How to argue against this claim

[Brian37]

It is not a real god we are railing against, it is your bad use of logic that falsely leads you to the conclusion that this god exists and is moral.

We have to argue this myth because believers act on these beliefs and vote and have weapons.

Tell us why you are not afraid of Muslims threats of hell? You are not afraid of their hell and rightfully so. But you would be concerned if those followers acted out in violence or made laws that oppressed you.

We no more believe in your God or your Satan than you believe that Lex Luther is real and can use Kriptionite to kill Superman. But you would be rightfully concerned if an adult in real life went around claiming Lex Luther was real.

Now here is a list of arguments many of us here have run into with a variety of religions and not just you or your god claim or your book.

LIST OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS..

1 Quoting a book to prove a book........is known as "circular reasoning" all religions do this.

2. Appeal to authority.......If you lived in ancient Rome by proxy of the Caesar's belief it would mandate that he is right because he holds power.

3. Appeal to tradition....If that worked then the Ancient Egyptians would have been right because they believed in their polytheistic gods for 3,000 years.

4.Appeal to popularity.....If that worked then we should all be Muslims because Islam has the most members.

Now again mind you, we do not simply pick on your religion alone. We do because in the west that is what we run into the most. But we take on all sorts of polytheistic god claims, monotheistic, and even new age woo.

I apply the same skepticism to all religions.

Ok. I can understand your reasons for arguing that God is evil and unjust. Your list of fallacious arguments is also correct. None of these are adequate to prove the existence of God. All you in this forum have taught me a lot. All that stuff that I would bring up was just stuff that I used to support my own and others beliefs. Before I joined this forum I used to think that I could convince someone to believe in God through natural reasoning, but now I don't think that's possible. Anyone I've talked to or read about, who went from being an atheist to a christian, never never said it was because they determined it from science or history. I've come to realize that until a person accepts the existence of the supernatural, they can't be convinced to believe in a supernatural God. You do have to take a chance to believe. God didn't come about by natural means and he's not confined to the natural world.

I can use natural arguments to support my belief in God, but not to prove it. I believe the existence of the cosmos, which science can't explain, to be evidence of God. I believe in miracles and demonic possession, which have been attested to by people I trust, and other stuff like that. Most of all, I see him working in my life. If someone does not eventually experience a relationship with God, then I can understand why they would walk away from christianity, but you have to take that step off the cliff in order to experience it.

On the other hand, I've never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of God. It's all just inconclusive arguments that they use to support their unbelief. I see atheists as living inside of a box. They're limited to living in this natural world and can't accept the existence of anything else. You have this image of a one-dimensional being that you think God should be. Sorry if it makes you hate him, but God gets angry and he killed a bunch of people. If they wanted to be with him, then they are with him now--eternally happy. If they didn't want to be with him, then they are not. He loves us and he's holding his arms out to us.

No you cannot use natural arguments to support your god claim anymore than the existence of lightening proves the existence of Thor.

Humans make up gods because of their own gap filling and ignorance of their own flawed perceptions. I do not care that you claim to have been a former atheists. You fell for crap. Elaborate apology is just that no matter who does it.

The only reasonable tool humans collectively have to settle competing claims on the nature of reality is SCIENTIFIC METHOD. All the rest is merely you mentally masturbating because someone in your past sold you crap you fell for.

Do yourself a favor and READ "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God The Failed Hypothesis" By Victor Stenger, and "The New Atheism" also by Victor Stenger for starters.

Your pet god claim was not around 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago, much less 13 billion years ago. And your pet god claim, along with all human god claims will DIE in the future where our entire species goes extinct. The universe will continue on with no record or care for our former existence.

---

They're limited to living in this natural world and can't accept the existence of anything else

You know what is sad about your point of view, you stupidly think that because we KNOW we are finite that means everything to us is all doom and gloom. You go to a movie knowing it will end. You go to music concerts also knowing they will end. You go to sporting events knowing one team will win and one will lose and that too will end, but you still go. You are not going to paint us as pessimistic simply because you had a hard time in life and found a crutch now.

[Lek]

You do realize that most of the atheists here started off as Christians, right? And something "science cannot explain" isn't god by default, ever heard of "god-of-the-gaps"?

