NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
This confuses the necessity of existence with the actuality of existence. In other words, the reply does not actually counter the claim.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

If something is not proven, it is considered not true. Therefore, logically God does not exist. When you think that lightning is caused by electrostatic discharge, do you also believe that there are invisible and undetectable green monkeys that bring the lightning together and cause electrostatic discharge? Because by your logic, you would. Occam's Razor; the standard part of any scientist's breakfast.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

If something is not proven, it is considered not true. Therefore, logically God does not exist. When you think that lightning is caused by electrostatic discharge, do you also believe that there are invisible and undetectable green monkeys that bring the lightning together and cause electrostatic discharge? Because by your logic, you would. Occam's Razor; the standard part of any scientist's breakfast.
(yes, I posted this twice, because these two points are the exact same thing worded differently)

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

But by the law of naturalism, nothing can actually be outside the rules of nature. Therefore, there cannot be anything "supernatural", since everything is under the jurisdiction of nature.

Adriatica....you have made me see the light..i cannot believe i was so wrong..i will now discard my atheist beliefs in light of this-...I have seen hundreds of these topics in my time..what makes you think this is going to convert people where the others failed?

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
The phrase there is no evidence applies only to known evidence. It does not mean that there is no conceivable evidence - indeed, for a theory to be scientific, there must be conceivable evidence against it (it must be falsifiable); the theory is accepted if no actual evidence against it is found.

...he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God)...

Awesome. I am God.

(Seriously. Ask me anything.)

There is no Peter Pan

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no Peter Pan means the person would have to know all things to know there is no Peter Pan. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no Peter Pan.

There is no evidence for Peter Pan

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for Peter Pan's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for Peter Pan's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for Peter Pan.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for Peter Pan.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean Peter Pan does not exist since Peter Pan is, by definition, outside of natural laws.

Awesome. I am God.

(Seriously. Ask me anything.)
Prove you exist.:p

Okay, lets make a deal. After the atheists come through and spank the hell out of this and question your facutly for thinking this was a good case to make, you don't start a thread later on complaining about how mean those nasty ol' atheists are, okay? That's all I ask. Because you brought what's about to happen on.

Jusr remember, atheists are more than happy to let you have whatever imaginary friends you want, we just don't want you waking us up to talk about him or insisting that we make policy based on what he whispers in your ear.

I'm not saying there is no god, I'm saying I believe there isn't.

Besides. To believe in a god or to not believe in one is a personal choice everyone gets to make for him/herself. I'm happy with my choices, but I get the feeling you're not quite convinced of yours?

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.
Logic uses the principle of parsimony to choose between the unbounded number of possible explanations for a phenomenon - the simplest explanation that explains the phenomenon is usually best. Without this principle the argument above could defend almost any statement of the form There is no X (consider, for example: There is no exact replica of myself living on the other side of the universe).

I'm not saying there is no god, I'm saying I believe there isn't.

And I just don't believe. There is no reason to believe.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

Is this Oz?

Are you the Scarecrow?

Sorry, I had to ask... you seem to be King of all Strawmen....

How nice of you to refute the brief summeries.

Have you looked at the website, because your refutations are covered

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided
There is no evidence for god.

Well, what constitutes evidence for god? Evidence for god must defy natural laws, because if natural laws could be responsible for that evidence, then it doesn't work solely in god's favor. It doesn't require the foreknowledge of all possible evidence for god, only the knowledge necessary to distinguish between evidence that could only support the existence of god and evidence that euqally supports a natural or supernatural, explanation. Show me evidence that supports only a supernatural (divine) explanation and I'll entertain the thought that god exists.

Just from what you've posted I think your site's full of shit.

And I just don't believe. There is no reason to believe.
I believe you got a point. :p

Prove you exist.:p

That's not a question. :p

Just from what you've posted I think your site's full of shit.

Why dot you actually read it first.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

Congratulations. You have made an effective argument for agnosticism, not christianity. There's a huge difference between "God could exist, I don't know," and "Jesus Christ is the savior and lord."

And I think most atheists would conceed they cannot be 100% sure that god does not exist, but that they consider the likelyhood that a god does exist is so infinitesimal as to be negligible. The burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. I could say "The Flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/) made everything, and you can't disprove that!" That doesn't mean I should act as if the flying spaghetti monster exists, since the odds are so tiny that it actually is.

Oh, and this quote made me rofl:
"Again, the subject is the Christian God not mythology. The atheist needs to stick to the topic." As if there's any difference between the christian god and ancient mythologies...

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

In truth, you've just given us an expose in the crux if why religion is an inherent logical self-contradiction. 'Outside natural laws', 'immaterial', 'supernatural', etc. are rational impossibilities, 2+2=5 shit. 'Natural' and 'material' suggest that which exists - matter, energy, and information all fall under it. To exist, something must have existence and be real. That which is material is that which is of reality. Everything that is real follows explicable laws, and even on the multi-universe scale, there must by definition and by logical common sense be an overriding logical system or framework.

To suggest that something is real and exists yet is somehow "beyond the natural" is a self-contradiction - you cannot simultaneously exist and not exist. A=A, people. A thing is equal to itself. Reality is logically theoretically observable, either directly, indirectly, or both. A supernatural deific being is by definition not so. Its existence is logically impossible. All that is supposedly 'supernatural', logically or inherently impossible to be observed, or universally and innately inexplicable is nonreal, an anti-concept.

The 'God Is Not Possible' Proof:
1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.
QED

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

Why dot you actually read it first.
Because I'm not in school anymore and am not responsible for completing homework assignments.

Why dot you actually read it first.

Already read it all. Pathetic rubbish, it is.

Why dot you actually read it first.
Because it would be a waste of time.
Why do you feel like you have to impose your beliefs on others? Can't you just accept that others don't think the same way you do about god, about which breakfast cereal should be banned from the stores and why bananas are better than olives?

Because it would be a waste of time.
Why do you feel like you have to impose your beliefs on others? Can't you just accept that others don't think the same way you do about god, about which breakfast cereal should be banned from the stores and why bananas are better than olives?


Someone else with sense!

why bananas are better than olives?

Bananas are better than olives because olives make me vomit. Duh!

