Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Eudaimonist]

I would say your friend is not an atheist and does, in fact, represent a VERY significant group of people. I think your friend represents the future of theistic belief.

That does seem to be a significant trend, though I don't think that the major religions are going away any time soon.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PT Calvinist]

There is no reason to watch a debate between an actor and a stripper. I don't even know who Comfort is, though I preferred Matt Slick's debate with this girl. Slick brought up points she ignored, but that is only in the perspective, atheist would say the opposite.

It's always good to hear excellent reformers like Matt Slick.

 

[Isambard]

I still need to know why Cameron is a "moron"? Either group's "ignorance" is a subjective matter

Not when everything he says is verifiable, and is proven to be wrong every single time.

on the other hand, O'Connor can not be considered as a serious historian on the matter of Gospels when she bases her judgment on bias and contemporary records and she rejects the rest. Listen to her with Matt Slick.

I don't recall ever defending O'Connor. As you said, why would I listen to a prostitute? I much perfer Matt Dillahunty
YouTube - TAG: Matt Slick VS Matt Dillahunty PART 1/5 - A.E. #593

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Not when everything he says is verifiable, and is proven to be wrong every single time.

So that makes him a "moron"? I didn't care to watch him as he is not any type of historical authority in the matters he is discussing but who proved him wrong every single time in that debate? You? With the ad-hominems, yes, you make a very credible and logical source. Thank you.

 

[Isambard]

So that makes him a "moron"? I didn't care to watch him as he is not any type of historical authority in the matters he is discussing but who proved him wrong every single time in that debate? You? With the ad-hominems, yes, you make a very credible and logical source. Thank you.

Im curious at your accusation of ad hom given how when I called him that, I demonstrated he had no idea what he was talking about by providing a list of transitional fossils he claimed didn't exist. Thank you for your knee-jerk response.

 

[PT Calvinist]

YouTube - The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence

sounds good to me.

 

[PT Calvinist]

This chick is the best "atheists" could come up with?

You think that's bad? try this:
Edwin Kagin sounds like an idiot in the following debate.
YouTube - CARM Debate 2008: "Does God Exist" (Part 1)
YouTube - CARM Debate 2008: "Does God Exist" (Part 2)
YouTube - CARM Debate 2008: "Does God Exist" (Part 3)
YouTube - CARM Debate 2008: "Does God Exist" (Part 4)
YouTube - CARM Debate 2008: "Does God Exist" (Part 5)

You have a hostile, rude and mocking atheist team against an evangelical naive group. I didn't like Ray Comfort's reasoning in some, he sounds like he doesn't know his opponent and their arguments. Kelly Hugerack is more concerned about causing offense than sounding authentic in terms of historical data she has no clue about. "1st century Palestine is very well documented", I bet she can't count more than 10 sources.

She's pretty hesitant in those scenes.

YouTube - Matt Slick vs Kelly (Rational Response Squad) Prt3

Check her out here.

I've seen this one before, I found it quite interesting, she seemed to be more silent here and reserved...I suppose that's because she was dealing with someone who actually knew what he is saying.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I think these "New Atheists" and their public debate unintentionally serve to strengthen people's entrenchment in their respective beliefs. Honestly, what do you expect when you antagonize people over their religion (or lack of the same)? It's similar to what happens when you try to force an ethnic minority within your country to assimilate by means of social pressure: they dig themselves in, potentially sparking animosities on both sides of the fence as the radicals at both ends of the spectrum grow louder and more persistent.

I follow a strict "live and let live"-approach, as far as that's possible. For example, I'd oppose any attempt at teaching religion in biology classes by means of pseudo-sciences like "Intelligent Design", but don't mind at all if religious education becomes part of a school's curriculum (including the respective creation myths of the specific faiths). If Christians want their children to learn what the Bible has to say about the origin of Man and the world at large - let them. But in its proper religious context - not in a science class.

 

[Isambard]

YouTube - The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence

I was wondering where you stole your "arguments" from. The vid is epic fail btw for the reasons I've stated when addressing your usage of the same "arguments".

 

[Fear]

I was an atheist when I was young. As far as I can remember, I did not have a good reason to be an atheist. Now, this question is becoming more puzzling to me than ever. Why would people want to be an atheist?