Yeah. Isn't kind of like "science of the gaps"--"I don't know how the cosmos came about, but we'll discover that some day." Or "You think that you experience God, but you really don't. You're just crazy or lying because that's impossible." Or "The cancer didn't really just go away. It was just a physical abnormality or the person is lying because it's impossible."

[Aoi Magi]

Nope it's quite different, anything science doesn't know it accepts as it doesn't know and tries to find an answer (honest), anything religion doesn't know it claims it knows and chalks it up to god (dishonest).

[Brian37]

On the other hand, I've never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of God.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Allah"

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Vishnu"

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Yahweh"

They can all be true statements by default can they?

Let me clean this bad logic up for you.

Which makes more sense to you? Humans make up gods? Or there really is a real god? You know other people make up gods, you simply refuse to aim that same logic at your own claim.

Stephen Hawkins "A God is not required". On top of the absurd notion that thinking can happen without a biological structure.

---

You do realize that most of the atheists here started off as Christians, right? And something "science cannot explain" isn't god by default, ever heard of "god-of-the-gaps"?

Yeah. Isn't kind of like "science of the gaps"--"I don't know how the cosmos came about, but we'll discover that some day." Or "You think that you experience God, but you really don't. You're just crazy or lying because that's impossible." Or "The cancer didn't really just go away. It was just a physical abnormality or the person is lying because it's impossible."

Now you are just plain mimicking our rightful arguments because you have no case.

Whatever science has yet to answer A GOD IS NOT REQUIRED. Just like you do not need Thor to explain lightening, or Poseidon to explain why hurricanes happen.

[Anomalocaris]

You do realize that most of the atheists here started off as Christians, right? And something "science cannot explain" isn't god by default, ever heard of "god-of-the-gaps"?

Yeah. Isn't kind of like "science of the gaps"--"I don't know how the cosmos came about, but we'll discover that some day." Or "You think that you experience God, but you really don't. You're just crazy or lying because that's impossible." Or "The cancer didn't really just go away. It was just a physical abnormality or the person is lying because it's impossible."

Yes, it is the science of the gaps. The difference is the God of gap claims the gaps can be pretend to be crossed by stepping on just one vacuous word, God, and once you uttered it, you can pretend you are on the other side, even though you are still where you started.

The gap of science says there is a gap, you can't cross it, maybe you never could, but science which has demonstrably succeeded before, will try to help you cross it if you ever could.

Science of gap - honest effort based on track record.

God of gap - bull now, bullshit forever, bullshit enough, and you forget there exist such a thing as truth, and you wouldn't remember the gap still gaps before you.

[Lek]

You know what is sad about your point of view, you stupidly think that because we KNOW we are finite that means everything to us is all doom and gloom. You go to a movie knowing it will end. You go to music concerts also knowing they will end. You go to sporting events knowing one team will win and one will lose and that too will end, but you still go. You are not going to paint us as pessimistic simply because you had a hard time in life and found a crutch now.

You're ok because you're well-fed and clothed and have personal freedom to live your life pretty much as you desire. How about if you were one of those people who are living under an oppressive government or are persecuted daily? What if you were one of those who can't get enough food for themselves and their families and have no hope of climbing out of their despair. Maybe the best thing they can look forward to is dying and leaving their miserable existence. They're probably more interested in knowing why they are here and if there is any hope for them beyond this world that they're in.

[Brian37]

Yeah. Isn't kind of like "science of the gaps"--"I don't know how the cosmos came about, but we'll discover that some day." Or "You think that you experience God, but you really don't. You're just crazy or lying because that's impossible." Or "The cancer didn't really just go away. It was just a physical abnormality or the person is lying because it's impossible."

Yes, it is the science of the gaps. The difference is the God of gap claims the gaps can be pretend to be crossed by stepping on just one vacuous word, God, and once you uttered it, you can pretend you are on the other side, even though you are still where you started.

The gap of science says there is a gap, you can't cross it, maybe you never could, but science which has demonstrably succeeded before, will try to help you cross it if you ever could.

Science of gap - honest effort based on track record.