Bananas are better than olives because olives make me vomit. Duh!

ah but Olives are essential to italian cook-....yeah your probably right

Because it would be a waste of time.
Why do you feel like you have to impose your beliefs on others? Can't you just accept that others don't think the same way you do about god, about which breakfast cereal should be banned from the stores and why bananas are better than olives?

AAAHHHH OLIVE JIHAD!

Bananas are better than olives because olives make me vomit. Duh!
Blasphemous Heathen! Olives are vital to my cooking and to my drinking. Bananas are worthless.

You know them olives are eeeevilll!!! mwahahaha!!!

Congratulations. You have made an effective argument for agnosticism, not christianity. There's a huge difference between "God could exist, I don't know," and "Jesus Christ is the savior and lord."The page was meant only as a refutation of atheism. And it is not an effective refutation. The author presumes that atheists have 100% certainty about God's inexistence, and he presumes that statements such as "God does not exist" state 100% certainty. Every assertion is on a spectrum of certainty between but never exacty 0% and 100%. The statement, "God does not exist," has the same value of certainty for atheists (close to 100%) as saying, "Peter Pas does not exist." Nobody criticizes the statement, "Peter Pan does not exist," as being intellectually dishonest or illogical. And you don't need all the knowledge in the universe to know with very reasonable certainty that Peter Pan does not exist. Are you an agnostic about Peter Pan?

Blasphemous Heathen! Olives are vital to my cooking and to my drinking. Bananas are worthless.
how could you possibly pronounce something so utterly nonsensical? Everyone knows bananas are holy and sacred and olives... well.. just look at them! They're worthless!

How nice of you to refute the brief summeries.

Have you looked at the website, because your refutations are covered
Where? It doesn't address any of my refutations, precisely because the supposed 'atheist refutations' it publishes are its own constructions attributed to atheists to make them look stupid. This is the famous 'straw man' fallacy.

Blasphemous Heathen! Olives are vital to my cooking and to my drinking. Bananas are worthless.

Bananas are an excellent source for potassium. Olives are an excellent replacement for ipecac. Bananas clearly rule. If your cooking skills are so limited as to not allow for the non-existence of olives in them, then you are an illogical boob.

how could you possibly pronounce something so utterly nonsensical? Everyone knows bananas are holy and sacred and olives... well.. just look at them! They're worthless!

Bananas are the food of Satanic infidels who kill and eat small children. Olives were the first food of the gods.

Bananas are the food of Satanic infidels who kill and eat small children. Olives were the first food of the gods.
Bananas are the god, my poor, confused child! And of course they ate olives...what else should they have done with them? :p

yawn....this is pretty useless, because all it does is try to prove its a possibilty that god exists...im not willing to fight this because i cant prove he exists, but as long as were making up random hypothetical shit about creation, the universe etc, id much rather subscribe to the The Flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/).
again just like christianity you cannot prove the flying spaghetti monster is not our creator, so he must be :rolleyes: . also there is now conclusive evidence that having fewer pirates causes global warming (http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg).

Is it a politician who wrote this? Every single response seems to be "the atheist has missed the point" and "the atheist is not logical".

Anyway... the believer writes "Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist." but that kinda swings both ways, don't it? The site basically claims over and over that it is up to atheists to prove that god doesn't exist, but believers do not have to prove and also that believers can say "there is a god" and it is accepted, but an atheist cannot say "there is no god", because he has no ground to stand on.

Generally speaking, this site is full of bs.

And Alinania, "Why do you feel like you have to impose your beliefs on others? Can't you just accept that others don't think the same way you do about god, about which breakfast cereal should be banned from the stores and why bananas are better than olives?"

Isn't that what you're trying to do by posting about that site? To show that atheists are wrong?
uhh...I'm not the one you think I am. ... I think. ...or am I?
...now you got me all confused...:(

yawn....this is pretty useless, because all it does is try to prove its a possibilty that god exists...im not willing to fight this because i cant prove he exists, but as long as were making up random hypothetical shit about creation, the universe etc, id much rather subscribe to the The Flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/).
again just like christianity you cannot prove the flying spaghetti monster is not our creator, so he must be :rolleyes: . also there is now conclusive evidence that having fewer pirates causes global warming (http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg).

Yes! We should all become pastafarians!

@ alinania

Probably not, I'm too lazy to check my sources I guess :p Sorry, I'll fix that.

Edit: Sorry 'bout that, the original poster was "Adriatitca", I must have istaken you... I only just got out of bed, it's too early in the evening to discuss religion.

Oh, man! This again? Alright all of you theistic people, if you think that because there's no proof that there is no God then there must be a God, I have this to tell you: I AM GOD. Present proof that I am not. If you can't then you must believe I am God.

Because I'm not in school anymore and am not responsible for completing homework assignments.

I dont know where you got your education, but in the British schooling system, you have to have read a book before you can have a proper opinion of it. The same is true of a source

Yes! We should all become pastafarians!
"Intelligent Design with Balls - Two holy meatballs and omnipotent
noodly appendages"
"WWFSMD" (What would Flying Spaghetti Monster Do?)

Oh, man! This again? Alright all of you theistic people, if you think that because there's no proof that there is no God then there must be a God, I have this to tell you: I AM GOD. Present proof that I am not. If you can't then you must believe I am God.

Hey, you can't pull that shit. We've already established that I am God.

Basically, what you are arguing is that you have no proof that there is no God, so there must be a God. Just as it was pointed out, that's the same as saying I have no proof that taking the second star til morning won't get me to Neverland, therefore Neverland must exist. The atheists that seem to be represented in these articles are always really stupid, yet when they are allowed to represent themselves and are not mocked and when the believers who say that everyone should believe in God confront each other, the atheists win. It's not that I don't believe in God, it's just that you can't prove that God exists. You can't rationalize God, and you shouldn't have to. That's what faith is for.

And let me raise another point: If God is omnipotent and all-loving and all around a perfect and good guy, and he created the Earth or allowed it to be created (since if it was created against his will he could just undo it), then why isn't it perfect, like he would want it? And why does the devil exist? Why doesn't God just convert the devil to good and make everyone sinless and hell-less? After all, he wants us all to go to heaven and be happy eternally, doesn't he? There are a few conclusions you can draw, and still believe in God: God isn't the only god. There are two Christian gods: God and Satan. So, God isn't all-powerful. (It would be plain scary if God wasn't all-loving and hated some people; however, that's the view the Catholic Church seems to take when talking about gay people.) Also, there is no heaven or hell. There must only be heaven, because why would God send people to hell if he loves them? I left a few gaps in the logic there, but these can be easily filled if you notice them and ask me to explain.

Anyway... the believer writes "Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist." but that kinda swings both ways, don't it? The site basically claims over and over that it is up to atheists to prove that god doesn't exist, but believers do not have to prove and also that believers can say "there is a god" and it is accepted, but an atheist cannot say "there is no god", because he has no ground to stand on.

Generally speaking, this site is full of bs.

Not to mention that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative, making it their problem to prove God's existence, not ours to disprove it, and since it is logically impossible for there to be proof for the existence of God, it is therefore irrational and logically irresponsible to believe in God.

Your lack of reason disturbs me....

It also disturbs me that the only one of my posts I've gotten a reply to is the off-topic one about olives and bananas...[roll]

I dont know where you got your education, but in the British schooling system, you have to have read a book before you can have a proper opinion of it. The same is true of a source
I'll repeat my previous reply, as you seem to have ignored it:

How nice of you to refute the brief summeries.

Have you looked at the website, because your refutations are covered
Where? It doesn't address any of my refutations, precisely because the supposed 'atheist refutations' it publishes are its own constructions attributed to atheists to make them look stupid. This is the famous 'straw man' fallacy.

I dont know where you got your education, but in the British schooling system, you have to have read a book before you can have a proper opinion of it. The same is true of a source

Hmm... not strictly true. I mean - yes, you SHOULD really read the source material... but, if you read the synopsis, and the synopsis is bunkum, (and presents glaring illogical inconsistencies, for example - or addresses an 'invented point'), then you can probably save some time by not going to the source.

And, in this case, if your 'synopsis' is representational of the 'source'... then the 'source' would be a poor substitute for toilet-paper....

I dont know where you got your education, but in the British schooling system, you have to have read a book before you can have a proper opinion of it. The same is true of a source
They tell you to read utter nonsense just so you can have an opinion on it?? Wow. And there I thought they'd teach you to think for yourself, to respect others and how to debate properly.
...cause you're really not that good at that quite yet. :p

edit: I always wondered how threads like these got such a high post count....
Guess now I'm part of the enlightened few to have realized that debating whether god exists or not with someone whose only possible answers to this questions are 'yes' and 'of course' is fun :D

Flaws in atheist-basher's logic:

THEY ALWAYS SPELL IT ATHIEST!!! AAAAARGH!

Not to mention that the burden of proof falls upon the affirmative, making it their problem to prove God's existence, not ours to disprove it, and since it is logically impossible for there to be proof for the existence of God, it is therefore irrational and logically irresponsible to believe in God.

It is also illogical and irrisponsable to have a certian conviction that God does not exist, since it cannot be proven either. And dont jump on the "cannot prove negative" bandwagon. Because you are claiming that there is nothing beyond this universe. That is a postive claim. I am claiming that there is not nothing beyond this universe. That is a negative claim. You see. Your arguement that you cannot prove a negative is just a function of language

They tell you to read utter nonsense just so you can have an opinion on it?? Wow. And there I thought they'd teach you to think for yourself, to respect others and how to debate properly.
...cause you're really not that good at that quite yet. :p

Have you read it. Because untill you have you cannot say whether it is utter nonsensene or not.

Where? It doesn't address any of my refutations, precisely because the supposed 'atheist refutations' it publishes are its own constructions attributed to atheists to make them look stupid. This is the famous 'straw man' fallacy.

Can you prove this?

Flaws in atheist-basher's logic:

THEY ALWAYS SPELL IT ATHIEST!!! AAAAARGH!

That is because we are so much more 'athi' than they are, obviously. ;)

Hmm... not strictly true. I mean - yes, you SHOULD really read the source material... but, if you read the synopsis, and the synopsis is bunkum, (and presents glaring illogical inconsistencies, for example - or addresses an 'invented point'), then you can probably save some time by not going to the source.

And, in this case, if your 'synopsis' is representational of the 'source'... then the 'source' would be a poor substitute for toilet-paper....

These are the opening arguements. If you read the source you will see they are examined in more detail.

It doesnt matter anyway. I cant win. If I post the whole site, people will complain at me, saying I should have just provided a link. If i provide just a link, people will complain saying why couldnt I have extrapoled a bit more. And if I provide both, people just complain any way. Its all complaining

It is also illogical and irrisponsable to have a certian conviction that God does not exist, since it cannot be proven either. And dont jump on the "cannot prove negative" bandwagon. Because you are claiming that there is nothing beyond this universe. That is a postive claim. I am claiming that there is not nothing beyond this universe. That is a negative claim. You see. Your arguement that you cannot prove a negative is just a function of language
But why does he need to prove God's existence (or non- existance for that matter) in the first place? Even if he were to find a plausible argument you wouldn't listen to him. So what's the point? What's your point?

It is also illogical and irrisponsable to have a certian conviction that God does not exist, since it cannot be proven either. And dont jump on the "cannot prove negative" bandwagon. Because you are claiming that there is nothing beyond this universe. That is a postive claim. I am claiming that there is not nothing beyond this universe. That is a negative claim. You see. Your arguement that you cannot prove a negative is just a function of language

It's called a 'primary positive' and 'primary negative'. I'm in the affirmative of a lack of existence, which is an inherent negative. Yes, the nature of the English language means you can occilate back and forth like "I know that you know that I know...." infinitely, but that doesn't disprove the logic. Do you even know the basis of the 'burden of proof' principle? Does the name Rene Descartes mean anything to you.

Also, I'd be obliged if you'd go back to the previous page and read my other post. The comment you quoted was very secondary to my actual response/reaction to your post.

I dont know where you got your education, but in the British schooling system, you have to have read a book before you can have a proper opinion of it. The same is true of a source
are you suggesting that you have purposely posted the weakest argument from that site?? if the rest is like what you have posted, why waste time with it?

