Bad atheist arguments

[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.

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.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

 

[K9Buck]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

 

[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.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

2nd Law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning all by itself and that that beginning started with matter having a beginning and being created from nothing.

Inflation theory is the generally accepted cosmological model for the beginning of the universe and yes, it is based on space and time being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Something which is beyond matter and energy, is eternal and is unchanging.

Those are the attributes for the only solution to the first cause conundrum.

 

[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.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

 

[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.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

No, it's an example of actual atheist behavior, just repeating a simplistic, popular mantra or slogan hoping it to be true, or become true.

Much as atheists congregate in their own "special interest groups" or echo-chambers, repeating such simplistic beliefs and catchphrases to themselves, much as they likely would Christian, Jewish, or Muslim ones if they simply "changed the channel" or found a different variety of echo-chambering.

(The same can be said for many if not most of what passes for "politics", informed more by popular mass media, than actual books, political theorists, philosophers, and so on).

so you hate atheists, too

are they on your list of "scum to be eliminated"?

The problem with arrogant snots like you is you actually believe YOU are the only smart person and everyone else is just a mindless idiot.

I am an atheist

I resent your fkn snot nosed arrogance about it.

so tell us, what idiotic lunacy to YOU embrace?

 

[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.

No, it's an example of actual atheist behavior, just repeating a simplistic, popular mantra or slogan hoping it to be true, or become true.

Much as atheists congregate in their own "special interest groups" or echo-chambers, repeating such simplistic beliefs and catchphrases to themselves, much as they likely would Christian, Jewish, or Muslim ones if they simply "changed the channel" or found a different variety of echo-chambering.

(The same can be said for many if not most of what passes for "politics", informed more by popular mass media, than actual books, political theorists, philosophers, and so on).

so you hate atheist, too

are they on your list of "scum to be eliminated"?

The problem with arrogant snots like you is you actually believe YOU are the only smart person and everyone else is just a mindless idiot.

I am an atheist

I resent your fkn snot nosed arrogance about it.

so tel us, what idiotic lunacy to YOU embrace?

I don’t hate atheists. Why should I?

 

[Questioner]

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.

No, it's an example of actual atheist behavior, just repeating a simplistic, popular mantra or slogan hoping it to be true, or become true.

Much as atheists congregate in their own "special interest groups" or echo-chambers, repeating such simplistic beliefs and catchphrases to themselves, much as they likely would Christian, Jewish, or Muslim ones if they simply "changed the channel" or found a different variety of echo-chambering.

(The same can be said for many if not most of what passes for "politics", informed more by popular mass media, than actual books, political theorists, philosophers, and so on).

so you hate atheist, too

are they on your list of "scum to be eliminated"?

The problem with arrogant snots like you is you actually believe YOU are the only smart person and everyone else is just a mindless idiot.

I am an atheist

I resent your fkn snot nosed arrogance about it.

so tel us, what idiotic lunacy to YOU embrace?

I believe the best way to eliminate atheism, and the childish, emotional sentiments, traditions, or simplistic folk slogans it is often predicated on would be through reason and maturity, (as in actual reasoning, not simple folk slogans marketing themselves as such beyond some faith-like fetishization thereof, despite lacking any particularily outstanding degree or mastery of It to begin with) not through violent means. (This wouldn't be the case in every atheist, no, just many, if not most).

If ultimately, they simply don't care, and just want to believe it, or whatever secular belief or faith-based axioms they substitute for it, just because it's convenient or useful, not because it's true in any ultimate sense of the term, then I suppose they're free to what they want to, and most will prefer ignorance of God simply for the sake of simplicity, apathy, and convenience rather than reality as she actually reveals herself to us.

 

[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?

Why are we here? I don’t really care
How were we created? I don’t really care
What happens when you die? You just stop living

Not hard being an atheist

 

[dblack]

I believe the best way to eliminate atheism, and the childish, emotional sentiments, traditions, or simplistic folk slogans it is often predicated on would be through reason and maturity, (as in actual reasoning, not simple folk slogans marketing themselves as such beyond some faith-like fetishization thereof, despite lacking any particularily outstanding degree or mastery of It to begin with) not through violent means. (This wouldn't be the case in every atheist, no, just many, if not most).

Why do you feel the need to "eliminate" atheism? I certainly have no desire to eliminate religion. Most atheists don't. Most of us just don't want to be "eliminated" by religious people bent on proselytizing.

 

[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.

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

So, yeah, I can prove it. In fact, it’s the generally accepted belief in cosmology. The question you should be asking yourself is why you are arguing against the generally accepted belief that the universe popped into existence and then began to expand and cool.

 

[Vastator]

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".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

 

[Vastator]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Who said there was one..?

 

[ding]

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".

Incorrect. My position is that what you have offered as evidence for a God is lacking. On many levels really. But in general where most so called examples Given by others fall short; is that the existence of a God isn’t the only possible answer to that which they don’t know.

The problem is that you don’t have a realistic perception of what God is. Your perception of God skews your conclusions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then by the same token or logic, you can't dismiss a creator if you believe that something can happen, originate or exist with no prior cause.

Correct. By that same token, I also cannot dismiss unicorns or leprechauns.

Your tombstone should read "Spent his life advocating against God".

But that would be a lie. That's just another whiny delusion you tell yourself to justify your own assholery.

 

[ding]

You cannot prove your claim that the universe was created from nothing. And neither can anyone else. You cannot even provide an example of “nothing”. Even science doesn’t claim the universe was created out of nothing. Not any scientists which are taken seriously anyhow. So your reply failed in the first sentence...

Who or what is the first un-caused, first cause?

Who said there was one..?

Ok, for the sake of argument let’s assume there’s not. What caused space and time to exist?

 

[ding]

Then by the same token or logic, you can't dismiss a creator if you believe that something can happen, originate or exist with no prior cause.

Correct. By that same token, I also cannot dismiss unicorns or leprechauns.

Your tombstone should read "Spent his life advocating against God".

But that would be a lie. That's just another whiny delusion you tell yourself to justify your own assholery.

More like an exaggeration.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Sure, ding. Sure.

 

[luchitociencia]

The belief in a god can't be imposed.

Atheists have the right of their thoughts as well religious people have the right of their beliefs.

I think that people must always heard both sides, and decide for one of those or even for both.

In time of Jesus there were lots of people who were atheists, and there is not a single mention from the messiah against them. Same as well, the apostles mission was not to convince people but to announce the good news.

Good arguments against religion are many, and these will become a never end discussion because will be a war between evidence against faith.