Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

marienbad · 14-03-2015 02:31PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's a little more complicated than the texts being allegory or metaphors or history. They are all 3 and none. You are free to read the entirety of genesis as any one of them As long as you take the lesson that in our relationship with God we are created creatures in His image who through sin have fallen and are in need of redemption. I can freely say genesis is allegory to tell this truth and you are equally free to claim it's history, everything happened as described. Theologically both of us are on solid ground though you will be mocked mercilessly for believing in 7 day creation only able to find solace from J.C.

I understand all that and you even a 4th level as used in Dante and such , but the fact of the matter is that when I was taught the Catechism in school, admittedly many moons ago now, the literal meaning was the primary one , the only one in fact . Discussion , interpretation ,allegory. were not encouraged , Adam and Eve ,Eden, the Serpent etc were real .

As far as I know little if anything has changed, it might be all a bit more sophisticated and we can discuss the hidden meanings and such but the basic tenets are the same .

indioblack · 14-03-2015 02:36PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actually their is no stance in the Catholic church that genesis must be read literally, never was!

The bible is a Cole tion of books. You seem to have trouble with this concept, at no time was it ever taught to be otherwise. You say this is not the case for most people, based on what? Is it a case of " that's just, like, your opinion" because you insist on this despite the evidence of several posters here telling you the opposite..
Why do you need a written record and 8x12 glossy photos before you believe?

When I was a kid at school, a long, long, time ago, it did seem that they were trying to teach us that this stuff was actual. But we were just kids and couldn't spell allegorical let alone understand it! We knew Smarties though!
So, ok, God didn't make the world in six days and all the rest.
He made the world and, once again, it is a reflection of the creator - positive and negative.
In the NT he sends his son into the world to sort everything out.
Jesus lives in this imperfect world, the result of his own creation.
He tells people to accept their lives - accept the world as it was/is - the world he created.
If he had turned up and said, "Look, lads, I made this world, the positive and the negative, and that's the journey you're on" more people would understand because it would be an accurate description of their experience of life.

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 02:55PM

orubiru wrote: »

Endorse it but don't understand it apparently. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the Earth being formed in 6 days or otherwise.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life and is not even in the same scientific field as studies on the origin or age of the Earth and the Universe.

Once again you show your complete lack of understanding of the terms you are using.

Regarding your straw man :

Chapter one of Genesis covers everything from the creation of the universe, 14 billion years ago, to the first human beings I was referring to evolution part as that is what the poster was addressing regarding Adam and eve. Incidentally the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, and renowned physicist, Monsignor George Lemaitre, back in 1927. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law. I'm sorry none of this complies with your fantasy stereotype of Christians.

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 03:00PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's a little more complicated than the texts being allegory or metaphors or history. They are all 3 and none. You are free to read the entirety of genesis as any one of them As long as you take the lesson that in our relationship with God we are created creatures in His image who through sin have fallen and are in need of redemption. I can freely say genesis is allegory to tell this truth and you are equally free to claim it's history, everything happened as described.

CCC390 : "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man"

indioblack · 14-03-2015 03:16PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Regarding your straw man :

Chapter one of Genesis covers everything from the creation of the universe, 14 billion years ago, to the first human beings I was referring to evolution part as that is what the poster was addressing regarding Adam and eve. Incidentally the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, and renowned physicist, Monsignor George Lemaitre, back in 1927. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law. I'm sorry none of this complies with your fantasy stereotype of Christians.

I have two work colleagues who say the world is 6,000 years old based on their belief in the bible.

indioblack · 14-03-2015 03:18PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

CCC390 : "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man"

Why is it figurative - why the obscurity?

marienbad · 14-03-2015 03:31PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Regarding your straw man :

Chapter one of Genesis covers everything from the creation of the universe, 14 billion years ago, to the first human beings I was referring to evolution part as that is what the poster was addressing regarding Adam and eve. Incidentally the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, and renowned physicist, Monsignor George Lemaitre, back in 1927. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law. I'm sorry none of this complies with your fantasy stereotype of Christians.