Can you prove this?
Yes. The page gives no attribution to the quotes (as required by copyright law), and says Copyright Matthew J. Slick at the bottom (so the author clearly understands the concept of copyright). Therefore either he invented the replies, or he's breaking the law. Neither option reflects well on him.

Are you planning to address my main point - that the site does not address my refutations? Or would you let my refutations stand?

Have you read it. Because untill you have you cannot say whether it is utter nonsensene or not.
No. I haven't read it. As I said before... it would be a waste of time.
You provided us with a summary of what you thought to be the brightest ideas on the entire site and I find them ... wildly amusing.
So yes, just from hearing about the site I can know whether it will be something worthwile reading or not. I feel I am capable of taking this decision on my own, thank you very much.

That said I did spend a few minutes on the fsm site. I strongly recommend it to you it's hilarious! (and if you don't like that sort of humor then just replace 'flying spaghetti monster' with 'god' and you'll love the site. Promise.)

# "I agree that gods like His Supreme Indifference (who created the universe 14 GYears ago and doesn't care a iota what happens here) cannot be excluded; but the same is true for creation of the universe by my cat, last Thursday."

* I do not argue for the existence of any God or gods besides the one revealed in the Bible. So when I speak of God I am only speaking of the Christian God. In light of that, this atheist fails to understand the biblical empathy that God shows for his creation. Biblically, God cares a great deal about what happens to us, which is why He sent Jesus to die for our sins. So, is atheist does not know what he is speaking about.


This is such a cop out answer. Someone calls him on his arguement that by following his logic you can not exclued say the flying spagetti monster as well as the Christian God. And the author just says I'm just arguing for the Christian God and thinks that invalidates the person's claim when it really doesn't.

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

You are saying that since atheists have no prrof their is no god their beliefs are wrong. All other religions have no concrete proof of a higher being. The theory that god can niether be proven or disproven. Claiming that their is no god does not mean you know everything. Atheism isn't about not believing. If you actually read the Atheist bible you would find that they beleive in self power.

]
It doesnt matter anyway. I cant win. If I post the whole site, people will complain at me, saying I should have just provided a link. If i provide just a link, people will complain saying why couldnt I have extrapoled a bit more. And if I provide both, people just complain any way. Its all complaining
Yes. People are mean. ...and in the end we still don't believe in your god. No fair.

You have to pick your battles... I wouldn't run into a Texan bbq-lovers reunion trying to convince them of turning vegetarian either...

These are the opening arguements. If you read the source you will see they are examined in more detail.

It doesnt matter anyway. I cant win. If I post the whole site, people will complain at me, saying I should have just provided a link. If i provide just a link, people will complain saying why couldnt I have extrapoled a bit more. And if I provide both, people just complain any way. Its all complaining

You miss the point, friend....

a) You assume I didn't read the source.

b) You miss the point that your 'synopsis', AND the 'source', BOTH make the cardinal error of inventing strawman arguments.

A strawman argument is a logical fallacy... you can never 'make a case' through use of a strawman... because you are attacking your own VERSION of the case, not the case itself.

An example would be the way your source redefines Implicit Atheism to be about 'making a choice to not believe', apparently.

It doesn't allow for the fact that 'not believing' might simply be what is left when you STOP believing.... it simply sets out to attack what the author considers the weaknesses of making that choice.


Thus - the site fights against it's own constructs... what THEY have decided it means to be 'an Atheist".

Their responses do not refer to the Atheist that I am... they are fighting strawman arguments.


Don't get bent out of shape, my friend... people are complaining about the QUALITY of the source. About the fact that you present a heavily flawed attempt to discover flaws in Atheism.

You are right on one thing, though... it is very unlikely you can 'win'... and, if 'winning' is what it is about for you, I'd say debate is probably not going to be to your liking.

....or into the reunion of a group of mathematicians, trying to convince them that 2+2=5 and claiming that their attempts to convince you that answer is 4 are flawed logic....

I feel it's important to include other opinions, including that of God, whom you mentioned several times.
So here goes his, completely unbiased opinion:
Godspeak (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=462928)

....or into the reunion of a group of mathematicians, trying to convince them that 2+2=5 and claiming that their attempts to convince you that answer is 4 are flawed logic....
Hehe...that should actually be quite interesting :D

2 and 2 equals 4 can at least be more than theorized. But, stomp a boot at a human face, forever, and you're right! Isn't that neat?

A Squashed Mosquito is Dead Forever
article writen by Tom Wagner

Have you ever squashed a mosquito? Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously it's shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was highly organized information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death. And you thought you just slapped it!

For another example, lets say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex "life-giving" chemicals. Yet, even though all of the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of the 100 million critters will come back to life, nor would any new creature arise.

If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test tube environment under carefully controlled conditions, then how could life have evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions FAR less appropriate than this experimental situation? It simply could never happen!

As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in time and as well as space. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside the cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism will die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.

All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

A Squashed Mosquito is Dead Forever
article writen by Tom Wagner

Have you ever squashed a mosquito? Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously it's shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was highly organized information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death. And you thought you just slapped it!

For another example, lets say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex "life-giving" chemicals. Yet, even though all of the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of the 100 million critters will come back to life, nor would any new creature arise.

If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test tube environment under carefully controlled conditions, then how could life have evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions FAR less appropriate than this experimental situation? It simply could never happen!

As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in time and as well as space. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside the cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism will die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.

All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

Wow, what a display of ignorance when it comes to the machinery of life and how cells actually work.

How idiotic. Haven't you ever heard of the Miller and Urey or Fox experiments? Or any of a bajillion mid-20th-century intermediate experiments with protein formation?

Wow, what a display of ignorance when it comes to the machinery of life and how cells actually work.
No, you just don't understand. It's chemistry that makes it all work. Chemistry.
(I knew I should've paid attention when they were talking about that in Chemistry class. I missed out on all the fun. Squashing mosquitoes into different shapes to make the chemicals declare them dead. Sounds fascinating, don't you think?)

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

And how, pray tell, can you say that YOUR version of God is the right one ? Are YOU God ?

Lol. God's in the chemicals. Who wants to be a cofounding prophet in the Modern Revelation Church of Christian Chemists?

