Questions for Atheists - ANSWERED!

[Spare_change]

See? You're not the only one who can troll with amusing memes.

I would add to the Christianity thing, pay money to a guy who may or may not be a servant of your zombie master.

Ignorance abounds.

 

[Muhammed]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

There is nothing illogical about atheism.

 

[Spare_change]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

There is nothing illogical about atheism.

Quite the contrary.

Atheism is the epitome of illogic thought. Atheism assumes that man is the highest order - that moral judgements are the province of man. Of course, as we know, man is illogical. They are incapable of static application of law, morality, and authority. It is the relativism of man's morality that makes them incapable of developing a sound moral and lawful structure.

Theft is a crime, unless .... killing is a crime, except when ... lies are impermissible, except when ... adultery is a failing, unless ... the beat goes on. Man will always find some excuse that allows him to avoid responsibility for his acts. There is no absolute - there is only the quagmire of relativism, self protection, and self delusion.

Frankly, if there wasn't already a God, we'd have to invent one in order to keep our civilization from collapsing.

 

[Tuatara]

There is no way to prove that atheism is true.

No, but the evidence favours Atheism.

If you tell an atheist that, they will say that the burden of proving God exists rests on the person who believes in God.

Of course. If you are going to claim anything is true whether it be God, unicorns, or leprechauns then the burden of proof is on you. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. Think about it. If someone claimed to have a miniature invisible talking gorilla living in their doll house would it be up to the rest of the world to prove it didn't exist? Of course not.

But it remains true, that atheists could not ever prove anything, if the burden rests on them.

It is not up to anyone to prove a negative. Tell you what. If you can prove that every other god and/or gods that have ever been described by men throughout history don't exist, then we'll talk.

You don't see God in everything around you.

Of course not. Nobody does, although many people from many religions claim to see or hear the many gods that have been described over time. Do you have proof that the god you pray to is right over every other god?

That tells me you cannot be reached.

Reached by what? To share the same delusions as what your particular group shares. Put you in a different region for your birth and it could be very well a different god you claim you are reached by.

And the fact is, removing the blinders is God's responsibility, not mine.

Who's responsibility is it to remove your blinders?

 

[Czernobog]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

There is nothing illogical about atheism.

Quite the contrary.

Atheism is the epitome of illogic thought. Atheism assumes that man is the highest order - that moral judgements are the province of man. Of course, as we know, man is illogical. They are incapable of static application of law, morality, and authority. It is the relativism of man's morality that makes them incapable of developing a sound moral and lawful structure.

Theft is a crime, unless .... killing is a crime, except when ... lies are impermissible, except when ... adultery is a failing, unless ... the beat goes on. Man will always find some excuse that allows him to avoid responsibility for his acts. There is no absolute - there is only the quagmire of relativism, self protection, and self delusion.

Frankly, if there wasn't already a God, we'd have to invent one in order to keep our civilization from collapsing.

Why do you keep conflating morality with legality? You do understand that the two are not interchangeable, right? You keep talking about how illogical atheism is, and then proceed to make arguments that are, themselves, illogical, and based on falsehoods, inaccuracies, and misapplied concepts.

 

[Vastator]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

I've heard that somewhere before...

 

[Vastator]

"I am your father..."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

that moral judgements are the province of man.

Which, of course, they are. They are a purely human construct. And thank goodness we generally observe morals obtained by classical liberalism and humanism over the evil immorality contained in bronze age religiois texts.

 

[Spare_change]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

There is nothing illogical about atheism.

Quite the contrary.

Atheism is the epitome of illogic thought. Atheism assumes that man is the highest order - that moral judgements are the province of man. Of course, as we know, man is illogical. They are incapable of static application of law, morality, and authority. It is the relativism of man's morality that makes them incapable of developing a sound moral and lawful structure.

Theft is a crime, unless .... killing is a crime, except when ... lies are impermissible, except when ... adultery is a failing, unless ... the beat goes on. Man will always find some excuse that allows him to avoid responsibility for his acts. There is no absolute - there is only the quagmire of relativism, self protection, and self delusion.

Frankly, if there wasn't already a God, we'd have to invent one in order to keep our civilization from collapsing.

