Convince Atheists

[sealybobo]

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

That is true because you choose to believe its true.

The same can be said of the atheist, of course.

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder.

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.

The argument for God's existence is ultimately rational, albeit, predicated on the fact of existence itself and the imperatives of human consciousness. All of the atheist arguments against it utterly fail as the latter are inherently contradictory and self-negating . . . or they amount to the superficial pabulum of the unexamined kind as in the above.

If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.

Unless you take the bible literally, no one has ever even seen god. And if you take the bible literally then you believe in virgin births, people living 800 years, people rising from the dead, the whole noah story, etc. And if you believe those stories and you think it should be obvious to everyone else then you are just a fucking idiot.

Know who agrees with me? Muslims and Jews. They don't believe jesus' mom was a virgin either or that he was the son of god. So not only do atheists think you are fos, so do all the other religions. And truthfully, you think all other religions are false too, right? So you and I agree about all other gods, just not the one god you happen to believe in.

P.S. I have no fucking idea what you said. Did you purposely ramble so we could not pinpoint exactly where and why you are wrong? Re write your comment in fucking english so we can tell you why you are a dope. Based on what you wrote, I don't even know how to reply because you make no fucking sense, just like you fake ass god(s)

 

[G.T.]

Too bad readers arent as daft as you are and can find them plain as day all within your post.

Dont despair at your mental incapability, we all have our short-comings. Mine is wasting my time chatting with irrational bloviators.

 

[sealybobo]

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

.

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.

Logically invalid?

I see?

The initial premise assumes the Universe did not exist prior to the Creation, which.. I suppose it should be pointed out, is held by the brightest minds in science, whose study of the origin of the universe conclude that the Universe came into existence in an instant, from a great explosion, from which matter scattered, expanding across the span of time and space. Which according to God, "In the Beginning there was Light... . " And... 'matter scattering explosions', they usually come with a fair amount of light... right?

Now... you're argument is not with me, it is with science and God. And please understand, I am NOT GOD. I only seem God-like when I am debating anti-theists. It's purely an illusion created by the stark contrast.

Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang. They say they don't know what caused the big bang.

Funny that use to be my theory that god created the big bang. When I was a theist I use to argue with theists that hated science. I said god and the big bang could both exist. Today I see no evidence of god so while I'll give you that the big bang could have been started by god, there is no proof so far. And for the record, the bible says first god created earth and then everything else around it after. That's wrong. But you guys don't care how many times the bible is wrong. You still think it was written by god.

Yes, logically invalid. Just because we don't know what started the big bang doesn't mean a god exists. If something had to create the big bang, who created god? You can't have it both ways fool. If something MUST HAVE created the earth then something MUST have created god.

Saying god did something when we don't know is just ignorant. Best answer is we don't know YET. I believe they call this god of the gaps. And in the last 100 years your god keeps getting smaller each time science solves a problem and it turns out god had nothing to do with those things.

No my argument isn't with you because I don't argue with fools. I simply tell them why they are wrong and laugh when they reply back with foolishness.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.

So faith exists only in the absence of evidence?

LOL! Oh now hat's fascinatin'. On what exactly are ya basing that?

Unless you take the bible literally, no one has ever even seen god.

So that which exists must be seen by us, for it to qualify for existence? WOW~ That rules out 99.999999999~% of the universe.

And if you take the bible literally then you believe in virgin births,

Now human beings, they're comprised of matter and energy right? And the creator of the universe, he created ...; now what was that? Hold on let me just check this... OH YES! The Creator of the Universe Created Matter AND ENERGY. So... it follows then that a force which created matter and energy would have no problem creating matter and energy... .

... people living 800 years,

. Cellular regeneration... What would that require? Seems like it would require some means to manipulate matter and energy. Oooops.

people rising from the dead, the whole noah story, etc. And if you believe those stories and you think it should be obvious to everyone else then you are just a fucking idiot.

ROFLMNAO! I so adore the sweeter ironies. You claim that the force that created the universe, whose existence spans beyond your understanding, capable of manipulating space/time, this force would have trouble reanimating human tissue... YOU! YOU call someone else an 'idiot'. LOL! You can't BUY that sort of entertainment. No ma'am. That is precious.

Know who agrees with me? Muslims and Jews.

And that would be relevant to what, exactly? Is there some law which says that the more popular a position is, the more valid it is?

