better for those around you and you are cool. You can stay. Otherwise, spare me your good intentions.

I completely agree here.

Jesus was all intentions. The emphasis he and his philosophy puts on good conscience and judgements by invisible dudes in the sky is, as far as I am concerned, at least useless, and in some cases demonstrably counter-productive. And to the extent to which it does get in the way of people working for a better, more just society (as it has often done in history, when the Church has insisted that even the most desperately oppressed people have to "render onto Caesar"), I have no time for it.

Just, leave the Church out of this. With a few exceptions in time (early Christians, Protestants) the Church did nothing good for the people, except playing on and easing their fear of death. We are focusing on Jesus here, when there was no official Church.
So, discarding that invisible cloud guy, why having a good conscience is counter-productive? And how does it get in the way of societal progress? Are you perhaps in favor of "the end justifies the means" rationale? I think that "normal" people, don't live good lives when they have guilts and regrets about past things they did or did not. They "get in their way" when living their lives. So, respectfully, I don't catch you here.

[Ad Nihilo]

It would seem that I haven't done the job of communicating the fundamental position that motivates my arguments.

Jesus's philosophy defers justice and the concern for justice out of people's actual lives and onto things beyond life. It is not for you or me to fix the world. It is for God. All that there is for us to do is to fix our conscience before God.

My issue is not with having a good conscience. Very much the opposite. It is about how one goes about having a good conscience. The God of Jesus and the entire millenarian spiel enables you to clean up your conscience on the cheap: mean well, do the random act of kindness, try not to fight back when you perceive you have been slighted, and you're good to go. Or even better, just pray for forgiveness, and pray that everything will be better next time. I believe, and I think you do too, that such an approach is at best useless, and at worst very much counterproductive. It mollifies the often necessary fire of moral indignation that motivates the fight for social justice.

If I can paint a picture: Jesus would give the shirt off his back to a poor beggar. He would not stop to ask why that person was poor and whether there is something about our social arrangements that put that person in the position of being poor. Or whether there is some something we could do to fix those social arrangements. All Jesus has to offer is: "dude, it's all good, suffer in this life and you will be rewarded in the next."

Which is all very well except for the fact that in the next life you are food for worms. And even if there were an afterlife where God rewards/punishes you, there is still no excuse to be so indolent. With Jesus you are responsible for your own "salvation". With any sane system of morality (e.g. Confucianism) you are responsible for the well-being of your fellow man - not just to make sure that they are warm, and have somewhere to sleep, but to make sure that they never have to beg to be warm and have somewhere to sleep.

[Arcadiom]

It would seem that I haven't done the job of communicating the fundamental position that motivates my arguments.

Jesus's philosophy defers justice and the concern for justice out of people's actual lives and onto things beyond life. It is not for you or me to fix the world. It is for God. All that there is for us to do is to fix our conscience before God.

My issue is not with having a good conscience. Very much the opposite. It is about how one goes about having a good conscience. The God of Jesus and the entire millenarian spiel enables you to clean up your conscience on the cheap: mean well, do the random act of kindness, try not to fight back when you perceive you have been slighted, and you're good to go. Or even better, just pray for forgiveness, and pray that everything will be better next time. I believe, and I think you do too, that such an approach is at best useless, and at worst very much counterproductive. It mollifies the often necessary fire of moral indignation that motivates the fight for social justice.

If I can paint a picture: Jesus would give the shirt off his back to a poor beggar. He would not stop to ask why that person was poor and whether there is something about our social arrangements that put that person in the position of being poor. Or whether there is some something we could do to fix those social arrangements. All Jesus has to offer is: "dude, it's all good, suffer in this life and you will be rewarded in the next."

Which is all very well except for the fact that in the next life you are food for worms. And even if there were an afterlife where God rewards/punishes you, there is still no excuse to be so indolent. With Jesus you are responsible for your own "salvation". With any sane system of morality (e.g. Confucianism) you are responsible for the well-being of your fellow man - not just to make sure that they are warm, and have somewhere to sleep, but to make sure that they never have to beg to be warm and have somewhere to sleep.

