Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[Voltair]

I think the answer would be something like:

Hitler anscheinend fiel nicht in Russland ein und gewann folglich den Krieg.

[Jireh]

In fact, I said that some people (anti-Semites) applaud and praise Hitler's actions as Good even though I, and much of the world, found them to be Evil.

So why has your opinion more value, or is more true, than theirs ? isnt it just a matter of opinion ? How can you say, your point of view is superior of theirs ?

Furthermore, this proves my point because Hitler was using the "objective morality" of Christianity to further his Nazi cause!

Like Jesus command, to love each other ? or the one in the old testament, we should not kill ? or which one do you refere to ?

My point was and remains, no one here cares what you think about our standards of morality when the Christian standards are often set LOWER than that of us "heathens."

lower based on what standard ?

Ramble on about what ever you want, but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously when you're saddling us with the choices of Adolf Hitler ... a known, practicing CHRISTIAN!!!!

Anyone can call himself a christian. One thing is to claim to be christian, a other thing is in fact to be one. hitler was obviously not a christian, otherwise he would have not done what he did.

---

why ?

Because across the centuries you and countless other dickheads like you have failed to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a god. Any god. Or a devil.
Any devil.

Frankly, all you can offer is absurd mental gymnastics which, at the end of the day, are totally fucking meaningless.

over 12th posts, but youve no learned that attack personally the counterpart, weakens your case ?

---

Before we can talk about validity you need to show why we should even consider theism a valid option.

No, i don't. I don't even need to present any option.

This isn't a contest of let's see how many questions we can ask each other.

No, it isnt, neither did i say so.

Ace said, once again, he did not believe because he HAS NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE. That is his reason.

So why did he jump into this topic then, if he has no answer to my question ?

Now by you jumping from that and saying "Well what about your evidence for naturalism" you seem to be dodging the implication that there was no evidence for theism.

Again. that is not the matter of this thread. difficult to understand ?
He is actually the one dodging the topic of this thread.

In fact you didn't defend theism at all.

Neither is that the objective of this topic. Have you understood, what it is ?

I think we will all be willing to discuss the "evidence" for naturalism as soon as you say that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEISM.

Why should one be correlated with the other ?

If you believe there is evidence for theism than state it.

thats NOT the topic of this thread.

---

What causes lightning? not Thor, electrons flowing from a higher potential to a lower potential.

thanks for bringint that up.

http://aaaworldwitness.wordpress.com/200...of-of-god/

How did lightning and thunder, along with the vital life supporting lightning-nitrogen cycle, evolve?

No one Evolutionist strikes the same answer twice.

Lightning is like the 100 or so non-living elements on earth. How they came to exist in the first place is a complete mystery to evolutionists.

Here’s a couple of theories about the original cause and evolution of lighting from chats I have been having with some seriously minded Evolutionists:

“I’ve been out of active meteorological research for some time but I keep an interested eye on the field. Lightning was probably triggered by energy in the flux of cosmic rays to Earth and cosmic ray fluxes vary in time.” (Physicist, Holwick, UK)

“It started out with single volt lightnings that spontaneously appeared, and after millions of years of chance they’re now millions and millions of volts, and contain multiple branches, and evolved thunder as a defence mechanism. Oh and the Nitrogen Cycle is a distant ancestor of these primitive 1 Volt lightnings. By chance it became the nitrogen cycle over a trillion years. I’m an Atheist, Hail Satan.” (Software Developer, Nuneaton, UK)

Really? …can you pick the basic flaws in these theories? Why not drop me an email.

No laboratory lightning experiment has ever produced life from non-life.

How did modern species come about? They evolved from other organisms.

You take that on faith, don't you ?

How did matter come about? It formed from energy in the early universe as it cooled.

and where did the energy come from ?

How did stars come about? Gravity.

and you know that how exactly ? or is it just a statement of faith ?

How did all the elements form? From fusion in stars.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic-for...-difficult

The way some scientists talk about planet formation, one would think that the process was easy:

‘Our solar system was built from the dust of dead stars. It’s an often-repeated fact.’1

A proposed theory of planet formation from accreted stellar material. Remnants from an exploded star produce the raw material. Though this material is thought to accrete through gravitational interaction, the effect of gravity is too small to allow this to happen in the timeframe proposed by evolution. There is also the question as to whether the small particles would coalesce under the influence of gravity at all.
Planet formation is just one of the many hypothetical evolutionary processes that started with the big bang and ended with humans on Earth after many billions of years. Since planets exist, evolutionists reason they ‘must’ have formed from a dust cloud called a nebula. The dust must first develop from dead stars because dust does not just develop from gas molecules. So the dust is believed to have ‘evolved’ from the explosion of a star in a supernova. Hence our solar system is believed to be the result of a collapsed dust cloud from an exploded star. These are the simple naturalistic deductions, assuming evolution is the only mechanism.

Many people are satisfied with this scenario and take it no further. But if an inquiring person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a surprising answer:

‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’

Those are just a few of the questions naturalism has answered.

It has answered it , but without hard compelling evidence. These are all answers held by faith.

naturalism works, it has worked numerous times.

If you want to believe its postulates, it " works ". But if it reflect reality, the truth, well thats quit a other chapter......

I'm a naturalist because it works.

no, because you WANT to believe it........

[Voltair]

If your purpose of this is to state that there is no positive statement that can make atheism true than that was already accomplished awhile ago. You are asking a negative position simply "A position that does not believe in God's" to offer a positive reason as to why this is true.

It would be like me asking you what your favorite color is and than asking now what is the proof that this is your favorite color? The proof is that it is simply... your favorite color. It does not require a positive argumentation to prove.

Atheism is SIMPLY and ONLY defined as a lack of belief in the gods. The only real positive statement I can think to make is the following.

"There is no way to prove the existence of the gods therefore the gods probably do not exist."

OR

"Besides some unknown deity all deities which claim to have power/influence have since had no ability to demonstrate it which makes me think they are not there."

There are ZERO arguments for atheism. Atheism is simply a negative position concerning the gods. It is not a philosophical stance, it is not a club, it is not anything really other than stated disbelief. The only thing that you could say by asking for atheists to provide positive arguments is saying, "Prove to me why you think there are no gods."

You may not have intended to ask this question but when you frame the question in that way that is what you are appearing to ask. That is why this thread has exploded into questioning you about how you know the god's exist. Because atheism is a negative position toward a topic and not a position which claims to have a bunch of answers to various questions. It is simply and plainly a lack of belief in deity.

If you did not intend to ask people to prove to you why they don't believe in deity then you will want to rephrase your question. It is possible that there has just been a misunderstanding in what you are actually asking for and if that is true that is all good, it happens.

However, "Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true" can be reworded to say "Please present positive arguments why you think that there are no gods". Which I think people have done. The position of many atheists, including myself, on why we think there are no gods is that theism doesn't seem to have any evidence for its claims. That is why they are so dependent on each other. If theists did not claim there were gods than there would be no atheists. Atheism is a response to a theistic claim of deity. That is why they are interconnected like they are.

No theists = no atheists because there would never be a discussion of something called a "god".

[libalchris]

What causes lightning? not Thor, electrons flowing from a higher potential to a lower potential.

thanks for bringint that up.

http://aaaworldwitness.wordpress.com/200...of-of-god/

How did lightning and thunder, along with the vital life supporting lightning-nitrogen cycle, evolve?

No one Evolutionist strikes the same answer twice.

Lightning is like the 100 or so non-living elements on earth. How they came to exist in the first place is a complete mystery to evolutionists.

Here’s a couple of theories about the original cause and evolution of lighting from chats I have been having with some seriously minded Evolutionists:

“I’ve been out of active meteorological research for some time but I keep an interested eye on the field. Lightning was probably triggered by energy in the flux of cosmic rays to Earth and cosmic ray fluxes vary in time.” (Physicist, Holwick, UK)

“It started out with single volt lightnings that spontaneously appeared, and after millions of years of chance they’re now millions and millions of volts, and contain multiple branches, and evolved thunder as a defence mechanism. Oh and the Nitrogen Cycle is a distant ancestor of these primitive 1 Volt lightnings. By chance it became the nitrogen cycle over a trillion years. I’m an Atheist, Hail Satan.” (Software Developer, Nuneaton, UK)

Really? …can you pick the basic flaws in these theories? Why not drop me an email.

No laboratory lightning experiment has ever produced life from non-life.

How did modern species come about? They evolved from other organisms.

You take that on faith, don't you ?

How did matter come about? It formed from energy in the early universe as it cooled.

and where did the energy come from ?

How did stars come about? Gravity.

and you know that how exactly ? or is it just a statement of faith ?

How did all the elements form? From fusion in stars.

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic-for...-difficult

The way some scientists talk about planet formation, one would think that the process was easy:

‘Our solar system was built from the dust of dead stars. It’s an often-repeated fact.’1

A proposed theory of planet formation from accreted stellar material. Remnants from an exploded star produce the raw material. Though this material is thought to accrete through gravitational interaction, the effect of gravity is too small to allow this to happen in the timeframe proposed by evolution. There is also the question as to whether the small particles would coalesce under the influence of gravity at all.
Planet formation is just one of the many hypothetical evolutionary processes that started with the big bang and ended with humans on Earth after many billions of years. Since planets exist, evolutionists reason they ‘must’ have formed from a dust cloud called a nebula. The dust must first develop from dead stars because dust does not just develop from gas molecules. So the dust is believed to have ‘evolved’ from the explosion of a star in a supernova. Hence our solar system is believed to be the result of a collapsed dust cloud from an exploded star. These are the simple naturalistic deductions, assuming evolution is the only mechanism.

Many people are satisfied with this scenario and take it no further. But if an inquiring person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a surprising answer:

‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’

Those are just a few of the questions naturalism has answered.

It has answered it , but without hard compelling evidence. These are all answers held by faith.

naturalism works, it has worked numerous times.

If you want to believe its postulates, it " works ". But if it reflect reality, the truth, well thats quit a other chapter......

I'm a naturalist because it works.

no, because you WANT to believe it........



[/quote]

apparently the entire content of my post went right over your head. Let me be more direct. Name one PROVEN supernatural explanation.

[Darwinian]

So any credible evidence on hand for naturalism ?

Yes, the fact that the Universe looks and behaves in exactly the way it would if there were no god...

If the Universe did not operate on naturalistic principles but instead was guided by the whims of a divine creator then we could never make any accurate predictions and science itself would make no sense. The fact that we can formulate laws and theories and use them to accurately predict and understand such things as orbits, eclipses, weather patterns, animal behaviour, social dynamics, financial trends, plate tectonics, time dilation (re: Satnavs), tides (O'Reilly take note), animal migrations, the outcome of mathematical equations, atomic decay, biology, natural history, physics etc. etc. points to the inevitable conclusion that either there is no guiding hand of the divine or that hand stopped guiding at the point of the big bang!

[Minimalist]

Anyone can call himself a christian.

And they are welcome to that particular badge of dishonor.

over 12th posts, but youve no learned that attack personally the counterpart, weakens your case ?

Sadly necessary because there are far too many ignorant shits who wrap themselves in that ignorance and pretend that fucking fairy tales are real.
Look in a mirror for an example.

[libalchris]

It seems our friend here fails to understand that his explanations are correct simply because we don't have one for everything yet. This despite the fact that not one supernatural explanation for anything has ever been proven, meanwhile proven natural explanations flourish everywhere

[Cinjin]

In fact, I said that some people (anti-Semites) applaud and praise Hitler's actions as Good even though I, and much of the world, found them to be Evil.

So why has your opinion more value, or is more true, than theirs ? isnt it just a matter of opinion ? How can you say, your point of view is superior of theirs ?

I NEVER once said that my opinion was superior you lying god sucking piece of !!!!! ... I was pointing out that YOUR morality is NOT superior and that you have absolutely no justification for your post ... and STILL don't!. The fact that you're trying to switch this around on me tells me that you're purposely trolling.

My point was and remains, no one here cares what you think about our standards of morality when the Christian standards are often set LOWER than that of us "heathens."

lower based on what standard ?

Yours!

Ramble on about what ever you want, but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously when you're saddling us with the choices of Adolf Hitler ... a known, practicing CHRISTIAN!!!!

Anyone can call himself a christian. One thing is to claim to be christian, a other thing is in fact to be one. hitler was obviously not a christian, otherwise he would have not done what he did.

LMAO!! Not only did you just use the no true scotsman defense, but you went and proved my point. God damn, you really are a rookie.

I'm pretty sure that Hitler himself and all those around him believed that they were True Christians™ and would've said it was you who is wrong. That's the beauty of your religion, you can justify absolutely anything. Furthermore, had Hitler been successful conquering the world, you'd be singing his praise right now and telling people how your god blessed him and gave him the victory.

Now PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION once again ....
It doesn't matter if you think Hitler was a good Christian, or even a Christian, he is not the measuring stick for all mankind. My point is, YOU used him as your example of our "corruptible subjective morality" when in reality, he represented your bull shit "objective god-given" morality. There are millions of Christians just like him. Your objective morality does not exist. As I said before, you can make your BS claims about not being able to have true morality without god, but until you can produce a religion that actually raises the bar you don't have a single leg to stand on.

And finally as a Moderator: Don't you fucking lie again when you respond to me. You can disagree with me all you want, but if you're going to go around making shit up to make your arguments, I'll see to it that you are disciplined accordingly. You watch how you fucking quote people or you won't be here.

[Jireh]

Yes, the fact that the Universe looks and behaves in exactly the way it would if there were no god...

based on what parameters do you think you can affirm this ?

If the Universe did not operate on naturalistic principles but instead was guided by the whims of a divine creator then we could never make any accurate predictions and science itself would make no sense.

why ?

The fact that we can formulate laws and theories and use them to accurately predict and understand such things as orbits, eclipses, weather patterns, animal behaviour, social dynamics, financial trends, plate tectonics, time dilation (re: Satnavs), tides (O'Reilly take note), animal migrations, the outcome of mathematical equations, atomic decay, biology, natural history, physics etc. etc. points to the inevitable conclusion that either there is no guiding hand of the divine or that hand stopped guiding at the point of the big bang!

please show the correlation of the premise, with the conclusion.

---

I NEVER once said that my opinion was superior you lying god sucking piece of !!!!!

you didn't say :

I, and much of the world, found them to be Evil.

??

... I was pointing out that YOUR morality is NOT superior and that you have absolutely no justification for your post ... and STILL don't!.

i did not claim my morality is superior. I just claimed, that without God, you cannot have a parameter of what is good, and what is bad. Everything becomes relative. Why should Hitlers opinion about what is good, what is bad, be superior or inferior of yours ?

The fact that you're trying to switch this around on me tells me that you're purposely trolling.

or you may not understand my argument ??

My point was and remains, no one here cares what you think about our standards of morality when the Christian standards are often set LOWER than that of us "heathens."

lower based on what standard ?

Yours!

you are dodging my question.

I'm pretty sure that Hitler himself and all those around him believed that they were True Christians™

based on what are you so sure ? Just because he claimed it to be ? YOu indeed show a big portion of ignorance and lack of historical knowledge.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/article...fm0110.htm

In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a "culmination" of Christianity.

and would've said it was you who is wrong. That's the beauty of your religion, you can justify absolutely anything. Furthermore, had Hitler been successful conquering the world, you'd be singing his praise right now and telling people how your god blessed him and gave him the victory.

how do you know that, and are you so sure ?

Now PAY THE FUCK ATTENTION once again ....
It doesn't matter if you think Hitler was a good Christian, or even a Christian, he is not the measuring stick for all mankind. My point is, YOU used him as your example of our "corruptible subjective morality" when in reality, he represented your bull shit "objective god-given" morality. There are millions of Christians just like him. Your objective morality does not exist. As I said before, you can make your BS claims about not being able to have true morality without god, but until you can produce a religion that actually raises the bar you don't have a single leg to stand on.

Please show me, where the bible asks us, to kill jews, homosexuals, and so forth, as Hitler did.

[Epimethean]

What if Jesus was just a crazy dude with persuasive opinions? How would you handle discovering that the stories had all been made up, post hoc propter hoc, by zealous followers who hoped so hard that he would come back from the dead that they made it happen in the written word?

I suppose that never crosses your mind. It crosses a lot of minds here.