Why I am am athiest

gmark77 said:
I understand you are probably agnostic in regards to the Easter Bunny.



It's one thing to look at an impenetrable wall and say one doesn't know what is on the other side, it's quite another to claim there's a dude on the other side who manifested himself as himself to sacrifice himself to himself to atone his creation to himself and he did this in a nearly incomprehensibly remote and meaningless corner of a Roman colony 2025 years ago.
Click to expand...
And there's still more evidence for that than there is for multiverses

Again you think multiverses is a reasonable counter argument to fine tuning even thought he easter bunny is more likely to be real than multiverses. So.excise me if I'm not very impressed about your opinion of the man behind the impenetrable wall
 
Yakuda said:
And there's still more evidence for that than there is for multiverses
Click to expand...

Nope.

But there's also no evidence for God either.

I think it's kinda funny that you don't get the point yet. Maybe after someone explains it to you.

Here's a hint: I don't "believe" in the Multiverse. I don't believe anything about what happened before time. I don't know. And neither do you.

Ergo: No evidence for God.

Fail.
 
gmark77 said:
I have defended my position just fine! I can't help it that you are so uneducated!
Click to expand...
You claimed everything you need to know about atheism is found in an eight word dictionary definition.

I investigated, read, and listened to many of the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, and have a good working knowledge of their belief system.


Your knowledge of atheism is limited to eight words in the Webster dictionary.

That's totally insufficient.
 
Cypress said:
You claimed everything you need to know about atheism is found in an eight word dictionary definition.
Click to expand...

It's super simple. Even someone like you who sounds more like a GED grad than anything else can understand: it's merely the lack of a God concept.

that's it.

Cypress said:
I investigated, read, and listened to many of the seminal atheist authors
Click to expand...

No, watching YouTube Videos =/= "reading".





Cypress said:
Your knowledge of atheism is limited to eight words in the Webster dictionary.

That's totally insufficient.
Click to expand...

LOL. You don't even understand those words.
 
domer76 said:
Jesus said “Follow the law.”

That was his advice to his followers for them to get into the kingdom. Not “do unto others”.

Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

English Standard Version
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Berean Standard Bible
The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Berean Literal Bible
For the entire Law is fulfilled in in this one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

King James Bible
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

New King James Version
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

New American Standard Bible
For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
 
gmark77 said:
Nope.

But there's also no evidence for God either.


I think it's kinda funny that you don't get the point yet. Maybe after someone explains it to you.

Here's a hint: I don't "believe" in the Multiverse. I don't believe anything about what happened before time. I don't know. And neither do you.

Ergo: No evidence for God.

Fail.
Click to expand...
Sure there's evidence for God. You don't like it. That's not relevant to anything
 
gmark77 said:
Atheism is like a court case!
Click to expand...
No it's not. A court case is based on eyewitness testimony, and empirical evidence (if it exists) like DNA or ballistics.

Atheism and religion are philosophical views of ultimate reality.

You've never been able to defend the consequences of the atheist worldview.

In fact your MO is to run away from strict physical materialism, moral relativism, the ultimate meaninglessness of life, the universe, and everything.

It's only when you are finally cornered that you'll blurt out the weasel words that you "are fine" with strict physical materialism - you can't even muster the courage to say you believe it - you have to grasp for weasel words.
 
Cypress said:
No it's not. A court case is based on eyewitness testimony, and empirical evidence (f it exists) like DNA or ballistics.

Atheism and religion are philosophical views of ultimate reality.

You've never been able to defend the consequences of atheism.

In fact your MO is to run away from strict physical materialism, moral relativity, the ultimate meaningless of life, the universe, and everything.

It's only when you are finally cornered that you'll blurt out the weasel words that you "are fine" with strict physical materialism - you can't even muster the courage to say you believe it, you have to grasp for weasel words.
Click to expand...

LOL. I knew you wouldn't understand it.

Thanks for confirming for everyone that you are "agnostic" about the tooth fairy. LOLOL.
 
Phyllis Diller said:
English Standard Version
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Berean Standard Bible
The entire law is fulfilled in a single decree: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Berean Literal Bible
For the entire Law is fulfilled in in this one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

King James Bible
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

New King James Version
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

New American Standard Bible
For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
Click to expand...
Ah, so saeth Paul. Not Jesus.

Next
 
gmark77 said:
It's super simple. Even someone like you who sounds more like a GED grad than anything else can understand: it's merely the lack of a God concept!

that's it!
Click to expand...
Running away from the logical consequences of an atheist worldview again?

An atheist by necessity has to embrace strict physical materialism.

If you choose to run for the hills away from strict physical materialism, then you need to explain what these other planes of reality are that exist beyond physical matter and energy.


I understand you want the convenience of not having to defend your atheist worldview, while reserving the right to complain relentlessly about religion. That's not the way this game is played.
 
Cypress said:
No it's not. A court case is based on eyewitness testimony, and empirical evidence (if it exists) like DNA or ballistics.

Atheism and religion are philosophical views of ultimate reality.

You've never been able to defend the consequences of the atheist worldview.

In fact your MO is to run away from strict physical materialism, moral relativism, the ultimate meaninglessness of life, the universe, and everything.

It's only when you are finally cornered that you'll blurt out the weasel words that you "are fine" with strict physical materialism - you can't even muster the courage to say you believe it - you have to grasp for weasel words.
Click to expand...
The personal consequences I face, if there are any other than freedom, are mine and mine alone. I have no need to defend them to anybody.

WTF are you talking about with that “You've never been able to defend the consequences of the atheist worldview.”? What’s to defend?
 
gmark77 said:
What's yer best bet?
Click to expand...
Fine tuning because the evidence of it suggest the presence of a mind that tuned it. Multiverses was created simply to try and explain away fine tuning. The argument that a multitude of other universes might exist is again like saying because millions of cars exist, any one car couldnt possibly be the result of a creator. That's nonsensical.

Also Aquinas five ways makes a good argument albeit more simply but no less effectively. Ive yet to hear a solid refutation of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top