I don't try to convert anyone to atheism. I defend myself and fellow atheists from what I perceive as unwarranted attack and/or stupid intrusions upon our freedoms or rights. I believe we're all born atheists and many return to it after years of sifting through all the BS and coming up empty. I need convert no one.
Show that a powerful God-like being didn't appear to primitive man and demand that he be worshipped. Who says God must be omnipotent in order to exist? What about a non-omnipotent creator? Again, I insist that a non-belief in God is logically indistinguishable from a belief in no-God. If I say I don't believe in Pop-Tarts, is that distinguishable from a belief that Pop-Tarts do not exist? If you show me Pop-Tarts and I still deny their existence, is my non-belief still the rational position?
Yes, backpedaling is not an argument. "Who says God must be omnipotent in order to exist?" Atheist don't. That's for sure. Why stab straw when you've got tons of theists waiting, Bible in hand, just itching to argue the point?
And again, you are simply being illogical. First off, atheists need not concern themselves with "God." We don't believe in any gods. A much broader non-belief than simply "in God." No theism period. No gods and then some, not "no-God." All the way up to nothing supernatural - without scientific evidence. Zero faith in magical beings or powers. Yes. Both belief in Pop-Tarts and disbelief that they exist could mean all sorts of things depending on the individual and circumstances. Belief in Pop-Tarts could imply some sort of faith in finding a prize in the box some day, for example. Talk about "begging the question"! If I lacked belief in their existence and you showed me some, THEN I would obviously join the believer camp.
As an atheist I am not obliged to validate theist superstitions. Theists! No evidence exists for that either!
Agnosticism, as the term was invented by Thomas Huxley to describe, is to merely acknowledge that theology and philosophy are different than empirical science. It isn't 'luke warm', it's an acknowledgement they are two different intellectual purposes, and one can't establish or disestablish the other. Theology has a much grander vision and intellectual playing field, and it's purpose more general and comprehensive. Atheists shouldn't have any real problems with Christian theology, but some will because they're narcissistic sexual deviants and sociopaths of one sort or another and absolutely can't abide any restrictions on their personal whims and mindless self-indulgence, either legal or social, especially modern atheists. They're merely a political cult, not intellectually motivated objective observers.
See, I poked big enough holes in your argument to drive a good sized truck through and you can't even see it. If you want the logical error in your argument, it would be strawman. Paraphrasing your argument: "Theists say God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God cannot exist. Therefore, there is no God." But that's you putting words in all theists' mouths. Not all theists say God is omnipotent. I don't believe the expression or belief is anywhere to be found in the Bible. God didn't tell Job he was omnipotent, only that he was powerful. So if the basis of your belief that God doesn't exist is that an omnipotent God cannot exist, your belief is unsupported. Heck, many of the founding fathers were Deists, they believed in God, but didn't believe God intervened in human affairs. Try proving THAT God doesn't exist if he doesn't ever prove his own existence! (By the way, there's another logical error in there, and that is A+B<>C. Even if theists said God was omnipotent and an omnipotent God cannot exist, that would not mean that a non-omnipotent God cannot exist, only the one that theists say exist.) Believers show you evidence of God and God's mercy all the time and you chalk it up to chance, randomness, misinterpretation of evidence, etc. Here's one for you... Can epilepsy be cured? My mother had epilepsy and one day God told her she could throw her pills away because she was cured. She did and has never had an epileptic seizure since then. She had grand mal seizures when I was a kid. My mother takes that as sure evidence of God's existence and mercy, that he cured her of an incurable condition. What do you take it as?
You just exposed yourself as a theist pretending to be an atheist! You are not the first and certainly won't be the last to try that deception but theists cannot pull it off because at some stage they always give themselves away just as you have now done. Thanks for playing and you can pick up your consolation prize on the table next to the exit. Have a nice day!
Evidence you still believe in "God" despite describing yourself prior as an atheist (non-belief), apparently because your mother told you Goddidit and you trust your mother more than logic or critical analysis, 50 page "proof"s or no. Derideo_Te is correct. No atheist would simply, flatly, as a matter of fact, state "one day God told" anyone anything. You give yourself away.
Okay, I've finished reading your "proof." Suffice it to say it "proved" nothing. But good for you, beginning to sort out your plethora of personal issues by talking to yourself and not resorting to violence. Hopefully anyway.
You're both silly. I really am an atheist. But I enjoy poking holes in people's arguments. I notice neither of you have any response or explanation. If I could get a good theist to argue with, I would poke holes in his arguments, too. You'd be surprised how easy it would be to manufacture a murder case out of whole cloth. Give me a day and I'd find three people who swear they know you and Patrick Symington (Patsy), that they haven't seen Patsy in over a week, and that they had heard the two of you arguing at least once. Give me a week, and I'll establish where he lived, worked, and a vague description of what he looked like. Could an attorney dismantle the case? Certainly. But he wouldn't do it by folding his arms and saying, "Logic! Rationality! Science!" He would have to prove Patsy didn't exist. I daresay neither of you could do it.