If there is I would just LOVE IT if you'd share that law with me, 'cause I'm all about the learnin' and THAT would be a wonderful thing to add to my store of knowledge.

P.S. I have no fucking idea what you said.

Clearly... and don't think that it doesn't show.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!

Why the redundancy? But, with that said, I doubt she'd be shocked.

Would you care to offer an argument which separates the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality from Anti-theism?

Feel free to do so, I would very much enjoy that contest.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang. They say they don't know what caused the big bang.

No one said they did. I said that science says that the Universe originated from a great explosion of matter and that THAT is what God said, through the scriptures, four thousand years ago.

Funny that use to be my theory that god created the big bang. When I was a theist I use to argue with theists that hated science.

There are no theists that hate science. Such is a myth. There are however, theists who hate "SCIENCE!", which unlike science, subjectively advances cherry picked tidbits of data, as a deceitful means to fraudulently influence the ignorant.

I said god and the big bang could both exist.

You were less foolish then, as the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no point in science which competes with the potential for God's existence. God is objective truth and science is the disciplined study of the universe, which is exercised toward the pursuit of truth.

Today I see no evidence of god ...

I expect that it is true that you see no evidence of God. As your efforts are spent in rationalizing away all traces of such evidence.

Such is the nature of evil.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!

Why the redundancy? But, with that said, I doubt she'd be shocked.

Would you care to offer an argument which separates the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality from Anti-theism?

Feel free to do so, I would very much enjoy that contest.

Why in the world would I want to argue with a fool? I would much prefer a discussion with someone from whom I could learn something.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Damn! I didn't know that atheist=deviant homosexual. I hope my wife doesn't find out!

Why the redundancy? But, with that said, I doubt she'd be shocked.

Would you care to offer an argument which separates the advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality from Anti-theism?

Feel free to do so, I would very much enjoy that contest.

Why in the world would I want to argue with a fool? I would much prefer a discussion with someone from whom I could learn something.

LOL!

So, you're here to learn, are ya? Excellent!

Look this up and get back to me: "Cogent".

Given your clear ignorance of it to this point, you should be able to put it to work right away!

Here's me wishing YOU the very BEST of luck.

In the mean time, your above concession is duly noted and summarily accepted!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Bait noted
Bait inspected.
Bait rejected.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

Utter nonsense.

Atheism is easily the stupidest notion ever imagined by man. Its premise doesn’t even get off the ground logically, and atheists routinely make the most incredibly stupid arguments against theism.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

Atheists are notoriously bad philosophers, including the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.

I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer. But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Utter nonsense.

Atheism is easily the stupidest notion ever imagined by man. Its premise doesn’t even get off the ground logically, and atheists routinely make the most incredibly stupid arguments against theism.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

Atheists are notoriously bad philosophers, including the likes of Krauss and Hawking.

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.

I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer. But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."

Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish.

Bait noted
Bait inspected.
Bait rejected.

Exactly.

Why is it too much to ask christians for the same respect I extend to them?

They can believe whatever they choose to believe. It really doesn't matter to me. I won't try to dissuade them or convert them and I want the same from them.

 

[sealybobo]

If you had proof religion wouldn't require faith.

So faith exists only in the absence of evidence?

LOL! Oh now hat's fascinatin'. On what exactly are ya basing that?

Unless you take the bible literally, no one has ever even seen god.

So that which exists must be seen by us, for it to qualify for existence? WOW~ That rules out 99.999999999~% of the universe.



Now human beings, they're comprised of matter and energy right? And the creator of the universe, he created ...; now what was that? Hold on let me just check this... OH YES! The Creator of the Universe Created Matter AND ENERGY. So... it follows then that a force which created matter and energy would have no problem creating matter and energy... .

. Cellular regeneration... What would that require? Seems like it would require some means to manipulate matter and energy. Oooops.



ROFLMNAO! I so adore the sweeter ironies. You claim that the force that created the universe, whose existence spans beyond your understanding, capable of manipulating space/time, this force would have trouble reanimating human tissue... YOU! YOU call someone else an 'idiot'. LOL! You can't BUY that sort of entertainment. No ma'am. That is precious.

Know who agrees with me? Muslims and Jews.

And that would be relevant to what, exactly? Is there some law which says that the more popular a position is, the more valid it is?