So as far as i cant tell The flying spaghetti monster created this universe. He then sent his son to save our souls from sin. But in a major mix up his son was mistaken for a linguine dinner and subsequently eaten by a fat white guy in a wife beater t-shirt.

also bannans are the tool of pure evil. And while i dont mmuch care for olives i love olive oil and use it all the time in my cooking.

~snip~

Straw Man Fallacy n. 1. A rhetorical technique (classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
2. Your entire damn argument.

A straw man can be set up in various ways, including:

1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.

2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

All of which your site does I believe. Thank you, come again.

how could you possibly pronounce something so utterly nonsensical? Everyone knows bananas are holy and sacred and olives... well.. just look at them! They're worthless!
I'm going to pray for you at the altar of the dry martini.

You are saying that since atheists have no prrof their is no god their beliefs are wrong. All other religions have no concrete proof of a higher being. The theory that god can niether be proven or disproven. Claiming that their is no god does not mean you know everything. Atheism isn't about not believing. If you actually read the Atheist bible you would find that they beleive in self power.

Claiming there is no God must mean that you have some kind of evidence to support it. Since no one does have it, there are only three logical answers

I dont know if there is or isnt a God

I have faith there is a God

I have faith there is no God

Lol. God's in the chemicals. Who wants to be a cofounding prophet in the Modern Revelation Church of Christian Chemists?

It does seem like most of the people who claim 'visions of god' have been partaking of various chemicals....

Maybe you are onto something...

-snip-

Present examples please

Present examples please

Check my response, a page earlier... I explain the problem, and give an example.

No. I haven't read it. As I said before... it would be a waste of time.
You provided us with a summary of what you thought to be the brightest ideas on the entire site and I find them ... wildly amusing.
So yes, just from hearing about the site I can know whether it will be something worthwile reading or not. I feel I am capable of taking this decision on my own, thank you very much.

That said I did spend a few minutes on the fsm site. I strongly recommend it to you it's hilarious! (and if you don't like that sort of humor then just replace 'flying spaghetti monster' with 'god' and you'll love the site. Promise.)

No. I provided a summery of the opening lines of the arguements. They are then examined in more depth. Now go read and then have an opinion

Claiming there is no God must mean that you have some kind of evidence to support it. Since no one does have it, there are only three logical answers

I dont know if there is or isnt a God

I have faith there is a God

I have faith there is no God

I have faith there is no god. This is bolstered by the logical fallabilities of all god's I've heard of to date, for sure the major ones. The site is bullshit, the atheistic arguments are made up or said by a retard, and set up so the author can use strawman arguments to break them down.

Its BS.

So as far as i cant tell The flying spaghetti monster created this universe. He then sent his son to save our souls from sin. But in a major mix up his son was mistaken for a linguine dinner and subsequently eaten by a fat white guy in a wife beater t-shirt.

You better be wearing pirate regalia when you say that, lest his most holiness, the FSM will smite you for heresy.

also bannans are the tool of pure evil. And while i dont mmuch care for olives i love olive oil and use it all the time in my cooking.

Olives are obviously superior to banannas. They are used in Italian cooking, the preparation method deemed Kosher and holy by the Lord FSM. This information was relayed to me by His noodly apendage, and is therefore beyond the scope of your mere mortal concept of "logic", and thus irrefutable. Ramen.

Claiming there is no God must mean that you have some kind of evidence to support it. Since no one does have it, there are only three logical answers

I dont know if there is or isnt a God

I have faith there is a God

I have faith there is no God

Rubbish.

How about:

1) I don't know if there is or isn't a god.

2) I don't understand what you mean by 'god'.

3) I have faith that there is a god.

4) I have faith that there is no god.

5) I do NOT have faith that there is a god.

6) I just don't care. God is like the easter bunny. It matters not to me.

7) I've seen no evidence to support a god.

8) I'm not even sure you COULD have evidence that would support a god.

9) I've read about a lot of gods, and I don't accept any of the ones I've read about.

10) There COULD be a god, but none of the ones I've heard of.

11) God just seems too unlikely.

etc...

I'm going to pray for you at the altar of the dry martini.
My main Banana man will be keeping an eye on you.

You miss the point, friend....

a) You assume I didn't read the source.

b) You miss the point that your 'synopsis', AND the 'source', BOTH make the cardinal error of inventing strawman arguments.

A strawman argument is a logical fallacy... you can never 'make a case' through use of a strawman... because you are attacking your own VERSION of the case, not the case itself.

An example would be the way your source redefines Implicit Atheism to be about 'making a choice to not believe', apparently.

It doesn't allow for the fact that 'not believing' might simply be what is left when you STOP believing.... it simply sets out to attack what the author considers the weaknesses of making that choice.


Thus - the site fights against it's own constructs... what THEY have decided it means to be 'an Atheist".

Their responses do not refer to the Atheist that I am... they are fighting strawman arguments.

Would you kindly PROVE they are fighting strawmen. IE actually present an example of the site and then explain why that is not an arguement used by athiests


Don't get bent out of shape, my friend... people are complaining about the QUALITY of the source. About the fact that you present a heavily flawed attempt to discover flaws in Atheism.

Complaining about flaws in a page that you havent read is illogical

Claiming there is no God must mean that you have some kind of evidence to support it. Since no one does have it, there are only three logical answers

I dont know if there is or isnt a God

I have faith there is a God

I have faith there is no God



I have faith there is no God,

Claiming there is a God must mean that you have some kind of evidence to support it. Please give me your evidence. Please make this evidence tangible not something like the universe exsits therefor GOD exists. I want picture or a hand written note. ANd not the Bible it was written by man with what they say was GOD's insperation. For all we Know Gods inperation could have been a bottle of wine.

No. I provided a summery of the opening lines of the arguements. They are then examined in more depth. Now go read and then have an opinion
Uhm. Do you want me to put it in any other language? Would that help?

I won't read it.

I have an opinion on the matter nonetheless.

I still believe it's utter nonsense.

Rubbish.

How about:

1) I don't know if there is or isn't a god.

2) I don't understand what you mean by 'god'.

3) I have faith that there is a god.

4) I have faith that there is no god.

5) I do NOT have faith that there is a god.

