Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[abaris]

How come like none of the atheists here know how to use their brain and think critically then?

Grow one before sitting in judgment.

[KevinM1]

For someone who has found god, Delicate is really angry. It's okay. Your god is strong enough to withstand us, right? And why should you care what we think? You obviously don't care enough about us to not scream at us in every fucking post.

Maybe just... fuck off, go about your life, and die happy? Sounds like a solid plan to me.

[Delicate]

For someone who has found god, Delicate is really angry.  It's okay.  Your god is strong enough to withstand us, right?  And why should you care what we think?  You obviously don't care enough about us to not scream at us in every fucking post.

Maybe just... fuck off, go about your life, and die happy?  Sounds like a solid plan to me.

[abaris]

Interesting choice of picture there. If you're serious about your mission that is.

[ignoramus]

So yes, you're still committing a fallacy, and you're trying to defend your fallacy. This is why atheism is a joke.

"Atheism is a joke."

Believes in an invisible man in the sky instead because mummy said it's true!  

But I do sincerly want to thank you on behalf of most atheists here.
You know, for making us look intelligent without doing very much.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My atheism is simply a complete lack of faith in deities, the OP's misunderstanding aside.

I don't make any assertion about any god's existence. I simply don't see any evidence for any god and don't extend faith to such fanciful claims.

[Cato]

Do you and Cato read lists of fallacies and mistake them for a how-to guide?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...-well.html

I most certainly did not poison the well. You insisting that I did betrays yet another topic you know fuck all about. If I had said Plantinga is full of shit because he wears his underwear backwards or snorts ground pepper, that would be poisoning the well. Identifying his well known position as an ID supporter is very much germane to the conversation. In addition I told you that it was his penchant for throwing out well worn and well refuted arguments that was at issue.

These arguments are concocted with god in mind and do nothing more than create a placeholder to solve non-existent problems. WLC and Plantinga gleefully fill the placeholder with their notion of god. The primary reason these arguments fail is because the placeholder is always characterized with certain attributes, attributes already arbitrarily assigned to god so many of these arguments are simply begging the question. God can only be presumed to have said attributes because there is no observation of god and therefore no observation of god possessing said attributes.

It's a ruse.

[KevinM1]

Let's say these arguments did successfully prove the existence of a god. At best, they point to an uninvolved watchmaker rather than a zombie Jew concocted by ancient Middle Eastern goat fuckers. A being who might as well not exist for all the personal attention it doesn't give us.

So, yeah....

[Delicate]

Do you and Cato read lists of fallacies and mistake them for a how-to guide?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...-well.html

I most certainly did not poison the well. You insisting that I did betrays yet another topic you know fuck all about. If I had said Plantinga is full of shit because he wears his underwear backwards or snorts ground pepper, that would be poisoning the well. Identifying his well known position as an ID supporter is very much germane to the conversation. In addition I told you that it was his penchant for throwing out well worn and well refuted arguments that was at issue.

These arguments are concocted with god in mind and do nothing more than create a placeholder to solve non-existent problems. WLC and Plantinga gleefully fill the placeholder with their notion of god. The primary reason these arguments fail is because the placeholder is always characterized with certain attributes, attributes already arbitrarily assigned to god so many of these arguments are simply begging the question. God can only be presumed to have said attributes because there is no observation of god and therefore no observation of god possessing said attributes.

It's a ruse.

Apparently you don't even know what fallacies mean.

Not to mention Plantinga being an ID supporter has no bearing on what he says in the paper.

Not to mention Plantinga is not an ID supporter:

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence “intelligently designed.” The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I’m dubious about that.

Not to mention bald assertions without substantiation are worthless. 

Not to mention fanciful stories you concoct (who says atheists don't believe in myths?) to try and explain his work have no basis in evidence or reality. 

Only an octopus can put his foot in his mouth as often as you have.

If his arguments really are so well-worn and well-refuted, why are you such a coward in responding to them? Pick one of the arguments and go for it. Or do the Kalam. I hear atheists love bashing that one.

Do something, anything that suggests your "atheism" has an ounce of credibility. That it's not a joke. 

I simply don't see any evidence for any god and don't extend faith to such fanciful claims.

Simply put, this is the assertion I want to see substantiated.

[Homeless Nutter]

How come like none of the atheists here know how to use their brain and think critically then?

How the f*** would you know? As a christard - you're way out of your depths here and your moronic contrarian arrogance is not appreciated. We don't come to your forum, criticising your methods of slurping liquid pig-sh*t off of your grandpa's c*ck, so I suggest you stick to fairy-tales you can comprehend and leave critical thinking to adults...