Can their be a good argument Against God?

You are free to believe whatever you like, but make sure it’s correct, you don’t want to be wrong about something like this.

Actually you’ve said alot of time with this type of argument, rather than going on forever and having it refuted.

Woops. I guess that error puts me in with the translators of the Bible.

The point I’m making is, and please look at this so I can get feedback.

An atheist argument on the existence of God, will never be a good argument.

here’s why:

If God does exist, the argument fails, if God doesn’t exist the argument still fails, because as many have said you can’t prove a negative, and to disprove something we’ve never concepted is nothing short of an impossibility I feel.

I’m only making a point not to jump to conclusions, I try to be as critical as I can on here, and I only see it respectful for you to do the same.

How critical of yourself is it to lump everybody with different beliefs into a single group?

I’m lumping them into the group that misses Jesus… I don’t see why that’s wrong. If the cars black call it black, don’t call it red just because someone doesn’t like the color black.

Oh yes and I’ll add that I believe with Christ, what religion can anyone have. I’m willing to hear you give me a good religion that can compete with Christianity, shoot.

But you act as though this isn’t the only characteristic they share. Nevermind.

I don’t understand.

Club29:

  1. The best argument against God is the lack of evidence for His existence. It is indeed difficult to prove a negative, but it’s not necessary to prove God’s nonexistence in order to be intellectually free to disbelieve in Him. For that, all that’s necessary is that you be unable to prove that He DOES exist.

  2. You say that non-Christians don’t have Jesus. How do you know this?

There is a typo, yes? You mean withOUT Christ?

First, let’s hear what you mean by “good”. Second, competes how? In numbers, peace of mind?

Wow. I just said I didn’t understand, but you articulated. I should remember that…

Navigator

This is correct.

All E are C
All C are N
All N are I

All E are I

E-existence
C-Changing
N-need for stability
I-Instability

I don’t think I’m going to veer the course of this thread too much by asking you to point out the logical fallacy.

([size=75]It’s like you’ve learned a new word and are dying to use it[/size])

Yes without, my mistake.

Discard the word good, I’ve had a lack of sleep, I was probably refering to a good argument on a religion that can compete with Christianity.

yea pretty fucking convenient.

says a lot about the value of the arguement in the first place and the belief itself.

Yes I was referring to the argument in the first place, and how ignorant such a thing ends up being. Not sure what you mean as to pertaining to the belief, as I said if God exists the argument is faulty, if God doesn’t exist then you have the job of trying to prove that nothing is there, which can be almost useless.

If god exists, then atheism, which states that God doesn’t exist, contradicts “truth”. If god doesn’t exist, then atheism, which states that God doesn’t exist, accurately describes truth and can be used to make reliably correct predictions. I don’t see why I have to prove that nothing is there. The way I see it, I just have to prove that it’s more beneficial in this life to believe that nothing is there. What do you know about pragmatism, club29?

If god doesn’t exist, the argument of his existence fails, and if god does exist, it still fails because theists are left trying to prove that something unobservable, or, if observable, uncommunicable exists.

Exactly, I think you made my point clearer. This is why almost all arguments I hear now debating between atheist and theist are about what’s the better lifestyle to live. Theist have to have a way of providing that life is more beneficial with our beliefs, because if not most would rather not take the chance to even consider. They almost have to debate as if God doesn’t exist. Lol, Problem is where do atheist and theist every debate on the same level, it seems theism has to discuss things as if God doesn’t exist. But this matter only seems to complicate itself.

I don’t think it’s necessarily just about lifestyle. It’s about all the positive and negative effects of the belief combined, in comparison with the other belief’s positives and negatives. And I would say that atheism is more beneficial on the whole right now, and will become increasingly so as the years go by (or it will at least it being more beneficial will become increasingly more obvious). If we want to debate over that, I’m for it.

Not necessarily. There are three categories: effects if god exists, effects if he doesn’t, effects that occur either way. All the effects of belief in either religion can be categorized accordingly.

Yes, I am willing to debate over that. I want your argument first of why atheism is a better way to live.

True, I’m only saying you can’t base an argument on God exists when this has not been discovered, we can only use the knowledge we have as of now. This is all I mean.

exactly which is why debating theology is a huge waste of time. which is why converting anyone is a huge waste of time. i mean how do you gain leverage in an argument that has no evidence to support one thing or the other? my faith says that this is truer than what your faith says is true? that would be retarded. you need a convincing proof of something to make a point and theology doesnt let you make one. by the definition of metaphysics its literally impossible to prove anything.