Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Constructive Anarchy]

.

... the good old times for bing.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What you intend for evil, He has used for good.

.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What you intend for evil, He has used for good.

I have chosen the better portion ...


truth is not a choice bing maybe you should take another look ... at whatever you chose from. * or just anything different would be an improvement.

Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective. I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.

.

Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective. I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.

another who's native language must be from another country than the USA ...

No. I only speak English. He is still using what you intended as evil for good. My good.

Don't bother with these idiots. You'll never get anything from them that even comes anywhere close to being an honest argument. They are false and stupid in just about equal proportions.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect. I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Dummies like you shouldn't have opinions about religion or science.

 

[Czernobog]

It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't. That is the difference between faith, and observation. You have faith that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I observe that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

 

[RWS]

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.

Do you write all of your paragraphs in sentence form?

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Do you also have a problem with the way I write?

So you don't like the way I think, or write? Wow...

Again, you provided a reflex link that was not properly thought out or researched, that contradicts what you say about your religion. Just stuff you link from a random list when provided with an argument you cannot respond to... This is what, 4 or 5 times so far, just with me??

The Old Testament was written approximately 3500 years ago. So your Babylonian date of 4500 years ago (and they took it from the Sumerians, so it is older still) is still 1000 years older than the biblical texts. And the Enuma Elish 4500 years ago, tells a vastly different story about our "gods" than the OT 3500 years ago, and was changed to suit the monotheist Jewish religion that started 1000 years later.

The OT was a copy of older texts. Including the Enuma Elish, and others such as Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Written long before the OT.

The NT is also plagiarism of many older stories:

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind. Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe. There is no affirmative atheistic argument.

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They think their history is factual. They used to take Noah and David and Goliath and talking snakes literally but most of them now understand all those to be allegories.

But they don't take the logical leap that so too are the Jesus stories. No no those are real.

Again, you don't know that. You must be agnostic about that. The reality is that nearly every culture has a tradition of a global flood. There's probably something to it. As for Biblical implications, read the allegorical books allegorically, read the poetic books poetically, read the wisdom books wisely, read the prophetic books prophetically, read the apocalyptic books apocalyptically, read the books of law legally and read the historical books historically, but in the proper context of that day.

Reagan the stupid books stupidly

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh I get it now. It's all those Absolute atheists who sound like complete fucking idiots all the time. Good thing you can make such a clear distinction between them and you.

I find this interesting maybe you can explain. They say the bible was written around 1600 years ago. The old testament was written supposedly 7000 years ago. Now we know the ancients found fossels and told stories of dragons monsters and other mythical beasts but it wasn't until 1824 that we knew dinosaurs once roamed and how they got here and disappeared. None of that is in the old testament. God left that part out of the 7 day creation story.

I call bullshit!

Before you can understand any particular faith you would first have had to had faith in God and then have faith in a faith. You have done neither. You shouldn't be expected to understand.

I once had faith

 

[ding]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent). First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural. And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.

That's not a material point. Three headed unicorn with laser coming out of its butt theology is nonexistent. To argue the premise that Judea/Christianity or any other major religion is flawed because something else is flawed is idiotic.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.

All our other experiences don't tell us that it is impossible. Quite the opposite, they tell us it is. In fact, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".

Doesn't matter, he's right. The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

You claim your god always existed. We claim the universe always existed.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.

Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion. That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement. Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

That's awfully nice of you. I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.

The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

No it is not. To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. To refute that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim. You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

 

[ding]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Oh I get it now. It's all those Absolute atheists who sound like complete fucking idiots all the time. Good thing you can make such a clear distinction between them and you.

I find this interesting maybe you can explain. They say the bible was written around 1600 years ago. The old testament was written supposedly 7000 years ago. Now we know the ancients found fossels and told stories of dragons monsters and other mythical beasts but it wasn't until 1824 that we knew dinosaurs once roamed and how they got here and disappeared. None of that is in the old testament. God left that part out of the 7 day creation story.

I call bullshit!

Before you can understand any particular faith you would first have had to had faith in God and then have faith in a faith. You have done neither. You shouldn't be expected to understand.

I once had faith

I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith. I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed. But I could be wrong. Either way it does not change my point. You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.

 

[ding]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They think their history is factual. They used to take Noah and David and Goliath and talking snakes literally but most of them now understand all those to be allegories.

But they don't take the logical leap that so too are the Jesus stories. No no those are real.

Again, you don't know that. You must be agnostic about that. The reality is that nearly every culture has a tradition of a global flood. There's probably something to it. As for Biblical implications, read the allegorical books allegorically, read the poetic books poetically, read the wisdom books wisely, read the prophetic books prophetically, read the apocalyptic books apocalyptically, read the books of law legally and read the historical books historically, but in the proper context of that day.

Reagan the stupid books stupidly

That's because it is not your faith. Of course you will read it stupidly, that's called confirmation bias.

