Proving Atheism Is True

[Spencer]

Why would I reject the notion of god if I met him/her/it? Irrefutable evidence has been presented,

Well you are minority.

No actually, he's not. He is in the majority.

[solja247]

Everyone was Christian back then. So, technically true, but irrelevant.

Not at all. You claimed that religion was a manipulative tool and yes in the wrong hands, correcto. However, it can be a tool to enlightenment and understanding. If I was an atheist I would most likely never entered into higher thinking, it was that I wanted to see if my belief system was right, according to the history, Bible and etymology. If I was an atheist I cant really prove my belief system correct, I can go to any sacred text, I cant look at history to see if Im on the right track so I would of been one of those atheists who just go, 'lol you Christians are stupid, go read Dawkins!'

So no-one can make a truth claim about anything? It's not more rational to say that the moon's made of rock than that it's made of cheese?

No. Thats silly, thats what science is for. But philosophically, theologically and with our religious beliefs (or none) we are all on the same level if one uses logic and they are rational about it.

[Zen Badger]

Come on mate. I advise you read some Christian apologetics, this statement is just plain wrong.

No it's not.

Me: So can you show me how you are more rational than me or any other theist?

Atheist: because I dont believe in the spaghetti monster, Zeus, fairies, Santa Claus or God or gods for that matter.

Me: You still fail to answer my question without resorting to straw men, what makes you more rational than me?

Correction, there is no evidence for the spaghetti monster, Zues, fairies, SC or god. Therefore I don't believe in them. Please try to comprehend what our stance is before you try to refute it.

Well you are minority.

No I'm not.

In theory. Like Christians are supposed to love their neighbor and be nice people.
Most Atheists have this passion against religion or God, I dont really know why. I think they get confused between a fundamentalist and a rational theist.

They usually have a passion against morons like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, people who try to pretend the world is other than it is.

I have met some (Christians) who are like you have described, but most are obnoxious and arrogant and arent seekers of the truth. If anyone says what they believe is more rational and concludes that everyone else should believe they believe, they are no longer a seeker of the truth. I have read quite a few posts in this forum and unfortunately a lot of (christians) here arent seekers of the truth, its rather sad.

There you go, fixed it for you

[solja247]

There you go, fixed it for you

Christians arrogant or obnoxious? Hardly. How can one be arrogant or obnoxious about something they dont know?
Most Christians are ignorant and naive.

[Darwinian]

Do I agree with what? Do I agree with what he said or do I agree that atheism can be proved false?

[SleepingDemon]

Not at all. You claimed that religion was a manipulative tool and yes in the wrong hands, correcto. However, it can be a tool to enlightenment and understanding. If I was an atheist I would most likely never entered into higher thinking, it was that I wanted to see if my belief system was right, according to the history, Bible and etymology. If I was an atheist I cant really prove my belief system correct, I can go to any sacred text, I cant look at history to see if Im on the right track so I would of been one of those atheists who just go, 'lol you Christians are stupid, go read Dawkins!'

But you really can't. It is a faith-based system, so whatever evidence you find that doesn't follow your predetermined answers is thrown out. If you were to look at it objectively, especially 1st and 2nd century christianity and the wide variety of doctrines that were both combined and eradicated by the orthodox church, you wouldn't believe in christianity anymore. Before christianity was ironed out by the church, before the various permutations of it were crushed by the church, it was a very weak, and widely varied system of beliefs that did very little to substantiate the historical accuracy of the modern bible. The Christianity you believe in was created over the course of centuries, it wasn't a set doctrine or a set cannon from the beginning, which would be what it was were the effects of the 12 apostle's preaching accurate in relation to the bible. The actual history of christianity was a very brutal, very bad larve like consumption and destruction of itself to create a single uniform doctrine.

[Minimalist]

The universe appears to be designed.

The single dumbest thing you have said.

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='85403' dateline='1281279440']
The single dumbest thing you have said.
[/quote]

There's some pretty stiff competition for that title, too.

[quote='solja247']No serious scientists has been able to refute the idea of God. However, most can refute leprechauns, pixies and fairies.[/quote]

Okay... how? Also, refutation of God's existence isn't necessary for atheists, as we believe that atheism is the default position given lack of evidence.

[quote]If the Big bang was a little too big or too small (by just a fraction of a fraction) We would have no live no elements on the period table, no more stars, no planets and no life. So the universe does appear to be fine tuned for life and everything in it. I do believe this is rather solid evidence and no serious person can refute it. The universe appears to be designed. [/quote]

Ah, fine tuning. That old chestnut. This argument seems to presuppose its conclusion, though, in maintaining that there's anything significant about life as a phenomenon. From a non-religious viewpoint, life is just a biochemical phenomenon. Besides, we'd be more justified in saying that the universe is fine-tuned to produce vast amounts of empty space. Given that most of our planet is covered in water, thus uninhabitable for us, and those bits which aren't are filled with other species that can kill us, or temperatures that are either too hot or too cold, the universe begins to look distinctly undesigned for life.

