Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

Why there is no god

This site has shot down every one of boss' arguments. Or this site explains why every argument he makes is not without some fatal flaw.

Boss thinks because people have always believed in something greater than self, that is why he believes god exists. So just because ancient man was superstitious and had a healthy fear of the unknown and brains large/smart enough to have wild imaginations and invent angels, demons, witches, ghosts and gods, that means god exists?

Boss is a cherry picker too. He picks some things about religion, like going to hell for not believing, but then says he isn't a christian, muslim or jew. So at least he admits that god never talked to anyone like Mosus, Noah or Mohammad.

BUT then on the other hand Boss talks to god all the time. And apparently god blesses him. What a fucking joke.

Why do I have to resort to that website? Because there is so much wrong with your argument. I look through all 46 points and I want to use all 46 in response to the bullshit you've been saying. Its just infuriating that someone can use such bad/wrong logic and then think he is the one who's winning the argument. Just know that us atheists sit around and laugh at you religious people. If you were with us you would be the butt of our jokes. But don't worry, we don't think you're going to hell for being such a fucking moron.

 

[sealybobo]

What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have. In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.

Fact is, you believe despite the evidence. You believe because you want to believe.

And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.

What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed. Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god. A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.

You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now. This doesn't prove a god exists. It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know. And they weren't very intelligent back then. Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists. Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.

I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.

The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*

Read numbers 3-33. They explain why you are wrong about god existing. These are completely good rational/logical arguments but as a theist of course you are going to ignore the facts and go with this faith about your feelings.

And then keep reading because it explains in great deal all the reasons why you are full of shit.

You've given a lot of valid arguments. Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why there is no god

This site has shot down every one of boss' arguments. Or this site explains why every argument he makes is not without some fatal flaw.

I get a laugh every time you link that site.....it doesn't "explain" anything except what atheists hate about Christians......

 

[Boss]

What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have. In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.

Fact is, you believe despite the evidence. You believe because you want to believe.

And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.

What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed. Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god. A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.

You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now. This doesn't prove a god exists. It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know. And they weren't very intelligent back then. Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists. Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.

I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.

The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*

You've shown me nothing nada zero zilch. You believe because man has always believed and you have this silly notions about spirituality.

I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it!

And you haven't shot anything I've said down other than in your own head. I've given you pretty much the standard atheist come backs to all the things that theists usually say but I have to say you have a very wild imagination and are able to pick and choose the parts of religion you like and throw away the parts you don't like. How lovely you can do that and in your head you are right. It must be nice. I hear ignorance is bliss so you must be really happy.

Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't.

90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever.

As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.

 

[Boss]

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid.....

LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.

 

[ihallhou]

Yes, you're right. I am trying to make sure that other people know the truth, rather than the religious version you are trying to selll. One indication of intention is that your company is trying to make a profit, while we are not.

 

[Montrovant]

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid.....

LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

 

[Boss]

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid.....

LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

 

[BillyP]

LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

treat that wrong and it can kill you.....

 

[BillyP]

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

treat that wrong and it can kill you.....

Your god will kill me if I don't obey it? Gee, what a nice guy.

 

[Boss]

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

 

[BreezeWood]

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...

fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.

as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.

.

 

[PostmodernProph]

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

treat that wrong and it can kill you.....

Your god will kill me if I don't obey it? Gee, what a nice guy.

"don't obey" or "think you are in charge of"......

 

[Montrovant]

LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.

If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....

But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???

Well. So much wrong.

First, I'm not a liberal. Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.

You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect. I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.

I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid. Something along the lines of :
A = X
B = A
B = X

If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green. That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.

You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.

 

[Boss]

Well. So much wrong.

First, I'm not a liberal. Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.

You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect. I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.

I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid. Something along the lines of :
A = X
B = A
B = X

If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green. That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.

You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.

If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?

 

[Boss]

God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.

No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.

your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...

fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.

as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.

.

Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.

 

[Montrovant]

Well. So much wrong.

First, I'm not a liberal. Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.

You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect. I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.

I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid. Something along the lines of :
A = X
B = A
B = X

If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green. That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.

You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.

If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?

Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.

No, all cups are not green. No, Socrates is not a cup. However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.

I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap. If A = X, and B = A, then B = X. Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.

I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented. I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented. Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?

Of course god has not been disproved. sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case. That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.

 

[Boss]

Well. So much wrong.

First, I'm not a liberal. Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.

You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect. I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.

I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid. Something along the lines of :
A = X
B = A
B = X

If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green. That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.

You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.

If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?

Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.

No, all cups are not green. No, Socrates is not a cup. However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.

I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap. If A = X, and B = A, then B = X. Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.

I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented. I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented. Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?

Of course god has not been disproved. sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case. That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.

It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A≠X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A≠X?

Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.

 

[Montrovant]

If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?

Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.

No, all cups are not green. No, Socrates is not a cup. However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.

I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap. If A = X, and B = A, then B = X. Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.

I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented. I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented. Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?

Of course god has not been disproved. sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case. That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.

It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A≠X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A≠X?

Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.

Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point? There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?

I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually. I have only been skimming his posts for the most part. Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out. I pointed that out......and here we are.

Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics. If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.