My argument for atheism +

[Belacqua]

While I’d hardly call Plato, Aristotle etc ‘cranks’, you make a very fair point. Christianity is, in a very practical sense, what the majority of Christians believe it to be. No one is going to make much headway against a literal hell, substitutive sacrifice or infant damnation by poking holes in what Aquinas had to say about it.

Boru

Christianity is a lot of different things. It's not accurate to pretend it's monolithic. 

While it is good to argue against the most simple-minded Christians, we shouldn't pretend that our work is finished at that point. 

As Popper says, you have to attack your opponent on his strongest argument. If you only attack the weakest one, all the hard work is left to do. Opponents of religion like Dawkins who treat all Christianity as if it were the dumbest American literalism and then declare victory are naive.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

While I’d hardly call Plato, Aristotle etc ‘cranks’, you make a very fair point. Christianity is, in a very practical sense, what the majority of Christians believe it to be. No one is going to make much headway against a literal hell, substitutive sacrifice or infant damnation by poking holes in what Aquinas had to say about it.

Boru

Christianity is a lot of different things. It's not accurate to pretend it's monolithic. 

While it is good to argue against the most simple-minded Christians, we shouldn't pretend that our work is finished at that point. 

As Popper says, you have to attack your opponent on his strongest argument. If you only attack the weakest one, all the hard work is left to do. Opponents of religion like Dawkins who treat all Christianity as if it were the dumbest American literalism and then declare victory are naive.

First off, I did not claim that Christianity is monolithic, nor do I believe that. That being said, there are a number of beliefs that are held by the majority of Christians, and this is what constitutes Christianity in, as I said, a practical sense. When I argue against Christianity, I’m not much interested in debating whether (for example) transubstantiation is actual or symbolic. I’m much more concerned with the workaday evils promulgated by the rank and file bigots of this - or any - religion.

And yes, I’m well aware that there are Christians who are perfectly nice people. I tend to leave them alone.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

While I’d hardly call Plato, Aristotle etc ‘cranks’, you make a very fair point. Christianity is, in a very practical sense, what the majority of Christians believe it to be. No one is going to make much headway against a literal hell, substitutive sacrifice or infant damnation by poking holes in what Aquinas had to say about it.

Boru

Christianity is a lot of different things. It's not accurate to pretend it's monolithic. 

Strawman. There are THOUSANDS of varieties of christianity. We all know this. Even you know it, even though your version is one among many. Why you would pretend otherwise is anyone's guess.

While it is good to argue against the most simple-minded Christians, we shouldn't pretend that our work is finished at that point. 

Why must you lie? "our work"? That is a larf and a harf. You are a closet christian. So far in the closet that it seems you have discovered fucking Narnia complete with Aslan-jesus. I pointed this out rather early, now others are starting to cotton on to your game.

Do you think I am wrong? Prove it. No more philosobabble, state your belief about your god of choice. You can do so, or continue to hurl honking pork pies. The choice is yours.

As Popper says, you have to attack your opponent on his strongest argument. If you only attack the weakest one, all the hard work is left to do. Opponents of religion like Dawkins who treat all Christianity as if it were the dumbest American literalism and then declare victory are naive.

That amounts to an admission of your own christianity.

Come, come. Pony up. State what you really believe.

Or are you really that scared that your faith is so fragile?

[Agnostico]

The atheist remains atheist when his focus is on responding to theists

If he can realize that theists aren't worth debating and decide to ignore their claims then he opens up a new level of thinking
He won't just sit back and ask for evidence from a religion based on faith. He won't rely on any assertions made by any religion

If he's genuine he will start thinking for himself in an objective manner, free from the shackles of religious beliefs
Before long he realizes that there is a possibility that some kind of God exists given so much of the universe is unexplained

He then is transformed into the rational agnostic. Not driven by anything else but the thirst for knowledge, facts and truths.

[Abaddon_ire]

The atheist remains atheist when his focus is on responding to theists

If he can realize that theists aren't worth debating and decide to ignore their claims then he opens up a new level of thinking
He won't just sit back and ask for evidence from a religion based on faith. He won't rely on any assertions made by any religion

If he's genuine he will start thinking for himself in an objective manner, free from the shackles of religious beliefs
Before long he realizes that there is a possibility that some kind of God exists given so much of the universe is unexplained

He then is transformed into the rational agnostic. Not driven by anything else but the thirst for knowledge, facts and truths.

Everything you just said is wrong.

[Agnostico]

Everything you just said is wrong.

I just gave u multiple lessons in the dairy and veal industries
So i'll leave this teaching for another day

[Abaddon_ire]

Everything you just said is wrong.

I just gave u multiple lessons in the dairy and veal industries
So i'll leave this teaching for another day

How arrogant. You have nothing to teach me or anyone else.

[snowtracks]

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.



I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

Mind first, then brain. That's the sequence that conforms to the Principle of Causality; as stated, Cause is always (yes always) before, and greater than the effect.

[LadyForCamus]

The atheist remains atheist when his focus is on responding to theists

If he can realize that theists aren't worth debating and decide to ignore their claims then he opens up a new level of thinking
He won't just sit back and ask for evidence from a religion based on faith. He won't rely on any assertions made by any religion

If he's genuine he will start thinking for himself in an objective manner, free from the shackles of religious beliefs
Before long he realizes that there is a possibility that some kind of God exists given so much of the universe is unexplained

He then is transformed into the rational agnostic. Not driven by anything else but the thirst for knowledge, facts and truths.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard an atheist make the claim that it is impossible for a god to exist.

[Abaddon_ire]

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.



I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

Mind first, then brain. That's the sequence that conforms to the Principle of Causality; as stated, Cause is always (yes always) before, and greater than the effect.

Got any evidence for that claim?

ALL of the evidence indicates that mind is a result of a functioning brain. All of it. 

In contrast, there is no evidence for any mind absent a physical brain, none.