---

[quote='solja247' pid='85380' dateline='1281270439']
[quote]You claimed that religion was a manipulative tool and yes in the wrong hands, correcto.[/quote]

Actually, I didn't, though I agree with this.

[quote] However, it can be a tool to enlightenment and understanding. If I was an atheist I would most likely never entered into higher thinking, it was that I wanted to see if my belief system was right, according to the history, Bible and etymology. If I was an atheist I cant really prove my belief system correct, I can go to any sacred text, I cant look at history to see if Im on the right track so I would of been one of those atheists who just go, 'lol you Christians are stupid, go read Dawkins!'[/quote]

Whether or not you'd have entered into higher thinking as an atheist is up to you. Personally, exploring the arguments for God's existence led me into an interest in philosophy. Atheists only need prove their position correct by refuting the theists' arguments, which will often require examination of the 'sacred' texts, or historical information or philosophy.
[quote]

[quote]No. Thats silly, thats what science is for. But philosophically, theologically and with our religious beliefs (or none) we are all on the same level if one uses logic and they are rational about it.[/quote]

So are you saying that atheism is equivalent to theism as a faith position? If so... guess again.

[Skeptisma]

Me: You still fail to answer my question without resorting to straw men, what makes you more rational than me?

Because I used rational, skeptical, and logical reasoning to come to my conclusion. What did you use? If any of your conclusions are a result of faith, you were not rational. End of story.

[solja247]

But you really can't. It is a faith-based system, so whatever evidence you find that doesn't follow your predetermined answers is thrown out. If you were to look at it objectively, especially 1st and 2nd century christianity and the wide variety of doctrines that were both combined and eradicated by the orthodox church, you wouldn't believe in christianity anymore. Before christianity was ironed out by the church, before the various permutations of it were crushed by the church, it was a very weak, and widely varied system of beliefs that did very little to substantiate the historical accuracy of the modern bible. The Christianity you believe in was created over the course of centuries, it wasn't a set doctrine or a set cannon from the beginning, which would be what it was were the effects of the 12 apostle's preaching accurate in relation to the bible. The actual history of christianity was a very brutal, very bad larve like consumption and destruction of itself to create a single uniform doctrine.

Very true. If I was back when western christianity was killing Christianas (Pretty much its entire history) I would of been classified as a heretic or as a 'Judaizer'. Anyway you are correct. It didnt take long for Western Christianity to call anyone a heretic, Neostrians, Arrainsm, Assyrians etc. (Great book to read is, 'The Lost History of Christianity.')
But I dont see how this proves anything to be honest with you. People were manipulated to do the churches bidding, but people can arise. The only reason why people can be manipulated is because people dont want to think and question as the famous saying goes, 'Religion is an opium for the people.' I doubt most Christians in the west understand their bloody history or even their theology. But this isnt what everyone is like.

Because I used rational, skeptical, and logical reasoning to come to my conclusion. What did you use? If any of your conclusions are a result of faith, you were not rational. End of story.

Lets try it again.

Me: How are you more rational than me?

You: I dont believe in faires or santa or A big invisible monster.

Me: I dont see your point, neither do I?

You: God is on that line

Me: Why? Perhaps you arent being open minded enough? You still havent shown me how you are more rational than me?

You: Lalalalala logic lalalala rational lalalala me skeptic

You dont listen. You dont think theism is on the same line as atheism, for no reason.

Ah, fine tuning. That old chestnut. This argument seems to presuppose its conclusion, though, in maintaining that there's anything significant about life as a phenomenon. From a non-religious viewpoint, life is just a biochemical phenomenon. Besides, we'd be more justified in saying that the universe is fine-tuned to produce vast amounts of empty space. Given that most of our planet is covered in water, thus uninhabitable for us, and those bits which aren't are filled with other species that can kill us, or temperatures that are either too hot or too cold, the universe begins to look distinctly undesigned for life.

Imagine if we didnt have all that water, do you think we would still be around. You can only push the equilibirum to a certain degree. I dont see how you have refuted the fine tuning arguement at all.

So are you saying that atheism is equivalent to theism as a faith position? If so... guess again.

Funny, its only athesits and fundies who say religion is based on blind faith. There is evidence for a God, it just depends how you interpret.

The single dumbest thing you have said.

Perhaps what you have just said is dumb as well. Theists, Agnostics and Atheitsts mostly agree that this universe does appear to be designed, it just depends on how you interpret it with your philosphical bagage.