6) I just don't care. God is like the easter bunny. It matters not to me.

7) I've seen no evidence to support a god.

8) I'm not even sure you COULD have evidence that would support a god.

9) I've read about a lot of gods, and I don't accept any of the ones I've read about.

10) There COULD be a god, but none of the ones I've heard of.

11) God just seems too unlikely.

etc...

Lets actually look at some of these shall we

My orignal three responses actually cataogrise all your responses

I dont know if there is or isnt a god (Agnosticisim)
1, 2, 6, 9, 10,

I have faith there is no god
5, 7, 8, 11, 4

I have faith there is a god
3

The reason for this catagorisiation is that all your points are the means to the conculsion of a discussion

EG
- I have seen no evidence for God, therefore I have faith that God does not exist

- I dont know if God exists or not and I dont care

- There could be a God, but none of the ones I've heard of so I dont know.

Etc

The reason its all based on faith is that it cannot be proven if there is or is not a god for certianty.

Olives are obviously superior to banannas. They are used in Italian cooking, the preparation method deemed Kosher and holy by the Lord FSM. This information was relayed to me by His noodly apendage, and is therefore beyond the scope of your mere mortal concept of "logic", and thus irrefutable. Ramen.
They're obviously superior?? How in the world could olives possibly be percieved as superior to bananas?? They're tiny, smelly, ugly, downright hideous things that are exclusively worth attention in olive-oil form.
...and now take a good guess... who invented olive oil?

Correct. That would be Banana.
Now bow before the Yellow Greatness.
Ramen, indeed :p

Uhm. Do you want me to put it in any other language? Would that help?

I won't read it.

I have an opinion on the matter nonetheless.

I still believe it's utter nonsense.

You cant have a proper opinion on something you havent read. You can have one, but its worthless.

I'm going to pray for you at the altar of the dry martini.

May the Prophet Bond shake him forever and may he be free of the sin of stirring....

The reason its all based on faith is that it cannot be proven if there is or is not a god for certianty.
Exactly. It's based on faith.
It cannot be proven.
Problem solved.

Now go and love thy neighbour. ... or something :fluffle:

Exactly. It's based on faith.
It cannot be proven.
Problem solved.

Now go and love thy neighbour. ... or something :fluffle:

Except Athiesm cannot be proven either. And a level of logic can be used to prove both

Would you kindly PROVE they are fighting strawmen. IE actually present an example of the site and then explain why that is not an arguement used by athiests


Quit screwing around.

At least read the RESPONSES before you reply to them, eh?

I cited a specific strawman in the source, and why it was such.

Don't waste my time... read the response BEFORE you reply.

Now - go back and try again.


Complaining about flaws in a page that you havent read is illogical

I read it. I responded to it. You have yet to pay the same courtesy to my responses.

They're obviously superior?? How in the world could olives possibly be percieved as superior to bananas?? They're tiny, smelly, ugly, downright hideous things that are exclusively worth attention in olive-oil form.
...and now take a good guess... who invented olive oil?

Correct. That would be Banana.
Now bow before the Yellow Greatness.
Ramen, indeed :p


Banana's are just evil and nasty tasting and have no value. Where an olive can at the very least be use for olive oil or in a martini.

You cant have a proper opinion on something you havent read. You can have one, but its worthless.
I never said I have an expert's opinion on the page. However, I do think I have a pretty good understanding on what it's trying to say and on why I can't stand sites just like it. This does mean that I've looked at similar sites before and I've talked to people who had the same opinion on the matter as you have and I am otherwise competent enough to judge whether or not this site is crap in my book or not.

Example: If I were to tell you that there's this really really great website on flying JumboSpaceCandles and that they had really convincing arguments on it, you just had to go and look at it...you could probably (hopefully) tell for yourself that the site is crap and I'm just plain nuts. Now, you could still decide to have a look at the site just for the fun of it, but you would've already made up your mind about it beforehand.

Except Athiesm cannot be proven either. And a level of logic can be used to prove both
Wait. What?
'Cannot be proven whether there's a god'
'Atheism cannot be proven either'
and then
'a level of logic can be used to prove both'
...
what did I just miss?

I read it. I responded to it. You have yet to pay the same courtesy to my responses.

That's what I'm saying: I posted a good long response on the real logic disproving God, and I was completely ignored. [sigh]

Lets actually look at some of these shall we

My orignal three responses actually cataogrise all your responses

I dont know if there is or isnt a god (Agnosticisim)
1, 2, 6, 9, 10,

I have faith there is no god
5, 7, 8, 11, 4

I have faith there is a god
3

The reason for this catagorisiation is that all your points are the means to the conculsion of a discussion

EG
- I have seen no evidence for God, therefore I have faith that God does not exist

- I dont know if God exists or not and I dont care

- There could be a God, but none of the ones I've heard of so I dont know.

Etc

The reason its all based on faith is that it cannot be proven if there is or is not a god for certianty.

You don't appear to even know what Agnosticism is.

That kind of makes it hard to take your response seriously.

An Agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to KNOW (hence the 'gnostic' part) for sure, if there is a god or not.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Deist, an Agnostic Theist... whatever... Agnostic just refers to 'knowing'... not 'believing'.

Your number allocations are meaningless.

How can someone who "doesn't understand what you mean by god" be agnostic? Or - for that matter, any position other than Implicitly Atheistic?

How can someone saying "I don't care" be Agnostic? That isn't a declaration of knowledge.. or even of belief... it is an absolute indifference. And thus - an Implicit Atheistic viewpoint.

How can someone saying they "don't accept any of the gods they've heard of" be an Agnostic viewpoint? It is either theistic or atheistic... depending on whether the individual in question BELIEVES there is/isn't a god OUTSIDE of what they have 'heard'.

I'm not going to spend all day doing this.

At least have the intellectual fortitude to do the task properly.

You just aren't putting any effort in... I feel like I'm fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man...

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

The flaw with atheism is that it is has narrowed its focus to a singular definition of God (catholic creationist definition) and therefore has lost its ability to rationally identify itself with the more logical definitions that have existed for much longer.

God has been defined on various levels throughout the centuries, those who are not taken with the "creation myth" feel that the Universe is a Living & Conscious entity, that God "creates" the Universe by the simple act of "being" the universe.

