(November 24, 2013 at 11:49 am)repentsinners Wrote: Yet one can argue mother nature is GOD.
So gods a woman eh. Guess all those paintings are wrong then.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
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!
Current time: July 30, 2026, 3:02 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Terrible Atheist Argument #1
|
 So gods a woman eh. Guess all those paintings are wrong then.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  
This debating is a lost cause. Just show your evidence confirming the existence of your god so we can all move along. But then again, there are theists who believe it's the atheist's duty to prove the deity does. Has there even ever been a legit search for god? The evidence that support evolution is partially the reason why I'm atheist. Where's your evidence supporting your beliefs? Let me take an educated guess; the grand canyon?
Why can't OP just go to christianforums? They get stickers for praying for people. At least he'll get something out of it.  RE: Terrible Atheist Argument #1
November 24, 2013 at 3:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
Vinny is a bit more knowledgeable than 'Grand Canyon exists; therefore God.' If he wasn't, I wouldn't have bothered.
And we're not really debating, I'm just going through why I think ontological arguments are useless.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin (November 24, 2013 at 3:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Vinny is a bit more knowledgeable than 'Grand Canyon exists; therefore God.' If he wasn't, I wouldn't have bothered. He can't be that knowledgeable. He's a theist on an atheist forums. 
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. (November 24, 2013 at 2:09 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(November 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: So gods a woman eh. Guess all those paintings are wrong then. Fucking nature isn't a good idea. She will fuck you up
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.  (November 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Rigor Mortis Wrote: This debating is a lost cause. Just show your evidence confirming the existence of your god so we can all move along. But then again, there are theists who believe it's the atheist's duty to prove the deity does. Has there even ever been a legit search for god? The evidence that support evolution is partially the reason why I'm atheist. Where's your evidence supporting your beliefs? Let me take an educated guess; the grand canyon? What do you mean by evidence? (November 24, 2013 at 8:32 am)whateverist Wrote: Not at all. It just seems that empty space turns out to not be irreversibly empty. With or without the help any pre-existing being to pronounce "let there be ..", the material and immaterial seem to be interchangeable. As far as I can tell, both of those premises would apply to the Universe and neither would apply to God so that renders the who created God objection irrelevant. (November 24, 2013 at 3:37 pm)Rigor Mortis Wrote: He can't be that knowledgeable. He's a theist on an atheist forums. That’s quite the non-sequitur. 
Welcome back, SW!
By evidence I suppose information that would lead different people to the same conclusion is meant. Those premises seem to make God unnecessary as an explanation for the existence of the universe. Good point on the last comment, it was bad form. (November 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Welcome back, SW! Thanks my good friend.  Quote: By evidence I suppose information that would lead different people to the same conclusion is meant. By this definition it would seem that such evidence does exist since the majority of people adhere to a theistic view of reality. This seems to be a fallacious appeal to popularity though. Quote:Those premises seem to make God unnecessary as an explanation for the existence of the universe. That’s precisely why I am not a big fan of the cosmological argument. It’s inductive in nature and only demonstrates the need for a causal agent not the monotheistic god of the Bible. It gets us in the right direction but that’s all. Quote: Good point on the last comment, it was bad form. Yup, did not make much sense. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
)
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