Ad hominem, logical fallacy ,poor grammar, questionable punctuation, false humility all in the one post ! A new record .

And a bit of stereotyping in highlighting stereotyping ! Never seen that before !

Anything to contribute yet , any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

Any answers ..ever ?

Got anything

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 04:33PM

indioblack wrote: »

I have two work colleagues who say the world is 6,000 years old based on their belief in the bible.

Sorry to disappoint you, but they are wrong. I've more than two colleagues who believe the world is 4.5 billion years old, and they have the guidance of the church that compiled the canon of the bible, to offer them the correct interpretation.

indioblack wrote: »

Why is it figurative - why the obscurity?

I don't know, the author, Moses or another Israelite, is not around to tell us why they were inspired to choose that particular literary device to convey it.

marienbad wrote: »

Ad hominem, logical fallacy ,poor grammar, questionable punctuation, false humility all in the one post ! A new record .

And a bit of stereotyping in highlighting stereotyping ! Never seen that before !

Anything to contribute yet , any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

Any answers ..ever ?

Got anything

Yep, I've always got this classic slip . . .

marienbad wrote: »

Grow up and stop blaming other for your doubts .

marienbad · 14-03-2015 04:46PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Yep, I've always got this classic slip . . .

I love doubt , I am surrounded by doubt , nothing like the smell of doubt in the morning ,smells like .....freedom !

Anything to contribute yet ? Any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

Any answers ....ever ?

Got anything ?

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 04:54PM

marienbad wrote: »

I love doubt , I am surrounded by doubt , nothing like the smell of doubt in the morning ,smells like .....freedom !

Anything to contribute yet ? Any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

Any answers ....ever ?

Got anything ?

Looks like your posts have crashed in a bad loop there marienbad.

When you made the slip, were you thinking of mother or other at the time, hard to tell with the letter missing, or maybe it was both ?

marienbad · 14-03-2015 05:32PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Looks like your posts have crashed in a bad loop there marienbad.

When you made the slip, were you thinking of mother or other at the time, hard to tell with the letter missing, or maybe it was both ?

I better reply before you delete this post also ! Is that Mother Theresa , Mother Goose, Mother Machree , Mother of all Battles , Mother I hardly knew ye ?

Anything to contribute yet ? Any independent thought ,any point of your own ?

Any answers ....ever ?

Got anything ?

Frank Bullitt · 14-03-2015 07:05PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's a little more complicated than the texts being allegory or metaphors or history. They are all 3 and none. You are free to read the entirety of genesis as any one of them As long as you take the lesson that in our relationship with God we are created creatures in His image who through sin have fallen and are in need of redemption. I can freely say genesis is allegory to tell this truth and you are equally free to claim it's history, everything happened as described. Theologically both of us are on solid ground though you will be mocked mercilessly for believing in 7 day creation only able to find solace from J.C.

Again, this part particularly I have issue. We are not created, we are evolved primates. This is fact and not just some wild guess to counter that of the faithful.

To say that we have fallen in sin, or are born in sin, the sins of adam and eve in the garden of eden, this is why jesus was sent back and died on the cross. It makes us property, that we can't know right from wrong when of course we can, its innate in us to know the difference.

If Jesus was sent to forgive us and die for our sins on the cross, remember its original sin which was the fall of man, which was a result of Adams disobedience in the garden. If the garden of eden story is not to be taken literally, then why would Jesus being sent back matter, or why was he sent at all? This is the foundation of Christianity we are talking about.

Lantus · 14-03-2015 07:40PM

Aside from what we can measure as 'real' everything else is just a projection of our culture or expectation or a belief in something we wish to be true.

Humans have no sense of right or wrong. We learn everything from our cultural values and society. If our society tells us to throw a virgin into a volcano because it will appease the gods then we do that until someone challenges that idea or we obtain new knowledge about how the world works in reality that makes those actions less relevant.

