How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

[Mnementh]

ninetailschris said:

Mnementh said:

Yeah, in my opinion the extreme worship to some companies has religious character. I only say church of Apple, that is even more extreme than the worship for video-game-companies.

Yes, many discussion are in the end about definitions.

And I have no interest in getting rid of religions. So I have no need to kill anyone.

All I want is to stop the exaggerated hate against atheism and to counter some strange arguments, that seem to prove religions, a creator or something while losing all logic in the process. In the end a real religion cannot be proved or disproved. It's all about believing somethng. Thats why it is also named belief or faith.

Some religions can be disproved, but usually only because they claim some stupid stuff. Like: the gods sit on this mountain - ok, we can go looking. But most religions can in their core not be proved or disproved.

I like this from other forum post but I will call someone out when there wrong and don't know what there talking about.

"Thats why it is also named belief or faith."

In the bible in reference to faith it was loyality based on the evidence.

 

When Jesus told his followers have faith he always referenced his works  in which the followers have seen. Jesus was the number one person when it came to saying have faith on me because of the evidence and not based on me just making claims.

"But most religions can in their core not be proved or disproved."

Here you give a very native response in not responding to our factors such as history or creditablity based on sources. Your respond is one of someone who clearly didn't read anything and just thinks combining random religions makes all religion false. 

""All I want is to stop the exaggerated hate against atheism and to counter some strange arguments, that seem to prove religions"

Here you sneakly try to run away from the arguments by discrediting them without addressing them in which case your point/sneak in is nothing but an avoiding the argument based on lack of ability to do so. This is called passive atheistism in which you have no ability to attack the arguments so you just makes claims like this to avoid the problem of answering them. Just saying they hold no ground doesn't mean its true its just a fallacy.

All religions are called 'faiths' or 'belief systems'. This is nothing specific to Christianity.

Jesus may have believed, that he has proofs (if this is even quoted right in the bible and not made up by the writers). But most things that seemed good proved in the past have been disproved with more knowledge and better measurement methods.

Not all christians claim, that the bible is true on all points. Some - especially christian scientist - reduce the bible to som unprovable points and see the rest as metaphor written by mortals in a time without much knowledge about the universe. Reduced as such, the christian religion cannot be proved or disproved. It is a belief. Others may claim, that the bible is more spot on or bring "proofs" like the ones we saw in this thread about physical laws or complexity of the DNA. Many stuff claimed that way has been already disproved.

And what do you mean with the last thing? I don't claim atheism is niversally true. I myself see me more as an agnostic. But if someone claims that mass murderers of history did so, because they were atheist, than I have to stand against this hate-shit. Because it is only to incite hate against atheists, and hate is what discrimination and repression is based on. Atheists face repression in many countries of the world:

http://www.iheu.org/new-global-report-discrimination-against-nonreligious

So spitting hate - like claiming atheism made Hitler doing his deeds - is very dangerous. That's what my sentence was about. I don't know what you made out of it.