RE: Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?
March 31, 2017 at 7:05 pm
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2017 at 7:12 pm by Brian37.)
(March 31, 2017 at 6:43 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: 1. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Allah"
2. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Yahweh"
3. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the wisdom of Buddha"
4. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the Hindu creator God Brahama"
(March 26, 2017 at 5:42 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Christian God is the one real god" Does that line still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Jewish God Yahweh is the one real god" Does that still make sense to you?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore Buddha is the only real source for knowledge" Still make sense?
"But they are easily refuted now. Therefore the Hindu creator God Brahama is the one real god" Still make sense to you?
(March 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "they refer to special revelation" ok, therefore Allah
"they refer to special revelation", ok. therefore Yahweh
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Buddha
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Brahama
(March 31, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Waaa waaaa waaaa waaaa science.......waaa waaa waaa Allah. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaa waaaa waaa Yahweh. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science........waaaa waaa waaa Buddha. What, that doesn't work for you?
Waaa waaa waaa waaa waaa science.....waaa waaa waaa waa Brahama. What, that doesn't work for you?
(March 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Dakwins hangs his hat on chance= Allah....... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Yahweh..... Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance=Buddha ......Why would that not work on you?
Dawkins hangs his hat on chance= Brahama....Why would that not work on you?
(March 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Non- sequitur=therefore Allah........
Non-sequitur=therefore Yahweh......
Non- sequitur=therefore Buddha.......
Non-sequitur=therefore Brahama......
I know you think you are being clever, but telling a joke twice doesn’t make it twice as funny.
Not meant to be funny one bit. It really is meant to challenge anyone reading it to take out their pet deity and plug in another one and get them to think if that would still work. Sarcastic at best, but not meant to be funny. I dare you to try it.
I am not being funny one bit. I am dead serious, sarcastic, yes, but dead serious.
Would it work on you, and convert you to Islam if I claimed "science=Allah" ?
Would it work on you, and convert you to being a Jew if I claimed "science=Yahweh"?
Would it work on you, and convert you to Buddhism if I claimed "science=Buddha"?
Would it work on you, and convert you to Hinduism if I claimed "science=Brahama"?
If none of those combos would convince you to convert to those religions, again, tell me why I should treat your claim with any special consideration? Since you are not honest enough with yourself, I will tell you why. Just like when others try to use science to point to there club, and just like you, none of you are being neutral, it still amounts to saying "I like what I believe". Do not ask me to do for you what you are not yourself willing to do for others. I am not treating you differently than i would any other religion or any other god claim. Consider those options or admit your own bias.
