Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what atheism (in it's most simple form) is. We do not believe you because we have no reason to believe you.
He exists because he is what drives all the good acts of faith in this world. An atheist will never once acknowledge all of the good things that have happened to him as a result of other people's faith. It's as if it's an impossible thing for him to do so. He can't do it. Even though the good done by religion outweighs the bad 99 to 1. Therefore atheism is a kind of delusion, from my perspective. It is proof to me that atheism is false.
Neither. I'm saying you can't compare a faith shared by billions, with something like the belly button claim which means nothing. Yet atheists make these kind of meaningless statements all the time ad nauseum.
So once again it is our fault you do not understand the argument.
He exists because he is what drives all the good acts of faith in this world.
That is like me saying "Leprachauns exist because they are what make all the flowers in our gardens grow".
In other words you are just supporting one empty assertion with another. Completely circular argument. One evidence devoid claim is not evidence for another evidence devoid claim.
However what should also be noted -
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
An atheist will never once acknowledge all of the good things that have happened to him as a result of other people's faith.
- is that even if this tosh here was true, it would not be evidence for a god. But evidence for the effects of faith in a god. Even if it was 100% true that faith in the existence of a god causes these "good acts" that still would not be evidence there is a god.
The effects of beleiving X does not mean X is true. Two _entirely_ different things.
What is interesting though is I am not aware of a single "good act" ever performed by a believer that has not been performed by - or is somehow precluded for - a non-believer in god. So at best once again you appear to be making a correlation-causation error.
What I do see often however is people perpetuating awful acts that solely due to their faith they think are "good acts". The awful Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu springs instantly to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
He can't do it. Even though the good done by religion outweighs the bad 99 to 1.
I am going to assume you are unable to show your workings behind that figure in any way. Especially as I doubt you even know the difference between good done by people who also happened to be religious - and good actually done by religion.
It's just like stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. Who would believe in such a thing?
So in the first sentence you call it stupid argument. Then in the second sentence you yourself make the argument that it is making. Shoot yourself in the foot often?
That is the whole point! Who would believe in such nonsense? Yet there is no more - or less - evidence for it than the stuff you purport to believe.
If you have actually seen the evidence then you should not care about calculating the odds anymore.Why should you?
Seeing the evidence should ideally mean 100% guaranteed outcome to a future event.
Before you get on an airplane, you check the flight historical data. Is that an evidence that the flight will arrive safely at its destination with 100% guarantee?
You get into the bed and plan something for tomorrow because you woke up every morning for the last 75 years. Is that an evidence that you will wake up tomorrow morning?
No, in both cases.
But you still get on an airplane and you still plan for tomorrow WITHOUT the evidence that the plane will not crash and also, you will wake up next morning - both incidents backed by 100% guarantee. No!
When it comes to many incidents that are supposed to happen in the future - we primarily play the game of probability. Evidence is either subjective or in some cases it becomes irrelative.and does not provide a guarantee. And we end up using faith based on calculating the odds.
If you say, I have never used faith (non religious based) in your day to day life then you must NOT have ever used the word “hope” in your life either.
You probablyt be living in denial if you say I have never said “I hope so” to anyone or to myself in all my life.
So if someone says the lint in my belly button controls the national weather then its NOT an event that we are supposed to get to know after our deaths - you can simply ignore and move on with your life instead of demanding evidence because you already the probability is an atom distance close to zero.
But if someone says that he has faith that God exists THEN the answer to know the truth, lies in our afterlife (if there is one).
Evidence becomes irrelative - and we get into playing the game of odds.
Do you now see how “evidence” doesn’t work as it doesn’t provide a guaranteed outcome in incidents that are supposed to happen, (if ever), in our afterlife?
“Lint in my belly button controls the weather” is a ridiculous example to compare with the saying “I have faith that God exists and we may probably know the truth in the afterlife”
What does science suggest, when did the first man walked on earth? 100,000 years ago? 3 million years ago?
Whatever it is, 3 million years ago or 100,000 years ago, - about it.,, it’s been a VERY LONG TIME now,,,,
If there was in fact an EVIDENCE that God exists then the entire humanity would probably be compromised of believers only.
And if there was an EVIDENCE that God does NOT exist then probably all 7 Billion of us would be Atheists by now.
Common sense, no?
Kinda funny and ironic that Atheists keep harping about evidence, and believers keep trying to get them one. While none of the part has any.
It is kind of funny your conclusion is based on you getting everything wrong.
He exists because he is what drives all the good acts of faith in this world. An atheist will never once acknowledge all of the good things that have happened to him as a result of other people's faith. It's as if it's an impossible thing for him to do so. He can't do it. Even though the good done by religion outweighs the bad 99 to 1. Therefore atheism is a kind of delusion, from my perspective. It is proof to me that atheism is false.
Atheism is false because you have two assertions that ignores the evidence, and yet another straw man?
This is strong evidence the theists have it wrong.
Everyone understand what they are TRYING to say. But the argument is completely ineffective because it's so ridiculous.
It's just like stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. Who would believe in such a thing? The atheist seems to have no valid argument.
So once again it is our fault you do not understand the arguments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
