RE: Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true
April 22, 2012 at 7:12 am
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2012 at 7:19 am by Creed of Heresy.)
(April 21, 2012 at 5:40 pm)Jireh Wrote: Not ONE convincing and well founded answer so far...... no surprise here....
I'm going to use a very well-used, very relevant quote here because I get the impression you're one of those kinds of people who you could show them absolute evidence disproving god and they still wouldn't believe a thing you said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." YOU claim god is real. Well, where is YOUR evidence? Set it up and I'll knock it down and when I do it over and over and over again maybe you'll see why we "think atheism is true [a statement which makes no fucking sense, by the way, and implies an extremely dimwitted, ignorant, and absolute lack of knowledge of atheism]."
But I won't hold my breath. Far more likely you'll do what every other theist who I've brought points against will do; cease responding to me, and instead respond to someone else in a vain attempt look like you're still in the fight.
(April 22, 2012 at 6:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The atheists here have no reason to believe the current predominant scientific theories.
Oh wait... they take those as fact and never question them.
No... they understand that science is all about discovery and continual evolution of said theories.
Atheists can make the crossover onto metaphysics continually and without realising. Consequently they frequently make uninformed choices.
Hey, Fr0dz, please describe in detail the last time you knew an atheist who made the crossover into "metaphysics [a word often used by people who believe in homeopathy and 'alternative medicine' and organic foods as viable, non-fraudulent, sustainable methods of medical/agricultural production]" and then made uninformed choices. And also please realize that scientific LAWS are basically factual and unbreakable as far as our knowledge extends and has been thus far proven accurate with current technology, experience, and/or mathematical equation and that therefore if you question, say, the laws of nature, you're pretty much just asking questions already asked and answered. Most of the time we don't question it because the answers to those questions are already there and explained in great detail. Not because we 'have faith' but rather because you don't need to go into question redundancy when the answers have been satisfactorily supplied as it is.
