My argument for atheism +

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Intended to be facetious  - "Just exactly what was that first thought that originated from a brain that was formed without any prior thought?" 

In the same vein I'll go with the 'First thought' being;

"I'm a eat that."


Though, quite possibly it might have been;

"I'm a fek that."

[The Grand Nudger]

Intended to be facetious  - "Just exactly what was that first thought that originated from a brain that was formed without any prior thought?" 

Whatever your intention, it remains a fact that the application of the snowtracks principle would lead to the conclusion that brain is greater than mind.  

If this isn't what you intended to show with the snowtracks principle, then it needs careful rewording.

[Agnostico]

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.

I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

First you said that u believe "that God almost certainly doesn't exist"

You then go to describe this God which u believe doesn't exist "God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy"

How can u possibly describe something if it doesn't exist?
To describe something and define it means that u must believe it exists

Is this is a theological definition of God u are using? It may satisfy your need to explain away one particular definition of God but there are many religions with many Gods that don't match your definition

Also absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. 
Its a logical fallacy known as arguing from ignorance

For example there was a building material called asbestos
When it was being used there was no evidence that it did any harm
It was only found later on that asbestos is a carcinogenic 
They thought it was ok cos the evidence of harm was absent then

To a person who believes that God almost certainly doesn't exist i ask them how they think the universe was made? And to prove their theory...

I ask them if mankind knows everything or if there are unknowns?
And within the unknown how can u be sure there is no God?
U know there is no God in the unknown? Its not possible

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, in fairness, Toms argument was as poorly constructed as snows rebuttal. Not necessarily for the reason agno in his batshit cloak describes...but...

[Agnostico]

Yeah, in fairness, Toms argument was as poorly constructed as snows rebuttal.  Not necessarily for the reason agno in his batshit cloak describes...but...

Batshit cloak???

How about letting the guy respond as my questions were addressed to him

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, your batshit cloak. You worked hard for it, why complain now?

[Agnostico]

Yes, your batshit cloak.  You worked hard for it, why complain now?

Who is complaining. I don't know what your childish words mean

All i see is someone who feels threatened by my presence and resorts to child like behaviour