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
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"

IT wasn't an argument, it was just a random statement I thought up off the top of my head in the spur of the moment.  Forgive me internet white knite, for I am not interested in doing an hour of research before making each and every statement on a videogame forum.  



Around the Network
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are.

There's a subtle but critical difference between criticizing something and 'bashing' it.  

Bashing religion is "All people of faith are ignorant sheep who can't think for themselves!  Religion at its core is a flawed theory and you're all dumb for believing it!" 

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." 

Learn the difference and you, too, can be on the path to enlightenment! 


But If i was religious my beliefs wouldn't be claims. They would be just that, beliefs. They would only be claims if i went around trying to convince others, which I wouldn't. Just like I don't try to convince religious folks that their beliefs are untrue. So who are you to "enlighten" someone who holds beliefs that differ from yours when they are minding their own business. Isn't that what atheists hate about certain religious people to begin with. Looks up the word hypocrit and then get back to me about englightenment. 
btw, this thread is basically bashing religious people. 

Also, Here's the definition of claims since you seem to be confused about that as well. 

Verb
State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
 
Noun
An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.



Why are you wasting your time? You're like a theistic debate bull, trapped in a little cage and just waiting for someone to make a slightly less than ideal statement so you can burst out and flail about, hoping to harm the argument.  

So again I ask, why waste your time debating religion?  you can't prove god exist, and you can't prove god doesn't exist.  me?  I don't really care.  Even if there is a god there's no way to tell which religion is right, if any religions are even close to the truth.  

Are you that blinde? I'm clearly not debating you on religion. I'm debating you on someones right to beleive what they want, and to do so without having to be ridiculed for it or harassed by others. I made that pretty obvious from the begining. Stop making yourself look bad and just stop now.



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

Alara317 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"

IT wasn't an argument, it was just a random statement I thought up off the top of my head in the spur of the moment.  Forgive me internet white knite, for I am not interested in doing an hour of research before making each and every statement on a videogame forum.  

Wasn't arguing against you, was just pointing out that the statement where someone has to prove something for it to be true, is the same as someone having to prove it ain't true for it to be true.  It's a stupid circle argument and anyone that ever uses one or the other is being an idiot.

 

And I belive its spelt Knight.



HesAPooka said:

Are you that blinde? I'm clearly not debating you on religion. I'm debating you on someones right to beleive what they want, and to do so without having to be ridiculed for it or harassed by others. I made that pretty obvious from the begining. Stop making yourself look bad and just stop now.

You most certainly are allowed to believe what you want, but if what you believe is irrational, then you should be open to criticism.  Not insults or hatred, but fair, rational criticism.  if I believed a Rock gave me invulerability powers, and I was planning on running in traffic with it, wouldn't you want to stop and explain why that's stupid?  

And I didn't even bother reading your first response.  it was long and multiquoted.  I've learned the smartest thing to do when religion is discussed is to not bother reading anything more than a paragraph or two.  It's either a hate-rant or carefully selected nonsense, as per the OP video.  Either way you were wasting your time.  you shouldn't need to make your claim, it should just be a given.  



irstupid said:

Wasn't arguing against you, was just pointing out that the statement where someone has to prove something for it to be true, is the same as someone having to prove it ain't true for it to be true.  It's a stupid circle argument and anyone that ever uses one or the other is being an idiot.

 

And I belive its spelt Knight.

yeah, Knight is rite.  

and if you reread my original statement on the matter, I didn't say that lack of proof means something is false, I said there's no reason to beleive in a god becuase there's no proof. If there's no concrete evidence or proof, there's no reason to believe it.  That doesn't mean that's enough to NOT believe in it, just that there's no reason TO believe in it.  



Around the Network
Alara317 said:
irstupid said:

Wasn't arguing against you, was just pointing out that the statement where someone has to prove something for it to be true, is the same as someone having to prove it ain't true for it to be true.  It's a stupid circle argument and anyone that ever uses one or the other is being an idiot.

 

And I belive its spelt Knight.

yeah, Knight is rite.  

and if you reread my original statement on the matter, I didn't say that lack of proof means something is false, I said there's no reason to beleive in a god becuase there's no proof. If there's no concrete evidence or proof, there's no reason to believe it.  That doesn't mean that's enough to NOT believe in it, just that there's no reason TO believe in it.  

I don't think you understand what Belief is.  If something can be proven true or you know its true, then its not believing.  I dont believe 2 + 2 = 4.  I know its 4.

Pretty sure a million Santa Clause movies have pointed this out.  How many times has someone told Santa that he should just show everyone that he is real.  Then Santa says something to the extent of "It's about believing in me, not seeing me"

Btw, its also right, not rite.



Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:

Are you that blinde? I'm clearly not debating you on religion. I'm debating you on someones right to beleive what they want, and to do so without having to be ridiculed for it or harassed by others. I made that pretty obvious from the begining. Stop making yourself look bad and just stop now.

You most certainly are allowed to believe what you want, but if what you believe is irrational, then you should be open to criticism.  Not insults or hatred, but fair, rational criticism.  if I believed a Rock gave me invulerability powers, and I was planning on running in traffic with it, wouldn't you want to stop and explain why that's stupid?  

And I didn't even bother reading your first response.  it was long and multiquoted.  I've learned the smartest thing to do when religion is discussed is to not bother reading anything more than a paragraph or two.  It's either a hate-rant or carefully selected nonsense, as per the OP video.  Either way you were wasting your time.  you shouldn't need to make your claim, it should just be a given.  

