Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Here's a link to an extremely basic and nonprimary source, if you can be troubled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

All of that information...yet when it comes to actually demonstrating it..no one can do it?

That's the thing. There are as many version of God as people care to make up. Some are incoherent. Some are counterfactual. Some are coherent. The problem with the coherent ones, is they all seem to be immune to falsification. It takes more than coherency to make a claim true. A hypothesis has to be at LEAST coherent to start with, and it must ALSO be falsifiable. You need a coherent concept that's falsifiable. That is, there has to be, at least in theory, evidence that could prove it isn't true. Not to mention, with multiple coherent God but mutually exclusive God concepts, they can't ALL be true...but they CAN all be false.

Well, I am arguing for the Christian God. Explain to me how this God cant exist....now you can either do that or you can just continue with more rhetoric. Your choice.

Now I'm leaning to you really didn't understand it, because whether you grant it is beside the point.

Well my original "point" was the fact that you were WRONG, as I do understand it...the whole "I don't grant it" thing...I just threw that in as an add-on

Well, I can work with that. When you can show an invisible spirit poofed the universe and life into existence by talking and breathing, I'll believe it.

I don't have video evidence no...but I have a long list of arguments that I use to demonstrate why Intelligent Design is more plausible than any other theory used to explain the question of "origins".

Then, you'll still need to show it punished all of humanity for eating a magic fruit because they were tricked by a talking snake but it forgave us because it sacrificed itself to itself, but the forgiveness only applies to the people who swallow that story whole and everyone else is tortured forever, so you better believe it!

I will, once someone can show how inanimate matter, for whatever reason, came to life and begin thinking, eating, talking, and laughing..and how a mindless and blind process gave me eyes to see, ears to hear, a digestive system to break down food and give me energy, a circulatory system for blood traffic, a immune system to fight diseases which invade my body, a reproductive system for me to produce offspring in my likeness, and a nervous system that helps coordinate my actions and movements.

I'd like someone to explain to me how a mindless process can make all of this good stuff happen.

Wow, your story is even more unbelievable than mine, so mine must be true.

I don't see how. We see intelligent minds create things ever day...we never seen life coming from nonliving material.

I don't think they're rational, either. It's kind of you to assume atheists must be rational, but it isn't true. Many atheists don't even aspire to it, but I don't think theists can really throw stones in that regard.

Well, fortunately for my side of things, we actually have reasons to believe our position to be true. Infinity cannot be traversed, therefore a timeless cause is needed....consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness based on the mind/body problem, therefore the cause of human consciousness had to itself be consciousness...life cannot come from nonliving material, therefore the origin of life had to be actually LIVING...intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence, therefore the intelligence that we have comes from something that was ITSELF...intelligent. And another one that I like, one that no one uses..is the argument from language...which I will make in another thread.

When it comes to which position is more reasonable, its not even close.

They don't seem to fit the definition YOU gave.

Right, because the concept I gave actually has explanatory value.

And almost all of my experience with theists is with Christians and Muslims. Yet I don't have a problem grasping that not all theists are Christians and Muslims. Your experience with naturalists should have equipped you with foreknowledge that Western atheists who fit your bill are also fussy about accurate definitions.

As I said before, on judgement day, there won't be any distinction between naturalists, atheists, agnostic, and any other label for unbelievers. You all are the same to God.

Why you keep expecting me to expand on details of the beliefs of people I don't agree with is mysterious to me. Do you get a lot of people expecting you to explain Shintoism because you're a theist?

Either God did it, or nature did it. No semantics necessary.

And the vast majority of theists I've come across in my years have never expressed to me that they don't believe Jesus is either the son of God or a prophet of God. But I know there are at least 2 billion theists who don't believe that, even though they're not common where I live.

Yeah, but they aren't foolish enough to believe that "naturedidit" either. We can debate about "which" God all day long, but we share the common belief that some kind of God did it.

I can agree with that. They are unconfirmed hypotheses. Anyone who says otherwise is overreaching.

hock: We agree????

And Jesus showing up would be a great validation of your faith. Until then, your evidential footing is insecure.

I agree with the first part. Not the second part.

You're welcome to think so. That would make it a vast conspiracy, and if that's easier for you to believe than that they're on to something, I'd rather you stay a Christian. We have enough conspiracy nuts as it is.

Dogs produce dogs..

---

The evidence you utterly deny.

With good reason