Science is a way of thinking that can help us provide knowledge about the world we live in so our expectations can be in accordance with what is real.

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 08:01PM

Lantus wrote: »

Aside from what we can measure as 'real' everything else is just a projection of our culture or expectation or a belief in something we wish to be true.

I don't see how something that has not been measured yet does not exist.

We've haven't measured any alien life (life that has not evolved on earth) to date, yet many people believe that it is likely there is some sort of alien life out there somewhere, and even though no evidence has been found to date for any life that has not evolved on earth, it does not mean it does not exist.

Lantus wrote: »

Humans have no sense of right or wrong. We learn everything from our cultural values and society. If our society tells us to throw a virgin into a volcano because it will appease the gods then we do that until someone challenges that idea or we obtain new knowledge about how the world works in reality that makes those actions less relevant.

Science is a way of thinking that can help us provide knowledge about the world we live in so our expectations can be in accordance with what is real.

Science is a very useful tool when applied to the domain it is intended for, but it can't tell us if something is morally right or wrong. You can use Science to create nuclear power for thousands of homes, or to create nuclear weapons to obliterate Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science can't tell you which action is morally right or wrong.

Frank Bullitt · 14-03-2015 08:31PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I don't see how something that has not been measured yet does not exist.

We've haven't measured any alien life (life that has not evolved on earth) to date, yet many people believe that it is likely there is some sort of alien life out there somewhere, and even though no evidence has been found to date for any life that has not evolved on earth, it does not mean it does not exist.

Science is a very useful tool when applied to the domain it is intended for, but it can't tell us if something is morally right or wrong. You can use Science to create nuclear power for thousands of homes, or to create nuclear weapons to obliterate Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science can't tell you which action is morally right or wrong.

Sam Harris has some interesting points on what you say in relation to science and morality.

Its an interesting talk and well worth a watch. http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en#t-35101

Cen taurus · 14-03-2015 10:04PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Sam Harris has some interesting points on what you say in relation to science and morality.

Its an interesting talk and well worth a watch.

I'm familiar with Harris and his ideas.

Einstein summed it up in Berlin in 1930 "you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality . . every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formula must fail."

and later Nobel Prize Physicist, Richard Feynman "Ethical values lie outside the scientific realm"

orubiru · 14-03-2015 10:37PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I don't see how something that has not been measured yet does not exist.

We've haven't measured any alien life (life that has not evolved on earth) to date, yet many people believe that it is likely there is some sort of alien life out there somewhere, and even though no evidence has been found to date for any life that has not evolved on earth, it does not mean it does not exist.

Now, that's a completely different thing altogether.

The hypothesis that alien life exists is supported by the fact that life exists here on Earth.

There is nothing to support the hypothesis that God exists, other than the fact that nobody can prove that God doesn't exist.

Thats all you've got.

Frank Bullitt · 14-03-2015 10:39PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I'm familiar with Harris and his ideas.

Einstein summed it up in Berlin in 1930 "you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality . . every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formula must fail."

and later Nobel Prize Physicist, Richard Feynman "Ethical values lie outside the scientific realm"

The above may be true, but to say that we get our morality from religion, in this case christianity is a far stretch.

Enstein also said "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. " So while at the time he said the above, today we know more about neuroscience, hence why I would put Harris's points ahead of Einsteins.

From his book “The point, of course, is that science increasingly allows us to identify aspects of our minds that cause us to deviate from norms of factual and moral reasoning—norms which, when made explicit, are generally acknowledged to be valid by all parties.” So we know more about our minds now than be did before.

And I always do wonder if people are serious about moral teachings from the bible, considering its contents and positions on slavery and genocide, all of which are recommended in the bible. It is completely the opposite that faith or religious teachings make us better humans. Faith has the capability to make people do evil and sinister things, and undermines human decency.

