Suit over national day or prayer dimissed...

[Bassics]

pretty much an atheist respects natural law, and knows this is a human concept in and of itself.

They simply discard any supernatural concepts.

To refute atheism on these terms is to set boundaries on the supernatural.

So, what supernatural concepts are distinct from superstition? For an atheist, none. For the spiritual, only certain ones. The difference is, how to decide?

There are self proclaimed atheists who seem to have more problems with that than theists. They are lost. they strike out as is human nature. Humans are binary creatures in thought. Especially those who attempt to define atheism dictated by theistic principles. As we have seen above.

Love your "creator" or whatever demiurge you recognize. It is not wrong to do so. the problem of evil has always been the backbone of theology. If you feel something is "right" it doesn't make you wrong for feeling that way. Just remember that this is the crux of religious dispute. Do you feel right about something because you are blessed or because you are cursed? Or as an atheist would put it, because you are locked into a trap of everything being right or wrong?

Atheism is the third way. There are more than two.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Not necessarily. You're still looking at it as though "science" could never recognize a god. It could. According to science, there is no such thing as the supernatural. Only the natural. So if God did exist, and even suspended natural laws in performing what we would perceive to be miracles, this would all be natural.

Oh wow. Why am I not surprised your intelligence peaked at age 7? Holy shit, I'm not even touching that retarded garbage.

This. So many logical fallacies I'm not going to waste my time.

Yeah yall come back when you can actually form a rebuttle. I'll be waiting. Course I'm sure I'll be waiting a long damn time. Yeah you suck.

[racrguy]

Not necessarily. You're still looking at it as though "science" could never recognize a god. It could. According to science, there is no such thing as the supernatural. Only the natural. So if God did exist, and even suspended natural laws in performing what we would perceive to be miracles, this would all be natural.





Yeah yall come back when you can actually form a rebuttle. I'll be waiting. Course I'm sure I'll be waiting a long damn time. Yeah you suck.

When you post something worthy of a rebuttal, you'll get one. All of the points you've given have been proven demonstrably wrong, so there's no use in going over it again.

[Binky]

Religion is a purely personal decision. When you make it, or the lack of it, political...then its all manner of fucked up.

[The King]

Religion is a purely personal decision. When you make it, or the lack of it, political...then its all manner of fucked up.

Spot on. Modern-day theocracies inevitably turn out bad because some despot uses his personal version of religion to further his own political ambitions.

The Islamic Republic of Iran for instance.....

[breedlove]

Christians have been convincing themselves what they believe is true for a couple thousand years now. Why can't atheists do the same? All one in the same. No one knows who is right or wrong, that's the beauty of the argument.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

When you post something worthy of a rebuttal, you'll get one. All of the points you've given have been proven demonstrably wrong, so there's no use in going over it again.

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

[YALE]

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

If we're going to address the logic of the discussion, the burden of proof is on theists claiming that there is a god, not athiests claiming disbelief.

[Denny]

Everything came from nothing... GREAT logic, there!

[SMEGMA STENCH]

If we're going to address the logic of the discussion, the burden of proof is on theists claiming that there is a god, not athiests claiming disbelief.

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

[talisman]

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

The only arguement contained in this entire thread is 25 people telling you you're a fucking moron and you disagreeing.

[YALE]

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

No, you addressed a hole in the plaintiff's logic as though it applied to all atheists. They're not the same thing, and we're not all the same people. We agree on the logical hole in the suit. Do you see why you can't use that as a straw man to attack atheism's logical underpinnings?

*EDITED for clarity.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

The only arguement contained in this entire thread is 25 people telling you you're a fucking moron and you disagreeing.

There's easily 25 people (or more) that think the same of you, so you'll have forgive me if what you said carries no weight. And if you think that there isn't actually any argument, then you just need to gain some reading comprehension.

No, you addressed a hole in the plaintiff's logic as though it applied to all atheists. They're not the same thing, and we're not all the same people. We agree on the logical hole in the suit. Do you see why you can't use that as a straw man to attack atheism's logical underpinnings?

*EDITED for clarity.

Yes I do, which brings me to this: So so you admit that all "atheists" are not the same. Now, if they are not all in fact the same, then a good portion of them are not truly "atheists" at all. See my previous definition of "atheism" in one of my above posts. I just simply googled and capied/pasted that definition from some random dictionary website. So if that is in fact the definition of an atheist, then according to what I have read here, there aren't actually any atheists on this site. Key word in the definition being "belief". According to that definition, (which I'm sure you'll find the same definition anywhere else) none of you are atheists. I'm sorry but you can't sit there and say

"I am an atheist. And as such, I do not believe there is a god. ... But... sigh... I'm open to the possibility one day, if there's proof."

That's bullshit. You're not a fucking atheist, you're agnostic, or some variant thereof. Its not agnostic, though its similar. Maybe someone can help me out with the exact word.

[racrguy]

Everything came from nothing... GREAT logic, there!

Your knowledge of the Big Bang theory is childish at best.

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

I've never heard any atheist that had a brain make the claim that 1) they knew everything or 2) that science, in it's current state, could explain everything.

And you'd probably know more if you pulled your head out of your ass and did some research outside your book of fairy tales.

[racrguy]

There's easily 25 people (or more) that think the same of you, so you'll have forgive me if what you said carries no weight. And if you think that there isn't actually any argument, then you just need to gain some reading comprehension.



Yes I do, which brings me to this: So so you admit that all "atheists" are not the same. Now, if they are not all in fact the same, then a good portion of them are not truly "atheists" at all. See my previous definition of "atheism" in one of my above posts. I just simply googled and capied/pasted that definition from some random dictionary website. So if that is in fact the definition of an atheist, then according to what I have read here, there aren't actually any atheists on this site. Key word in the definition being "belief". According to that definition, (which I'm sure you'll find the same definition anywhere else) none of you are atheists.

Talisman wasn't banned for being a "fucking moron"

And, you can't go changing definitions of words to suit your desires. Merriam Webster will beat you about the head and neck with an unabridged version of itself.

Here is Merriam Webster's version:

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, explain to me where it says belief.