Search results

Jem, I'm curious: are you a Deist? The reason I ask is that some theists -- not accusing you of being one -- like to make the First Cause argument for God, which is pretty much where Deism begins and ends, but they also disingenuously pretend that First Cause provides "evidence" as well for the...

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists...

I agree, and had that same semantic problem with the OP. Religions are facts; it is the bases for religions (or perhaps I should say theisms for precision) that are conjectural and should be subjected to scrutiny. But it is a minor semantic problem IMO. The main point of the OP remains and...

It's your own ignorance that's on full display here, 777. 777: "Existence could not be one aspect of God?" To rephrase: "Existence could not be one aspect of the very thing the existence of which is called into question in this thread?" My mistake was expecting you to be smart...

I gave an argument. If it is wrong, address that. But pretending an argument wasn't given is childish. Better yet, just tell us the difference between your god and Superman. Supes is all-powerful, all-good, etc. He is also pure fiction: a comic-book character. If your god is different...

Existence is not one aspect of leprecauns, centaurs, goblins, water nymphs, Zeus, Thor, or a myriad of other things for which the evidence of existence is questionable at best. That's the argument.

Once again, I don't have a hypothesis. You do. I have no evidence to support any belief in your God theory. Your demand that I tell you what evidence will convince me is ass-backwards. If you have evidence, present it. If you don't have any evidence, which I suspect is the case, your...

You think Pascal's wager is "proof" of the supernatural? Well that explains a lot. :p

You can't be serious positing Mao as a scientist. Mao may have been an atheist (more likely an antitheist) but he was no scientist. The people who believe in their own infallibility are not scientists, even if they were once scientists in the past. Science is all about constant testing...

It shouldn't be hard to deal with social Darwinists, that's a flawed theory. Unfortunately we've always had other social engineers. Aren't tax deductions for home mortgages but not any for rent payments a form of social engineering?

There's a green centaur that follows you everywhere. Of course it's invisible and immaterial, ergo you can't detect it. You should just take my word for it ... you know, like I should just take your word for your god/creator. :D

:cool:

You see, folks, this is the real deal. The aptly named piker confuses his sophistry for critical thinking. Atheists don't have to pretend that no evidence exists that proves "God" exists when the pikers of the world can't supply any. To make matters much worse, they pretend that they have...

+1

Quite frankly you're a liar. And this is one of your lesser lies.

Wrong again. I said your god is unimportant, I didn't say your religion is unimportant. I wish theism was unimportant, as unimportant as a belief in leprecauns. Unfortunately religion is responsible for as much misery and stupidity in the world as anything else. The gods are no more...

Why are you incapable of accepting the answers you've been given? More to point, why are you incapable of providing any evidence at all?

No where near as odd how you still refuse to provide any "convincing evidence". One could reasonably assume that you have none at all, and that you believe in your god for purely childish reasons.

This is where your argument completely falls apart. Most atheists don't hold your strawman hypothesis that "there is no god." We simply maintain that your god is unimportant because there's no evidence-based reason to believe it even exists. You seem to be incapable of understanding the...

Strawman. It is you making the extravagant claims about supernatural beings, not atheists. And by "prove the claim", I meant to a reasonable person's standards, like in a courtroom. Many things don't need "absolute" proof to be believable, but they nonetheless need evidence. Where is the...