question for athiests

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
No, it's not.



When what someone's proposing has been proven to be wrong repeatedly, yet they post it anyway, then there's no assumption and no arrogance.
Post crap and it gets called crap.



Nothing has a creator.
You've repeatedly claimed that everything has a creator, but have yet to show that one thing has one.



Are you denying the existence of physical matter now?



Completely untrue.



There was no third eye.
Where did you get that from?



This is completely untrue and I've already debunked it.



No, they're not.
It's just another one of your baseless claims that's been drummed into you by your fellow theists.



Nothing has a creator.
Prove that 1 thing does.

just doing the circles now it seem

Nobody has 'disproved' God

there is a view that it matter is a theoretical construct

If its untrue name just 1 thing, as I have repeatedly asked and you have failed to answer

of course it was eye 'lid'

you have not 'debunked' the darwin and the evolution of the eye. You posted a link which explains it

see wikki for athiesm. clearly explains it and you like wikki

name 1 thing that doesnt

you have 2
 
Nobody has 'disproved' God

You can't disprove god.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

If its untrue name just 1 thing, as I have repeatedly asked and you have failed to answer

I've repeatedly answered you, so that's an obvious lie.

you have not 'debunked' the darwin and the evolution of the eye. You posted a link which explains it

I've debunked your claims about it being unfit as a part of evolution.

see wikki for athiesm. clearly explains it and you like wikki

First line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

you have 2

Humans aren't magicked out of thin air by their parents.
That's not creation.
Sorry.
Try again.
 
You can't disprove god.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

I know! as a creator anyway

I've repeatedly answered you, so that's an obvious lie.

can you show me where you have named 1 thing?

I've debunked your claims about it being unfit as a part of evolution.

No you posted a link etc and I showed you the errors/flaws in your assertion.


First line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

and the rest. I put athiesm in 2 categories. one you cite and one which is anti god

Humans aren't magicked out of thin air by their parents.
That's not creation.
Sorry.
Try again.

cre·a·tion/krēˈāSHən/




Noun:




1.The action or process of bringing something into existence
 
I have never suggested that athiesm is a theory as such. If anything I believe athiesm is a belief in some cases

The OP was not about religion but what athiests believe to have caused us to 'be'. Us being the universe.
As usual it seems the athiests want to get back to attacking religion as it is safer ground, and avoids the 'hard' questions

everything as we know it has a source/origin/creator.
A) What is the belief you feel atheists have? Atheists are a wide group of people who only share a dis-belief in god. How does that manifest itself into a common belief in something else?
B) You say atheists want to get back to attacking religion as if that's unusual - again the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, so of course they attack religion.
C) You say everything has a source/origin/creator which is true but why is it that because you don't know the source or origin of the universe you have to believe that there is some kind of meta-physical creator?
For me people who need the crutch of religion to explain the unexplained lack intelligence. The unexplained is a challenge for enquiring minds to search for answers, not a big scarey thing that we should invent fairytales to make go away.
 
I know! as a creator anyway

No, you can't disprove the existence of something that has no consistent definition.
When that definition actually claims that the creature is unknowable, it's also unprovable.

You didn't read the link either, as usual.

can you show me where you have named 1 thing?

I've repeatedly said everything.
Nothing is created.

No you posted a link etc and I showed you the errors/flaws in your assertion.

There were no errors in it.
You just asserted that there were, without giving any examples.

and the rest. I put athiesm in 2 categories. one you cite and one which is anti god

You've made the second one up, unfortunately.
That's the definition for anti-theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism

cre·a·tion/krēˈāSHən/
Noun:
1.The action or process of bringing something into existence

Precisely.
Nothing has ever been proven to have come into existence.
 
A) What is the belief you feel atheists have? Atheists are a wide group of people who only share a dis-belief in god. How does that manifest itself into a common belief in something else?

for me true athiesm doesnt 'bother' itself with god. Those who come together for the sole purpose of attacking religion are 'irreligious' imo

B) You say atheists want to get back to attacking religion as if that's unusual - again the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, so of course they attack religion.

I disagree. however my point was its 'safer ground' to attack religion than answer what is at hand/being asked. and it doesnt have to be a conspiracy, simply an interest

C) You say everything has a source/origin/creator which is true but why is it that because you don't know the source or origin of the universe you have to believe that there is some kind of meta-physical creator?

well it goes without saying that IF everything has a source/origin/creator then so must the universe. What that creator is is another question. Most on here just jump to God as the given conclusion

For me people who need the crutch of religion to explain the unexplained lack intelligence. The unexplained is a challenge for enquiring minds to search for answers, not a big scarey thing that we should invent fairytales to make go away.

There is no 'lack of intelligence' imo. Most peopel do not have the 'knowledge' to decide either way. It may be difficult to prove but I bet a lot of 'athiests' are so because it is cool and dont know a thing about it.

As for the 'fairytales' bit, I find this a ludicrous argument tbh. If you want to look at fairy tales look at the 'scientific' assumptions and leaps of faith to 'fill in the gaps'. I gave one on this thread about the four artists asked to draw a woman based on 4 little fragments of bones. They made it up but people see it as true
 
No, you can't disprove the existence of something that has no consistent definition.
When that definition actually claims that the creature is unknowable, it's also unprovable.

To your limited mind maybe. The fact is everything has a source/origin/creator. Just because we dont know it doesnt mean it doesnt exist

You didn't read the link either, as usual.



I've repeatedly said everything.
Nothing is created.

and you are wrong everything has a source/origin/creator, which we have gone through the rest is semantics

There were no errors in it.
You just asserted that there were, without giving any examples.

I pointed you to it. You choosing not to accept what is in front of you is your problem. Darwins natural selection theory did not/does not fit
so an alternative model was 'found'



You've made the second one up, unfortunately.
That's the definition for anti-theism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism

clearly calls them irreligious too. so anti god

Precisely.
Nothing has ever been proven to have come into existence.

without a creator that is true
 
For me, true theism is the belief in fairies and dragons, but only pink ones.
Can we all just redefine words whenever we feel like it?

well you seem to, to suit your argument

didnt you say athiesm has nothing to do with god? or along those lines (as i know you like to be pedantic and semantic)
 
To your limited mind maybe. The fact is everything has a source/origin/creator. Just because we dont know it doesnt mean it doesnt exist

Not to my limited mind, as it's not my definition, it's that of your faith.
If something's unknowable, then by definition we can't know it.

and you are wrong everything has a source/origin/creator, which we have gone through the rest is semantics

It's not semantics and you've yet to show that anything has a creator.
The three words that you've used all have different meanings.

I pointed you to it. You choosing not to accept what is in front of you is your problem. Darwins natural selection theory did not/does not fit
so an alternative model was 'found'

Completely untrue.

clearly calls them irreligious too. so anti god

Anti-theists?
Yes, they are.
Well, anti-religion, at least.

without a creator that is true

And no creator has ever been proven, so...