Why do Atheist hate God?

[SteveB28]

Actually I have listed it in previous posts. But the atheist position is such that no,matter what there is the dismissal of the evidence. Much,smarter people than I have tried and still failed. It's pretty simple really. Athiests such as yourself will accept no evidence presented because you are predisposed to reject any evidence. Because of you default position, if "none of that requires a deity." That position is one that is undefeatable with the type of evidence available. The only evidence that can defeat that position is a personal experience with God.

The Biblical argument for the evidence of God is nature and the creation. That none of this could have happened by chance. If that doesn't convince you nothing will short of a personal encounter with the almighty will. That's why arguing or debating this point is fruitless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

"Look, there are trees!!"

 

[mikenet2006]

I liked how he just wanted us to know that he was this close to beating us! And if he hadn't quit and let us win, then we were about to lose by a long shot because he was so far ahead!

You brought winning or losing into this conversation, don't forget that. That clip is an awesome metaphor for why that's not always the most important thing. I think there's much more to these exchanges than who's right or wrong, If that's the goal then I don't need that, I already have what I need as a debater. I'd say the video is accurate, except for one detail. Those who were respectful, and not sarcastic at all finished first. I sometimes get snarky, usually in defense of those who are being treated poorly, although I did try to redirect the thread away from the little picks when I felt things were getting out of hand. I'm not going to be able to change what you think of me, or where you stand on your disbeliefs. Where you say things like this... "The quotes I used are exactly in the order you wrote them. I also didn't cut anything from them. Every word you wrote is quoted."

I explained it several times just as with other things I explained several times, if you want to use a fresh page in the hopes that some members won't see what you're doing, or if you can't remember then I'm not going to keep doing this, it was in regards to the Joseph Stalin reference I made. I had said I think it's important to be fair and you picked a quote you thought sounded bad and stuck it right after that. It was pulled out of context and done intentionally, you know what you did. As with this, I've explained my position on a number of things in several ways and think I did a darn good job of it but when things just go in a loop there's no point.

 

[rjs330]

"Look, there are trees!!"

Way to minimalize nature. Of you really think that's all there is to it then I guess that's it. Like I said if you won't accept the laws of nature and the universe and how it all functions and works together as evidence of a design then it's hopeless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Which posts did you produce the evidence that such things as the natural laws were produced by a deity?

How can you accuse us of ignoring evidence when you haven't presented it?



That is a claim. Where is the evidence that none of this could have happened by chance?

I don't know how to find my stuff and link it. Sorry. I don't know if I can even do it on my phone. Maybe you can search for it?

Wheres the evidence that it did? It does defy all logic to believe that all in nature and the universe all happened by accident. We would never believe it of anything else. But we do with the amazing universe. Well here I am arguing. Done.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Belk]

Way to minimalize nature. Of you really think that's all there is to it then I guess that's it. Like I said if you won't accept the laws of nature and the universe and how it all functions and works together as evidence of a design then it's hopeless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Yeah, it is almost like they would look exactly the same under a completely naturalistic system and therefore offer no useful information in determining the veracity of gods. The simple truth is that there is no evidence for gods. Likely why faith is so talked about in religious texts.

 

[Belk]

I don't know how to find my stuff and link it. Sorry. I don't know if I can even do it on my phone. Maybe you can search for it?

Wheres the evidence that it did? It does defy all logic to believe that all in nature and the universe all happened by accident. We would never believe it of anything else. But we do with the amazing universe. Well here I am arguing. Done.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Then explain the logic to us because I am aware of nothing in logic that requires a deity. I think what you are actually trying to say is you are unable to conceive of a universe without a deity. That is a statement I could understand and accept.

 

[Moral Orel]

You brought winning or losing into this conversation, don't forget that. That clip is an awesome metaphor for why that's not always the most important thing. I think there's much more to these exchanges than who's right or wrong, If that's the goal then I don't need that, I already have what I need as a debater. I'd say the video is accurate, except for one detail. Those who were respectful, and not sarcastic at all finished first. I sometimes get snarky, usually in defense of those who are being treated poorly, although I did try to redirect the thread away from the little picks when I felt things were getting out of hand. I'm not going to be able to change what you think of me, or where you stand on your disbeliefs. Where you say things like this... "The quotes I used are exactly in the order you wrote them. I also didn't cut anything from them. Every word you wrote is quoted."

I explained it several times just as with other things I explained several times, if you want to use a fresh page in the hopes that some members won't see what you're doing, or if you can't remember then I'm not going to keep doing this, it was in regards to the Joseph Stalin reference I made. I had said I think it's important to be fair and you picked a quote you thought sounded bad and stuck it right after that. It was pulled out of context and done intentionally, you know what you did. As with this, I've explained my position on a number of things in several ways and think I did a darn good job of it but when things just go in a loop there's no point.

You posted the video and said "I pulled one of these", insinuating you were the red car who threw the race that you were in the lead to win. If you hadn't said "I pulled one of these" and/or picked a different clip of a different movie, you might get away with claiming you just meant "it's how you play the game". But you didn't.

You directed the thread into a brick wall by the way. I can't say for sure that your wording for the title of the thread and the OP was intentionally misleading and inflammatory, but since you said you would do it exactly the same way again...

No, I'd leave it just like it is

...it sure seems like it.

As to the bolded part, you didn't say what it was in reference to, so it is fair to assume you meant the post you quoted and replied to. I had no idea you were bringing up something from 25 pages ago out of the blue. And the only words I pulled from a different paragraph were "let's be fair" just to show that you claim to have an interest in being fair. How exactly are the words "let's be fair" taken out of context? Some things you want to be fair about, and some things you don't? You want to bring up Stalin, and then say "we're just talking about the atheist side of things". Doesn't sound fair to me. I don't edit things away in my posts. They stand on their own merit. Look, I'll even link back to my infamous post:
Maybe you ought to reread it again and see just how evil I really am. I certainly don't see it. You're not even remembering it right. First I used your quote about Stalin, then I quoted you claiming to want to be fair. The only quote that came after that came after a reply to that point and was about you finding the good in people. So I don't know exactly how you've twisted things all up in your own mind, but it still isn't as you've described.

And where's this "loop" that you speak of? You claimed the atheist stance isn't based in logic, so I responded with an analogy that you evaded three times. In your words, I can only assume it was "irrefutable". And I went back to talking about the political fight that you claim is being led by atheists and brought up specific topics to discuss and you evaded that as well by giving up. Again, I can only assume they were irrefutable if I follow your logic.

 

[SteveB28]

Way to minimalize nature. Of you really think that's all there is to it then I guess that's it. Like I said if you won't accept the laws of nature and the universe and how it all functions and works together as evidence of a design then it's hopeless.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

"Hopeless" is how I would describe it, definitely.

 

[Loudmouth]

Way to minimalize nature. Of you really think that's all there is to it then I guess that's it. Like I said if you won't accept the laws of nature and the universe and how it all functions and works together as evidence of a design then it's hopeless.

Until you explain how it is evidence, you can't blame us for not accepting evidence you haven't presented.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wheres the evidence that it did?

That would be a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

It does defy all logic to believe that all in nature and the universe all happened by accident.

Until you show us this logic, all you have is a bare assertion with no evidence.