If you doubt this, try the Hitchens challenge - Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever. and then try think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith

Lantus · 14-03-2015 10:47PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I don't see how something that has not been measured yet does not exist.

We've haven't measured any alien life (life that has not evolved on earth) to date, yet many people believe that it is likely there is some sort of alien life out there somewhere, and even though no evidence has been found to date for any life that has not evolved on earth, it does not mean it does not exist.

Science is a very useful tool when applied to the domain it is intended for, but it can't tell us if something is morally right or wrong. You can use Science to create nuclear power for thousands of homes, or to create nuclear weapons to obliterate Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science can't tell you which action is morally right or wrong.

We haven't measured god so by that reasoning we must believe he exists as well. And unicorns. And demons, levels 1 through 10. Speculation could be a better approach.

Right and wrong are very much products of our environment and available knowledge. It used to be right to make black people go to different schools and believe they were inferior. Parents would gladly send children as young as six to work and women were told they were unable to think as well as men and must stay at home.

A combination of technology and people who are willing to challenge existing ideas creates change.

We now know that any human if given access to resources and knowledge can excel at critical thinking and achieve anything. Technology created shorter working days allowing children to go to school instead of down mines. And a young girl today has as much chance as excelling as a young boy.

Technology very much reshapes our abstract ideas of right and wrong. Science drives this change.

orubiru · 14-03-2015 10:49PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Regarding your straw man :

Chapter one of Genesis covers everything from the creation of the universe, 14 billion years ago, to the first human beings I was referring to evolution part as that is what the poster was addressing regarding Adam and eve. Incidentally the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic Priest, and renowned physicist, Monsignor George Lemaitre, back in 1927. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law. I'm sorry none of this complies with your fantasy stereotype of Christians.

Once again, Evolution has nothing to do with Genesis. Why are you talking about the Big Bang as if it is somehow related to Evolution.

If you are saying that modern man "evolved" from Adam and Eve then OK, maybe I will give you that one.

If you are saying that the creation of the universe and the creation of Adam and Eve has anything at all to do with Evolution then you are wrong.

I have no fantasy stereotype of Christians. I was Christian and I am well aware of the teachings and the mythology of Christianity.

The poster said: "We know that the Earth was not formed in 6 days"

You replied: "Who said it was? I endorse the theory of Evolution"

Conclusion - You do not understand the theory of Evolution.

I am amazed that by this stage of the thread you still do not understand the meaning of:

Atheism
Doctrine
Lack of belief
Evolution
Strawman Argument
Fallacy

You DO understand what an Ad Hominem Argument is but you don't understand that when someone corrects you on an error that you have made this is not an attack on you but a correction of your point.

Your questions and arguments are malformed because you lack understanding (or you are doing it on purpose) and so the only reponse is to correct your mistakes.

We can't respond to your points if your points are malformed. So, we have to try and correct your errors first.

tommy2bad · 14-03-2015 11:55PM

Gintonious wrote: »

Again, this part particularly I have issue. We are not created, we are evolved primates. This is fact and not just some wild guess to counter that of the faithful.

To say that we have fallen in sin, or are born in sin, the sins of adam and eve in the garden of eden, this is why jesus was sent back and died on the cross. It makes us property, that we can't know right from wrong when of course we can, its innate in us to know the difference.

If Jesus was sent to forgive us and die for our sins on the cross, remember its original sin which was the fall of man, which was a result of Adams disobedience in the garden. If the garden of eden story is not to be taken literally, then why would Jesus being sent back matter, or why was he sent at all? This is the foundation of Christianity we are talking about.

I'm not disagreeing, just clarify the rcc position. I don't read genesis as literal or even as referring to some primal event, I read it as prologue to the rest, a sort of opening scene setting up the plot. From what I can make out it's an expression of existential angst, the thing religion seeks to quell.
What makes it true is it's resonance with the human condition not it's historical accuracy.
"I'd rather be an ascending monkey than a falling Angel" as the late Terry Pratchet said. You ask why did Jesus come to redeem us? If we have not fallen why raise us up? But we have fallen, fallen from our relationship with God, not fallen from some perfectly evolved state of being. The incarnation was always part of the plan, restoring our relationship with God made it take place as it did.
Of course this is all my own thinking, not official doctrine so add salt to taste! None the less, I think I'veI've kept to the basic principal,we are created in God's image, we fell from grace and have been redeemed.

