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
small44 on 13 December 2012

Bible was being modified by people,in the coran it's said that the world was not flat before the science prove it.
And why trusting the science when they said someting but after many years this things are wrong.



PS4 - over 100 millions let's say 120m
Xbox One - 70m
Wii U - 25m

Vita - 15m if it will not get Final Fantasy Kingdoms Heart and Monster Hunter 20m otherwise
3DS - 80m

Around the Network
kanageddaamen on 13 December 2012
small44 said:
Bible was being modified by people,in the coran it's said that the world was not flat before the science prove it.
And why trusting the science when they said someting but after many years this things are wrong.


The Quran also says salt water and fresh water don't mix.

Science is based on observation.  As our ability to observe improves (via technology) our understanding improves and the hypothesis is modified.  Science is never claimed to be a definite, this is absolute fact, but a "this is most likely true based on the data available, and here is how to reproduce my conclusions." "Hey, I can do what he did and get the same result, it is a good answer for now"



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:
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?



Player1x3 on 13 December 2012
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:

This and this is how you destroy an atheist in an argument

Are you serious? WLC is a clown, he doesn't destroy anyone.


Keep the damage control classy :)



KungKras on 13 December 2012
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:

This and this is how you destroy an atheist in an argument

Are you serious? WLC is a clown, he doesn't destroy anyone.


Keep the damage control classy :)

It really is Sam Harris that destroys him. I mean seriously, WLC is advocating the slaughter of children in that debate.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 December 2012
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.

 

You are holding God to a higher "proof" standard then another historical being. (since few actually maintain god is doing stuff on earth currently that people could see eaisly.)



Mnementh on 13 December 2012
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"

Prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [GTA6]

Izo on 13 December 2012

Use the phrase: "The first rock"



dsgrue3 on 13 December 2012
Mnementh 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"

Prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Or Leprechauns, or Buddha, or fairies, or life on distant planets, or that there aren't infinite universes, etc, etc, etc. 



Dr.Grass on 13 December 2012

JoeTheBro said:


I'm a science guy


What does that mean?