God of gap - bull now, bullshit forever, bullshit enough, and you forget there exist such a thing as truth, and you wouldn't remember the gap still gaps before you.

Don't play this game with this guy with the word "gap" it does not mean the same thing in science as laypeople stupidly us it. Just like they claim evolution is just a "theory".

They don't understand that when a scientist says "We don't know" that gives them the excuse to cling to myths and bad claims. They need to understand it is not only ok to use the trash can and throw bad ideas in them, it is required to clear things up for future discovery.

[Aoi Magi]

How about if you were one of those people who are living under an oppressive government or are persecuted daily? What if you were one of those who can't get enough food for themselves and their families and have no hope of climbing out of their despair. Maybe the best thing they can look forward to is dying and leaving their miserable existence.

Those really in that situation couldn't care less about god or intellectual debates about the meaning of life. They are too busy with their daily lives.

They're probably more interested in knowing why they are here and if there is any hope for them beyond this world that they're in.

The answer is no in both cases. And the answer will vary depending on religion, and none of those answers will solve their predicament.
They are in that situation because they are too stupid to unite and claim their rights, they have hope in this world provided they can find the courage to face their truth.

[Jenny A]

Your list of fallacious arguments is also correct. None of these are adequate to prove the existence of God. All you in this forum have taught me a lot. All that stuff that I would bring up was just stuff that I used to support my own and others beliefs. Before I joined this forum I used to think that I could convince someone to believe in God through natural reasoning, but now I don't think that's possible. Anyone I've talked to or read about, who went from being an atheist to a christian, never never said it was because they determined it from science or history.

Yes, you have learned something.

I've come to realize that until a person accepts the existence of the supernatural, they can't be convinced to believe in a supernatural God. You do have to take a chance to believe. God didn't come about by natural means and he's not confined to the natural world.

Correct. You do really have to decide to believe. Though, not everyone can fool themselves in that particular way. It's one of the reasons the religious are also more likely than atheists to believe in the Nessy, Sasquatch, and chem trials.

I can use natural arguments to support my belief in God, but not to prove it. I believe the existence of the cosmos, which science can't explain, to be evidence of God.

Not really. But I think we've had that argument before.

I believe in miracles and demonic possession, which have been attested to by people I trust, and other stuff like that.

Then you haven't learned much about the value of anecdote, eyewitness testimony, the workings of the human brain, or the scientific method.

Most of all, I see him working in my life. If someone does not eventually experience a relationship with God, then I can understand why they would walk away from christianity, but you have to take that step off the cliff in order to experience it.

If it provides value in your life to believe, well and good, but don't think that's that is proof of anything in particular.

On the other hand, I've never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of God. It's all just inconclusive arguments that they use to support their unbelief.

You will never see anyone prove a thing doesn't exist. That is why we place the burden of proof on those who claim a thing exists.

I see atheists as living inside of a box. They're limited to living in this natural world and can't accept the existence of anything else.

You are limited to living in the natural world. In what way do you live outside it? And given the size of the universe, and the complexity of nature, I have a hard time thinking of it as a box. It's about as unbox-like as anything I can imagine.

You have this image of a one-dimensional being that you think God should be. Sorry if it makes you hate him, but God gets angry and he killed a bunch of people. If they wanted to be with him, then they are with him now--eternally happy. If they didn't want to be with him, then they are not. He loves us and he's holding his arms out to us.

I have several images of god more and less complex. But none of them shows the slightest of existing. And none of them as delineated by the religious show much indication of loving humanity.

Who can help but dislike the god of the OT?

[Brian37]

How about if you were one of those people who are living under an oppressive government or are persecuted daily? What if you were one of those who can't get enough food for themselves and their families and have no hope of climbing out of their despair. Maybe the best thing they can look forward to is dying and leaving their miserable existence.

What makes you stupidly think because we don't believe that means we automatically lack value for the rights of others? I just spent yesterday almost an hour tweeting everywhere I could on the net a story of a BELIEVER in Pakistan under threat of a death sentence for blasphemy. I don't care that she has a belief, we are human beings first.

There is a huge difference between rights and claims, rights are a given, but whatever comes out of your mouth on ANY ISSUE is open to scrutiny as it should be.