Hopefully this will fill you in

[YOUTUBE]L7jClyinERY[/YOUTUBE]

 

That is in the upper echelon of self defeating arguments. Christians may never say "think" but they certainly say "faith." One of the harshest condemnations from the atheist movement is the whole idea, the whole disturbing credulity of "faith." If you are prepared to admit you're full up in "faith" that god doesn't exist, and paint yourself in that word which gets the religious so much flack, then hey, good for you.It may make you look a bit upside down, but at least you'd have that whole honesty thing going for you.

If not, you should probably stop comparing their statements to yours. And stop making arguments as bad as that.

 

using cold hard logic you are right.

but there are things called emotions and human beings, as social animals, evolved to be affected by it.

 

Ah.. emotions, those chemicals released by the brain, right? Emotions like "Love"? And it's perfectly acceptable to be influenced by emotions, but the idea that the Gods have been with Human beings helping guide that evolution is completely ludicrous, right? Offering examples and parables as to what to do in certain situations? Insane behaviour.

I'm still waiting for "proof" of the Sanctity of Human Life, so that I may hold it up to the same scrutiny that atheists apply to my beliefs.

 

It's funny because it's true.

/facepalm

religious people are inexplicably and unapologetically stupid.

 

emotions evolved for survival.

fear to avoid or be cautious in dangerous situations

anger to boost adrenaline and defend, protect or rebel

love to form bonds between mating couples, offspring or family for the purpose of group survival and nurturing
etc etc

all these things are necessary for social mammals such as humans to communicate with each other and live together.

If you believe that god is watching over your shoulder throughout your entire life you are both delusional and rather vain.

When it boils down no life is sacred. Life started as a chemical reaction in organic material. Life will evolve into more complex forms given enough time and the right environmental conditions.

There is no. invisible man in the sky watching over you.

You're alive because your father's sperm cells fertilized your mother's egg.

Your existence is a chain reaction of events that began billions of years ago.

Deal with it.

 

That's all they will ever be: BELIEFS. Unsubstantiated ones at that.
If you would research the origins of religious belief, you would understand as many of us do that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Bullshit that's been sugarcoated and modified to conform with the religious believer's limited and purposely directed perception.

 

Faith is the antithesis of thinking. As Ambrose Bierce put it, it's "belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel". As an atheist, I do not accept things on faith (that is, without evidence), despite believers' constant attempts to claim atheism as a religion. Such a claim is simply wrong. Atheism is the absence of faith, and represents the triumph of reason over superstition.

By the way, I've noticed that you're arguments typically take the form of "your arguments are bad". That's a bad argument.

 

Now, THAT's what we need in a president!

 

Ahh, nothing like a good argument by detail. It is truly the highpoint of a lowbrow.

Did you hear? There is no such thing as a clock. It is just a set of gears which turn hands towards numbers.

Did you hear? There is no such thing as a human. It is merely a mixture of water, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nirotgen and an array of other chemicals and gases.

Are you truly under the impression that by describing how something works, or how something was made, you can do anything other than solidify what it is? I'm going to disprove love by telling you how it works, and therefore proving that it exists? Judging by your appeal to nonsense, you probably do.

Your argument against the sanctity of human life, is that we started as a sperm and an egg. Which is no argument at all, good or bad. And is as useless as saying no painting was ever beautiful, because it started as a blank canvas, dye and egg yolks.

According to that thinking, life could only be sacred if we what? Started as a potato sack and a yo-yo instead? Good heavens, what utter nonsense.

Forgive me, but am I to understand that you you think it is an argument against god that people multiply through an egg and sperm? This is a good argument that god is less likely? According to whom? And to what inane line of thinking? Is there a certain way a being is supposed to multiply in order to prove god's existence? Perhaps in balls of light which separate from one another? Or some other sci-fi fantasy? Perhaps you should explain exactly how a real god would go about letting his creatures multiply. Oh dear...

Your argument against emotions is that we know how they work, as if knowing what makes the clock tick makes it any less of a clock. Honestly?

