I am an atheist. I’ll let anybody try to debunk my atheism.
Here’s your chance religious people as I am the ultimate atheist you’ll ever have the pleasure of ever conversing with.
Tell me why I am incorrect in my assertions of atheism.
Anybody may challenge me.
If you mean to say that your position is that you believe there is no god, then there’s nothing to debunk. If you intend to prove that there is no god, then you can’t. That’s the whole crux man. No matter how much the scientists observes, there’s always shit he hasn’t gotten around to looking at, and theists can slip god into just about anyplace they want. You know…like he’s everywhere, or he’s way up in space or something. Until you search everywhere and all of space you can’t say for sure he’s not there. Even then, you coulda searched all of everything and all of space and you could be like, “I checked everywhere there’s no god” and people could be like, “you just missed him every time he was on the other side of the galaxy right as you flew up in your space ship”.
It’s a winless debate. Both sides argue the same thing and neither is a good argument.
Agnosticism is based upon absurdity and foolishness. That is all.
I am looking for a religious person to explain to me how I am incorrect in their positing that there is a God.
So far, I maintain there is no God.
The ol, “absurdity and foolishness” rebuttal. Pretty strong one.
In order to say that God ‘could’ exist you first have to entertain the existence of God to begin with.
Of course God is supposedly unknowable thus the agnostic is postulating the possibility of an unknowable entity. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
The Agnostic: “Maybe this unknowable entity really does exist. I don’t know for sure.” The entertaining thoughts of a babbling idiot.
You might go at it analytically, deducting solely from observation in an attempt to form a cohesive and complete understanding of the world, and then realize that there’s a bunch of shit that can’t be addressed, observed, or calculated for by your method. Then you got one guy saying, “well, it must be the case that there’s something out there we don’t know about”, and another saying, “maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift in science as we cannot answer all these questions with the presuppositions that we currently hold”. You can water it down every which way and in the end the whole debate just sits as a testament to problems in epistemology that aren’t easily solved.
Sometimes people on psychadelics, or in other chases meditation, will feel an over being, a higher force surrounding at least their own reality. Some people equate this to a source, some call it Source, which is like a positive energy which powers the universe and holds it together. Being primed with preconceptions and religious overtones, they’ll call it God. But the fact they sense this, it effects them and they believe in it. You can call it hallucination. Most atheists will call any ESP hallucination. It’s an easy route for them. For things like that, higher things, it usually requires direct experiences or perceptions to alter your view on reality, otherwise the person will just believe in pop realism. If I didn’t have my paranormal experiences I would be a materialist like the others.
Sure about wanting that?
Well, basically, throughout most of human history, atheism has been seen as silliness and delusion by almost everybody. When it comes to the facts, nothing relevant to the matter has been discovered or thought of in 2,000 years. The only thing that's changed when it comes to theism vs. atheism is fashion.
So for example, in South Korea, it’s a popular and well-known belief that falling asleep in a room with a fan running can kill you. Not just crazy people think this, doctors and lawyers and stuff think so too. There’s warning labels on fans over there. And when I say ‘fans’, I mean just regular old ‘keep you cool in the summer’ fans. They all automatically shut themselves off after a couple hours just in case you fall asleep, because we wouldn’t want you to be killed by the fan. True story.
Atheism is like the fan-kill belief. The only reason why you think your position is strong is because you’re in the analogical South Korea. You don’t believe in God cause why? Cause evolution? Darwin believed in God. Because suffering? You don’t know what suffering is compared to a martyr. Because the omni’s contradict? Atheists made up the definitions of the omni’s so they could make them contradictory. The only reason why you think some argument against the existence of God is good is because humans don’t live long enough to see those arguments refuted 10,000 times. The only reason why you find no evidence for the existence of God is because you didn’t look, or because you haven’t apply coherent, consistent notions of the term ‘evidence’ to what you believe.
If you were just a 250 year old atheist, you would have started your atheist life believing that the world never began to exist, that Jesus wasn’t a real person, that none of the places in the Bible other than Egypt were real places, the New Testament was written about 200 years after the events in question, that the Problem of Evil was logically sound, that the idea of the human species beginning from one set of parents was preposterous, and that the universe was completely determined and explained by Newton’s laws. You would have lived to see every reason you were an atheist refuted. Really- all of them. But people don’t live so long, so you are free to have the hip new reasons, and free to imagine that the old bad reasons have nothing to do with you. But if you take the long view, and imagine every atheist and every theist as really just two people arguing for thousands of years, Atheist has had to concede every point he’s tried to make, and is on like his 50th backpedal or revision.
Yeah, but other than that,
“Where’s the evidence???” 
:-"
Ucc, I’ll give you credit where it’s due. This post was brutal.
And I thought you said during our discussion that you don’t care what a casual guy on the street thinks, or something like that. But nevermind you being a 
. Too bad the opinions of the masses don’t change facts. It’s a fact that atheists are either delusional or they aren’t. The opinion of the masses is irrelevant. Just like 2+2=4. Even if all people on earth made a consensus that 2+2=45 it wouldn’t change matters of fact. Didn’t we went over something similar to this in our discussion already?
