Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Yes. Christian dogma is that not believing in the Christian god dooms one to Hell.

Well, if the Christian God doesn't exist, you really don't have anything to worry about, do you?

Are you not reading what you write? You wrote: "I don't think omnibenovelence necessarily entails omni-mercifulness." That means that you're saying that you don't necessarily think that your god is perfectly merciful.

Which I don't.

Myself, I don't believe in any gods, which means that I believe this about myself freely.

Then you have free will.

You, on the other hand, believe in a God who knows everything, who made everything, and who has a Plan. Based on those premises, you must logically believe that your god has made me the way that I am.

If God exists, he isn't forcing you to believe, and if he doesn't exist, you aren't being forced to believe...so either way, the choice is yours.

As has already been pointed out to you, free will and an omnimax god are contradictory.

What the heck is omnimax?

Well, so much for your merciful god, then.

He is merciful, he just isn't omni-merciful, which is something that you erraneously think that he should be...despite it not being a necessary ingredient of benevolence.

If worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

They would if they had tanks.

So you claim.

It is called "Christian theology".

Yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence for this god-thingy, nor can you even coherently define him, nor can you reconcile the internal contradictions of the god you whimsically worship.

I did coherently define him, and all you can do is come up with some mickey mouse objection, objections that were shut down.

Remind me again why I should give two shits rubbed together about your opinions.

On judgement day, you will definitely be reminded why you SHOULD have gave two shits...and you won't be reminded by me, but by God.

Climb down off the cross, kid. You're no prophet.

Did I say I was?

No. They've been dissected page after page, just like any other AiG boilerplate, and just like every other Christian troll I've ever seen, you're either too stupid to see it, or to dishonest to admit it.

They've been dissected? Yeah ok...and even if they were (emphasis on "if" to the power of infinity), you certainly wasn't the one doing the dissecting.

---

There's no law of nature that say life can't come from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness. Your basis for asserting it's not possible seems to rest entirely on you not wanting it to be true.

Either way, it hasn't been scientifically proven.

[abaris]

Once science fails to answer certain questions for me, I have no choice but to look elsewhere. If I go to the bank to borrow money and get denied...and I continue 9 or 10 times and still gets denied...eventually I will go to another bank and see if I can get money from there.

The bank analogy stinks. If you need money, you need it. It's different with knowledge. If science can't provide the answer yet I can very well wait till they come up with an answer, even if that means I won't know in my lifetime. I don't feel the need to look for some supernatural story to fill the gap.

[Whateverist]

I'd like to suggest a temporary ban on HisStupidMagesty until he gets his ass handed to him in the alleged debate.

[Oh and I don't think reality gives a damn about what your little monkey brain thinks is or isn't possible.]

[abaris]

[Oh and I don't think reality gives a damn about what your little monkey brain thinks is or isn't possible.]

Please, leave the monkeys out of this. They really don't deserve this.

[Whateverist]

My sincerest apologies to all monkeys everywhere. Sometimes I just don't think first.

[abaris]

My sincerest apologies to all monkeys everywhere. Sometimes I just don't think first.

I understand, it's easy to get carried away.

[His_Majesty]

ITT, "On the eighth day, God created entropy."

Sorry, but according to the narrative, everything was wrapped up by the sixth day.

As far as the human body being closed, it takes in energy from outside. The state of a system being open or closed doesn't rely upon the end result. Decay doesn't define a closed system; a lack of interchange with the outer environment does.

No matter how much energy it takes, it will deteriorate over time, regardless. You sit an orange out for an extended period of time, and it will start to degrade as time goes on. There is no "stuff" from the outside that can keep it from degrading. Same thing with the human body, look at the age process of a human, starts off fresh, and over time, the body gets old..it is deteriorating..it is degrading. The universe...it is getting old..it is losing its energy...the entropy is getting high...and soon all energy will be lost.

You really need to go buy education.

Right, everyone on here is so smart, and I am so dumb

---

Not in, say, a cyclical universe. Or any number of other causal states that we can't even dream of, and you certainly can't rule out. Our minds work in linear time, even coming up with the vocabulary for other states of time is hard, but that doesn't mean that there's only two possibilities. If you don't know, and you don't have sufficient evidence, you are not justified in ruling out the possibility that the unknown unknowns involved in the scenario don't behave in ways you've never even considered.

That's why the smart answer right now is "we don't know," and the incorrect answer is "the universe had a beginning."

The infinity problem is independent of whatever universe you want to posit.

[leeton]

Lets take away all of the fluff and feathers for a minute. Let's take away all of the technical babble, all of the rhetoric for just a second.

I can't speak for every religion, but I am a Christian theist. Now what does that imply? Well, that would mean that I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

That is basically my belief in a nut shell. Now, if you are an atheist, you may find my beliefs laughable, sickening, stupid, etc....which is fine, Christianity isn't for everyone because after all, Jesus said "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it." (Matt 7:14).

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

Just think about that for a second. This non-living material suddenly CAME TO LIFE. For the life of me, I just can't get myself to believe that, even if I tried. I just don't understand how naturalism/atheism is a more reasonable position than theism.

You have to believe that a process that can't think or see, created consciousness. So consciousness came from a process that can't think??

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Atheist's don't spout on about Father Xmas Stories or have to worship in buildings designed to brainwash the uneducated masses a few hundred years ago. We don't argue about the real reason there is life on Earth because the complete truth is not known but we know for sure that a God had nothing to do with it.

[JonDarbyXIII]

But as an atheist, here is what you have to believe...you have to believe that billions of years ago before humanity, dead matter was floating around in space...and for whatever reason, suddenly, this dead matter "came to life". Not only did it come to life, but it came to life and began thinking, talking, and having sex.

In a way, atheists and theists see this in exactly the same way. We both believe that life came from a state of non-life. Christians just say that they can't understand it, therefore God. However, to the the atheist, the God question is more puzzling than the life question. God in his infinite everything requires a much more elaborate answer than the origins of life. At least in looking at life, there is something for us to study. This is not the case with God.

Furthermore, while it may be true that there are no concrete answers to the origin of life, it is essentially quitting the game to posit God, for this stops the need to question. I don't have the answers, but I sure love asking those questions, and that's not possible once you create a supernatural answer.

[Esquilax]

I did, with Esqualax (whatever his name is). But ok, I will pass the hot potato to you, because it is clear that he couldn't handle it.

Couldn't handle it? I felt- and feel- no compunction to defend infinity, as I was never arguing for infinity. The fact that you fail to grasp even the rudimentary tenets of my position, after being outright told numerous times what they are, speaks volumes about either your ability to understand my argument, or your interest in honestly reflecting it beyond how it can be used to leverage your pre-scripted talking points.

Logically absurd concepts are untrue. If you don't know that, then maybe I am wasting my time talking to you. I can talk to people that don't understand the fact that something that is logically absurd cannot "happen".

Ever heard of the double slit experiment? Where light behaves as both a wave and a particle, violating the law of non contradiction? It's logically absurd, but it does happen.

Well, Charles Manson was asked do he regret anything that he did. And his reply was "No, I wish I had done more."

And you're holding up Charles Manson as a prime example of a person whose mental faculties and moral compass are working perfectly?

So right and wrong is based on what society thinks? So if the society allowed it, then that would make it right?

That's not even what Mister A said, now. He said that a rape-permitting society is objectively worse, and it is, from a qualitative standpoint. We're human beings, we survive by forming social groups and cooperating, and rape violates that survival mechanism, making it immoral. Moral systems must always involve the well being of sapient individuals, because if they didn't, there would be no assurance of moral actors, and hence no morality at all.

... I know you probably don't understand any of that, but that's okay. You're driven to not understand it for ideological reasons, so I don't feel too badly about not writing up a whole book on situational ethics in response. You can look it up if you like, it's a very interesting subject, but I'm not holding my breath.

The infinity problem is independent of whatever universe you want to posit.

Not if the universe I posit is neither infinite nor finite. What reason do you have for believing there are only two causal states that a universe can be in, especially when I just provided you with a third valid option, in the cyclical universe, where two or more finite spans of time go around in a cycle.

Now that your dichotomy has been shown to be false, it's time to let go of it.