Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Groundbreaking arguments for God not existing

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
sure
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
I'm sure there are quite a few things you cant conceive. Such as big words
3. therefore, God doesn't exist
fallacy

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

I want to smash my head on a desk

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

If you were not trolling, I would have lost faith in humanity
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

Actually, no it doesn't, if anything it proves exactly what scripture said these times would be like, which means it does the opposite of what you want it to.
rule2006
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.
All eyes on me,
When i be poppin' the squat!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself at every turn? You do not understand atheism. Allow that to sink in before you start posting absurd arguments acting as if your arguments represent it.

At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

Yes, atheism can never be wrong as to the question of whether a God exists because it is not an answer to that question. Atheism is a rejection of your answer as unsupported. Do you know how to prove atheism wrong? Support your answer.

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Atheism does not claim God doesn't exist, for the... I don't even know how many times now. I have lost count. But it doesn't matter because with you it will simply go in one ear and out the other.

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Same as the previous argument.

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

Same as the previous argument.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Like the famous strawman of Oz, this one needs a brain.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:49:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right.
Well, the evidence is certainly all indicative of atheism.

I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us
Yeah, honor killings, slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide, misogyny...

but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap.
Religion doesn't require that you molest children. It's optional but you'll still go to Heaven if you accept that Jesus died for your pedophilia.

Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.
Would anyone ever actually want that?

Wait! ... don't answer that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:36:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions but they're incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. (It's belief-based.)
Agnosticism is the belief that it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. (It's also belief based.)

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. (Again, belief based.)

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Atheists don't generally claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. Most tend to note that there isn't any evidence for God (even where evidence should be present), that God is represented in contradictions, which makes his representation fallacious, and that the world in which we live is quite contrary to the claims made of God (benevolent, all-powerful, omniscient, etc.). But one can no more credibly claim to know that God doesn't exist than they can credibly claim to know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist. The evidence for them is the same as for God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gump
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:42:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why would God create a following that openly likes to preform sodomy on children? Unless he is also a sick pedophile like the rest of the priests in the world. If God himself is not a sicko than he too wouldn't support Christianity.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:36:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions but they're incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. (It's belief-based.)
Agnosticism is the belief that it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. (It's also belief based.)

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. (Again, belief based.)

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Atheists don't generally claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. Most tend to note that there isn't any evidence for God (even where evidence should be present), that God is represented in contradictions, which makes his representation fallacious, and that the world in which we live is quite contrary to the claims made of God (benevolent, all-powerful, omniscient, etc.). But one can no more credibly claim to know that God doesn't exist than they can credibly claim to know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist. The evidence for them is the same as for God.

Should I lay this out via logical process?

Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Athiest / Atheism is a positive statement claiming you disbelieve in a God. Lacking belief in a God is affirming you do not believe one does not exist.

Agnostic - Is literally claiming there is no way to know, that you don't care to know, or that it is impossible to define if a God exists or not.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Lack of a belief(affirmation that God does not exist) cannot coincide with the belief that a God could possibly exist

By affirming that you are an agnostic you are saying there is a possibility that God exists via the definition of it.

Not being mutually exclusive means both cross over, the only possible way that they cross over is you can be an agnostic atheist, not atheist agnostic.

Agnostic atheist is just a way to say weak atheist.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:53:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:42:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:36:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions but they're incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. (It's belief-based.)
Agnosticism is the belief that it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. (It's also belief based.)

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. (Again, belief based.)

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Atheists don't generally claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. Most tend to note that there isn't any evidence for God (even where evidence should be present), that God is represented in contradictions, which makes his representation fallacious, and that the world in which we live is quite contrary to the claims made of God (benevolent, all-powerful, omniscient, etc.). But one can no more credibly claim to know that God doesn't exist than they can credibly claim to know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist. The evidence for them is the same as for God.

Should I lay this out via logical process?
I've read through your post. Yes, you should. Why didn't you?


Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Yep... it's about belief.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Yes, once again - about belief.


Athiest / Atheism is a positive statement claiming you disbelieve in a God. Lacking belief in a God is affirming you do not believe one does not exist.
And again... about belief (or "disbelief" if that someone makes a difference to you).


Agnostic - Is literally claiming there is no way to know, that you don't care to know, or that it is impossible to define if a God exists or not.
It's claiming the belief that there is no way to know. See your above definition.

The two are mutually exclusive.
Not at all. One can believe it's impossible to know, and yet believe that God does not exist. That would be an "agnostic-atheist" which is what most atheists describe themselves as being, and what any atheist who can't demonstrate beyond doubt that God does not exist, subscribes to.


Lack of a belief(affirmation that God does not exist) cannot coincide with the belief that a God could possibly exist
It doesn't matter what you "affirm" because it's only based on your belief. So until you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that God does not exist, you have to accept the fact that it's a belief - no matter how strongly supported - rather than knowledge.