Banana's are just evil and nasty tasting and have no value. Where an olive can at the very least be use for olive oil or in a martini.
Olives have no place in a martini. Just in olive oil. That is the purpose Banana chose for olives. More out of pity because there was really nothing else you could do with them...
Banana's do taste exquisit. But if you can't taste their divine flavour then that's due to the Great God of the Yellow Bend, because he doesn't want you to.
Ha!
Now what do you say?

Bananas are disgusting, phallic fruits only fit to be eaten by monkeys. That is why The Great Dry One ordained that all of the Yellow Spawn will turn black and rotten quickly, to reveal the taint lurking beneath their vibrantly tacky exteriors.

Olives have no place in a martini. Just in olive oil. That is the purpose Banana chose for olives. More out of pity because there was really nothing else you could do with them...
Banana's do taste exquisit. But if you can't taste their divine flavour then that's due to the Great God of the Yellow Bend, because he doesn't want you to.
Ha!
Now what do you say?

Eat 25 pounds of bananas in a day and see how you feel about bananas. Never again will i eat one.



As for only looking at the christian view of god. I look at all degrees of the gods from Ahura Mazdah to Zues to Ahau Chamahez. I still have faith that there is no GOd.

Eat 25 pounds of bananas in a day and see how you feel about bananas. Never again will i eat one.

Uh. wait. Are you trying to say you've done that?
Or that eating 25 pounds of olives would be much better? :p

what did I just miss?

I am God, I exist, I don't like Christians and you all lose.

(Apart from the agnostics - I'm throwing a party for you guys next week.)

Eat 25 pounds of bananas in a day and see how you feel about bananas. Never again will i eat one.



As for only looking at the christian view of god. I look at all degrees of the gods from Ahura Mazdah to Zues to Ahau Chamahez. I still have faith that there is no GOd.

Seconded.

And all praise the olive!

Uh. wait. Are you trying to say you've done that?
Or that eating 25 pounds of olives would be much better? :p

Me and three guys had to eat 25 pounds of bananas in a day. Dont ask why just know that around 20 pounds we all decided never to eat a banana again.

I am God, I exist, I don't like Christians and you all lose.

(Apart from the agnostics - I'm throwing a party for you guys next week.)
Yay! Party! :D
...will there be bananas?

Me and three guys had to eat 25 pounds of bananas in a day. Dont ask why just know that around 20 pounds we all decided never to eat a banana again.
Haha! Fun :D
But you see. Bananas were never meant to be eaten en masse. You're supposed to enjoy them one at a time, silly :p

Haha! Fun :D
But you see. Bananas were never meant to be eaten en masse. You're supposed to enjoy them one at a time, silly :p


But what about Glutony its my favorite sin.

Yay! Party! :D
...will there be bananas?

NO!

But there will be Lemon Meringue.

NO!

But there will be Lemon Meringue.
No? Awww....
Lemon Meringue? Wasn't that your personal hell? Why'd you serve hellfood at a party dear God?

But there will be Lemon Meringue.


I prefer French Silk Pie so ill bring that to the party. Also I have some Bread and wine i made to bring with.

Lemon Meringue? Wasn't that your personal hell?

No.

I condemned potato salad eaters to eternal suffering (The Golden Girls re-runs).

The flaw with atheism is that it is has narrowed its focus to a singular definition of God (catholic creationist definition) and therefore has lost its ability to rationally identify itself with the more logical definitions that have existed for much longer.

God has been defined on various levels throughout the centuries, those who are not taken with the "creation myth" feel that the Universe is a Living & Conscious entity, that God "creates" the Universe by the simple act of "being" the universe.
oh thats the flaw is it...hmmm how interesting

what makes you think THAT? i mostly respond to those who insist that the existance of the universe implies the existance of god with "how does the necessity of a creator imply that i must accept jesus christ as my personal lord and savior?" but i dont believe in ANY god with ANY definition of it.

No.

I condemned potato salad eaters to eternal suffering (The Golden Girls re-runs).
Oh that's right. It all comes screaming back to me.

Mmh. Potato salad. *sneaks off to kitchen*

http://www.carm.org/atheism/positions2.htm

An excelent examination of them, but here are some breif summeries

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

There is more detial on the link provided

Straw men arguments on his own side.

Let me knock them down

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

I can say there is no God just as logically as I can claim there is no Easter Bunny.

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

I can claim there is no evidence of God just as logicaly as I can claim the is no evidence of the Easter Bunny

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

This is in response to an agument not made be athiests. The actual argument is that there is no need to use God to explain things and or use the God of the gaps.

This CARM guy is as dangerous as Pat Robertson.

Refuting the refutations:

The atheist missed the point. We can know with certainty various mathematical truths. This is because we can easily grasp the basics of simple math. But, not so with God. Therefore, this atheist has made a mistake in categories. The nature of God and his definition, that he exists outside of time and space yet is able to influence or world, does not fall under the the same category as knowing prime numbers. Again, the atheist has made a mistake of not recognizing that knowing the existence of a being who exists beyond space and time is not the same thing as knowing numbers that you can write on a piece of paper.

Several problems with this logic. Assuming this was a real person who emailed in and not a "straw man" invented by the author of the website, s/he uses prime numbers as a logical metaphor. Their point can be explained alternatively as follows -

Take the statement, "No two snowflakes are alike." To prove this, I would need to have studied all the snowflakes in the universe, but I only need two snowflakes (in theory) to disprove this statement, so long as the two snowflakes are identical.

This point is not confined to maths; it is a general logical point. The author claims that God is different from maths (and logical rules in general), but fails to explain exactly why: whether or not he is omnipotent, he cannot contract simple reason. The atheist's point is therefore valid.

I do not argue for the existence of any God or gods besides the one revealed in the Bible. So when I speak of God I am only speaking of the Christian God. In light of that, this atheist fails to understand the biblical empathy that God shows for his creation. Biblically, God cares a great deal about what happens to us, which is why He sent Jesus to die for our sins. So, is atheist does not know what he is speaking about.

The author has completely missed the point of the message he was responding to. He or she was arguing that the only possible god was something indifferent, rather than the benevolent god we hear in several religions. The author replied as if his opponent was arguing that the Christian god was not benevolent, thereby missing the point.

