RE: Greetings Atheists
September 28, 2011 at 9:53 am
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2011 at 9:57 am by ElDinero.)
Yeah, the thing with Occam's Razor is it's not exactly about the simplest explanation per se. On the face of it 'God did it all' is spectacularly simple. It's more specifically about making the least new assumptions. So for example, we can observe the universe and the planet, we observe the natural world, we see that the natural world works and we know it's there because, you know, it's there. We're making zero assumptions because we see that all this stuff exists. Now if you say 'God caused all this to happen', you've introduced a new part to it. Now we've got to show that this thing exists. Over to you.
Right, if you're just going to assert that atheism is defined in a way that is untrue, you're on your own, dickhead. We've explained this and explained this and explained this already about ten times. WE DO NOT SEE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
I've been as patient as I can with you, but if you're just going to keep trotting out your misinformed bullshit, you can get fucked. You said you would be open to evidence and would become an atheist if your arguments were soundly defeated. You can't even get as far as adjusting your definition of atheism, so what hope does that leave me with that you are capable of responding to discussion and evidence?
The only thing you've got right is that there is no tangible evidence for God. If you think you can prove God, go to the correct thread, for the fourth time. Why are you struggling with that, you illiterate cunt?
(September 28, 2011 at 9:50 am)Jesuslovesyou Wrote: There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God(s), you know that. And the burden of proof lies with Atheists to disprove the existence of God(s). If neither of us can prove/disprove anything then we must accept neither of us it right.
(September 28, 2011 at 9:40 am)ElDinero Wrote: And which God, anyway? Are you arguing for Allah? Apollo? Shiva? Either way, highly recommend you do it in the thread in Religion sub-forum, as that's what it is there for.
I'm arguing for all of them.
I sense there is an anti-religious theme on this forum, specifically anti-Christian. I remind you that religion is not God, and that Christianity is not representative of all religions and their God(s).
Ultimately I want only to prove that you don't know there is no God (which is the definition of Atheist).
Right, if you're just going to assert that atheism is defined in a way that is untrue, you're on your own, dickhead. We've explained this and explained this and explained this already about ten times. WE DO NOT SEE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
I've been as patient as I can with you, but if you're just going to keep trotting out your misinformed bullshit, you can get fucked. You said you would be open to evidence and would become an atheist if your arguments were soundly defeated. You can't even get as far as adjusting your definition of atheism, so what hope does that leave me with that you are capable of responding to discussion and evidence?
The only thing you've got right is that there is no tangible evidence for God. If you think you can prove God, go to the correct thread, for the fourth time. Why are you struggling with that, you illiterate cunt?