EXACTLY.

[Mahdistan]

Not a Jewish state, just Jewish tribes, and subsequently, Jewish heads of state of the Khazars, and possibly minor kingdoms in modern-day Ethiopia, none of which enforced Judaism as the state religion. I am not aware of any sort of device that they had in the 7th century which would be so pollutive, but if there were, this also brings up the point that the Quran points to them as a bad thing, while people at that time didn't connect pollutants and physically changing the environment. Then finally, here's the most specific verse:

'Allah says: “O assembly of Jinn and men! If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the Earth, then pass! Not without authority shall you be able to pass!”' [Sûrah al-Rahmân: 33]

Perhaps if it were just referring to flight, then it could be reasonably assumed that it was just something of the imagination. But this specifically refers to passing beyond the zone of heaven and earth, challenging the belief that the sky was simply infinite that was upheld at the time, as seen in the traditional Christian view of heaven.

Since technically the current state of Israel does not force it's citizens to be Jewish, and does not enforce Jewish law in particular on all of the people within it's borders it too fails to meet your description. And at that point there had previously been a few Jewish states (kingdoms if you wish).

You are now changing the claim to pollutants, while before you claimed weapons that change the environment. Please choose which one and support it with quotes.

That final says nothing about space travel. You are using after the fact reasoning to claim the Koran says something it does not.

Israel defines itself as 'Jewish and democratic', and is the first state to be formed because of Judaism since old Israel. The Khazars and Jewish tribes were not founded because they were Jewish. They already had existed, and became Jewish due to conversion over time, while Jewish Abyssinian kingdoms, like their Christian counterparts, split and rejoined based on the political situation, generally not religion. This is supported owing to that the Jewish peoples in Ethiopia tended to not openly express their Jewishness, with few synagogues and whatnot, when they had perfectly fine opportunities to do so. This seems fairly strongly indicative that they weren't founded on a religious basis.

Pollutants are environmentally damaging. And I never claimed weapons, just machines (though there may be something too that could indicate nuclear weapons, but I'm unsure). It seems I may have been mistaken on the matter of environmentally damaging machines, but there are certain prophecies predicting environmental damage, and that people who contribute to it may suffer on earth because of it. Here are quotes:

"Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by (reason of) what the hands of people have earned, so He (i.e. Allah) may let them taste part of (the consequences of) what they have done that perhaps they will return (to righteousness).” [Quran 30:41]

Then, in support of this, telling people to not contribute to it:

"But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and (yet), do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corruptors. " [Quran 28:77]

“Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." [Quran 2:60]

Then, a Hadith encourages planting trees, again an environmentalist idea before environmentalist had really taken hold in the world:

"If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot (to plant) in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action."

Then, a Hadith which may possibly predict cars, or bikes:

"In the last ages of my nation there will be men who ride on means that resemble saddles (’Mayasir’). They will alight at the doors of the mosques."

And then, how doesn't it reference space travel? It's saying that if one can leave the realm of the heavens (implying sky, not Jannah) and earth, then they can do it. Where else is there besides earth, sky, and Jannah, besides Hell, which is not being mentioned here.

[Mahdistan]

A Jewish state, machines which damage the environment, and another big one I didn't mention, space travel, are hardly random predictions. Then there's perhaps one of the most convincing of all, the Hadith predicting ISIS. Read this: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1043604/pg1

And someone has to convert before the religion can get to their children. Why did they convert? Because of what's recorded in these books, these recordings which have made pin-point accurate prophesies of events happening right now, from 1,400 years ago. And it's not as though I just left it at 'well, they do it, so it must be right!', that was connected to the point about why they think that way. Of course if you pull every religion apart and just look at individual points, some things won't make sense. It's the combination of factors that makes religion irrefutable.

This doesn't aid your case worth shit and you should honestly know better than to give such things any weight. The prophecies in general are so phenomenally vague that one could find any number of things that mesh with them. So you'll pardon me if I have no cause to adjust my position because you went and proved my point for me.

Prophecies are worth their weight in hot air.

