Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

 

[Czernobog]

.
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.

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

That's funny...

 

[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.

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

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

 

[ding]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper

The key words for you are: Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs.

 

[ding]

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

.

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

"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper

What was you faith again, lol?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

 

[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.

That presumes that a moral code is dependent on religion. Following your logic, theists are capable of an ethical, and moral code, solely because they believe in a deity. You get the bankruptcy of that position, right? That means that humanity, in your opinion, is incapable of independent, ethical thought. What a low opinion of human beings you have.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

 

[BreezeWood]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

 

[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.

That presumes that a moral code is dependent on religion. Following your logic, theists are capable of an ehtical, and moral code, solely because they believe in a deity. You get the bankruptcy of that position, right? That means that humanity, in your opinion, is incapable of independent, ethical thought. What a low opinion of human beings you have.

Your presumption doesn't logically follow.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

Spoon fed philosophy? Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?

Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah. More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.

Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything. No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.

You need to make up your mind. Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform. Which is it? Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?

How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper

The key words for you are: Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs.

.

The key words for you are: Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs.

I needn't remind you again the answer to what happened the Tuesday before the Singularity was answered, as I already have, is your wall of security to high for you to crawl over it ...

 

[BreezeWood]

.
"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

.

Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.

daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

.

The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.

the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper

What was you faith again, lol?

.

What was you faith again, lol?

the spoken religion of the Almighty: the Triumph of Good vs Evil. sorry, nothing from the 4th century.

 

[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

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[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.

That presumes that a moral code is dependent on religion. Following your logic, theists are capable of an ehtical, and moral code, solely because they believe in a deity. You get the bankruptcy of that position, right? That means that humanity, in your opinion, is incapable of independent, ethical thought. What a low opinion of human beings you have.

Your presumption doesn't logically follow.

It's not my presumption; it's yours. And I agree the presumption doesn't logically follow. Perhaps your position needs more examination.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk