Atheism is unreasonable

[Fidel_Castronaut]

50,000 years because?

[Minimalist]

You've already demonstrated that you are an idiot.

After your death you will be dumber than any believer.

We'll all merely be dead, shithead. No pearly gate...no heavenly blow jobs...no nothing. Oblivion. Sounds glorious frankly. Beats the fuck out of spending eternity with a bunch of jesus freak asswipes.

[Jenny A]

Sure: the only way to forgive peoples' sins is to kill someone innocent;

It would only not be fair if Jesus didn't agree to do it. Jesus wasn't forced to be a sacrifice and die for the sins of mankind, he did so voluntarily.

The agreement of the innocent person has nothing to do with whether the only way to forgive people is to kill someone innocent.

Yes, but there are three possible beliefs: 1) it was supernatural; 2) it was natural; 3) I don't know.

"I don't know" isn't a belief. And if atheism is the "I don't know" position, then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Gnostic atheism is belief that there is not god. Agnostic atheism is not simply lacking a belief in god. I am a agnostic atheism, though I find the god's lack of existence by far the more probable of the two choices, It know it certain.

The fact that we can't demonstrate something now, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What you are arguing is that if we don't know it must be god.

I am saying it is beyond the realm of science to demonstrate consciousness from unconsciousness, and life from nonlife. If there was a point at which absolutely no life existed whatsoever, there is no mechanism that would get you life from nonliving material...or consciousness from non-living material.

Exactly, if science can prove a thing, then god. It's the argument of the gaps. Science has been filling in gaps pretty steadily.

The funny thing about that is that science keeps usurping that position with one thing after another from the age of the earth, how it formed, how man evolved and so on.

Well, based on the history of my religion, ancient shepards were saying that the universe began to exist 5,000 years ago, when scientists were maintaining that the universe was static and eternal. So modern cosmology has just recently confirmed what creationists have been saying for thousands of years.[/Quote]

Citation please? Science is about evidence, inference, and demonstration. It changes with better understanding. Religion maintains the same beliefs in the face of changing evidence. Which one is more honest and more likely to reach the truth?

And I don't believe in evolution, btw.

Not surprising since you trust blind faith over facts.

Magic on the other hand is never a plausible solution. So far magic has never been demonstrated with scientific rigor.

Neither have abiogenesis.

But many other things once thought to be magic have. Nothing previously thought natural has since been proven to be magic.

And there are only natural theories proves that the explanation must be supernatural? Hardly. There's nothing supernatural proven at all about anything.

Theists use argument, logical arguments as evidence for the existence of God.

1. Kalam argument
2. Ontological argument
3. Moral argument
4. Argument from Design
5. Argument from Consciousness
6. Argument based on the Historicity of Jesus Christ

to name a few.

All debunked through out history and on this site.

Prove a god, any god, or anything supernatural and we'll talk.

I will soon. I am just getting my feet wet on here

Good luck with that. BTW. Speaking of getting your feet wet, it's polite and customary to introduce yourself in the introductions forum first.

Only if by conceivable you mean it can be imagined. But it's just as easy to imagine life just popping into existence out of matter.

BUT, if that could happen, it should be described by natural law, and it should be able to be empirically demonstrated. But neither is the case, now is it?

Not necessarily. People don't know everything, and despite the potent tool of science, probably never will. We couldn't do show many things just a year ago that we can now. That doesn't mean they were supernatural before.

In other words the fact that you can or can't image a thing has nothing to do with whether it happened.

Right, but if you can imagine it, that makes it POSSIBLE, because you can't imagine something that isn't logically possible. If you start off with nothing but dead matter, you will always have dead matter, because life requires a special "ingredient", a ingredient that the universe does not possess on its own.

Being able to imagine something has no affect on whether it's possible.

Whether life from non life will ever be demonstrated has yet to be seen. But that it hasn't yet, or even never will be, in no way proves the explanation is supernatural.

So basically, again, nature is smarter than humans. Nature was able to do something that intelligent human beings are unable to do. Is that it? Yes or no?

Nature does things we can't do all the time. Nuclear fusion (the sun does that), travel at the speed of light (light does that you see), planet creation, interstellar travel (comets do that), and on and on.

Show god necessarily exists and that sentence will make sense. Right now it's nonsense.

The Modal Ontological Argument.

[Surgenator]

Can you guarantee yours will?

No,

Therefore, its only matter of time till the "end" of theism, according to your logic.

that's one of reasons I believe in god.

So god is going to force people to have sex?

[polar bear]

WOW I just love how some asshole comes on here for the first time and doesn't get to know anyone. They tell me what I have to believe and why I have to believe it. Then they have the audacity to call themselves His_Majesty. Your a king I presume?

This is exactly the problem with christians. In your effort to convince people you may be right, you piss so many others off, that if they are on the fence (such as I am) my initial reaction is "screw you and your religion".

You are a pompous ASS

[His_Majesty]

Okay, okay, I got this. *Deep breath.*

1. Breaks its own first premise with its conclusion, and is therefore invalid.

The first premise is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...which means that things don't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

(gets ready for "virtual particle" spewage)

2. "If I can imagine that it needs to exist, then it does!" Sorry, your imagination is not that powerful.

Actually, more like "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then a maximally great being must exist"

I am speaking about the Modal version.

3. The premises are unsupported: the argument never attempts to demonstrate either that objective moral laws must necessarily come from god, nor that they even exist. It's just an assertion.

The argument is saying if objective moral values DO exist, then these moral values must transcend the law of man. The question is, are things like first degree murder, and rape...are these things objectively wrong? And there is no way you can grant these things to be objectively wrong without implying a transcendent standard.

4.Assumes design without demonstrating it, is therefore an assertion.

Bill Gates once said "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created".

A computer program has information...man made information...and DNA also has information, information on how to make you...YOU.

If DNA is more complex/advanced than man made information...either you are telling me that nature, being mindless and blind, is STILL more smarter than man (being able to CREATE DNA in the first place)...or you have to tell me that there there was an intelligent designer, a (Super mind), which created DNA, in the same way that an intelligent designer creates software programs.

Either way, you are in a lose-lose situation

5. Argument from ignorance.

Actually, it isn't an argument from ignorance, because mind/body dualism can be demonstrated.

6. There are no contemporary reports of Jesus' existence

There are contemporary reports of Jesus' followers.

, and additionally, the existence of a man named Jesus Christ is not evidence of the supernatural claims attached to him.

Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

As an added bonus, did everyone else notice that five of his six arguments are, at best, arguments for deism and not the christian god he actually believes in?

Are you laughing because you find it funny to be in error? That has to be the case. If you noticed, the argument based on the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is #6 on the list, which is the last of the arguments, because it is based on that argument that the conclusion is drawn that the God that exists IS "the Christian God I actually believe in"



You get a D for effort.

[Minimalist]

the conclusion is drawn that the God that exists IS "the Christian God I actually believe in"

How fucking convenient for you. Were you born in Damascus you'd be shrieking 'allah ahkbar' and cutting off heads. You seem like the type.

[Surgenator]

1. Breaks its own first premise with its conclusion, and is therefore invalid.

The first premise is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"...which means that things don't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing.

(gets ready for "virtual particle" spewage)

I seriously doubt you understand virtual particles. Especially when you are wasting our time with quote mines to argue your point when the people you quote disagree with you.

[abaris]

Well, the #1 supernatural claim is that Jesus rose from the dead, and the we have early evidence of that particular belief in regards to him.

Why not believe in Osiris rising from the dead. There's a much older belief claiming that. Why not Mythras, Dyonisos, Ishtar, Persephone? They've all risen from the dead. And there are much older accounts for them doing the nasty than there are for Jesus.

And again, since you obviously believe in the trinity, did Jesus sacrifice himself to himself, since he's god in the christian belief system?

[dimaniac]

I seriously doubt you understand virtual particles.

Where did quantum vacuum come from?