My Rebuttal to Dawkins Argument

[brewer]

OMG, it has a policy. Let's all remember this. A POLICY!

[Angrboda]

Heres a reason: As a matter of policy I never start off being disrespectful.

I'm pretty nice until someone gives me an excuse.

Still vainly struggling to understand the social dynamics, I see. There is always going to be a pretext. Your policy is geared toward failure when you confront people you don't understand, and they don't understand you. The result is you're only nice to those who agree with you. Congratulations on a well thought out policy.

[Pat Mustard]

Heres a reason: As a matter of policy I never start off being disrespectful.

I'm pretty nice until someone gives me an excuse.

So, going on creating threads with titles deliberately designed to denigrate and disrespect atheists is the new respectful now?

Well, fuck me pink, I've heard it all.

[Brian37]

Butthurt is claiming an all  powerful God while needing to be his public relation department. You telling us an all powerful being needs mortals to be salespeople for him or kill to defend him? Can be that powerful if he cant do his own dirty work.

No idea what you're talking about buddy.

Yes you do. One day you had an "epiphany", the world made sense to you and you thought, " I have the answers, I can help others", so you came here stupidly thinking we'd roll over because goody two shoes you found a sky wizard, and are now getting all bent out of shape because we didn't go "Golly gee Wally, maybe we shouldn't listen to Eddy Haskle".

You have a product you like and want to sell, so what. The earth was around far longer than you or the book of myth you are stupidly trying to sell here. Your problem is you ran into people who kick the tires before they buy the car.

[Easy Guns]

Hello, 

Greetings to you brothers and sisters in humanity,

I would like to refute Richard Dawkins argument " If God created man, then who created God? "

The answer to this question is very simple, and I would like to discuss it in detail:

1. The Creator is called The Creator, so how can the Creator have a creator if he is The Creator?

2. The question can be turned around, which will allow me to ask: " If the universe created man, then who created the universe? "

3. Only do things in our galaxy and universe and space-time, require a creator. God is obviously out of space and time, and the galaxy and universe, in another dimension, in which we do not understand.

4. This is like saying that an explanation requires an explanation, which would lose you in an infinite regress, which is clearly contradictory to the bases and fundamentals of science.

5. Antony Flew in his book states:

Now, clearly theists and atheist can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed

1. YOU named this invisible guy "The Creator". Just because you named him as the almighty creator doesn't mean I don't get to ask where the hell he came from.

2. I don't know where the universe really came from or how it was created. That's the difference between you and I. I would actually like to know, and I would be open to proof. I'm not blindly claiming some nonsense based on ancient mythical belief in magic.

3. That's called moving the goal posts. You don't get to create special rules for your god and offer that as a solution. Claims like this are why atheists make fun of you and don't take your arguments seriously. Cut that shit out.

4. Nothing you said in this point makes any taking sense to me. Maybe you'll need to clarify your point for me to discuss, because it just sounds like nonsense you made up on the spot.

5. There isn't a need for something to have always existed. Sure, it's possible. But not required. If you were scientifically literate at all you'd know facilities like the LHC are actively searching for particles that are responsible for creating matter. Read up on: Higgs Boson

[Brian37]

Butthurt is claiming an all  powerful God while needing to be his public relation department. You telling us an all powerful being needs mortals to be salespeople for him or kill to defend him? Can be that powerful if he cant do his own dirty work.

No idea what you're talking about buddy.

Yep thats the problem, you have no ideas, parrots repeat what they are sold. Ideas are why you are typing on a product of science, ideas are what got humans to the moon and probes on Mars.

Now THINK, don't simply react, think.

Does it make any sense to you at all, that an allegedly all powerful being would need to  14 billion years to lead us to today, 4 billion years for life to get today, then only 200,000 years ago leads our species to our current form and then sits on his hands only till about 10,000 years ago to finally give humans the gift of organizing communities and writing? Then another 2000 plus years to get to modern technology? I'd hardly call that efficient.

1. "God works in mysterious ways"
2. "God can do what he wants"
3. "God doesn't have to explain himself to you"

Ok fine, lets see if those three lines still make sense with the following.

1. "Allah works in mysterious ways"
2. "Allah can do what he wants"
3. "Allah doesn't have to explain himself to you"

1. "Osiris works in mysterious ways"
2. "Osiris can do what he wants"
3. "Osiris doesn't have to explain himself to you".

Now why is it you reject two of those groups but accept one? Is it really that a god exists? Or is it merely that you like the idea of having a god? You rightfully reject two of those groups. Maybe you should use that logic and aim it at your own claims.

[Delicate]

Heres a reason: As a matter of policy I never start off being disrespectful.

I'm pretty nice until someone gives me an excuse.

So, going on creating threads with titles deliberately designed to denigrate and disrespect atheists is the new respectful now?

Well, fuck me pink, I've heard it all.

No. But who was talking about the new respectful? 

You're relying on a bad inference from "I never start off being disrespectful" to "everything I do is respectful".

This is what I mean when I say atheists lack critical thinking skills.

[Brian37]

So, going on creating threads with titles deliberately designed to denigrate and disrespect atheists is the new respectful now?

Well, fuck me pink, I've heard it all.

No. But who was talking about the new respectful? 

You're relying on a bad inference from "I never start off being disrespectful" to "everything I do is respectful".

This is what I mean when I say atheists lack critical thinking skills.

Said the one who claims an invisible sky wizard with zero evidence to back it up.

Man I wish you were as gullible about your wallet as you are about your belief in a god. I could sell you an invisible Lamborghini. Did I mention I also own the Brooklyn Bridge, I could sell it to you, you could make a mint on traffic tolls.

[Delicate]

No. But who was talking about the new respectful? 

You're relying on a bad inference from "I never start off being disrespectful" to "everything I do is respectful".

This is what I mean when I say atheists lack critical thinking skills.

Said the one who claims an invisible sky wizard with zero evidence to back it up.

Man I wish you were as gullible about your wallet as you are about your belief in a god. I could sell you an invisible Lamborghini. Did I mention I also own the Brooklyn Bridge, I could sell it to you, you could make a mint on traffic tolls.

Who says I have zero evidence?

[Pat Mustard]

Said the one who claims an invisible sky wizard with zero evidence to back it up.

Man I wish you were as gullible about your wallet as you are about your belief in a god. I could sell you an invisible Lamborghini. Did I mention I also own the Brooklyn Bridge, I could sell it to you, you could make a mint on traffic tolls.

Who says I have zero evidence?

The fact that you've never once provided a single piece of evidence.