Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[pocaracas]

Ah... so this is where y'all have been hiding!!
A new plaything! Excellent!...

(do note I didn't read the whole thread, the first post was enough to see a slaughter coming... so repetition is expected)

The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.

We observe trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing (that is, non-existence), so nature can't start up from nothing.

All those trillions of cause and effects you can witness in Nature, exist "in" Nature.
You can't say anything about how Nature itself come about...
Well... "in Nature" is a crappy way of saying this, let me rephrase in better words:
All those trillions of cause and effects you can witness in the Universe, exist "in" the Universe.
You can't say anything about how the Universe itself come about, from those.

Then there's Lawrence Krauss:

---

"Nothing" doesn't exist anywhere!

---

And nature cannot always have existed because if it did, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

And I may have happened an infinite number of times, too! This is just one more.
The fact is that we are here and now, so you can't say we shouldn't be here.

Therefore,

---

nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

This uncreated Creator is what we are talking about when way say 'God'.

Now that you know God exists find out which religion is the correct one, since only one religion can be true since God does not contradict Himself.

---

Invalid premiss, leads to invalid conclusion.
Once more, faulty reasoning from a theist... Why am I not surprised?

[ignoramus]

That's what I don't like about religious people.
They try to get technical about the universe, big bang, abiogenesis and by the end, they ALL end up as spokespeople for their bibles.
WTF has has any of the above got to do with "one true god" or "morality".

Matey, even if there was a conscious creator, even an agnostic person will tell you he isn't the one described in your book! Nothing like him in any way, shape or form.

The most important aspect of god which is not negotiable with all religious people is the morality teachings. This is because this is what they relate to as humans.
There's no emotional attachment to the other stuff.
Ironically, it's also the least likely aspect to be inherent in any creator.

You sir, are another product of indoctrination, freshly stamped from the mass produced Christianity factory.
(The only product which comes with an after lifetime warranty)

[Mr.wizard]

I could be wrong about this, but this guy sounds like a fake.

[Jackalope]

The burden of the proof remains on the atheist because I've done my part with the proof for the 'uncreated Creator' which remains unchallenged.

/staff hat ON

What is it with you guys? Seriously, several posters shredded your "uncreated creator" assertion and you claim it's unchallenged?

Let me explain to you what we explained to the last person who pulled this move here - this is a discussion forum. We discuss things. We don't ignore points that are put to us. We don't shit on the chessboard, knock over the pieces, and then strut around as if we're victorious.

Acquaint yourself with rule 1 or you can expect your stay here to be very, very short.

[JesusHChrist]

Acquaint yourself with rule 1 or you can expect your stay here to be very, very short.[/color]

As was Written so Shall It Come to Pass!

Thus Spake JHC.

You know how it feels to have a direct line to the FSM? Awesome, that's how

[Ryantology]

The proof remains the proof by the fact that you haven't disproven it. So you give strength to the proof.

Thank you for that.

There is nothing to disprove. There is no evidence to examine. That would make the strength of your proof zero.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just wanted to clarify my poll response. I answered 'No', not because I think atheism is 'true' but because atheism, by definition, has no capacity for being 'false': atheism is not a position, it is a word to describe the absence of a position. The poll is ill defined consequently my only response can be 'No'.

I don't believe in dignifying a stupid question with a cogent answer. To my mind, the only apt response is mockery.

---

Nothing like reading a nice WLC-sycophant ass-kicking first thing in the morning.

Oooh - the cosmological argument!

One of these days, maybe a Jesus Freak will actually come on the forum with Good News! and tangible evidence of their angry iron-age sky daddy.

I'm told that according to QM, a statue could conceivably spontaneously move its arm and wave. (Did I read that in Sagan? I can't remember.)

I'm thinking we'll see a waving statue first.

[Whateverist]

staff hat ON

Staff hat meets ass hat. Doesn't look good for the ass hat.

[JesusHChrist]

For those who can stand to hear a bit of WLC prattling on in his whiny, nasal voice, this video continues the decimation of this alleged "argument":





Why people find this sort of shitty "logic" persuasive is beyond me.

[Sejanus]

Damn it, I'm late to the party. Everything I was going to say has been said.