You gave a much more sophisticated version of the argument, went something like: ‘Most of the beliefs most people have are true. Belief in god is a belief most people have. Belief in god is probably true.’ Or something like that. It was a lot more appealing and slightly harder to refute.
Evolution and Darwin have nothing to do with most claims about god being either contradictory or having no evidence to support them (mostly both). As Matt Dilahunty said, even if Richard Dawkins converted to Islam today, that wouldn’t make atheism any less credible of a position to hold nor would it make Islam any more credible. Actually, I’m not sure if he used Islam or Christianity, but you get the point.
Other people’s suffering is what Problem of Evil is all about.
As far as I remember God is claimed to be all knowing, all powerful, all loving and such nonsense by Christians, no?
It’s enough that every argument for god by theists has a counter argument refuting it constructed by atheists. Don’t need any arguments against god, unless you give a specific definition of god that can be easily proven wrong just by observing the world (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god who just so happens to let Fritzl rape and abuse his children in the basement for 20 years)
The only reason why you find no evidence for the non existence of God is because you didn’t look, or because you haven’t apply coherent, consistent notions of the term ‘evidence’ to what you believe.
Depending on definitions that just might be correct.
Perhaps he wasn’t. If he really cared about proving anything to you or me, he would do it. So either he doesn’t care, or he doesn’t exist.
And that’s what, impossible? Not that I really care about arguing NT or Jesus, we have no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong so it’s pointless.
So you still hold that a being that causes and allows billions of organisms to suffer and die when he could have chosen not to, is a good being? 
Now that I finally have some time on my hands I should really get back to my Problem of Evil thread, cause I see some people going dangerously astray from what I consider moral behavior 
. I guess that people need to be reminded that a being that designs black plague and small pox knowing what they’ll do is not exactly all loving. Oh well…
. Wait… what?
What are those points that an atheist has had to concede?
And why would that not make sense? Just because the entity is unknowable doesn’t mean it’s any less possible that it exists. However, I would say that it means that talking about something that is by definition unknowable is a waste of time.
Also, Tyler, what you seem to be taking is a position of a strong atheist and you switch the burden of proof upon you. I advise you to be careful and rethink that position as some gods can’t be proven not to exist (though that, of course, doesn’t prove that they do exist).
And what of the theist? I’d expect the same, except the revisions would go well beyond 50. I’m not sticking up for Tyler here, I just find the quote above to be a little hyperbolic and clearly biased.
Again, same for the theist. The only difference is that theists have a magic bullet that can be or do anything they want. They can literally fill every possible gap in knowledge or understanding with God, and that’s precisely what they’ve done. In the end, they are reduced to arguments from personal experience, which tend to be dubious at best.
Having been an atheist for 40 years, I can state that religion and god are simply
faith based which means either you believe or you don’t. I don’t because there is no evidence
of any kind for a god. Simple as that. Whereas a religious person see’s god in every type of evidence.
A rock, well that is a sign for god, a tree well that is god, a bird god. a rock is just a rock and a tree is just a tree
and a bird is just a bird. The biggest problem a religious person has is explaining evil. Evil basically
refutes everything a religious person says whereas for me, Evil really doesn’t exist because it is just
another level of human behavior.
Kropotkin
A belief in absolutes, including the Judeo-Christian god, is a denial of the fluid state of reality, so to be an atheist is essentially to be one who denies those who deny. For one to state that there isn’t a god-as-absolute, is certainly worthwhile in some contexts, but to let one’s identity largely revolve around a label implying that fact is showing those who fantasize about absolutes too much respect.
It doesn’t reflect an appreciation of oneself to identify oneself as that against what one opposes. To oppose something is to actively seek to end the threat it presents, and once the threat ceases, to be apathetic to the element’s continued, but innocuous (concerning yourself and your values), existence. Even when one values an opponent as an equal, more or less, and that which makes him stronger, he need not concern himself labeling himself against that opponent.
Worse still, if one’s opponents believe themselves to be perpetual victims, to identify oneself as that-whose-against-them, is to only feed them rather than oppose them.
God is an imaginary fiction or fabrication concocted by mindless babbling idiots in our ancient history.
At best God is an intentional concocted fiction by early forms of governments to manipulate and control people.
Am I missing anything here? What else is there to know?
What is it that has so called agnostics in a fussy? You don’t know what exactly?
The agnostic assumes there is a possibility for the cosmological argument for God. Well, that’s a big fucking assumption and leap of faith where the agnostic might as well address themselves as a full blown believer.
The atheist on the other hand knows that when we understand that God doesn’t exist beyond people’s imaginations that all cosmological arguments fall on their face.
Once again, what are you having a hard time understanding here?
The only argument is “burden of proof”, that lies solely with the Theist.
Smug as it might seem to a Theist, an atheist has nothing to prove. That’s why the challenge of the thread is a bit of a yawn.
So what? I feel a divine ecstatic presence cumming inside a woman. Is this a sign that I am God? 
Ever feel at one with the universe as your ramming a woman on a bed? The best psychedelic experience out there.
So what you are saying is that when you are stoned, god seems more real.
Not much of an argument is it?
Drugs of this sort are most often associated with errors in judgement, do you not agree?
Having sampled some of these substances, I’d not be fool enough to try to convince anyone that the experience of them was more reliable or real that NOT being on those drugs.