How? I'm trying to show why we believe what we do, and that it's not totally ridiculous to believe so. I can't see how you can get more specific that that ISIS one. This man from over a thousand years ago is making accurate predictions of current events, and we're the fools for believing him?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No it isn't.

[Godular]

This doesn't aid your case worth shit and you should honestly know better than to give such things any weight. The prophecies in general are so phenomenally vague that one could find any number of things that mesh with them. So you'll pardon me if I have no cause to adjust my position because you went and proved my point for me.

Prophecies are worth their weight in hot air.

How? I'm trying to show why we believe what we do, and that it's not totally ridiculous to believe so.

And you are wrong. You are showing me little more than the length of the straws at which you grasp in an attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of your position, and I have pointed out that such prophecies are so general in scope that it is a simple matter to find something that matches up with it later. If such things held any weight at all we would likely have seen the end times at least a hundred times over.

But they do not. It is quite similar to pointing at a flower and saying 'god did this!'. It simply fails to hold water.

I can't see how you can get more specific that that ISIS one.

I don't get why you put so much stock in rationalizations. You'd be an easy target for Cold Readings.

This man from over a thousand years ago is making accurate predictions of current events, and we're the fools for believing him?

You're the fools for thinking such a vague prophecy, and it IS vague, applies in that one way only.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They really aren't. Knowledge requires evidence of some form, whereas belief is as well supported as a random opinion.



You believe these things. You do not know.



Argumentum ad populum. Just because several thousand people say the invisible dragon in my garage exists despite zero evidence of its existence doesn't mean it actually exists in any greater fashion than a fanciful anecdote. Same as 'God', really. Without evidence to support its existence, there is no cause for me to acknowledge that this entity is any more extant than ninja unicorns or divine platters of pasta.

Whether you chose to recognize it or not, there is evidence supporting religion, just not the kind non-believers prefer. Look at both the Bible and the Quran; both filled with prophecies, and while I won't speak for the Bible, I can assure you that numerous prophecies in the Quran have been fulfilled. So, considering that a book recorded by someone in the 7th century contains testimony predicting the modern State of Israel, mass sectarianism in Islam, environmentally-damaging machines, and the downfall of Byzantium, not to mention Ahadith which mention specific Islamic Terrorist organizations by their actions, aesthetics, and even leader, as well as the Mongol invasions, and dozens of others, it is not totally unreasonable to think that maybe the book is right. If someone keeps telling you something is going to happen, and then it happens, then you're liable to start believing that person.

And perhaps, rather than telling the thousands of people seeing this invisible dragon that they're simply wrong for seeing something, you should begin to look into why they think there's such a being there, especially if they have an explanation of their own written down in books, that anyone can obtain and read. Atheists almost never approach religious people on their own home turf, the scriptures, because most simply don't know them. And yet they expect all religious people to play their game of 'empirical evidence'.

I'm not going to argue in a non-believer position, because I am not necessarily a non-believer. However, the prophecies in the Bible are vague and oftentimes don't tell us anything about the future.

The prophecies are, at best, truisms. Empires rise and fall, wars happen, children starve, pestilence abounds, technology exists. None of these things are special nor have been special during our lifetimes.You can also predict something years before said thing happens if you are paying close attention. That's no reason to have faith in something, that's perhaps an argument for horoscopes.

Yes, we may or may not be wrong about believing, but to say that non-believers are wrong because they disbelieve us is fallacious, not to mention wrong in and of itself. You also may want to speak to more non-believers, because many non-believers know our books.

[Great Sofannia]

how would such a test be possible or conducted?

[Neutraligon]

Since technically the current state of Israel does not force it's citizens to be Jewish, and does not enforce Jewish law in particular on all of the people within it's borders it too fails to meet your description. And at that point there had previously been a few Jewish states (kingdoms if you wish).

You are now changing the claim to pollutants, while before you claimed weapons that change the environment. Please choose which one and support it with quotes.

That final says nothing about space travel. You are using after the fact reasoning to claim the Koran says something it does not.