By affirming that you are an agnostic you are saying there is a possibility that God exists via the definition of it.
Hence, you believe it cannot be known.


Not being mutually exclusive means both cross over, the only possible way that they cross over is you can be an agnostic atheist, not atheist agnostic.
It means that neither one excludes the possibility of the other. One can believe God does not exist, and believe it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. "Gnostic" (the root of "agnostic"), is about knowledge. It's the BELIEF that one cannot have the knowledge "a - gnostic), just like atheism is the lack of theism "a-theism").

Agnostic atheist is just a way to say weak atheist.
And it's an atheist who believes it's impossible to know for certain. Therefore, the two are NOT mutually-exclusive. And now that you've explained that to yourself (albeit in a rather round-about method), I hope you can remember what it means.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:55:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:53:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:42:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:36:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions but they're incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. (It's belief-based.)
Agnosticism is the belief that it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. (It's also belief based.)

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. (Again, belief based.)

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Atheists don't generally claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. Most tend to note that there isn't any evidence for God (even where evidence should be present), that God is represented in contradictions, which makes his representation fallacious, and that the world in which we live is quite contrary to the claims made of God (benevolent, all-powerful, omniscient, etc.). But one can no more credibly claim to know that God doesn't exist than they can credibly claim to know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist. The evidence for them is the same as for God.

Should I lay this out via logical process?
I've read through your post. Yes, you should. Why didn't you?


Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Yep... it's about belief.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Yes, once again - about belief.


Athiest / Atheism is a positive statement claiming you disbelieve in a God. Lacking belief in a God is affirming you do not believe one does not exist.
And again... about belief (or "disbelief" if that someone makes a difference to you).


Agnostic - Is literally claiming there is no way to know, that you don't care to know, or that it is impossible to define if a God exists or not.
It's claiming the belief that there is no way to know. See your above definition.

The two are mutually exclusive.
Not at all. One can believe it's impossible to know, and yet believe that God does not exist. That would be an "agnostic-atheist" which is what most atheists describe themselves as being, and what any atheist who can't demonstrate beyond doubt that God does not exist, subscribes to.


Lack of a belief(affirmation that God does not exist) cannot coincide with the belief that a God could possibly exist
It doesn't matter what you "affirm" because it's only based on your belief. So until you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that God does not exist, you have to accept the fact that it's a belief - no matter how strongly supported - rather than knowledge.

By affirming that you are an agnostic you are saying there is a possibility that God exists via the definition of it.
Hence, you believe it cannot be known.


Not being mutually exclusive means both cross over, the only possible way that they cross over is you can be an agnostic atheist, not atheist agnostic.
It means that neither one excludes the possibility of the other. One can believe God does not exist, and believe it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. "Gnostic" (the root of "agnostic"), is about knowledge. It's the BELIEF that one cannot have the knowledge "a - gnostic), just like atheism is the lack of theism "a-theism").

Agnostic atheist is just a way to say weak atheist.
And it's an atheist who believes it's impossible to know for certain. Therefore, the two are NOT mutually-exclusive. And now that you've explained that to yourself (albeit in a rather round-about method), I hope you can remember what it means.

everything you just said was a non sequitur to the initial statement. Like it literally had no point. If you want to debate this further send me a challenge with the title. I will be happy to debate it
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:03:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:55:09 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:53:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:42:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:36:37 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist
I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions but they're incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. (It's belief-based.)
Agnosticism is the belief that it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. (It's also belief based.)

Theism is the belief that one or more gods exist. (Again, belief based.)

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"
Atheists don't generally claim to know absolutely that God does not exist. Most tend to note that there isn't any evidence for God (even where evidence should be present), that God is represented in contradictions, which makes his representation fallacious, and that the world in which we live is quite contrary to the claims made of God (benevolent, all-powerful, omniscient, etc.). But one can no more credibly claim to know that God doesn't exist than they can credibly claim to know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist. The evidence for them is the same as for God.

Should I lay this out via logical process?
I've read through your post. Yes, you should. Why didn't you?


Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Yep... it's about belief.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Yes, once again - about belief.


Athiest / Atheism is a positive statement claiming you disbelieve in a God. Lacking belief in a God is affirming you do not believe one does not exist.
And again... about belief (or "disbelief" if that someone makes a difference to you).


Agnostic - Is literally claiming there is no way to know, that you don't care to know, or that it is impossible to define if a God exists or not.
It's claiming the belief that there is no way to know. See your above definition.

The two are mutually exclusive.
Not at all. One can believe it's impossible to know, and yet believe that God does not exist. That would be an "agnostic-atheist" which is what most atheists describe themselves as being, and what any atheist who can't demonstrate beyond doubt that God does not exist, subscribes to.


