By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

 

Who won?

The Athiest 40 70.18%
 
The creationist 17 29.82%
 
Total:57
KungKras on 13 December 2012
DaRev said:
KungKras said:
DaRev said:
Talal said:
I don't want to get in an argument, and I'm not taking any side, however, the person claiming that something that cannot be seen nor felt needs to prove that it exists, not the other way around. It's like me saying that I have an invisible friend, you don't need proof to tell me that it doesn't exist the fact that you can't see it nor feel it is proof enough. I however need to prove to you that it exists.

ha ha, that's pure rubbish! I'll simply say, to counter your point, that you need the right TOOLS and dedicated RESEARCH to PROVE whether somethng is true or not.For scientists don't go around proving things without the right TOOLS and dedicated RESEARCH. So my question to you would be what TOOLS and how much RESEARCH have you put into proving whether God exists?

What does tools and dedicated research have to do with anything. The non-existance of Oden is just as unfalsifiable as the non-existance of Jahve.

Yeah, because you know millions or people and diverse cultures and countries and governments that believe in Odin, just as they do God and thus the truth about Odin is worth dedicated tools and research.

So the more people believe in something the more true it is? Get out of here!

We can do this with the Hindu gods or with Buddahs virgin birth or Mohammeds visions or whatever.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
beatles1082 on 13 December 2012
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.



Dr.Grass on 13 December 2012
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

I think you misunderstood the neaning of the very picture you posted.

Consequently you went ahead and misunderstood what I said.

Even taking these two statements into account, your reply still doesn't make sense. In fact, it's really not clear what on earth you're trying to say.



kanageddaamen on 13 December 2012
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:

 


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

I think you misunderstood the neaning of the very picture you posted.

Consequently you went ahead and misunderstood what I said.

Even taking these two statements into account, your reply still doesn't make sense. In fact, it's really not clear what on earth you're trying to say.

How is claiming that religion enables justification (and prompts) violence towards people based on their beliefs on gods while atheism is agnostic to peoples' beliefs on gods relative to whom violence should be directed a stupid argument?



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

weaveworld on 13 December 2012
Kasz216 said:
weaveworld said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
irstupid said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are.

Criticizing religion is "There's no substantial proof in god or the spiritual.  Until you can prove it, I can't take your claims as anything more than empty claims." 

That's the most pathetic argument ever invented.

It has the exact same counter argument.  "Prove that God doesn't exist"

That's the most pathetic counter argument ever. The one making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise, if you can't disprove flying space unicorns in the andromeda galaxy, it's a totally valid theory.

I feel like it's worth noting that if we are talking historical proof, as in, enough proof that something existed in the past... there actually as much proof for God as there is most commonly taught historical figures.

Just something interesting to consider the next time you think of a historical figure like Nero, or Julius Ceaser a number of Egyptian Pharohs etc.

 Or even more interestingly, third party figures.


Despite dig-sites and a lot of Roman cities still around, pictures of Caeser on coins and bustes of the same head, drawings, sadly enough copies of his manuscripts, mentions in historians work (Sallust 86-34BC) that did survive, you are saying that there is as much historical evidence of his existence as of gods existence?

Lets see... cities that exist that god supposidly intereacted with.   Check.  Far more so.  Hell some are still around today.

Pictures and statues of god on objects.   Check. 

Writings supposidly written by god.   Check.  Still in print no less!

Hisotircal works that mention god.  Yep.  All kinds of various sources.

(and yes this does work for most gods, or a lot of it does anyway.  I suppose not the wirtten works part.)

I'd point out though that i'm not so much argueing that God exists, as I am illuminating how historical proof is actually a lot less strict then you would think.

 

Are you not just referring to ideas of people instead of evidence? So what you would be saying is that Caesar and all that is related to him (could have) sprung from the human mind. Including Cleopatra, Marcus Anthonius and the likes?

Probably not the discussion i want to get into, since i don't feel the need to deny anyones existence, it's just the part about the historical proof that tripped me.



Around the Network
beatles1082 on 13 December 2012
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

I think you misunderstood the neaning of the very picture you posted.

Consequently you went ahead and misunderstood what I said.

Even taking these two statements into account, your reply still doesn't make sense. In fact, it's really not clear what on earth you're trying to say.

You said you hate that argument, it's NOT an argument (at least not about god's existence), it's just pointing out that atheists don't go around killing each other as opposed to people with differing religious views who kill each other ALL THE TIME (and kill atheists as well)  That's it.  What did I not understand, genius? 



Dr.Grass on 13 December 2012
kanageddaamen said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:

 


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

I think you misunderstood the neaning of the very picture you posted.

Consequently you went ahead and misunderstood what I said.

Even taking these two statements into account, your reply still doesn't make sense. In fact, it's really not clear what on earth you're trying to say.

How is claiming that religion enables justification (and prompts) violence towards people based on their beliefs on gods while atheism is agnostic to peoples' beliefs on gods relative to whom violence should be directed a stupid argument?


