McBell
Unbound
Ouch.
Sad that you think my posts are a "debating tactic".
It does explain quite a bit about your posts though.
I am not in this thread debating.
I am relieving boredom.
-
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
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Sad that you think my posts are a "debating tactic".
It does explain quite a bit about your posts though.
I am not in this thread debating.
I am relieving boredom.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Posting garbage is your debating tactic. You post tons of garbage, and then after it you say you have refuted the argumentation.
McBell
Unbound
When have I claimed to have refuted any "argument" you made?
Seeing as I have as yet to see you present a coherent argument, how can you be refuted?
I suspect that is the very reason you foist bull ****.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
See you are debating. And you use the tons of garbage debating tactic.
Cap'n MacDougal
Member
Right on dude, I'll hit you with a PM.
I'm not certain, it sounds as though you're conflating the quality of your human experience with "aliveness." I've got a pretty decent buzz working at the moment, so I should probably provide a definition:
Quality in the sense that you're experience of being alive is (obviously) rooted in your ability to rationally reflect, etc. This is an enjoyable characteristic we humans possess, although I don't know that we're any more alive than the fruit fly which is currently cruising around my kitchen.
A primary concern with recourse to religious and/or mystical experience is that we know, with certainty, that many of the characteristics and traits of those events are exactly duplicated by drugs, neurodegenerative disease, chemical imbalance, temporal lobe seizure, etc. Of course, such a high correlation doesn't automatically exclude some form of divine communication. However, it appears to provide more than sufficient grounding for substantial skepticism.
McBell
Unbound
Now I understand.
You do not know what is and is not a debate.
Explains quite a bit actually.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
More garbage from you.
McBell
Unbound
Everyone now knows that when ever you post about garbage you are pretty much admitting defeat.
Hells bells, you even flat out admitted it.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
mestimia wrote:
"You left out the part where he gets upset whenever it is pointed out...Well, look at it this way, whenever he uses those catch phrases, you know he has lost the argument.Wrong again.Though that is not any surprise, now is it?It is a statement of fact that is supported by your getting all upset whenever it is pointed out.Thank you for admitting it.See guys, he can be reasonable.You should really try reading posts for comprehension.Otherwise you will only continue to make a bigger fool of yourself.Your transference is showing.CongratulationsThis above quoted text is the biggest pile of bold faced bull **** I have ever seen on Religious Forums.And that is saying something for I have been a member of this forum for over a decade.Ah, more BS.Wow. Once you start shoveling, you just can't stop yourself....Sad really, that you have not yet convinced yourself of the truth of your claim.More bull **** from you.No worries mate, I got a rubber raft and chest waders!Still waiting for you to post something that is not simply a repeat of the same old bull ****.Ouch.Sad that you think my posts are a "debating tactic".It does explain quite a bit about your posts though.I am not in this thread debating.I am relieving boredom.When have I claimed to have refuted any "argument" you made?Seeing as I have as yet to see you present a coherent argument, how can you be refuted?I suspect that is the very reason you foist bull ****.Now I understand.You do not know what is and is not a debate.Explains quite a bit actually.Everyone now knows that when ever you post about garbage you are pretty much admitting defeat.Hells bells, you even flat out admitted it."
All garbage.
McBell
Unbound
*yawn*
Still boring.
Cap'n MacDougal
Member
No ****! Let's break it up boys.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
garbage in garbage out.
Cap'n MacDougal
Member
garbage in garbage out.
Hahahahahaaha! That's pretty axiomatic!
and your post(s) is/are not>?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
I actually have an argument, evidence, explanation, the works.
There is a pattern of atheists rejecting subjectivity. To anybody who looks into it, this cannot be denied, it is very obvious. That means atheism is simply an intellectual expression of a common human failing, the head vs heart struggle. We can say that strictly logically atheism does not require the rejection of subjectivity, although it does require the absence of a form of subjectivity, but in practise this rejection of subjectivity in general constitutes about 80 or 90 percent of the intellectual position of actual atheists.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Argument that why atheist don't believe any god exists?
It's because there's no convincing evidence which can leads them to believe any god exists.
Some theist may present their evidence for their religion's claims, and they think their evidence is very convincing.
It is indeed very convincing for them, but it does not mean any atheist have to agree with them if those [convincing evidence for theist] is unconvincing for atheist.
And some theist making the kind of argument that only when after atheist have sincerely believes/accept their god, only then their god will enlighten back to atheist and evidence will be reveal to atheist. It's impossible to prove whether those argument is valid or not. If atheist try the method but there's no enlightenment return by any god, then those theist say it's because atheist is insincere. There is thousands of numbers of different gods, use that argument on all of those gods individually to see how the argument is very unconvincing and impossible to prove whether it is valid or not.
Some atheist try to sincerely believes/accept god A, but there's no enlightenment return by god A, then theist who's believe in god A say it's because atheist is insincere.
Some atheist try to sincerely believes/accept god B, but there's no enlightenment return by god B, then theist who's believe in god B say it's because atheist is insincere.
Some atheist try to sincerely believes/accept god C/D/E...etc, but there's no enlightenment return by god C/D/E...etc, then theist who's believe in god C/D/E...etc say it's because atheist is insincere.
I wonder when those theist who's believe in god A and hold that kind of argument, present their that argument to another theist who's believe in god B who's also at the same time hold that kind of argument, what reaction those theist who's believe in god B will be.
Yes. Finally you make some sense. Theists subjectively believe that at least one god exists atheists have an absence of this particular subjective belief. You are an atheist yourself regarding all those gods other people subjectively believe exist.
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
Yes you can, as long as both are not the broadest application of the term.
In the same way you can be supporter of football but not a supporter of a specific team.
McBell
Unbound
He started it.
McBell
Unbound
You really should share your definitions of argument, evidence, and "the works".
All I have seen is you twist everything everyone else posts into some nonsense garbage, reply to posts you dislike as garbage, make tons of false accusations, etc.
And yet there is a thread full of atheists denying it.
Of course, whenever said atheists try to get you away from your strawman, you run tail tucked right back to it.