To say that one's left foot hurts is not a choice about believing in the existence of something or not. It is only an observation. But to say "I believe there is no God" is a choice of belief. After all, the comment "I believe there is no God" contains the word "believe." Believing in something is an act of a person's will. Therefore, this atheist has failed to understand the difference between an act of will regarding believing something or not, and making a simple observation. His point is illogical.

The use of the word "believe" does not necessarily constitute faith (for example, I could say, "I KNOW there is no God" instead). I will go into greater detail later.

Nevertheless, I will assume that the atheist is intending to state that if God exists separate from the physical universe, then how can he create it? If this is his question, then it is also an illogical one as well since the Biblical God who exists can create, He can create that which is separate from himself. As I write this article, the article is not me. It is separate from me. I exist and it exists. I wrote it and in that sense I created it.

The author does not explain how or why the Biblical God can create, he just takes it as fact that He can. This is therefore a fallacy, as is his analogy of writing an article, as both he and the article are parts of the physical world.

Lack of belief in X is the default condition for extraordinary beings, in the absence of evidence in their . No evidence against their existence is necessary."
This small paragraph makes no sense so I'm not able to respond to it.

Admittedly, there seems to be a word missing, but this paragraph still makes sense. This Christian obviously has not heard of Occam's Razor: no more should be presumed to exist than is absolutely necessary. Unless there is proof that God exists, He should automatically be presumed not to exist.

There is no God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.

I don't need to "know all things" to know there is no God. I know there is no God (as most monotheists understand the term) in the same way I know there is no square circle.

There is no evidence for God

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence.

Right, but atheists don't say this. We say:

1) There can be no evidence for a "God" as understood by modern Judeo-Christians and most monotheists (anymore than there "can" be evidence for a square circle).
2) We don't have any evidence for any other kind of "God"--like the less-than-omnipotent ones the ancients used to believe in. They, at least, did not involve a vast array of logical contradictions. They were, put simply, "higher beings," and there is no logical reason that there cannot be some very smart, very powerful aliens out there somewhere. However, this isn't usually what you mean by "God"... and so far, we have little enough evidence of them, anyway.

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

This is, I think, analytically true... because unless we can explain things in terms of natural causes and laws, we haven't "explained" them at all. Thus, anything that can be understood--that is, explained--is naturalistic. Anything else is pure nonsense, and no concern of knowledge.

How nice of you to refute the brief summeries.

Have you looked at the website, because your refutations are covered

Not sure who your response was meant for, however, I have looked at the site and it requires you to assume there is a god to believe the writer is making logical conclusions.

The onus of proof is to those who declare with certainty that a god exists. Whether the god is christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, greek, celtic or any other is irrelevant. And just for your information, most of us don't give a damn whether you believe in gods or fairies or ufo's. It's when you assert their reality that we ask you to prove it.

Invisible anythings are great to believe in since our natural perceptors can't prove their non-existence. Which in turn allows you to continue in your delusions with the certainty that only you and a select few can really know the truth.

Please remember that even among the most staunch and conservative of religionists, differences in perception of belief exist. This is what has created so many different denominations and factions which confuse the less gullible among humanity. Don't let reason nor logic stand in the way of a cleverly devised fable.

1) There can be no evidence for a "God" as understood by modern Judeo-Christians and most monotheists (anymore than there "can" be evidence for a square circle).
2) We don't have any evidence for any other kind of "God"--like the less-than-omnipotent ones the ancients used to believe in. They, at least, did not involve a vast array of logical contradictions. They were, put simply, "higher beings," and there is no logical reason that there cannot be some very smart, very powerful aliens out there somewhere. However, this isn't usually what you mean by "God"... and so far, we have little enough evidence of them, anyway.

On point one of your argument by saying that their can be no evidence for a "God" you are still accepting the notion that God may exists just by mentioning that actual word "God", which is normally percieved to be as the creator of all things. By accepting the notion that there is a "God" you are not a true atheist. A true Atheist would believe in scientific theories like the big bang, and not even have to mention anything about "God" or even care about the notion. I think that by coming here and debating the existence would go against true atheism.

How nice of you to refute the brief summeries.

Have you looked at the website, because your refutations are covered

Done.

I had a good laugh. Thanks for that.

That site's "arguments" are utter nonsense, all boiling down to the one inevitable refrain of believers: "But God doesn't HAVE to make sense! He's GOD!"

Well, if you're going to forsake reason, do it on your own time. And don't try to pretend that it's rational. If you want to argue with us, then you're going to have to accept the rules of the game. Saying "God is outside space and time" does not give you a magical wildcard with which to ignore reason while pretending to have a rational argument.

On point one of your argument by saying that their can be no evidence for a "God" you are still accepting the notion that God may exists just by mentioning that actual word "God", which is normally percieved to be as the creator of all things. By accepting the notion that there is a "God" you are not a true atheist. A true Atheist would believe in scientific theories like the big bang, and not even have to mention anything about "God" or even care about the notion. I think that by coming here and debating the existence would go against true atheism.

Not all atheists 'believe in' the Big Bang, so that is a strawman...

And, discussing a concept using certain terms, does not imply any kind of temptation to condone what is represented by those terms.

As an Atheist, when I use the word 'god'... it describes a concept I can imagine, but which I fail to believe. Using that word, in now way reflects on my Atheism.

Now, YOU may get more from the word.... for YOU, it may represent "the creator of all things"... but, that is your subjective assessment... not mine.

"But God doesn't HAVE to make sense! He's GOD!"

I once argued this topic for 30+ pages on a thread, refuted everything, and this was exactly what it came down to. Creationism and religion don't have to make sense, because there are some areas of existence which are outside logic and therefore an illogical being or explanation is required to fill them.

Basically, religion, after every pretense of reason has been stripped away, boils down to the assertion that the state of being illogical is its own justification - a sort of recursive circular-logic claim that making no sense is inherently and automatically self-justifying. Irrational? Cool! It's ok because you're irrational!

.....

:eek: :headbang:

*snip*

I second Grave_n_idle's response to your post. Discussing the idea of "God" does not make anyone a believer.