Firstly, that is indeed what he was claiming, but he doesn't seem to know it. (EDIT: I was wrong about that one)

Secondly, it IS a stupid argument. Saying "religion enables justification (for) violence" is not the views of someone with a little wisdom. Surely you can see that the,

race, nationality, religion, language, culture...etc. al

Over which wars have been fought, and over which we all constantly fight every day (on a smaller scale and less successfully than Hitler for instance), are all just designations for the exact same principle.

No my friends. If you were to actually think about this properly, and just leave the anger that is manifesting due to Mr.Dawkins aside, you might just be able to spot the self-evident truth in the face.

Now, can anyone spot what links all those bolded things together? Because all of them have the same origin, and ALL of them have caused wars. Religion has just been a better excuse than any of the others. Come on, use the grey matter.

I suppose the very fact that all religions attempt to instill an implicit non-violence in the practitioner is not even a factor for most of you all.

Is it so difficult to actually think for yourselves?



Player1x3 on 13 December 2012
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

 there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.
  • Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
  • Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
  • Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 15 million dead
  • Vladimir Lenin, Atheist: 5.5 million dead
  • Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
  • Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
  • Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead

          (all in time span of max 70 years)
Vs.

  • Catholic Inqusition: (time span: 500+ years) 20-30.000 dead
  • The Crusades :  (time span:200+ years) 1.5-2 million dead

Atheist dictators killed millions of people over the past century, and caused more death in a much shorter time span than almost any other catastrophe that has happened in the civilized world, and imprisoned  or murdered hundreds of thousands in an effort to eradicate religion itself, because, you know, mass murder is the inevitable result when a community becomes too intolerant of outlandish dogmas and too fond of critical thinking. Oh the irony!



Veknoid_Outcast on 13 December 2012
Kasz216 said:
weaveworld said:
Kasz216 said:
KungKras said:
irstupid said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are.

Criticizing religion is "There's no substantial proof in god or the spiritual.  Until you can prove it, I can't take your claims as anything more than empty claims." 

That's the most pathetic argument ever invented.

It has the exact same counter argument.  "Prove that God doesn't exist"

That's the most pathetic counter argument ever. The one making the claim has to prove it. Otherwise, if you can't disprove flying space unicorns in the andromeda galaxy, it's a totally valid theory.

I feel like it's worth noting that if we are talking historical proof, as in, enough proof that something existed in the past... there actually as much proof for God as there is most commonly taught historical figures.

Just something interesting to consider the next time you think of a historical figure like Nero, or Julius Ceaser a number of Egyptian Pharohs etc.

 Or even more interestingly, third party figures.


Despite dig-sites and a lot of Roman cities still around, pictures of Caeser on coins and bustes of the same head, drawings, sadly enough copies of his manuscripts, mentions in historians work (Sallust 86-34BC) that did survive, you are saying that there is as much historical evidence of his existence as of gods existence?

Lets see... cities that exist that god supposidly intereacted with.   Check.  Far more so.  Hell some are still around today.

Pictures and statues of god on objects.   Check. 

Writings supposidly written by god.   Check.  Still in print no less!

Hisotircal works that mention god.  Yep.  All kinds of various sources.

(and yes this does work for most gods, or a lot of it does anyway.  I suppose not the wirtten works part.)

I'd point out though that i'm not so much argueing that God exists, as I am illuminating how historical proof is actually a lot less strict then you would think.

 

But the role of the historian is to process all this information -- diaries, artwork, coinage, architecture, histories, and correspondence -- and separate the credible from the incredible.

The sources you cited are credible sources, but the subject matter is incredible. A coin with the face of God -- or a centaur for that matter -- need not prove that such things existed; it only suggests that such things were worshipped (or admired).



Dr.Grass on 13 December 2012
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:
Dr.Grass said:
beatles1082 said:


This is the STUPIDEST. Argument in existence. My blood boils when I hear atheists spewing this utter crap. You're just jumping on the exact same bandwagon you're supposedly decrying.


You're just too stupid to see it.

Obiovusly it's not an argument against the existence of god, it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist.   There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist.

I think you misunderstood the neaning of the very picture you posted.

Consequently you went ahead and misunderstood what I said.

Even taking these two statements into account, your reply still doesn't make sense. In fact, it's really not clear what on earth you're trying to say.

You said you hate that argument, it's NOT an argument (at least not about god's existence), it's just pointing out that atheists don't go around killing each other as opposed to people with differing religious views who kill each other ALL THE TIME (and kill atheists as well)  That's it.  What did I not understand, genius? 

That underlined part is not appreciated.

"it's just showing that there's no need to feel threatened by an atheist."

That's NOT the goal of that statement. Moreover, the statement is fuzzy, because it could imply (and I took it as such, but have now realised what you meant) that a theist needn't be threatened by an atheist (not in terms of wars, but on a singular - argumentative level).

"There are still 7 countries where the state can excecute citizens for being an atheist."

So then this does fit in. But it's not really appropriate. Those countries you are referring are also among (there is some overlap) the countries where you can get executed for adultery. No fair to put that in here.

Now that I see you're indeed behind you're argument, I'll say it again - it is overly used and infested with more emotion that reason.


OK? I'm just trying to be straight up in these forums, I don't mean to unnecessarily criticize, so I suppose I was a little too presumptuous about what you're meaning was there.