• 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

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
Technically, you are discussing etymology. So, from "one's above expressions," all that can be concluded is that one understands a word (or fails to) the same way another does.
Click to expand...
They always start like that so this time I thought I should go deep into it. If I am right then one may support it or else correct where I am wrong.

Regards
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Koldo said:
What do you understand by revelations?
I am referring to the people claiming to be prophets that were able get a message from God. As long as the prophet is alive it is not a subjective matter since there is a living central authority over how to interpret the message.

But what we have is purported prophets contradicting each other and no way to ascertain who is speaking the truth.
Click to expand...
One could do it with the Religious Method and Atheism have no Methodology of their own, I understand.

Regards
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
They always start like that so this time I thought I should go deep into it. If I am right then one may support it or else correct where I am wrong.

Regards
Click to expand...
"Athe" means without god (or "God" if you prefer).

Atheism has always and only meant to be without god, in all its contexts (i.e. "there is no god," "god? what's that?", "I don't know what 'god' means," "I don't practice.").

But I suspect you're not asking me to go into it, per se. So I'm just offering my 2 cents.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
And they had always been an (unreasonable) minority perspective with no methodology.

Regards
Click to expand...
It's enitrely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it's not required by theists either--just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Totally wrong. Atheism is the default position. What makes you think that belief is the default position?

When it comes to rational reasoning one does not believe until after sufficient evidence has been presented.
Click to expand...
Magenta ^.
That is another dogma of Atheism among many, they have been wrongly indoctrinated into, I understand.
if Atheism had been the default ism then they needed not to peg the unnatural word "Atheism" with the natural word "Theism", if figure.

Regards
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
It's enitrely the case that methodology is not required by atheists, but then it's not required by theists either--just like Trump supporters are not required to know what government is about, or to know the text of the Constitution, only to know that they love him.
Click to expand...
I had to take on them, don't they bully all the time the believers on such petty points as if they are champions, please? Right?

Regards
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
Magenta ^.
That is another dogma of Atheism among many, they have been wrongly indoctrinated into, I understand.
if Atheism had been the default ism then they needed not to peg the unnatural word "Atheism" with the natural word "Theism", if figure.

Regards
Click to expand...
No words are " natural ". If you had followed this thread you would have understood how religious beliefs likely have an evolutionary base.

But all of that is besides the point. Let me see if I can get you to understand with some questions:

Do you believe in fairies? Why or why not?
 
lukethethird

lukethethird

unknown member
paarsurrey said:
Magenta ^.
That is another dogma of Atheism among many, they have been wrongly indoctrinated into, I understand.
if Atheism had been the default ism then they needed not to peg the unnatural word "Atheism" with the natural word "Theism", if figure.

Regards
Click to expand...

A-theism; without theism.

What is so hard to understand?
 
Evangelicalhumanist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Koldo said:
Sure, but generally speaking atheists have no problem saying that God could have created the universe if he existed.
Click to expand...
True, but we'd find it just as easy to say that Great Pumpkin could have created if he existed. So, what have we demonstrated?

And let me point out something else -- this is one of those areas that really demonstrate the basic divide between theists and non-theists. Non-theists cannot, under any circumstance that I have yet encountered, accept the possibility that "the universe" (whatever that ultimately is) might not have even required creation -- might have always existed, in one form or another, or even in many.

Atheists have no difficulty at all in saying, "well, that's pretty hard to understand, so I have to say I don't know." On that subject, theists have an unbreachable mental block, insisting that it must have been created and therefore requires a creator. And then they immediately abandon that block when asked, "okay, so why is there a creator, without something to have created it?" This is incredibly slip-shod reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top