Israel defines itself as 'Jewish and democratic', and is the first state to be formed because of Judaism since old Israel. The Khazars and Jewish tribes were not founded because they were Jewish. They already had existed, and became Jewish due to conversion over time, while Jewish Abyssinian kingdoms, like their Christian counterparts, split and rejoined based on the political situation, generally not religion. This is supported owing to that the Jewish peoples in Ethiopia tended to not openly express their Jewishness, with few synagogues and whatnot, when they had perfectly fine opportunities to do so. This seems fairly strongly indicative that they weren't founded on a religious basis.

Pollutants are environmentally damaging. And I never claimed weapons, just machines (though there may be something too that could indicate nuclear weapons, but I'm unsure). It seems I may have been mistaken on the matter of environmentally damaging machines, but there are certain prophecies predicting environmental damage, and that people who contribute to it may suffer on earth because of it. Here are quotes:

"Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by (reason of) what the hands of people have earned, so He (i.e. Allah) may let them taste part of (the consequences of) what they have done that perhaps they will return (to righteousness).” [Quran 30:41]

Then, in support of this, telling people to not contribute to it:

"But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and (yet), do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corruptors. " [Quran 28:77]

“Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." [Quran 2:60]

Then, a Hadith encourages planting trees, again an environmentalist idea before environmentalist had really taken hold in the world:

"If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot (to plant) in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action."

Then, a Hadith which may possibly predict cars, or bikes:

"In the last ages of my nation there will be men who ride on means that resemble saddles (’Mayasir’). They will alight at the doors of the mosques."

And then, how doesn't it reference space travel? It's saying that if one can leave the realm of the heavens (implying sky, not Jannah) and earth, then they can do it. Where else is there besides earth, sky, and Jannah, besides Hell, which is not being mentioned here.

I would respond but this is a threadack.

[Mahdistan]

How? I'm trying to show why we believe what we do, and that it's not totally ridiculous to believe so.

And you are wrong. You are showing me little more than the length of the straws at which you grasp in an attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of your position, and I have pointed out that such prophecies are so general in scope that it is a simple matter to find something that matches up with it later. If such things held any weight at all we would likely have seen the end times at least a hundred times over.

But they do not. It is quite similar to pointing at a flower and saying 'god did this!'. It simply fails to hold water.

I can't see how you can get more specific that that ISIS one.

I don't get why you put so much stock in rationalizations. You'd be an easy target for Cold Readings.

This man from over a thousand years ago is making accurate predictions of current events, and we're the fools for believing him?

You're the fools for thinking such a vague prophecy, and it IS vague, applies in that one way only.

Think of it this way; you believe in science, because scientists have conducted tests, and seen that something consistently happens due another factor. I believe in this science too, but I also believe in Islam, because the Quran and Hadith claim that something will happen, and then they happen. You might see the prophecies as vague, but they do certainly have parameters, parameters which it should be logically impossible to conclude an Arab man in the 7th century could come to, unless he had external foresight. Even if you don't see him as a prophet, he'd have to be a genius to be able to come to these sorts of conclusions, a genius who is able to predict future events based on factors which had not yet happened, hundreds of times. I don't see it as foolish to believe that this man had help from an external, supernatural being who had deigned the world to work this way, and because the same man who's been right about all these other things is saying this being is a benevolent, all-knowing God who asks for our worship, I believe him.

And I'd want to know what else could possibly meet those parameters. Everything and everyone else might meet some of them, but never all, while ISIS fits all of them. This is the cases for all other legitimate prophecies as well.

[Mahdistan]

Israel defines itself as 'Jewish and democratic', and is the first state to be formed because of Judaism since old Israel. The Khazars and Jewish tribes were not founded because they were Jewish. They already had existed, and became Jewish due to conversion over time, while Jewish Abyssinian kingdoms, like their Christian counterparts, split and rejoined based on the political situation, generally not religion. This is supported owing to that the Jewish peoples in Ethiopia tended to not openly express their Jewishness, with few synagogues and whatnot, when they had perfectly fine opportunities to do so. This seems fairly strongly indicative that they weren't founded on a religious basis.