And your final argument, and I use the word lightly, is an appeal to time. As if because something started long, long ago, it is less and less important. Fantastic?

Nothing you say is based on reason. Everything you say is an absurdity. And were there two words to describe your so-called thinking, they would simply be Bad Philosophy.

 

There you go again.

Where is your evidence that human life is sacred?

 

WOW he really worked for that statement and you killed it with 10 words....


that is almost mean....

 

Yes, I know you recoil from the word faith, which was my entire point. You tried to make the claim that because theists never say "think" when referring to god's existence, you should never have to say "think" when referring to his nonexistence. I pointed out that they may not say "think" but they do admit "faith," which gives them their surety. So either you would be required to admit an equal amount of faith, which gives you your surety, or continue to use the word "think." I guessed that you despised the word "faith" and thus that your own point about not saying think was superfluous. Is this over your head? I'm not sure how much plainer I can put it.

And yes, my arguments do usually boil down to that point. You've gotten me now. But, and this is a sad thing to have to remind you of...all arguments do. Including yours. Every argument is by definition a disagreement, and in a disagreement you believe the other side to be wrong(I hope). Thus, every argument is a statement to the opposition that "your argument is bad," as any argument for a fallacy must be. What makes it a good argument is exactly how much evidence and reason you give for WHY it is bad.

And of course there is also the literally "bad" argument, which is not bad in terms of being wrong, but bad in terms of masquerading as an argument while not really having a reason or point. I believe I just responded to one of those.

The fact that you did not recognize this simple fact, and thought you had scored a point by pointing out that I think the other side's argument "is bad." Makes your argument, very bad indeed.

 

And yet another fine example of intolerance that atheists claim we, the faithful, foster.

And yes I have a researched the origins of belief, yet I am able to keep an open mind and say "they may be right, I don't know for sure."

Not one atheist has offered proof there is no afterlife. Not one atheist has offered proof there is no soul. Not one atheist has proven there is no deity.

Yet they are more than willing to tell me I am wrong because I cannot offer tangible proof there are such things.
And unless you were there billions of years ago Incubus, and have actual tangible physical evidence what scientists theorize happened, you are accepting that information on faith and trust. Faith that the current science is correct and faith that the theories when tested will reveal to be true.
How about YOU deal with it.

 

You're dwelling on made-up "possibilities"
Why bother?

 

I fear I gave you far too much credit on first approach.

What a marvelous challenge you present. But you know what would have made it a true spectacle? If I had actually argued for the sacredness of life to begin with...

Can you not follow a logical progression? Could you not follow the pace of my point, and the fact that it had nothing to do with an argument for the sacredness of life, merely that his so-called proof against it was poorly put together?

If a man comes to me and claims, "God does not know the number of hairs on my head. Because the sky is blue."

Perhaps I agree with him on the larger point. But what I don't agree with is his "proof" and the reason of his point. Because the sky is blue? What an insult to thought. So perhaps I point out to him how poorly put together his argument is, because I have the intellectual honesty to do so.

His "arguments" were embarrassing and utterly pointless(Would you like to defend them?). I thought it best to tell him as much. So, let us hope, he gives it a bit more thought in the future. It was a point against his direction, NOT his end. And it was, apparently, far beyond your understanding. Well...that surprises me less and less.

 

Your right. Trying to quantify my faith isnt something that people who do not believe understand. believers on the other hand completely get it...its starnge and it isnt the sort of thing that you can take out of your pocket and show to people like the kidney stone you keep in a glass vial. But to the believers...its quite real and understandable.

And frankly its good that people are willing to question that and to question the belief system as a whole. There are unanswered questions and making people think is never a bad idea.

 

it's funny because you don't realize that your definition of a clock is exactly right.

therefore you'll never comprehend my point.

 

In defense of both Pat Robertson and George W Bush I have to say they are both complete fuckwits that should have been hit over the head and thier milk given to the dogs.

Did I say defense? I may have been mistaken there....