Lack of a belief(affirmation that God does not exist) cannot coincide with the belief that a God could possibly exist
It doesn't matter what you "affirm" because it's only based on your belief. So until you can demonstrate beyond all doubt that God does not exist, you have to accept the fact that it's a belief - no matter how strongly supported - rather than knowledge.

By affirming that you are an agnostic you are saying there is a possibility that God exists via the definition of it.
Hence, you believe it cannot be known.


Not being mutually exclusive means both cross over, the only possible way that they cross over is you can be an agnostic atheist, not atheist agnostic.
It means that neither one excludes the possibility of the other. One can believe God does not exist, and believe it's not possible to know whether or not God exists. "Gnostic" (the root of "agnostic"), is about knowledge. It's the BELIEF that one cannot have the knowledge "a - gnostic), just like atheism is the lack of theism "a-theism").

Agnostic atheist is just a way to say weak atheist.
And it's an atheist who believes it's impossible to know for certain. Therefore, the two are NOT mutually-exclusive. And now that you've explained that to yourself (albeit in a rather round-about method), I hope you can remember what it means.

everything you just said was a non sequitur to the initial statement. Like it literally had no point. If you want to debate this further send me a challenge with the title. I will be happy to debate it

What would be the point? You've already admitted...

Atheism = belief
Theism = belief
Agnosticism = belief

So they're all about belief, meaning that one can be an "agnostic-atheist" as you already pointed out, or an "agnostic-theist". So atheism and agnosticism are not mutually-exclusive.

Again, your words... "Agnostic atheist is just a way to say weak atheist."
So the two words are NOT mutually exclusive.

Thank you. I'm glad to have gotten that straightened out.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:34:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

You're an extremely bad troll.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:03:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
C"mon goo if your gonna troll at least put some effort in. I think you can do better.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Shqiptar
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:30:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

Not really.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 2:40:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 10:49:07 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:25:17 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:03:38 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
Atheism affirms God does not exist. Agnosticism is what you are looking for

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes the are

Atheism is a positive statement saying god does not exist

Agnosticism is saying you are not sure, or don't care

when you take the affirmation that "God does not exist", you are scoping out the possibility of saying he "possibly could exist"

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. A-theism is the negation of theism. Both agnosticism and atheism negate theism (by lacking belief), whether that negation is only due to lack of belief (atheism and agnosticism) or rejection of belief (atheism). This is why atheism and agnosticism are considered synonyms by some websites.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 4:15:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

It's called the "theory of gravity," or the "Law of gravity." So far, god and creation doesn't even qualify as a valid hypothesis. Atheism is neither right nor wrong. It is one answer to one question. If you flatly refuse to accept simple dictionary definition, and struggle to force your view of word meaning, based on the fact that you don't like atheists/agnostics, you're the one who'll have the aneurysm. Good luck.

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

We're not the ones that defined your gawd absurdly. You (theists) did that, all on your own. Further, the assertions and the demands that follow, based on blind assertion of absurd entity existence are even more absurd. As an agnostic, I don't say, "gawd doesn't exist." I say, "Your gawd doesn't exist."

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Most theists don't agree. They're all wrong. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, but equally true. Most of us in the "NO" camp aren't ignorant enough to inject causality where none exists. Lack of agreement is not the reason that theists are wrong. Lack of agreement is, however, evidence of the piece of garbage that most 'holy' texts have turned out to be.

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

Um.... no. Proof is not required for blind assertion. Blind rejection would suffice, though most of us offer TONS of reasoning for our position. I don't reject the possibility of gawd. I do, however, reject the possibility of your gawd.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:16:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

wow, i am an atheist and i love this sight because stupid people like you make me feel smart. you think that if you cant conceive it it cant exist? i cant concieve the way a rocket works but they work. there are lots of things i cant concieve and they exist. and people like you think anything that can be conceived exists. thats what your argument comes from. and actually someone did concieve god. someone also conceived santa clause the tooth fairy and the easter bunny. we can think of lots of things that dont exist. we are ignorant so just because we cant conceive something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. smart people have been trying to prove with logic the existence of god and the non existence of god since the beginning of civilization. do you really think your going to prove it so easily. if it were that easy someone else would have already disproven it. your an idiot and you make people like me look stupid to religious people because after meating a few of you they think we are all ignorant and stupid.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:23:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.

So tomorow if you want to kill your father because of taking his leadership it would be a rational thought right? if a robber robs your all money you kept for years beacuse he think it rational to steal from you it would be moral for him yeah? your stupidity has no limits. for other your "rational thought" is rubbish.
Never fart near dog
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:05:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:23:44 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.

So tomorow if you want to kill your father because of taking his leadership it would be a rational thought right? if a robber robs your all money you kept for years beacuse he think it rational to steal from you it would be moral for him yeah? your stupidity has no limits. for other your "rational thought" is rubbish.

You honestly believe that the ONLY way to arrive at the conclusion that robbery and murder (patricide, no less) is wrong is through religion? I didn't say, or even allude to either of those actions being rational. They are irrational, illegal, and immoral. It just doesn't take religion to get there, and no "holy" text gave us this moral framework. My stupidity has no limits? Man, your dumb-fu is almost as strong as Fatihead's...

Religitard.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:22:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.

Better check your history out then, lol, and yes you did get your moral ideas from others you simply adapted them to suit yourself.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:25:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Maybe we don't realise they are always right, because they rarely are right, Have you even considered that possibility or are you too blinded by your desire to be one?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:27:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:42:33 PM, Gump wrote:
Why would God create a following that openly likes to preform sodomy on children? Unless he is also a sick pedophile like the rest of the priests in the world. If God himself is not a sicko than he too wouldn't support Christianity.

He didn't, however he did create man with free will, so if they choose to ignore his ways there is nothing to stop them at present.

There soon will be though,
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:29:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:34:13 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
The Argument From Not A Belief

1. Atheism is just a lack of a belief in God
2. Therefore, it can never be wrong
3. Much like, say, lacking a belief in gravity while jumping off a building can never be wrong

The Anti-Ontological Argument

1. i define God as something inconceivably absurd
2. since I can't conceive of this thing, it doesn't exist
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

The Argument from Definition

1. theists cannot agree on what God is
2. unlike atheists, who agree with each other 100% of the time
3. therefore, God doesn't exist

Proves there is no God, doesn't it?

This has got to be one of the most misnamed threads ever, lol. What is "Ground breaking" about anything said on here.

People come up with the same old, easy to answer objections time after time and every one thinks he is being original.

Of course they rarely accept the answers, but that doesn't stop them being true for all that.

God exists, get over it.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:35:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:22:14 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.

Better check your history out then, lol, and yes you did get your moral ideas from others you simply adapted them to suit yourself.

Just who in the phuck do you think you are, telling me where I obtained my morality? The fact that you simply accept the veracity of others' words does not make it mandatory for me. Morals in the cultures other than those connected with your stupid bible had many of the same morals, LONG before your bible ever existed. In fact, they were written and codified, in the Chinese culture(s), long before your bible cultures even made reading and writing common among the laity. Don't tell me to check my history when you have no clue of anything outside of your simpleton presumptions, MCB. Mine is a morality of reason. Only IDIOTS believe that morality came from the bible (or any other "holy" text). Morality is entirely human. That's why morality CHANGES. The slavery, genocide, infanticide, polygamy, human trafficking, pimping your own daughter, and killing people that work on Saturday are no longer practiced. Pull your head out of your @55, religitard. Don't ever presume to tell me where I do and do not acquire morality and ethics again, as long as you live, you presumptuous peckerw00d.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 7:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 7:05:12 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:23:44 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 4:21:09 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 8/17/2014 7:09:59 PM, rule2006 wrote:
Why do people argue about this stuff, why doesn't everyone realise that atheists are always right. I respect religion for the morals and stuff that it has given and taught us, but all the other stuff about God(s) and molesting children is just bullcrap. Atheism is the right way to go. 1v1 me if you wanna get dixie rekt.

Hold it right there, sonny... I will not allow the fallacy of "religion gave us morality" to stand. My morality comes from rational thought, not any religion. I did not acquire my morals from anyone else. If I agree, I am in alignment. If I disagree, I remain opposed. Further, far too much of what is considered moral/immoral, by theists is either a) contingent on the existence of their gawd and veracity of their priests and b) in contradiction to itself.

No, religion did NOT give us morality.

So tomorow if you want to kill your father because of taking his leadership it would be a rational thought right? if a robber robs your all money you kept for years beacuse he think it rational to steal from you it would be moral for him yeah? your stupidity has no limits. for other your "rational thought" is rubbish.

You honestly believe that the ONLY way to arrive at the conclusion that robbery and murder (patricide, no less) is wrong is through religion? I didn't say, or even allude to either of those actions being rational. They are irrational, illegal, and immoral. It just doesn't take religion to get there, and no "holy" text gave us this moral framework. My stupidity has no limits? Man, your dumb-fu is almost as strong as Fatihead's...

Religitard.

Yes the only thing makes something objective is God, because he is all knowing all powerful, without God everything is subjective, everybody got his opinions.

"They are irrational, illegal, and immoral. " who says so? you? why your opinion is better from others? actually we live 1 time so do whatever you want if you get pleasure from it. why you need to be subject of "legal or morality" anyway they are just made up in the human mind right? im dumb? lol you speaking like your ideas are everybody's ideas. its not sorry. you laughing at religoins morality but you dont understand your morality is subjective without religion. the laughing is on you. atheism.... you are your own God. lol atheistard.
Never fart near dog