Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 7, 2011 at 11:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: Gonna give that link a looksie. In the meantime, I would like to say that the only thing you need to justify, in atheism, is your non-belief in god(s). In other words, all you have to say is "I don't believe".
As for the arguments they propose, you aren't required to have an answer to all (or even any) of them. You could go the route of Minimalist, and simply demand that they provide evidence for the existence of god before they make an argument with the implied assumption that he/she/it exists.
My personal favorite, when I don't want to engage in a lengthy debate or educate myself on a subject otherwise uninteresting to me, and pressed to "explain that" is to reply "I can't, and neither can you".
Believers are simply trying to exhaust you with words. There's a name for that type of argument..lol.
nvm, took me half a second to browse the link. The "Laws of Logic" are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, that things appear to follow logic is only an observation of how things seem to be. Things do not seem to be this way because the "Laws of Logic" have any power over them. Clear that up for you at all?
Taking the conclusion at the bottom of that link:
1:baseless assertion
2: baseless assertion
3: is not derived from 1 or 2
4: does not follow from 1, 2, or 3.
Who the hell comes up with this shit anyway? Perhaps you should start responding with the equally flawed "When did you start lying for Jesus ?". Don't allow them to argue about whether or not they're telling the truth, just keep pressing them for a date. They probably won't see the irony, but it makes for a good laugh.
wow you explained that perfectly. How the hell did i miss that lol??? Thanks, nice to finally talk to people who dont respond with "The Holy Spirit assures me!"