Right ;) 



I was walking down along the street and I heard this voice saying, "Good evening, Mr. Dowd." Well, I turned around and here was this big six-foot rabbit leaning up against a lamp-post. Well, I thought nothing of that because when you've lived in a town as long as I've lived in this one, you get used to the fact that everybody knows your name.

Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
Alara317 said:
HesAPooka said:
I'm not religious, but I also don't go around bashing people who are.

There's a subtle but critical difference between criticizing something and 'bashing' it.  

Bashing religion is "All people of faith are ignorant sheep who can't think for themselves!  Religion at its core is a flawed theory and you're all dumb for believing it!" 

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." 

Learn the difference and you, too, can be on the path to enlightenment! 


But If i was religious my beliefs wouldn't be claims. They would be just that, beliefs. They would only be claims if i went around trying to convince others, which I wouldn't. Just like I don't try to convince religious folks that their beliefs are untrue. So who are you to "enlighten" someone who holds beliefs that differ from yours when they are minding their own business. Isn't that what atheists hate about certain religious people to begin with. Looks up the word hypocrit and then get back to me about englightenment. 
btw, this thread is basically bashing religious people. 

Also, Here's the definition of claims since you seem to be confused about that as well. 

Verb
State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
 
Noun
An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.



Why are you wasting your time? You're like a theistic debate bull, trapped in a little cage and just waiting for someone to make a slightly less than ideal statement so you can burst out and flail about, hoping to harm the argument.  

So again I ask, why waste your time debating religion?  you can't prove god exist, and you can't prove god doesn't exist.  me?  I don't really care.  Even if there is a god there's no way to tell which religion is right, if any religions are even close to the truth.  


Elephant in the room...Ok I'll bring it out. I do believe God exists. The video is not that funny considering there are some very compelling arguments for the existence of God. The progression of logic goes like this:

- Either the universe always existed(no beginning, no end) or had a starting point (big bang).

-> You can't have a universe that always existed because you need cause and effect. And also considering we discovered the  point of origin of the universe itself. Something had to establish the concept of space and time and then put something in that space and time to start anything.

-  Then who created 'that something' or what people identify as God?

-> The something must have always existed without beginning nor end due to a simple line of reasoning which I think Socrates came up with: If God A wanted to create the Universe, but needed God B to create him first who needed God C to create him (B) who needed God D to create him (C) to infinity, then God A would never be able to create the universe, but yet the universe exists so I would conclude God A without needing God B existed.

- How do you know it is an intelligence being? The universe is so intricately woven and there are so many dependancies that it would be illogical for such dependancies to come about without intent. I ask myself: Why is my body symmetrical? Why do I conveniently have a thumb facing my fingers to grip objects? Why is my head not where my butt is and my hands in my chest and my eyes on my nipples? Everything is so conveniently placed.

A very old story and forgive me for mentioning it...but if you found a digital camera on a beach you'd never say a tornado came and blew the sand around and miraculously the granuals arranged themselves and became the camera. The camera is too complex and its features are too convenient. The way all its parts just are molded and put together are too precise and they all just fit together.

I was 14 when I conceded as a thinking young adult that God must exist and he must be intelligent to design all this.



Mendicate Bias said:
badgenome said:
This also works for "How to argue for Neo Keynesianism."

Are you totally against Keynesian economics or just in the governments approach to it regarding the current economic problems. (1)

Wouldn't you say, even though the economic theory itself did not exist at the time, that a keynesian principle was used in response to the great depression. (2)

Wouldn't it also be rational to say that any centralized government, no matter the counry will always take a keynesian approach to a fiscal crisis, versus allowing instability to threaten their government? (3)

If I may, I'd like to respond to this post.

1) Keynesian economics doesn't work. Forget about morality (stealing from Pete to give to Paul), or what happens in theory versus reality (thanks to cronyism), the theory itself is deeply flawed. Take, for example, the "paradox of thift", where saving money causes a slope in consumption, which in turn lowers employment, which causes more saving. The fact of the matter is that saving is essential for economic growth because it's the only way in which businesses can attain funds in order to invest.

Keynesianism has no idea what interest rates even are. They just see it as a number which should always be as close to zero as physically possible. They don't understand that it's a price on time preference. Just as fixing the price on, say, oil causes market distortions so does fixing the price of time preference.

2) The Keynesian principle was used in response to the great despression. Hell, it was the keynesian principle that turned the recession into the great depression (currently at work, if you want sources for this claim, ask, and I'll dig them out later). It's the keynesian response that's turned this current recession into some 5-years (and more to come) of uncertaintly, stagnation, and regression.

3) They will always take the keynesian position. Doesn't mean it's right. In fact, taking the Keynesian position will cause more instability. Maybe that's what they want. More instability means they can claim more powers as a police state.



Ha ha! funny! One of my favorites is when a fundamentalist goes into the 'banana was made for humans' verbiage then I ask about pineapples. Pineapples are spiky, hard to get into (without a knife/tool) and the plants they grow on a sword stabbing beast. (Seriously, their leaves can hurt when they accidentally pierce you when you are just walking buy. )

Religion is like a favorite sexual position it is a private thing and noneones business unless you make it. And please do not assume I want to join you in it.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!