Pollutants are environmentally damaging. And I never claimed weapons, just machines (though there may be something too that could indicate nuclear weapons, but I'm unsure). It seems I may have been mistaken on the matter of environmentally damaging machines, but there are certain prophecies predicting environmental damage, and that people who contribute to it may suffer on earth because of it. Here are quotes:

"Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea by (reason of) what the hands of people have earned, so He (i.e. Allah) may let them taste part of (the consequences of) what they have done that perhaps they will return (to righteousness).” [Quran 30:41]

Then, in support of this, telling people to not contribute to it:

"But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and (yet), do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corruptors. " [Quran 28:77]

“Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." [Quran 2:60]

Then, a Hadith encourages planting trees, again an environmentalist idea before environmentalist had really taken hold in the world:

"If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot (to plant) in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action."

Then, a Hadith which may possibly predict cars, or bikes:

"In the last ages of my nation there will be men who ride on means that resemble saddles (’Mayasir’). They will alight at the doors of the mosques."

And then, how doesn't it reference space travel? It's saying that if one can leave the realm of the heavens (implying sky, not Jannah) and earth, then they can do it. Where else is there besides earth, sky, and Jannah, besides Hell, which is not being mentioned here.

I would respond but this is a threadack.

That's a good point, I'll stop after a final response.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

How the heck can being non-religious be a illness or disorder? I mean that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Mahdistan]

Whether you chose to recognize it or not, there is evidence supporting religion, just not the kind non-believers prefer. Look at both the Bible and the Quran; both filled with prophecies, and while I won't speak for the Bible, I can assure you that numerous prophecies in the Quran have been fulfilled. So, considering that a book recorded by someone in the 7th century contains testimony predicting the modern State of Israel, mass sectarianism in Islam, environmentally-damaging machines, and the downfall of Byzantium, not to mention Ahadith which mention specific Islamic Terrorist organizations by their actions, aesthetics, and even leader, as well as the Mongol invasions, and dozens of others, it is not totally unreasonable to think that maybe the book is right. If someone keeps telling you something is going to happen, and then it happens, then you're liable to start believing that person.

And perhaps, rather than telling the thousands of people seeing this invisible dragon that they're simply wrong for seeing something, you should begin to look into why they think there's such a being there, especially if they have an explanation of their own written down in books, that anyone can obtain and read. Atheists almost never approach religious people on their own home turf, the scriptures, because most simply don't know them. And yet they expect all religious people to play their game of 'empirical evidence'.

I'm not going to argue in a non-believer position, because I am not necessarily a non-believer. However, the prophecies in the Bible are vague and oftentimes don't tell us anything about the future.

The prophecies are, at best, truisms. Empires rise and fall, wars happen, children starve, pestilence abounds, technology exists. None of these things are special nor have been special during our lifetimes.You can also predict something years before said thing happens if you are paying close attention. That's no reason to have faith in something, that's perhaps an argument for horoscopes.

Yes, we may or may not be wrong about believing, but to say that non-believers are wrong because they disbelieve us is fallacious, not to mention wrong in and of itself. You also may want to speak to more non-believers, because many non-believers know our books.

Some of them, though, are very specific, and the chances of predicting them accurately without the preconditions already having been set up at that time, like ones about ISIS and environmental damage (speaking from a Quranic point of view, I'm not well read on Biblical prophecies), would be millions to one, compounded with the likelihood of doing it multiple times, it does seem a little illogical to me to just dismiss it as 'crazy people being stupid'. Many atheists make it out as though we are worshipping for no reason, but that's simply not true.

[Mahdistan]

how would such a test be possible or conducted?

I believe he is under that assumption that mental disorders on the autism spectrum naturally lead to atheism in that person. It is, apparently, possible to screen for autism, but I haven't the slightest idea of how that'd work.

[Wholly Whey]

We have a responsibility to screen for, and stamp out, atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the one truth and all who stand in her way will fall under blade and flames.

That's my prophecy. If anything vaguely resembling this happens from now until the end of time you can start a religion in my name.