Convince Atheists

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Well, I see that you either didn't read the axiomatic, logically unassailable proof regarding the fact of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin or didn't understand it, given the fact that it is not a proof of God's existence, but a proof of something else, which incontrovertibly demonstrates the irrationality of the atheist's assertion. The atheist most certainly does claim to know something that is not logically defensible.

Your observation, such as it is, is a non sequitur, utterly irrelevant.

If you're argument is that of an agnostic, well, that's a different matter altogether. But in any event as you obviously have never even bothered to examine the strictly faith-based flatulence of your biases against the actualities of the universally absolute and, consequently, inescapable facts of human consciousness regarding the problem of origin, you're still spouting slogans of a subjective nature.

Get back to me once you've come to grips with those facts and can intelligibly demonstrate your understanding of them. They are not subjective, but objectively apparent to all. This has been well-understood for centuries.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Profound ignorance at work. Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist. Most other religions acknowledge the limits of human understanding.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Not to mention that I never claimed it was. In fact, that's the whole point! It's not!

So you've never considered or don't understand the irrefutable ramifications of the ireductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin either, eh?

G.T., science necessarily presupposes these ramifications.

Yeah. Behold: the typical closed-minded, unexamined, subjective blather of atheism.

 

[G.T.]

If anything was blather, it was that ^

 

[dblack]

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.

Profound ignorance at work. Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist.

Most of them aren't. I realize that the image of the anti-religious atheist 'zealot' makes a better target for you, but it doesn't resemble reality. Most atheists no more strident in their certainty that god doesn't exist than they are strident in their certainty that Elvis isn't still alive. He might be, but it seems unlikely. And since they don't see convincing proof that he is, they don't "believe". That's all there is too it.

And no, before you go down that road again, that's not "agnostic". Agnosticism is the point of view that the existence of gods isn't a provable concept. Most atheists think you could prove god's existence, and that it just hasn't been proven.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If anything was blather, it was that ^

LOL! How would you know? You obviously don't understand the matter at all. If you did, you wouldn't have foolishly imagined that I was arguing that "a deity is . . . a prerequisite for objectivity."

Eureka!

Now tell us, if you can, why is it true that "a deity is not a prerequisite for objectivity relative to the ramifications of the ireductio ad absurdum of the infinite regression of origin, and while you're at it, tell us, if you dare be intellectually honest, what that reveals about the atheist's assertion.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a child, a remember my grandmother praying one morning, and asking god not to let it rain that day, because she had to go shopping. It didn't rain, so I guess that god exists, after all.

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Profound ignorance at work. Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist.

Most of them aren't. I realize that the image of the anti-religious atheist 'zealot' makes a better target for you, but it doesn't resemble reality. Most atheists no more strident in their certainty that god doesn't exist than they are strident in their certainty that Elvis isn't still alive. He might be, but it seems unlikely. And since they don't see convincing proof that he is, they don't "believe". That's all there is too it.

And no, before you go down that road again, that's not "agnostic". Agnosticism is the point of view that the existence of gods isn't a provable concept. Most atheists think you could prove god's existence, and that it just hasn't been proven.

What evidence would it take to prove God's existence?

 

[G.T.]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

Exactly. And kiddos, you want to convince someone, don't talk it up or try to prove it, put your money where Jesus said to and Live It. That works...

 

[Tuatara]

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.

Profound ignorance at work. Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist. Most other religions acknowledge the limits of human understanding.

Yet we find opposite here on the forums and the rest of America

Though eight in ten Americans say they believe in God, only about three in five say they are "absolutely certain" God exists, a new poll shows.

A poll by Harris Interactive of over 2,000 adults found that 59 percent of Americans are "absolutely certain" and 15 percent are "somewhat certain" that there is a God.

Those over the age of 40, in the South, or who are female are most likely to be absolutely certain compared to 25- to 29-year-olds, those who live in the East and males.

Among Americans with religious affiliation, born again Christians (87 percent) and Protestants (76 percent) are most likely to express absolute certainty.

Thirteen percent of Americans believe there is no God, with seven percent saying they are absolutely certain.

Most Americans Say God Exists; Fewer Are 'Absolutely Certain'


... and more
"Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they are "convinced" that God exists"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20437/americans-little-doubt-god-exists.aspx

 

[dblack]

Profound ignorance at work. Atheists are strident about their certainty that god doesn't exist.

Most of them aren't. I realize that the image of the anti-religious atheist 'zealot' makes a better target for you, but it doesn't resemble reality. Most atheists no more strident in their certainty that god doesn't exist than they are strident in their certainty that Elvis isn't still alive. He might be, but it seems unlikely. And since they don't see convincing proof that he is, they don't "believe". That's all there is too it.

And no, before you go down that road again, that's not "agnostic". Agnosticism is the point of view that the existence of gods isn't a provable concept. Most atheists think you could prove god's existence, and that it just hasn't been proven.

What evidence would it take to prove God's existence?

I'm not sure, but that's not my point.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

Nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that God must be. Indeed, it's perfectly reasonable to hold that is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religious intelligence:

And many millions times that have been killed in the name of god/Jesus.

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

Now with THAT said, in just the last century alone, the Ideological Left has, IN PEACE TIME: murdered OVER 100 million people, in the name of Social-Justice and Secular-Humanism.

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million
African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

 

[Tuatara]

African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

Start with the easy one first. Most people killed in these revolutions were the leftist by American armed and trained death squads. CIA backed coups and American puppet regimes did most of the killings here. Also don't forget it was the christian nation of America that supported apartheid in South Africa. Please look at the history surrounding military intervention in regards to Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Brazil.

