Checkmate, You Atheist Dogs!

[Sunstone]

1. Atheists often deride theists for believing in an entity (i.e. god) who cannot be detected by any known means.

2. But atheists themselves believe that god is non-existent.

3. And since a non-existent god cannot be detected by any known means, then it must be that atheists believe in the very same god they criticize theists for believing in!

4. Which means they can't really be atheists.

Checkmate, you so-called atheists!

(Boy, are you guys confused!)

 

[David1967]

Sorry, I cant pick just one of those. That question should be multiple choice.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry, I cant pick just one of those. That question should be multiple choice.

Good point. I'll edit the poll.

 

[crossfire]

"theomanic"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, I'm pretty sure I've seen this argument before.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry, I'm pretty sure I've seen this argument before.

Seriously?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seriously?

Some arguments that are damn close, if not identical.

 

[Sunstone]

Some arguments that are damn close, if not identical.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To be fair, at the end of the day, any logical arguments for the existence of god always boil down to unsupportable assumptions and/or faulty logic. A less apparent (or obvious) degree of logical soundness really only serves to cloud the fact that all these arguments fundamentally share the same common flaws.

 

[BSM1]

I had to choose Sunstonian because....well....it's @Sunstone....isn't it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

1. Atheists often deride theists for believing in an entity (i.e. god) who cannot be detected by any known means.

2. But atheists themselves believe that god is non-existent.

3. And since a non-existent god cannot be detected by any known means, then it must be that atheists believe in the very same god they criticize theists for believing in!

4. Which means they can't really be atheists.

Checkmate, you so-called atheists!

(Boy, are you guys confused!)

WOOF !!!

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Sunstone;

3. And since a non-existent god cannot be detected by any known means, then it must be that atheists believe in the very same god they criticize theists for believing in!

I had to choose beautiful as closest - I would have said impeccable - except that above mate... There COULD be MORE THAN ONE GOD there and NONE of them are detectable by normal means

 

[crossfire]

1. Atheists often deride theists for believing in an entity (i.e. god) who cannot be detected by any known means.

2. But atheists themselves believe that god is non-existent.

3. And since a non-existent god cannot be detected by any known means, then it must be that atheists believe in the very same god they criticize theists for believing in!

4. Which means they can't really be atheists.

Checkmate, you so-called atheists!

(Boy, are you guys confused!)

I'm going to quote myself quoting Chuangzi in the
"Sneaky Stealth Thread About God Posing as Yet Another Political Thread...."

Such stealth deserves a rebuttal from Chuangzi! From his "Discussion On Making All Things Equal"

"The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by.11 So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. {the constant being Change--crossfire} This is what it means to use clarity.

Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something."​

 

[Wu Wei]

What do you have against atheist dogs

 

[Brickjectivity]

All that this amounts to is Star Trek Abuse or S.T.A.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It takes so much faith to be an atheist these days.

 

[Papoon]

I ticked all the boxes. Because...
"You are Everything,
And Everything is You"

 

[sun rise]

You took the Hitchhiker's Guide logic, stood it on its head and turned it inside out. So your argument succeeds in being upside down and backwards.

The Final Proof of the non-Existence of God was proved by a Babel Fish.

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Okay, that got rid of the atheist dogs. What about the atheist humans?

 

[sovietchild]

In Russia. Собака (a dog) as an insult means that someone behaves *****y. This insult is the rudest.