If there is I would just LOVE IT if you'd share that law with me, 'cause I'm all about the learnin' and THAT would be a wonderful thing to add to my store of knowledge.

P.S. I have no fucking idea what you said.

Clearly... and don't think that it doesn't show.

Well when the evidence points to god is imaginary and you accept that he is not based on bad information....

Last night on PBS or one of those NOVA shows I think they were explaining where and how life possibly got to earth and it may be in Mars and any other planet with water/ice and this certain amino acid that is vital for life and one of the most basic amino acids. I forgot the name but anyways, long story short they landed a space ship on a meteor and they found meteors are full of the ingredients required for life. They came from the meteor shower circling our sun. At one time something happened and they started bouncing into each other and started flying off 10 times the speed of a bullet in all directions. They landed on every planet. We're not too far or too close to the sun so life is flourishing here, FOR NOW. Maybe one time it was flourishing on Mars. Billions of years ago. Then the next show is Stephen Hawkins and he tells about when he discovered the big bang theory. He said before he discovered it he fought with theists when they claimed the universe was just always here. I know, it's still just a theory, but whatever science proves, it never seems to uncover any new evidence of this god. So all you have is bad evidence. Sorry. NEXT!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.

I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer. But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."

Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish.

Yeah. I saw that. You responded to a rather trivial OP with a rather trivial sentiment, something about the irrelevancy of it all, and then you went on to assert that theist arguments are this or that, when in fact, as I had already shown, your bald statements, that are not arguments, are false.

I have no interest in the subjective arguments being made by both the theists and atheists on this thread. They're rather uninteresting. Indeed, the utterly subjective comments made by the atheists on this thread are especially amusing, as they actually think they're being objective, as if atheism were not in fact based on nothing but faith.

On the other hand, the thrust of this observation is objectively and universally apparent to all:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

In other words, that's the starting point. If you don't grasp the objectively self-evident realities of human cognition concerning the issue of ultimate origin understood in the history of ideas for centuries . . . then you're just making baby talk. Clayton Jones' nonsense that the construct of God is merely the product of human culture is especially silly.

 

[sealybobo]

Those "brightest minds" don't say god did the big bang. They say they don't know what caused the big bang.

No one said they did. I said that science says that the Universe originated from a great explosion of matter and that THAT is what God said, through the scriptures, four thousand years ago.

Funny that use to be my theory that god created the big bang. When I was a theist I use to argue with theists that hated science.

There are no theists that hate science. Such is a myth. There are however, theists who hate "SCIENCE!", which unlike science, subjectively advances cherry picked tidbits of data, as a deceitful means to fraudulently influence the ignorant.

I said god and the big bang could both exist.

You were less foolish then, as the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no point in science which competes with the potential for God's existence. God is objective truth and science is the disciplined study of the universe, which is exercised toward the pursuit of truth.

Today I see no evidence of god ...

I expect that it is true that you see no evidence of God. As your efforts are spent in rationalizing away all traces of such evidence.

Such is the nature of evil.

What a typical arrogant ignorant christian view. One other reason I was turned off to christianity. Like Ghandi said, "this jesus guy sounded like a great guy, but christians not so much".

You dare say my side is being "fraudul and ignorant." when this is the facts about your god or any god.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible (or Koran or Old Testament or Mormon or Jehova books too) concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support their various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate,factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Why there is no god

 

[sealybobo]

I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer. But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."

Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish.

Yeah. I saw that. You responded to a rather trivial OP with a rather trivial sentiment, something about the irrelevancy of it all, and then you went on to assert that theist arguments are this or that, when in fact, as I had already shown, your bald statements, that are not arguments, are false.

I have no interest in the subjective arguments being made by both the theists and atheists on this thread. They're rather uninteresting. Indeed, the utterly subjective comments made by the atheists on this thread are especially amusing, as they actually think they're being objective, as if atheism were not in fact based on nothing but faith.

On the other hand, the thrust of this observation is objectively and universally apparent to all:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

In other words, that's the starting point. If you don't grasp the objectively self-evident realities of human cognition concerning the issue of ultimate origin understood in the history of ideas for centuries . . . then you're just making baby talk. Clayton Jones' nonsense that the construct of God is merely the product of human culture is especially silly.

Don't forget we aren't the ones claiming to know. We don't know if there is a god. Do you? We see your evidence and say sorry we need more evidence. And for whoever earlier said that's the devil, fuck you. That's your weak mind falling for a churches schtick about heaven and hell.

