God.

[[MPGH]Paroxysm]

Originally Posted by =Advocate=

Christopher Hitchens -Google now.

Christopher Hitchens is mah nigga, Matt Dillahunty is great too
Dawkins is fun when he's talking to creationists, Daniel Dennet is cool when he's talking about religious history and Sam Harris... is Sam Harris.

Hope Christopher gets well soon, cancer is a bitch.

[[MPGH]Ali]

Spam thread is spam .

[tdct]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

Ok I'll be sure to say this as plainly as possible because you appear to be a bit slow.

Agnostic Atheism is the default position regarding the question of whether or not Gods exist. I don't give a damn about arguments for gnostic atheism because it's not my concern. The burden lays upon the theist to demonstrate the existence of deities, I don't need to demonstrate there are no deities for my atheism to be just. The only reasonable argument I know against the existence of SOME deities is the argument from contradiction, the argument from contradiction essentially basically says, contradictions cannot exist in our universe. There are no married bachelors. If a God is defined in contradictory terms they by definition cannot exist. The Gods that take the brunt of this argument are the "all-knowing/powerful/present/loving" gods like the Abrahamic gods.

FYI, I know I'm better than you.


@TaTyTu

I love Edward Current,
Epic trolling is epic.

Well then you just presented a better argument, Yet you also proved that your not better than me when you said, "The only reasonable argument I know against the existence of SOME deities is the argument from contradiction, the argument from contradiction essentially basically says, contradictions cannot exist in our universe."
So what your saying is you only know one "good" argument in defense of of your beliefs, and the argument you gave was quite flawed, because it only applied to some deities.

And another fail that i have honor of quoting "The burden lays upon the theist to demonstrate the existence of deities, I don't need to demonstrate there are no deities for my atheism to be just."
Imagine your standing in the middle of a room with no ceilings, a plastic pantry, and your only food was bread. You have one other person in the room with you.
you don't know this person
it begins to rain
you don't put the food up because you believe it's the other persons responsibility.
the other acts in the same way
The end epic failure

The principal in the story shows why ""The burden lays upon the theist to demonstrate the existence of deities, I don't need to demonstrate there are no deities for my atheism to be just." is a retarded thing to say. And your assuming agnostic atheism is the default position in all human beings, which is not true.
Agnostic Atheism is irrational as religion, because you believe in something w/out knowing why, which is the same genre as the typical religious, they do things and believe things w/out knowing why, agnostic atheism has all the same flaws as a religion
Your a failure and,
-FYI- You'll never be better than me

[[MPGH]Paroxysm]

My goodness tdct, you're so damn retarded it's physically painful to read your posts.

Originally Posted by tdct

Well then you just presented a better argument, Yet you also proved that your not better than me when you said, "The only reasonable argument I know against the existence of SOME deities is the argument from contradiction, the argument from contradiction essentially basically says, contradictions cannot exist in our universe."
So what your saying is you only know one "good" argument in defense of of your beliefs, and the argument you gave was quite flawed, because it only applied to some deities.

And another fail that i have honor of quoting "The burden lays upon the theist to demonstrate the existence of deities, I don't need to demonstrate there are no deities for my atheism to be just."
Imagine your standing in the middle of a room with no ceilings, a plastic pantry, and your only food was bread. You have one other person in the room with you.
you don't know this person
it begins to rain
you don't put the food up because you believe it's the other persons responsibility.
the other acts in the same way
The end epic failure

The principal in the story shows why ""The burden lays upon the theist to demonstrate the existence of deities, I don't need to demonstrate there are no deities for my atheism to be just." is a retarded thing to say. And your assuming agnostic atheism is the default position in all human beings, which is not true.
Agnostic Atheism is irrational as religion, because you believe in something w/out knowing why, which is the same genre as the typical religious, they do things and believe things w/out knowing why, agnostic atheism has all the same flaws as a religion
Your a failure and,
-FYI- You'll never be better than me

Why are you so stupid? Come on, your very existence is threatening the gene pool.



One, I don't need to provide arguments against the existence of God's because I'm not making the claim that no God(s) exist. I make no positive claim about the existence of God(s) which means I don't have the burden of proof. The only reason I even bothered posting an argument is because of your retarded ass "WELL POST SOMETHING BETTER!!!" responses.

So let's start at the basics, I don't have any positive beliefs about the existence of God(s), saying "I don't believe God(s) exists" is not the same as "I believe no God(s) exist" it's a very important distinction. The very fact that you so quickly conflate the two says to me that you haven't had a religious debate in your entire life.