Why do you keep conflating morality with legality? You do understand that the two are not interchangeable, right? You keep talking about how illogical atheism is, and then proceed to make arguments that are, themselves, illogical, and based on falsehoods, inaccuracies, and misapplied concepts.

Tsk, tsk ...

Conformity with a code, whether it be legal or moral, is necessary or the code is a bunch of words of no import (as evidenced by your 10 "suggestions". In all things, whether they be scientific, moral, legal, or interpersonal behavior, there are established a firm set of rules, with corresponding penalties for violation. You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

All actions, and interactions, have strict guidelines that actions must obey. Ignore them at your peril - believe that you can redefine them at your demise.

 

[Spare_change]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

I've heard that somewhere before...

They are called cliches, because they are true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

Right! And nobody needs the Bible to figure those things out. Trust me, I've seen it.

 

[Spare_change]

You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

Right! And nobody needs the Bible to figure those things out. Trust me, I've seen it.

Really???

But, I just saw our leading egotist tell us that we don't need no stinkin' laws, no commandments, no rules ... we just need "suggestions".

I wish you atheists would get your act together.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

Right! And nobody needs the Bible to figure those things out. Trust me, I've seen it.

Really???

But, I just saw our leading egotist tell us that we don't need no stinkin' laws, no commandments, no rules ... we just need "suggestions".

I wish you atheists would get your act together.

Then go whine to him. I am saying that we dont need the Bible to figure any of that out.

 

[Czernobog]

Atheism is illogical. Always has been, always will be.

Agnosticism on the other hand can be rational, though often illogical premises are added to it.

There is nothing illogical about atheism.

Quite the contrary.

Atheism is the epitome of illogic thought. Atheism assumes that man is the highest order - that moral judgements are the province of man. Of course, as we know, man is illogical. They are incapable of static application of law, morality, and authority. It is the relativism of man's morality that makes them incapable of developing a sound moral and lawful structure.

Theft is a crime, unless .... killing is a crime, except when ... lies are impermissible, except when ... adultery is a failing, unless ... the beat goes on. Man will always find some excuse that allows him to avoid responsibility for his acts. There is no absolute - there is only the quagmire of relativism, self protection, and self delusion.

Frankly, if there wasn't already a God, we'd have to invent one in order to keep our civilization from collapsing.

Why do you keep conflating morality with legality? You do understand that the two are not interchangeable, right? You keep talking about how illogical atheism is, and then proceed to make arguments that are, themselves, illogical, and based on falsehoods, inaccuracies, and misapplied concepts.

Tsk, tsk ...

Conformity with a code, whether it be legal or moral, is necessary or the code is a bunch of words of no import (as evidenced by your 10 "suggestions". In all things, whether they be scientific, moral, legal, or interpersonal behavior, there are established a firm set of rules, with corresponding penalties for violation. You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

All actions, and interactions, have strict guidelines that actions must obey. Ignore them at your peril - believe that you can redefine them at your demise.

No it's not. Do you know how many people have to conform to a personal moral code? ONE. That's why it's called personal, because no one is subject to it, other than the person who holds to such a moral code.

Laws require public adherence. In order to enforce public adherence most societies have this neat thing called a law enforcement agency. They are the people who are responsible for making certain that everyone in a society obey the laws that define that society. You'll notice that, outside of theocracies, most societies don't have morality police. This would be because most civilised cultures recognise the difference between societal laws, and individual morality.

Ya know, for a guy who keeps mocking my alleged lack of intelligence, or reasoning skills, you sure do seem to have difficulty thinking your posts through.

 

[Czernobog]

You can't walk off a building without falling to the ground - you can't insult your wife without repercussions - you can't steal somebody's property without penalty.

Right! And nobody needs the Bible to figure those things out. Trust me, I've seen it.

Really???

But, I just saw our leading egotist tell us that we don't need no stinkin' laws, no commandments, no rules ... we just need "suggestions".

I wish you atheists would get your act together.

I never said any such thing. You keep conflating morality with legality. The terms are not interchangeable. My 10 rational positions are positions of personal morality, and have nothing to do with societal laws. Either learn to comprehend my posts, or, if you insist that you do understand my posts, then quit lying about what I have, and have not said.