I personally did not want to be an atheist before I became an atheist. However, now that I'm over here on this side of the fence, I kinda like it.

One does not have to be a Christian. But to my experience, one "should" have a religious belief. So, if you are an atheist, I would like to hear (and seriously consider) your reasons. I am not trying to debate you, but trying to understand you by a few questions.

So, please give me your best reasons of being an atheist. You may start with the most convincing one.

Basically, the culmination of what Christian apologetics has to offer doesn't convince me, so I remain an atheist.

 

[JGG]

YouTube - The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence

1. Despite what Slick here says, atheism is not a worldview, philosophy, or religion. It is simply a position on the existence of deities.

2. Neither atheism, nor atheists are required to account for the creation of the universe.

3. Slick here says that "whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence." Most theistic religions, including Christianity violate this assumption by saying that God, by definition, exists, but was not caused into existence, or brought itself into existence. If we are allowed to assume this initial assumption to be false, or breakable allow me to suggest any one of the following as an accounting for the existence of the universe:

a. The universe, by definition, exists but was not caused into existence, or was brought into existence by itself, or a past universe.
b. At some point in the past, I created the universe, which then went on to create me.
c. A fibbidyjibber created the universe. The definition of a fibbidyjibber is an unintelligent, non-divine entity that exists (but was not caused into existence, or caused itself into existence) for the sole purpose of creating universes.

4. Even I understand the second law of thermodynamics better than this guy.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Im curious at your accusation of ad hom given how when I called him that, I demonstrated he had no idea what he was talking about by providing a list of transitional fossils he claimed didn't exist. Thank you for your knee-jerk response.

Moron is a controversial psychology term to define mental retardation. Ignorance on the other hand means the condition of being uneducated, lacking knowledge or information. The latter can be fixed. You called a person you didn't know names, broke the rules, now by trying to shift the topic, you are attempting to get away with it. Honestly, you killed all your credibility.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I I follow a strict "live and let live"-approach, as far as that's possible. For example, I'd oppose any attempt at teaching religion in biology classes by means of pseudo-sciences like "Intelligent Design", but don't mind at all if religious education becomes part of a school's curriculum (including the respective creation myths of the specific faiths). If Christians want their children to learn what the Bible has to say about the origin of Man and the world at large - let them. But in its proper religious context - not in a science class.

I agree with you. There are Christian scientists (AFAIK Dr. Ross) state that Christian Scriptures don't oppose or sometimes don't even claim scientific facts. It is all in our heads towards our quest to prove God's existence. We gotta give it a rest. I love science, and I am proud of all the new discoveries mankind achieved. Belief in God doesn't necessarily prohibit this position.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The vid is epic fail btw

Because you said so. Thanks.

 

[Mobiosity]

There isn't one. God's presence is so obvious in the intricacies of the way the world operates. God putting leaves on the trees when there is plenty of sun and they wouldn't need all that surface area to absorb the sun they need. Provides shade for people and animals (and the furry ones who think they are people ). In the winter time, when trees would need more surface area to absorb the little sunlight available God has them dormant so the sunshine available can more easily be used by us. Ahh God is so good to us.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God's presence is so obvious in the intricacies of the way the world operates.

To me, it seems obvious that these intricacies are the result of natural processes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

To me, it seems obvious that these intricacies are the result of natural processes.

Natural processes had to start somewhere.

 

[Mobiosity]

To me, it seems obvious that these intricacies are the result of natural processes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

As Bushmaster78FS said, the processes had to start somewhere. And the natural process would have the crown of the tree with the biggest leaves and the smallest on the bottom and next to the trunk. The tree wouldn't use precious resources on unnecessary growth. The leaves would stay on in the winter to absorb what sun there is and there would be fewer leaves in the summer because fewer are needed to absorb the sun and carbon dioxide necessary for photosynthesis. So it seems obvious that natural processes would cause the trees to look quite different from what we see now. More fir like trees and way fewer deciduous trees.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So it seems obvious that natural processes would cause the trees to look quite different from what we see now.

I'm afraid that none of this is obvious to me. You are merely speculating on what would work better for trees. I have no reason to think that your speculations consider all of the relevant biological factors.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Natural processes had to start somewhere.

True, but it isn't obvious that this start has to be a God.


eudaimonia,

Mark