 

[Tuatara]

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million

I'm not going to back these regimes which not one person who considers themselves liberal ever has either yet these numbers are so overblown by propaganda it's ridiculous. These over inflated numbers also include deaths attributed to civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, prisoner executions, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. Some have even stated mass killings in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval. During moments of extreme social crisis genocide occurs through both communists and non-communist movements. Iraq right now is going through an extreme social upheaval. Nobody is killing anyone in the name of atheism.

 

[Tuatara]

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

This part is laughable. Break open a history book and do some research on the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Anti-balaka Christian militants of Africa, and the Inquisition to name a few. Way too many to name all.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Killings for Christianity
Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

African, South and Central-American Socialists, another 2 Million...

Again we're talking the 1950s and 60s here.

Which, for those keeping score, makes the Ideological Left, second ONLY to disease in terms of clear and present threats to humanity.

Start with the easy one first. Most people killed in these revolutions were the leftist by American armed and trained death squads. CIA backed coups and American puppet regimes did most of the killings here. Also don't forget it was the christian nation of America that supported apartheid in South Africa. Please look at the history surrounding military intervention in regards to Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Brazil.

ROFL! Howard Zinn is that YOU?

So, it was America that MADE the socialists bad?

LOL... that is ADORABLE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's the count:

Mao 75 Million
Stalin 25 Million
Pol Pot 3 Million

I'm not going to back these regimes which not one person who considers themselves liberal ever has either yet these numbers are so overblown by propaganda it's ridiculous. These over inflated numbers also include deaths attributed to civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, prisoner executions, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. Some have even stated mass killings in communist states are a natural consequence of the failure of the rule of law, seen commonly during periods of social upheaval. During moments of extreme social crisis genocide occurs through both communists and non-communist movements. Iraq right now is going through an extreme social upheaval. Nobody is killing anyone in the name of atheism.

When she says that she's 'not going to back any of these regimes', she is actually telling you that she's not going 'to admit that these collectives were leftist'; thus representative of her own 'feelings'.

A marvelous demonstration of a deep seated psychosis, presenting in stark, impenetrable as delusion.

Thank you... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No... That's false. In truth, many millions have NOT been killed in either the name of Jesus, or The Father.

Although, I will allow you to prove that, through your failure to provide so much as any SENSE of evidence that such is the case.

Please understand, your position has already failed, because there is no such evidence of millions being killed in the name of religion and/or Jesus. So, you need not respond, as your concession is axiomatic.

But please... I'd love to see ya try to prove me wrong.

This part is laughable. Break open a history book and do some research on the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Anti-balaka Christian militants of Africa, and the Inquisition to name a few. Way too many to name all.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Killings for Christianity
Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades

The CRUSADES?

They began as a result of a lunatic pedophile (sexual deviant, adherent to what is OKA: Sexual abnormality, demonstrating a tendency toward sociopathy) named Muhammad, who died in the late 7th century... but who had built a reputation for murdering anyone who disagreed with him... just as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbullah, were all proponents of stringent social regimentation, enforced from a strong centralized government, setting their own needs, to which they deceitfully referred, as "the needs of the people..." over the rights of the individual.

The Crusades lasted for 500 years. And best estimates are that 200,000 - 500,000 people were killed as a result of those endless WARS, caused by the sociopathy common to Islam. With the Christian's simply defending themselves from the manifest evil of the early Ideological Left, OKA: Islam. Today, those infected with this sociopathy NEVER let themselves, let alone anyone else 'know' of the CENTURIES of Islamic attack upon Christians. Preferring instead, to fraudulently advance the deceit that the defensive actions taken by the Christians was THE OFFENSE known entirely as "The Crusades", and they do so a means to influence the ignorant.

For those keeping score, this will ring familiar.

As today, in our own times, the Left witness then ignore Islam launching thousands of missiles and armed attacks upon and into the homes, schools, synagogues and playgrounds of Israelis... then WAIL AND GNASH THEIR TEETH when Israel defends themselves, that the defensive actions of a peaceful people, are "ATTACKS UPON THE INNOCENT". (Yes, that behavior is an unmistakable symptom of clinical psychosis, and an expressed symptom of the idealogical sociopath.)

Now the Inquisitions spanned 350 years, starting in the 13th Century, and was again, a POLITICAL exercise, which sought to advance stringently enforced rules by a strong central authority, which set the needs of the collective over the rights of the individual... it is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 3000-5000 people

Now more recently, ya missed "The Terrors", which opened the West's first bout of terrorism; introducing the first real demonstration of the secular political organism known as "The Ideological Left". It which lasted almost 9 whole months, with 50,000 people murdered, in the LATE 18th Century.

So it's fair to call that "500,000 killed" in Wars and Political actions which were carried out for more than 500 years, ending OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO, in contrast to the 100+ MILLION PEOPLE who the Ideological Left murdered IN THE LAST 70 YEARS! IN PEACE TIME. (That means there were no Wars being fought, purely the result of a sick, demented species of Godless [secular] reasoning.)

But hey, such is the nature of evil and historically, where evil is organized, it has done so through the idea that God wants someone else DEAD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY that God does not exist.

And while to the ignorant this seems to represent two diametrically opposing points of view, it does not. As BOTH rest entirely in Deceit and Fraudulence and both require Ignorance to spread. Thus both originate from the same source and both serve precisely the same purpose: To advance chaos, calamity and catastrophe. Thus both are known by their actions, therefore recognized as that which is manifestly the same.

Knowing this, there should be no sense of surprise when one finds one supporting the other, promoting the interests of the other, all the while simultaneously attacking those who oppose BOTH!

Now, would there be anything else? Or will your above concession, suffice?