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They think their history is factual. They used to take Noah and David and Goliath and talking snakes literally but most of them now understand all those to be allegories.

But they don't take the logical leap that so too are the Jesus stories. No no those are real.

Again, you don't know that. You must be agnostic about that. The reality is that nearly every culture has a tradition of a global flood. There's probably something to it. As for Biblical implications, read the allegorical books allegorically, read the poetic books poetically, read the wisdom books wisely, read the prophetic books prophetically, read the apocalyptic books apocalyptically, read the books of law legally and read the historical books historically, but in the proper context of that day.

Reagan the stupid books stupidly

That's because it is not your faith. Of course you will read it stupidly, that's called confirmation bias.

It was at the time. And,

Are you saying you have to believe what you are about to read regardless of what you are about to read in order to get it? Sorry my brain doesn't work that way. If I start reading something and it doesn't move me that's not my fault.

And I think I was throughout brainwashed before I read the bible. Maybe I was starting to have my doubts before I read it but the book didn't win me back. I'm not gullible or easily brainwashed

 

[hobelim]

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.

 

[Czernobog]

.
how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind. Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe. There is no affirmative atheistic argument.

And this is the point at which we are done. You asked a question. I provided an answer, and you completely ignored it, and continued your unfounded claims. You are not interested in discussion. You want simply to pontificate, and to be patted on your head for you alleged brilliance. Feel free to enjoy your intellectual masturbation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent). First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural. And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.

That's not a material point. Three headed unicorn with laser coming out of its butt theology is nonexistent. To argue the premise that Judea/Christianity or any other major religion is flawed because something else is flawed is idiotic.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.

All our other experiences don't tell us that it is impossible. Quite the opposite, they tell us it is. In fact, I don't see how it can be any other way.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".

Doesn't matter, he's right. The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

You claim your god always existed. We claim the universe always existed.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.

Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion. That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement. Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.

That's awfully nice of you. I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.

The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

No it is not. To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. To refute that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim. You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind. Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe. There is no affirmative atheistic argument.

And this is the point at which we are done. You asked a question. I provided an answer, and you completely ignored it, and continued your unfounded claims. You are not interested in discussion. You want simply to pontificate, and to be patted on your head for you alleged brilliance. Feel free to enjoy your intellectual masturbation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The statements of opinion and personal philosophy strung together in post #1064 are far from self evident.

 

[Mudda]

As if the fact of your incredible dull stupidity needed further emphasis.

At least mudda isn't falling for your con. You know he's right don't you? I don't know there's no God and you don't know either. No one knows. Christians are believing the story told in their neck of the woods, Muslims in the middle East do the same, Mormons story seems to be popular in Utah and Hindu and Budda are popular in other parts of the world. Besides your cult do you buy the other cult stories?

I'm curious to see if you are capable of intelligently responding to this or will you do what theists do and change the subject

You are an amazingly stupid little person. When will dummies like you understand that whatever I believe has no relevance to the argument? When will people like you stop being so fucking dim witted?

Constructive Douchebag is too afraid to say that he believes in invisible superheroes.

And at least I am open and honest enough to admit technically you are right. No one has ever met God so no one knows. And no one knows if anyone has ever met God. Maybe con douche has met God. But if you ask me if I believe con douche met God the answer is no. I'm not agnostic about that. Are you?

You better say yes because you can't know for sure, right?

Anything you can't falsify or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?

Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God. Not believing in God is taken on faith too. Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.

Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking

 

[Mudda]

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.

Go back 100 years and ask how many people take the stories in the bible literally. Let's say 75% said yes. Today that number is 25% take the bible stories literally. People are waking up that all religions are man made stories.

Paul went into Greece and made up a new religion. He had a few other accomplices who went to other parts of the world and told the same story. Bfd. Not impressed or convinced your story is real


Do you know who else doesn't buy your story? The Jews! And they were there!!! They say be was just a guy. Are they lying?

Jews are fucking liars, they lie about being god's chosen people... to wear coke bottle glasses maybe.

You like to limit your associations to white people, don't you?

No, I hang with people who are tanned as well.

 

[Mudda]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

 

[Czernobog]

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get. You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons. Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get. And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying. Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists. No. You see, we are well aware that there is no "next". This is it. The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy. So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life. It is all that will be left behind when we are gone. If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us. Our lives will have been a waste. But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here. Well! Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually live by our moral code. After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass. We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.

Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind. Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe. There is no affirmative atheistic argument.

And this is the point at which we are done. You asked a question. I provided an answer, and you completely ignored it, and continued your unfounded claims. You are not interested in discussion. You want simply to pontificate, and to be patted on your head for you alleged brilliance. Feel free to enjoy your intellectual masturbation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The statements of opinion and personal philosophy strung together in post #1064 are far from self evident.

If you say so. As far as the thread being "opinion and personal philosophy", guess what? Everyone's moral code is opinion and personal opinion. The fact that some of those opinions, and philosophies are spoon-fed to people who prefer not to think for themselves doesn't make it any less so.