Frank Bullitt · 15-03-2015 12:47AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing, just clarify the rcc position. I don't read genesis as literal or even as referring to some primal event, I read it as prologue to the rest, a sort of opening scene setting up the plot. From what I can make out it's an expression of existential angst, the thing religion seeks to quell.
What makes it true is it's resonance with the human condition not it's historical accuracy.
"I'd rather be an ascending monkey than a falling Angel" as the late Terry Pratchet said. You ask why did Jesus come to redeem us? If we have not fallen why raise us up? But we have fallen, fallen from our relationship with God, not fallen from some perfectly evolved state of being. The incarnation was always part of the plan, restoring our relationship with God made it take place as it did.
Of course this is all my own thinking, not official doctrine so add salt to taste! None the less, I think I'veI've kept to the basic principal,we are created in God's image, we fell from grace and have been redeemed.

Respectful post, tip of the hat.

We will agree to disagree, the underlying premise of your post above is that there is a god in the first place., whereas I would argue that there is no evidence to support that.

I would also say that we are not fallen, and the only thing that can make us fallen would be adhering to the doctrine of Christianity, which undermines us in our most essential integrity. Saying we could not know right from wrong, or good from bad if it were not from supervision from above, makes us owned and slaves, something which I think is morally wrong.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 10:27AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Respectful post, tip of the hat.

We will agree to disagree, the underlying premise of your post above is that there is a god in the first place., whereas I would argue that there is no evidence to support that.

I would also say that we are not fallen, and the only thing that can make us fallen would be adhering to the doctrine of Christianity, which undermines us in our most essential integrity. Saying we could not know right from wrong, or good from bad if it were not from supervision from above, makes us owned and slaves, something which I think is morally wrong.

Really good post.

So basically Christianity makes claims about the entire human race based on false premises and fallacies...

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 10:36AM

orubiru wrote: »

Once again, Evolution has nothing to do with Genesis. Why are you talking about the Big Bang as if it is somehow related to Evolution. [FALSE claim and strawman]

If you are saying that modern man "evolved" from Adam and Eve then OK, maybe I will give you that one.

If you are saying that the creation of the universe and the creation of Adam and Eve has anything at all to do with Evolution then you are wrong.

I have no fantasy stereotype of Christians. I was Christian and I am well aware of the teachings and the mythology of Christianity. [Seemingly not when you don't understand wha the genesis account covers]

The poster said: "We know that the Earth was not formed in 6 days"

You replied: "Who said it was? I endorse the theory of Evolution"

Conclusion - You do not understand the theory of Evolution.

[STRAWMAN, I notice you've edited out where he was referrring to Adam and Eve]

I am amazed that by this stage of the thread you still do not understand the meaning of:

Atheism
Doctrine
Lack of belief
Evolution
Strawman Argument
Fallacy

You DO understand what an Ad Hominem Argument is but you don't understand that when someone corrects you on an error that you have made this is not an attack on you but a correction of your point.

[All Ad hominem, and zero to do with the subject]

Your questions and arguments are malformed because you lack understanding (or you are doing it on purpose) and so the only reponse is to correct your mistakes.

We can't respond to your points if your points are malformed. So, we have to try and correct your errors first.

[And more false claims and ad hominem]

Once you strip out the usual attack the poster instead of the post, there's not much left to reply to.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 10:57AM

Gintonious wrote: »

The above may be true, but to say that we get our morality from religion, in this case christianity is a far stretch.

Enstein also said "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. " So while at the time he said the above, today we know more about neuroscience, hence why I would put Harris's points ahead of Einsteins.

