Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[Ace Otana]

Oh, my good lord. Is this a bit? This has to be a bit. Excellent trolling.

Feeling's mutual.

In case you've actually gone full retard,

I already think you're a retard.

if your actions are no different than they would be if you believed that no gods exist, then functionally you deny that gods exist.

Can't deny something you don't believe exists.

I'm not saying that you affirm the belief "No gods exist". I'm saying that from a Pragmatist, functional point of view, you would be considered to have 'affirmed' (in a different, Pragmatist/functional sense) that belief.

So I'm acting on a belief, which I lack and deny the existence of a god that I don't believe exists?

Oookk.........

Whatever floats your boat.

You said that a certain proposition "in no way demonstrates the existence of a god". I am asking you to support this claim. Are you unable to do so?

Alright, I state that it doesn't demonstrate the existence of god seeing as that argument can be applied to anything. Replace 'god' with any fictional character and it'll be as likely a non-explanation as 'god'. Now I'm actually expecting a theist to give reasons as to why and how it demonstrates that a god does exist. Got any?

Suppose there was an observed phenomena, for which the best explanation was the existence of the Christian God, and the non-existence of all other deities. Wouldn't this tend to show that the Christian God exists?

It'll raise questions and eyebrows but it wouldn't prove the existence of god (or your xtian god). I'd still keep to the don't know answer.

Uh, what? "Have not yet demonstrated"? Are you that incapable of reading:


That is, as you're reading through the proof, before you get to the "Pixies created the universe" conclusion, you will necessarily have to see a (sub-)proof with the conclusion "Pixies exist".

It's a standard to first demonstrate that pixies (or in your case 'god') exists before it can be used to explain anything. It's a basic principle.