• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Present arguments for atheism

Deathbydefault

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
It most certainly does when you reject the general logic of subjectivity, because the general logic applies to all subjectivity.
Click to expand...

Cool.
So you obviously think that babies and children deserve whatever hardships they go through in 3rd world countries because it is a test from God.
That isn't a misrepresentation of how you think, when using your own logic.

Also, you don't have the authority, nor the credentials, to even begin spouting off what applies to all of something.
 
Iti oj

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
q konn said:
No, your missing the point. The issue is whether someone ''disagreeing'' with my form of beliefs, is indicative of one or the other being incorrect, and also relevant to the OP ''theism''.

I'm not going to write a thesis, for the purpose of comparison in some arbitrary ''standard''.
That is why I already said you could simply ask me a question, and you have not done so.
Click to expand...
its not about you, its the plethora of deities and the mountain of different views on them.
i have already asked you several questions you only answered one.
most importantly what evidence do you believe suggest god.

what do you consider evidence for god? whats your opinion on the nature of the bible. the nature of sin and forgiveness? you already said your not a yec.


the bible alone is enough to disprove God , its illogical, contradicts itself, contradicts science and history and is filled with immoral actions . if you don't think the bible is the infallible word of god then why believe in that god in the first place.

the topic needs parameters fr depth and detail.
 
Last edited:
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
That you write this garbage in stead of engaging how truth has a subjective element
Click to expand...
No it doesn't have a subjective element. Something is true whether you subjectively think it's true or not! If somebody says to you "The earth is flat" and you say "Yes, that's true" it doesn't mean that the earth is flat just because you both think that's true Mo. What is true isn't influenced by your subjective opinions.
 
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
q konn said:
Well, first off, of course many christians disagree with me.
But aside from that, what would that actually indicate about theism? And how would you discern who is ''correct'', in the first place, especially as a non-Xian?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "correct":

- if a person calls themselves a Christian and they're sincere, I accept that this label applies to them.
- I don't worry about distinguishing between "correct" and "incorrect" (or "authentic" and "inauthentic" might be better terms) Christianity. In and of itself, I don't really care if a particular belief of a particular Christian is what Jesus or the apostles wanted their followers to believe.
- If by "correct", you mean "factually true", I evaluate religious claims the way I'd evaluate any claim (though a Christian claim being false wouldn't necessarily make it "not Christian". I don't assume that "Christian" implies "true").

Edit: as for what all this implies for theism, the point I was making before we went off on this tangent is that religious experiences are not a reliable indicator of truth. Therefore, they're not a reasonable justification for accepting a claim.

This means that to rationally justify accepting Christian claims - or any other religious claims - we need a compelling case built on other evidence.

So... can such a case be made for your version of Christianity?

My whole "argument for atheism" boils down to two points:

- we shouldn't accept claims until we have good reason to do so.
- I have yet to find a good reason to accept any god-claim that has ever been presented to me.

The moment you present a good reason to accept any god-claim, this argument no longer holds water. Can you do this?
 
Last edited:
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
Funny, given that I used the quote function, the post I quoted from was http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/present-arguments-for-atheism.180554/page-17#post-4461618, this was the post you edited, I didn't write what I quoted (quote function), and any moron can see that you changed your post after I quoted you. But sure. You didn't say that. I typed what I quoted rather than quoting it, knowing that you would later edit your post such that I could use the quote feature and not be obviously liar because of your editing. Right.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you'd choose to lie about this, but you should know that staff can see the edit history of every post.

It's easy to put the wrong header information on a quote, and I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did this by accident. You've made it clear that this isn't the case, so I've reported it for the active staff to sort out and take action on as they deem appropriate.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
I have no idea why you'd choose to lie about this, but you should know that staff can see the edit history of every post.
Click to expand...
I do know that. Which is why I'm so surprised. True, members can't see your lies, but staff members can. I didn't write the quote. There is no quote corresponding to what is in the portion I quoted (attributed to you). You edited the post I quoted. Thus, only staff members could demonstrate you to be an obvious liar or me to be one, but as you are a staff member and I am not, you can maintain that I am misquoting you because you can depend upon my incapacity to demonstrate the post I quoted from. I can't even demonstrate that I accidently quoted from another post that was edited because you have all the power to manipulate things here. I don't.

All I have is the power to rely on plain common sense: I quote posts all of the time. Here, I could have either quoted a post of yours or of another's that doesn't exist (and mistakenly used the quote function to link to a quote that you just so happen to have edited), or I must have WRITTEN what I quoted and inserted it into the quote function of a specific post you made. If the latter, then I must either be clairvoyant or a complete but very lucky moron, because I wrote a quote from a post that I must have KNOWN in ADVANCE you would edit such that I could claim I quoted it and that your edits made my quote inaccurate.

Alternatively, I'm not omniscient, I didn't write that which I quoted, and nobody else edited their posts such that I could have accidently quoted them rather that just making up what I quoted.

You would be better served trying to figure out what I quoted than this ridiculous attempt to demonstrate that I didn't quote the post that you edited.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
ArtieE said:
No it doesn't have a subjective element. Something is true whether you subjectively think it's true or not! If somebody says to you "The earth is flat" and you say "Yes, that's true" it doesn't mean that the earth is flat just because you both think that's true Mo. What is true isn't influenced by your subjective opinions.
Click to expand...

See, atheists only do debating tricks, only produce garbage, no argument.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
See, atheists only do debating tricks, only produce garbage, no argument.
Click to expand...
The definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Since when is the true shape of the earth "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" Mo? The truth is that the earth is a globe regardless your "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" Mo. Personal feelings, tastes, or opinions don't change what is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top