The argument applies to at least 70% of the earth's population's beliefs, the argument doesn't need to cover every single possible definition of a God.

Your little story in the middle has so little relevance to the discussion that it doesn't even deserve acknowledgment.

"Agnostic Atheism is irrational as religion, because you believe in something w/out knowing why, which is the same genre as the typical religious, they do things and believe things w/out knowing why, agnostic atheism has all the same flaws as a religion"



There being no evidence for the existence of God(s) makes agnostic atheism completely justifiable, there is nothing that I "believe w/out knowing" about the God(s) question. I know that I haven't seen any valid reason to believe God(s) exist so I don't believe God(s) exist.

Honestly sometimes I wonder why I even bother with you people, because this is clearly your first discussion of this type and you're doing a very poor job at it.

Why don't you just sit in a corner while the big boys talk?

[[MPGH]Iconik]

Originally Posted by Ali

Spam thread is spam .

agreed.
pointless arguing is pointless.

[[MPGH]Paroxysm]

Originally Posted by Kilian Splasher

agreed.
pointless arguing is pointless.

I wouldn't say it's pointless, there's at least 5 and a half billion people that have imaginary friends...

[Visionary]

So many big words from Paroxysm and tdct for me to handle

[Shark]

Paroxysm has that affect.

[[MPGH]Iconik]

Originally Posted by RainbowSnail

Paroxysm has that affect.

agreed...

[tdct]

Originally Posted by Paroxysm

My goodness tdct, you're so damn retarded it's physically painful to read your posts.





Why are you so stupid? Come on, your very existence is threatening the gene pool.



One, I don't need to provide arguments against the existence of God's because I'm not making the claim that no God(s) exist. I make no positive claim about the existence of God(s) which means I don't have the burden of proof. The only reason I even bothered posting an argument is because of your retarded ass "WELL POST SOMETHING BETTER!!!" responses.

So let's start at the basics, I don't have any positive beliefs about the existence of God(s), saying "I don't believe God(s) exists" is not the same as "I believe no God(s) exist" it's a very important distinction. The very fact that you so quickly conflate the two says to me that you haven't had a religious debate in your entire life.

The argument applies to at least 70% of the earth's population's beliefs, the argument doesn't need to cover every single possible definition of a God.

Your little story in the middle has so little relevance to the discussion that it doesn't even deserve acknowledgment.

"Agnostic Atheism is irrational as religion, because you believe in something w/out knowing why, which is the same genre as the typical religious, they do things and believe things w/out knowing why, agnostic atheism has all the same flaws as a religion"



There being no evidence for the existence of God(s) makes agnostic atheism completely justifiable, there is nothing that I "believe w/out knowing" about the God(s) question. I know that I haven't seen any valid reason to believe God(s) exist so I don't believe God(s) exist.

Honestly sometimes I wonder why I even bother with you people, because this is clearly your first discussion of this type and you're doing a very poor job at it.

Why don't you just sit in a corner while the big boys talk?

"One, I don't need to provide arguments against the existence of God's because I'm not making the claim that no God(s) exist. I make no positive claim about the existence of God(s) which means I don't have the burden of proof. The only reason I even bothered posting an argument is because of your retarded ass "WELL POST SOMETHING BETTER!!!" responses."

I never said you had the "Burden of Proof" this whole argument began when you insulted my original post, and basically what I did was challenge you to out do it, since you decided to insult it = That is where the whole "WELL POST SOMETHING BETTER!!!" came into play


"So let's start at the basics, I don't have any positive beliefs about the existence of God(s), saying "I don't believe God(s) exists" is not the same as "I believe no God(s) exist" it's a very important distinction. The very fact that you so quickly conflate the two says to me that you haven't had a religious debate in your entire life."

I obviously realize that, how could I argue on Agnostic Atheism, if I knew nothing about it.

There being no evidence for the existence of God(s) makes agnostic atheism completely justifiable, there is nothing that I "believe w/out knowing" about the God(s) question. I know that I haven't seen any valid reason to believe God(s) exist so I don't believe God(s) exist.

Once again I know you don't have a positive view on a deity, after all that is the very definition of agnostic atheist
Lets get one thing clear, I am not arguing as a religious, and never have been, yet the way this argument has evolved now I, an atheist, have to show why a form of atheism is stupid to walk away the victor. The only reason I even attempted that was because I hate loosing w/a passion now on to the main point, you win, nice manipulation of the conversation.

"Your little story in the middle has so little relevance to the discussion that it doesn't even deserve acknowledgment." Hmm looking back on your right, I just realized that having them on the same team completely ruined it, well because of my retarded mistake I cannot even carry out a partial victory