To put someone like Harris ahead of Einstien and Fenyman, and the wider scientific commuinity, speaks for itself.

Neurobiologist and historian of Science, Kenan Malik, (a humanist), sums up Harris claims that science can be an authority on morality :

"Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as "adaptation", "speciation", "homology", "phylogenetics" or "kin selection" would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe". How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?"

Gintonious wrote: »

If you doubt this, try the Hitchens challenge - Name one moral action performed by a believer that could not have been done by a nonbeliever. and then try think of a wicked action or statement that derived directly from religious faith

Given the millions of people that suffered and died under state atheism, even for Hitchens that's a pretty crude strawman.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 10:59AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Once you strip out the usual attack the poster instead of the post, there's not much left to reply to.

Except I am not attacking you.

The points you make in your posts are invalid because you misrepresent the meaning of the words you use.

You ask malformed questions that can't be answered because they don't make any sense.

I am attacking the posts, not the poster.

Basically your line of reasoning is that when you make an error in a post any attempt to correct your error is a criticism of you personally. Thats not true. Frequently your statements and questions are malformed and its not possible to respond without pointing out the obvious flaws that you make. You interpret that as an "ad hominem" argument when it is not.

You ask a malformed question. This is pointed out to you. You claim that pointing out your error is an ad hominem argument and so it is invalid. It then has to be explained to you why this is not the case.

I dont know what points you are trying to make and you refuse to clarify anything, ever. I find that so many conversations with believers follow this exact format.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 11:04AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Given the millions of people that suffered and died under state atheism

Well, this should be good. Care to expand on that particular statement?

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:08AM

orubiru wrote: »

Except I am not attacking you.

The points you make in your posts are invalid because you misrepresent the meaning of the words you use.

You ask malformed questions that can't be answered because they don't make any sense.

I am attacking the posts, not the poster.

Basically your line of reasoning is that when you make an error in a post any attempt to correct your error is a criticism of you personally. Thats not true. Frequently your statements and questions are malformed and its not possible to respond without pointing out the obvious flaws that you make. You interpret that as an "ad hominem" argument when it is not.

You ask a malformed question. This is pointed out to you. You claim that pointing out your error is an ad hominem argument and so it is invalid. It then has to be explained to you why this is not the case.

I dont know what points you are trying to make and you refuse to clarify anything, ever. I find that so many conversations with believers follow this exact format.

I already responded to your false claims about me several times, yet you go on illustrating my point.
Theism/Christianity does not depend on my existence, or any other posters existence.

The whole point is, do you, or any other atheist here have any arguments or evidence for atheism and/or against Christianity, that are not based on claims about individual posters, or misrepresentation, strawmen, false premises, or common fallacies ?

If you have, post up a properly constructed argument that does not rely on them, if not you'll no doubt resort back to making claims about posters again . . . lets see what happens.

Cen taurus · 15-03-2015 11:13AM

orubiru wrote: »

Well, this should be good. Care to expand on that particular statement?

Look up state atheism, and the countries that implimented it, and then have a look at the results.

orubiru · 15-03-2015 11:15AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

I already responded to your false claims several times, yet you go on illustrating my point.
Theism/Christianity does not depend on my existence, or any other posters existence.

The whole point is, do you, or any other atheist here have any arguments or evidence for atheism and/or against Christianity, that are not based on claims about individual posters, or misrepresentation, strawmen, false premises, or common fallacies ?

If you have, post up a properly constructed argument that does not rely on them, if not you'll no doubt resort back to making claims about posters again . . . lets see what happens.

An argument or evidence for Atheism?

OK. Let's do this.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s).
I lack belief in God.
Therefore I am an Atheist.

Argument - People who lack belief in God are Atheists.
Evidence - There are people who lack belief in God.

The only argument I can possibly think of against Atheism is that everyone has belief in God and so it's impossible for anyone to be an Atheist. This argument is obviously false though.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments