Bad atheist arguments

[dblack]

Atheists are fooled into a fantasy reality.

Humans read facts from testimonies, not evidence. The atheistic ideal is a fantasy world of evidence.

Can you evidence what food you ate last Christmas? If you can't then you ate nothing. That's the line of atheistic reasoning.

"I said I ate turkey". Since you can't present the evidence, that what you actually ate is a red unicorn. That's the conclusion they can draw, and thus how dumb atheists are.

Oh, I get it. You're hung up on the strawman that atheist have a "belief" that god doesn't exists. I suppose some might, but that's not atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief. People who have never heard of gods are atheists.

Wrong, completely missing the point. The point is ready in my first post. Reread it.

I already read it. It didn't make any sense.

Of course, atheists can make nothing out of sense.

It's all about how you are living in your fantasy world of evidence. In this very reality humans read facts mostly from testimonies with faith!

Whatever man. Your reasoning could be used to justify any ridiculous claim.

 

[Hawkins]

It's all about how you are living in your fantasy world of evidence. In this very reality humans read facts mostly from testimonies with faith!

Atheists are under demonic influence and do Satan's bidding. That is why they ignore ALL logic and evidence. Satan has blinded them from the truth and they in turn do his bidding.

Yes, my speculation too. They are fooled by the more intelligent Satan to think that everything can be evidenced, while they can't even evidence one out of the million meals they ever had in their life!

 

[rightwinger]

None of those are atheist arguments.

We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.

It is that simple

Then one who hears the rhetoric of various secular beliefs systems and ideologies, and insipid arguments from authority and indoctrination, rather than education or free thinking, and decides it isn't true is of the same variety.

Not to mention, there are "religions" and religious notions or ideas which are skeptical of organized systems of belief, much as there are organized systems of belief which are "secular" or philosophical, such as Secular Humanism, and its positive beliefs and axioms which are held on faith, and not reducible or nonfloatable with a mere "lack of belief" in a god.

If one for example, believes that murder or rape is wrong, on the basis of Common Law theory, which is informed by older legal systems, including religious ones such as "Exodus", or the golden rule in general (in regards to respect for people, their property, their family, their autonomy), that in itself is, or could easily be argued to be a "religious" belief to begin with, or at least a belief held to on faith, not "testable" per the parameters of Bacon's methodology, and society being the better off for it, as having faith that murder or rape is wrong, is probably better than being "skeptical" of those notions.

Just as there are atheistic philosophies or worldviews, whether Sade, Stirner, LeVay, or others who reject all or part of the "golden rule", and therefore could easily argue in favor of rape or murder or child molestation, unable to assert these things are "wrong" to begin with, without appealing to faith in the golden rule, or in "religious" systems, or those informed by them, rather than "scientific evidence" in the Baconian sense, such as Common Law theory.

Scientific evidence, could of course be used to argue in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, however a Secular Humanist believes on faith that these things are wrong, and will intentionally, probably for the better, rather use the same evidence to argue against these things rather than for them, on the basis of its faith-based axioms..

Sorry didn’t read the world salad

I was raised Catholic. At an early age I started to question, this stuff doesn’t make sense.

Nobody taught me, nobody indoctrinated me
I just realized BS when I saw it

 

[dblack]

No, you're lying about my goals and desires. Stop doing that.

You seem very emotionally vested in there not being a God. Why?

Well, I'm not. Again, you're making shit up to suit your agenda. I just don't happen to believe your claims about your god. That's all.

 

[Hawkins]

Atheists are fooled into a fantasy reality.

Humans read facts from testimonies, not evidence. The atheistic ideal is a fantasy world of evidence.

Can you evidence what food you ate last Christmas? If you can't then you ate nothing. That's the line of atheistic reasoning.

"I said I ate turkey". Since you can't present the evidence, that what you actually ate is a red unicorn. That's the conclusion they can draw, and thus how dumb atheists are.

Oh, I get it. You're hung up on the strawman that atheist have a "belief" that god doesn't exists. I suppose some might, but that's not atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief. People who have never heard of gods are atheists.

Wrong, completely missing the point. The point is ready in my first post. Reread it.

I already read it. It didn't make any sense.

Of course, atheists can make nothing out of sense.

It's all about how you are living in your fantasy world of evidence. In this very reality humans read facts mostly from testimonies with faith!

Whatever man. Your reasoning could be used to justify any ridiculous claim.

No, humans rely on something else to determine what is factual. However it's not evidence! That's why they won't mistakenly think that newspapers are novels.

Again, get a clue! Or continue to live in dreams!

 

[dblack]

Oh, I get it. You're hung up on the strawman that atheist have a "belief" that god doesn't exists. I suppose some might, but that's not atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief. People who have never heard of gods are atheists.

Wrong, completely missing the point. The point is ready in my first post. Reread it.

I already read it. It didn't make any sense.

Of course, atheists can make nothing out of sense.

It's all about how you are living in your fantasy world of evidence. In this very reality humans read facts mostly from testimonies with faith!

Whatever man. Your reasoning could be used to justify any ridiculous claim.

No, humans rely on something else to determine what is factual. However it's not evidence! That's why they won't mistakenly think that newspapers are novels.

Again, get a clue! Or continue to live in dreams!

So you got nothing? "get a clue"? Alright. Whatever.

 

[K9Buck]

Well, I'm not. Again, you're making shit up to suit your agenda. I just don't happen to believe your claims about your god. That's all.

For someone that's not emotionally attached, you sure are triggered.

 

[Questioner]

None of those are atheist arguments.

We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.

It is that simple

Then one who hears the rhetoric of various secular beliefs systems and ideologies, and insipid arguments from authority and indoctrination, rather than education or free thinking, and decides it isn't true is of the same variety.

Not to mention, there are "religions" and religious notions or ideas which are skeptical of organized systems of belief, much as there are organized systems of belief which are "secular" or philosophical, such as Secular Humanism, and its positive beliefs and axioms which are held on faith, and not reducible or nonfloatable with a mere "lack of belief" in a god.

If one for example, believes that murder or rape is wrong, on the basis of Common Law theory, which is informed by older legal systems, including religious ones such as "Exodus", or the golden rule in general (in regards to respect for people, their property, their family, their autonomy), that in itself is, or could easily be argued to be a "religious" belief to begin with, or at least a belief held to on faith, not "testable" per the parameters of Bacon's methodology, and society being the better off for it, as having faith that murder or rape is wrong, is probably better than being "skeptical" of those notions.

Just as there are atheistic philosophies or worldviews, whether Sade, Stirner, LeVay, or others who reject all or part of the "golden rule", and therefore could easily argue in favor of rape or murder or child molestation, unable to assert these things are "wrong" to begin with, without appealing to faith in the golden rule, or in "religious" systems, or those informed by them, rather than "scientific evidence" in the Baconian sense, such as Common Law theory.

Scientific evidence, could of course be used to argue in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, however a Secular Humanist believes on faith that these things are wrong, and will intentionally, probably for the better, rather use the same evidence to argue against these things rather than for them, on the basis of its faith-based axioms..

Sorry didn’t read the world salad

I was raised Catholic. At an early age I started to question, this stuff doesn’t make sense.

Nobody taught me, nobody indoctrinated me
I just realized BS when I saw it

What positive beliefs do you have, and where do they come from?

Even if not all "teachings thereof" are created equal, everyone is or has learning from someone or something else, or things which have been around for a long time, stood the test of time, or are taken on face value.

I wouldn't equate the level of type of believe in the sense of simply "being thought" with deeper thoughts, theologies, philosophies, and so forth, but that's just me.

Much as many people are simply "taught" scientific theories, or whether the contemporary theories of their day and age are, and their knowledge of the subject doesn't extend beyond merely repeating what they are taught by rote, or making simplistic appeals to the authority or popular spokespeople, gurus, books, and so forth, of which there are manifold.

 

[dblack]

Well, I'm not. Again, you're making shit up to suit your agenda. I just don't happen to believe your claims about your god. That's all.

For someone that's not emotionally attached, you sure are triggered.

Not really. You all make a bunch of false claims about atheists. So we defend ourselves. How is that "triggered"? Do you even know what the term means?

 

[K9Buck]

Not really. You all make a bunch of false claims about atheists. So we defend ourselves. How is that "triggered"? Do you even know what the term means?

If atheists like you aren't on a quest to eliminate the belief in God, then why are atheists like you in threads about God all the time?

 

[dblack]

Not really. You all make a bunch of false claims about atheists. So we defend ourselves. How is that "triggered"? Do you even know what the term means?

If atheists like you aren't on a quest to eliminate the belief in God, then why are atheists like you in threads about God all the time?

I'm not. I'm only in threads where false information is being spread about atheists. Again, you're lying about me. Please stop.

 

[BULLDOG]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

well, yes. We have pictures of Darwin, and writings by both Darwin and Newton.

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists should wonder as to what or who possesses them to so strongly advocate against the existence of God. They cannot fathom, of course, that they are under demonic influence to do so.

I don’t strongly advocate for atheism. I have never started a thread on it or knocked on doors trying to convert people to atheism

I believe in Satan no more than I believe in God, Santa Clause or magic fairies

 

[K9Buck]

I don’t strongly advocate for atheism. I have never started a thread on it or knocked on doors trying to convert people to atheism I believe in Satan no more than I believe in God, Santa Clause or magic fairies

Yea, that's why you're in every thread regarding God. LOL.

 

[rightwinger]

None of those are atheist arguments.

We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.

It is that simple

Then one who hears the rhetoric of various secular beliefs systems and ideologies, and insipid arguments from authority and indoctrination, rather than education or free thinking, and decides it isn't true is of the same variety.

Not to mention, there are "religions" and religious notions or ideas which are skeptical of organized systems of belief, much as there are organized systems of belief which are "secular" or philosophical, such as Secular Humanism, and its positive beliefs and axioms which are held on faith, and not reducible or nonfloatable with a mere "lack of belief" in a god.

If one for example, believes that murder or rape is wrong, on the basis of Common Law theory, which is informed by older legal systems, including religious ones such as "Exodus", or the golden rule in general (in regards to respect for people, their property, their family, their autonomy), that in itself is, or could easily be argued to be a "religious" belief to begin with, or at least a belief held to on faith, not "testable" per the parameters of Bacon's methodology, and society being the better off for it, as having faith that murder or rape is wrong, is probably better than being "skeptical" of those notions.

Just as there are atheistic philosophies or worldviews, whether Sade, Stirner, LeVay, or others who reject all or part of the "golden rule", and therefore could easily argue in favor of rape or murder or child molestation, unable to assert these things are "wrong" to begin with, without appealing to faith in the golden rule, or in "religious" systems, or those informed by them, rather than "scientific evidence" in the Baconian sense, such as Common Law theory.

Scientific evidence, could of course be used to argue in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, however a Secular Humanist believes on faith that these things are wrong, and will intentionally, probably for the better, rather use the same evidence to argue against these things rather than for them, on the basis of its faith-based axioms..

Sorry didn’t read the world salad

I was raised Catholic. At an early age I started to question, this stuff doesn’t make sense.

Nobody taught me, nobody indoctrinated me
I just realized BS when I saw it

What positive beliefs do you have, and where do they come from?

Even if not all "teachings thereof" are created equal, everyone is or has learning from someone or something else, or things which have been around for a long time, stood the test of time, or are taken on face value.

I wouldn't equate the level of type of believe in the sense of simply "being thought" with deeper thoughts, theologies, philosophies, and so forth, but that's just me.

Much as many people are simply "taught" scientific theories, or whether the contemporary theories of their day and age are, and their knowledge of the subject doesn't extend beyond merely repeating what they are taught by rote, or making simplistic appeals to the authority or popular spokespeople, gurus, books, and so forth, of which there are manifold.

Beliefs?

I believe I was born and will eventually die
I believe in treating others as I would like to be treated
I believe I am a living creature and need to take care of myself.

What else do I need to believe in?

 

[ding]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists; religion and 'god" are creations of man.

How do I perceive God?

Because I believe there is no God as you perceive God.

 

[ding]

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

No, thats an example of a conman making up stuff to soothe himself (you). Here is an actual example:

" I see no good evidence to believe any of this extraordinary, magical claims. So i don't".

And that's it.

Dude, I didn’t make up anything.

That was literally the argument of an atheist in response to 24,000 written manuscripts existing which are the basis of the NT.

 

[Vastator]

I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

 

[ding]

I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

One of the many questions for which I don't have an answer but I have no reason to believe anyone else does either.

My answer was "I don't know". Are you trying to make a point?

Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, not even the universe itself. Logic dictates that something or, someone, outside of said universe caused it to exist.

The committed atheist, of course, eager to advocate for the non-existence of a creator, mindlessly parrots the "I don't know" line in order to avoid arriving at the inescapable conclusion of the existence of a creator, otherwise known as "God".

Thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

The universe was created from nothing. God is no thing. No thing created the universe.

The first sentence is based on science. The second and third sentences are based upon logic.

 

[K9Buck]

thats not an inescapable conclusion. That’s a forfeit to the “God of the gaps” fallacy. To simply admit that one doesn’t know is a sign of intellectual maturity, lacking presumption of that for which one has no evidence. There is nothing intellectual, or even reverent in the position of “I don’t know. Therefore god.” In fact it smacks of hubris to claim that simply because you don’t know the answer; the only possible answer must be some deity. That’s as arrogant as it gets.

Your position, and the position of atheists like you, is that a believer must be able to put God in front of you in order that you can physically observe and measure him to PROVE that he exists. That is an unreasonable expectation.

There is a plethora of evidence, logical, physical and otherwise, for the existence of God. You won't accept any of it because you don't want there to be a "God".