The only thing that you poked holes through was your own credibility! Your anecdotal "miracle" exposed your theism and your ludicrous strawman fails because no police officer is going to treat a missing person as a murder victim let alone a prosecutor file homicide charges based upon zero evidence of any crime whatsoever. Your grasp of reality seems tenuous, at best. That you are in abject denial over your fallacies being shredded is another trait of a theist.
We did respond. You were expecting a Spanish disquisition? Not everything merits a response. Try asking coherent, honest questions. You enjoy stroking your ego. That much is painfully evident, repeatedly stating unestablished things as fact, then simply labeling them "argument" and "proof." Gotta ask, having now read your treatise: Do you still hate Islam? Muslims? Proof, I tells ya! Yeah baby, 'cause what these chillin' need today is courage to counter all the fear mongering threats coming out the other side of our mouths about going to hell since our chosen God is so damned vengeful! Oh, and that woman in that hospital bed dying of cancer, pleading like a maniac to all who will listen to repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior before it's too late? Yes, obviously, all very comforting!
Just my own 2 cents worth on what you were quoting from the pretend atheist's manifesto"; Christianity in the USA in the 1930's was full blown Jim Crow and the KKK lynching of innocent Americans who were unfortunate enough not to have been born white. And then there was Germany in the 1930's which was very much a "Christian" nation persecuting the Jews. Nothing whatsoever to with "secular humanism" at all. The other fallacy in that excerpt is the condemnation of 1.5 billion Muslims because of the acts of the extremist fringe. Must all Christianity be vilified because of Dylan Roof, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, et al?
Yes, men? Know your place. Bow down to that almighty dollar! One Dogma to rule them all, One Dogma to find them One Dogma to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
That is a very interesting notion, but you should never be convinced unless there is absolute proofs. However , in saying that, I can ''see'' why you have these thoughts and are looking at that line of enquiry. All information apparently being retained by energy and the realism that even our own thoughts do not exist without energy. We simply exist as energy in a bodily vessel, everything we know and think , all of our memories retained in this energy, ourselves seemingly made of this energy. Are we merely celestial beings in a bodily vessel? Are we a part of an intelligent design and no more than data in a system? Are we experiencing a virtual experience and our real bodies await our ''souls'' return? Questions we may never know an answer to.
What it all boils down to is pride. There is ample evidence for the existence of God. Atheists reject God because He convicts them of their sin. He shows them just how depraved they are in the eyes of God. They cannot accept the fact that they are not worthy to stand in the presence of God. This is why they hate Him as well as Christians. Also, the Bible records several events where unbelievers witnessed Jesus' miracles and still refused to accept Him as their Lord and Savior. All because of pride. So it doesn't matter what evidence is presented. Most people will never accept the truth.
So you claim evidence, obviously provide none, then declare it doesn't matter anyway. How convenient for you! And unconvincing! Least you have balls.
The evidence is out there. You'd have to blind not to see it. People like you claim there is no evidence. There is. You simply reject it. <Rule 2>
Given the nature of eternity, the possibility of infinite alternate realities, the unlimited potential of technological acheivement given enough time and the nature of sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic, I think it takes more faith to believe that we evolved independent of any outside intelligence or intent than it does to presume that we were created or at least initiated as part of an as yet unknown plan by something at least analagous to 'God.'
The scientific evidence for the ORIGIN of LIFE is still pending. The scientific evidence for EVOLUTION has been verified by multiple disciplines. The "evidence" for some imaginary "outside intelligence" and/or "god" is non existent. No faith whatsoever is required to understand the scientific evidence.
I never said it takes faith to believe we evolved. I said it takes faith to believe we evolved from nothing, by chance, without any creative, intentional input.
The origin of life is NOT the same thing as evolution. They are two entirely different concepts. The origin of life is being studied by scientists and they have come a long way in understanding how it may have occurred. Currently there are 7 theories still underway but perhaps one of the most interesting recent findings was from this research. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum The object lesson being that elements react and recombine under different conditions because that is one of their properties. (DNA is just a string of molecules that can react and recombine under certain conditions. https://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/sites/default/files/html/educ/dnapr/mbglossary/mbgloss.html) The chemistry, molecular biology and the basic building blocks are understood so the next step is to determine the conditions and test to find the right ones that result in the formation of life. I am confident that given sufficient research this is something that will be discovered in the course of time. The more interesting question is once that discovery is made how will theists react?