• 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!

Favourite Atheist arguments

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Do all atheists use reason, logic and evidence?
Only magenta ^.

They don't have it so they cannot stop a bigfoot or an elephant entering their garages else the kettles in their kitchens start flying in the sky and some of them having leisure time may start not-collecting stamps as their hobbies, they are afraid of , I figure. Right?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
To hold and express a position logically calls for justification. Atheism expressed, is a position. And so calls for justification.
Reason bade them goodbye long time ago , their recent "Pope Dawkins" and one recent "Bishop Hitchens" told them in their congregational "Atheist-Church" service only to deride and ridicule and they are following it very "religiously" rather than "Atheistically", I understand, so they can't justify, please. Right?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Atheism means without theism, so no distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. Right?
Then just say "Athe", I figure, as adding ism to it has to be as per post #225, if it makes it meaningless, then, when there was meaning in it since inception, please? Right?

Regards
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Reason bade them goodbye long time ago , their recent "Pope Dawkins" and one recent "Bishop Hitchens" told them in their congregational "Atheist-Church" service only to deride and ridicule and they are following it very "religiously" rather than "Atheistically", I understand, so they can't justify, please. Right?

Regards
And you are surprised at the abuse you apparently see from atheists? :oops: When you do the same.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I remember loving arguments and apologetics when I was a teenager/young adult (32 now haven't been young for a while ;).)

So I was curious what do atheists think is there most convincing argument against God?
More or less the same applicable to Mother Goose existence.

Ciao

- viole
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Reason bade them goodbye long time ago , their recent "Pope Dawkins" and one recent "Bishop Hitchens" told them in their congregational "Atheist-Church" service only to deride and ridicule and they are following it very "religiously" rather than "Atheistically", I understand, so they can't justify, please. Right?

Regards


Oh the hypocrisy, can you not see it?
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Then just say "Athe", I figure, as adding ism to it has to be as per post #225, if it makes it meaningless, then, when there was meaning in it since inception, please? Right?

Regards
Meaningless?
It most certainly has meaning for you.
Otherwise you would not be going on an on about it, right?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Atheists have a problem: they don't know what they are talking about.
Really? All of them? You've met every single one and determined that each and every one doesn't know what they're talking about?

I have to say, I've never been a fan of such statements, and I wish people who believe things they can't demonstrate -- even unconvincingly -- would stop making them.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You are aware a god could exist and all those things be correct?
Yes, of course, but it would not be the kind of god that most religions believe in and worship. In fact, that sort of god might be worth fighting against, rather than worshipping, since one has to presume that it permitting terrible things that it could, being a god, stop.

You are aware all those books could be false and there could still be a god?
Just as easily as there could still NOT be a god. So based on the world in evidence around you (include known science, please), rather than those books which you admit could be false, which appears to be the most likely?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Really? All of them? You've met every single one and determined that each and every one doesn't know what they're talking about?

I have to say, I've never been a fan of such statements, and I wish people who believe things they can't demonstrate -- even unconvincingly -- would stop making them.
Atheists don't believe in god, right? And I ask what is a god. They can't come up with an answer that is either reasonable or at least widely accepted.
When they state they don't know, they are beyond atheism, they are Agnostics.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Atheists don't believe in god, right? And I ask what is a god. They can't come up with an answer that is either reasonable or at least widely accepted.
When they state they don't know, they are beyond atheism, they are Agnostics.
Okay then -- back to you: what is a god?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Me -- it's always been me. But of course I'm modest and hide my light under a bushel.
Well, you do have some fabulous social skills.
And your avatar is most fetching.
I believe you're right.

But ya know....if I were only younger, nicer, smarter, taller, fitter,
better looking, more likeable, more educated, & more fragrant,
I'd have a shot a the title.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ummm, wonder if that isn't actually the wombat?
You are the second person that spotted my error, one I saw long before anyone else did at least and owned up to it. But at least you got wombat correct.

They look similar but I should have known I screwed up immediately. I always knew it was an Australian animal and there are no native placental mammals, except for bats, in Australia.
 
Top