Notice everyone who believes in hell thinks their going to heaven? Interesting.

 

[sealybobo]

If you want to call me and other atheists "stupid", you should take it to the regular forums.

I said that the arguments are stupid and gave an example above that . . . though I suppose that comment reflects on the arguer. But you haven't actually made any arguments, just statements akin to "rocks are blue" or "the sky is green."

Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish.

Bait noted
Bait inspected.
Bait rejected.

Exactly.

Why is it too much to ask christians for the same respect I extend to them?

They can believe whatever they choose to believe. It really doesn't matter to me. I won't try to dissuade them or convert them and I want the same from them.

The problem is their cult(s) I mean their churches say anyone who doesn't believe will go to hell for eternity so it is their duty to spread the truth.

Here are their more extreme "believers" BBC News - The Chinese cult that kills 'demons'

Willing to kill you if you don't join. These are christians but muslims and jews are no better or worse at murder/death/kill. God's children are doing a great job.

 

[G.T.]

Not to mention, a deity is not a prerequisite for objectivity.

 

[jwoodie]

Please refer back to my first post in this thread and believe whatever you wish.

Yeah. I saw that. You responded to a rather trivial OP with a rather trivial sentiment, something about the irrelevancy of it all, and then you went on to assert that theist arguments are this or that, when in fact, as I had already shown, your bald statements, that are not arguments, are false.

I have no interest in the subjective arguments being made by both the theists and atheists on this thread. They're rather uninteresting. Indeed, the utterly subjective comments made by the atheists on this thread are especially amusing, as they actually think they're being objective, as if atheism were not in fact based on nothing but faith.

On the other hand, the thrust of this observation is objectively and universally apparent to all:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

In other words, that's the starting point. If you don't grasp the objectively self-evident realities of human cognition concerning the issue of ultimate origin understood in the history of ideas for centuries . . . then you're just making baby talk. Clayton Jones' nonsense that the construct of God is merely the product of human culture is especially silly.

Don't forget we aren't the ones claiming to know. We don't know if there is a god. Do you? We see your evidence and say sorry we need more evidence. And for whoever earlier said that's the devil, fuck you. That's your weak mind falling for a churches schtick about heaven and hell.

Notice everyone who believes in hell thinks their going to heaven? Interesting.

Speaking of weak minds, Atheists are more insistent than any other religious group in claiming to know, definitively, everything about the nature of human existence in the universe. ("Period.") Or do you not know the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic? Only the former seem to be outraged by the religious expressions of others.

P.S. I have to laugh when Hawkings and others refer to a "God Particle" as proof that God doesn't exist...

 

[dblack]

Yeah. I saw that. You responded to a rather trivial OP with a rather trivial sentiment, something about the irrelevancy of it all, and then you went on to assert that theist arguments are this or that, when in fact, as I had already shown, your bald statements, that are not arguments, are false.

I have no interest in the subjective arguments being made by both the theists and atheists on this thread. They're rather uninteresting. Indeed, the utterly subjective comments made by the atheists on this thread are especially amusing, as they actually think they're being objective, as if atheism were not in fact based on nothing but faith.

On the other hand, the thrust of this observation is objectively and universally apparent to all:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/370283-convince-atheists.html#post9614503

In other words, that's the starting point. If you don't grasp the objectively self-evident realities of human cognition concerning the issue of ultimate origin understood in the history of ideas for centuries . . . then you're just making baby talk. Clayton Jones' nonsense that the construct of God is merely the product of human culture is especially silly.

Don't forget we aren't the ones claiming to know. We don't know if there is a god. Do you? We see your evidence and say sorry we need more evidence. And for whoever earlier said that's the devil, fuck you. That's your weak mind falling for a churches schtick about heaven and hell.

Notice everyone who believes in hell thinks their going to heaven? Interesting.

Speaking of weak minds, Atheists are more insistent than any other religious group in claiming to know, definitively, everything about the nature of human existence in the universe. ("Period.") Or do you not know the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic? Only the former seem to be outraged by the religious expressions of others.

P.S. I have to laugh when Hawkings and others refer to a "God Particle" as proof that God doesn't exist...

That's silly. It's precisely the humility of atheists, and their unwillingness to pretend they know some they don't, that prevents them from having religious faith.