tarasan
Well-Known Member
A physical thing can be everywhere?
-
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
- Thread starter tarasan
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Most agnostics are atheists. You need to learn your terminology. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Most agnostics do not believe in any gods
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Who claimed that it was physical?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, not that one again. Atheism has several definitions. You are using one of them and I am using another.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. This is what an agnostic is. Originally there were three camps in the discussion thiesm, agnosticism and athiesm. One said there was a god the other said there wasn't and the third said the don't know or I can't know.
Then about fifty years ago athiest started pushing this lack of belief to try and push the burden of proof onto the thiests. But they have never claimed they are agnostic in fact that is why they stated lack of belief and not just not knowing.
Mate I think it's u that needs to get the definitions sorted out :S
tarasan
Well-Known Member
To be a unicorn it has be physical it's a horse with a horn and for something to be pink it has to be physical
Curious George
Veteran Member
Do you believe in "real" magic?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?
lukethethird
unknown member
Favourite Atheist arguments
God who?
or
...wait a minute
or
Who cares?
or
How about one for the road?
God who?
or
...wait a minute
or
Who cares?
or
How about one for the road?
Last edited:
tarasan
Well-Known Member
Curious George
Veteran Member
I think most people "kinda want to..."
But do you?
If you want to understand why someone believes no god exists, you may only need to understand why someone would believe no magic exists.
If you don't believe that "real" magic exists, then I suspect you have already employed the most convincing arguments for atheism (just to a different concept).
Maybe in heaven, but i would like to see proof before i commit to that
tarasan
Well-Known Member
U see if there were a pink unicorn I suppose I would expect to see corpses, or shavings, pictures etc. But I don't see those things. Expecting, reasonably, to see evidence in certain places but finding none is evidence against something and while it's easy to do with a horse with a horn, with a diety it's not as clear cut.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
So are there logical deductive sound arguments for magic then?
Curious George
Veteran Member
You tell me.
Empirical evidence means evidence which is available through the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.
It is, therefore, impossible for there to be empirical evidence for that which does not exist.
And fascinatingly enough, if we ask "what is the empirical evidence for the existence of God," we discover that -- wait for it -- there isn't any. And that should tell us something, in my view...
Isn't it? It is for me. No evidence, no diety.
And of course unicorns are not horses except in the movies, they are a completely different species with a magical DNA that allows them to only exist in the mind of susceptible humans.
I think the contradiction lies more in the fact that two different lineages are given through the father between Luke and Mark. I understand the gospels are supposed to relate 4 different perspectives of those 4 apostles, but there's a difference between different perspectives and straight up contradictory information.
In a contradiction, one thing, or both things cannot be true. There are many more contradictions like that, such as where Jesus appeared after his resurrection, for example. Did he first appear to Mary Magdalene as per Mark, before seeing the disciples? In John she went to tell the disciples that Jesus had been stolen from his tomb. Then there's Luke, where Jesus first appears miles from Jerusalem.
Every gospel gives a contradicting account of what exactly happened after Jesus' died.
Contradictions in Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension
Back on the topic of Joseph, though, I think the thing that makes me scratch my head is that the writers felt the need to include Joseph's genealogy, and no one else. Why? Why was it important to recount his ancestry going back to Adam? Joseph's role in the bible is minute. Why add his ancestry at all if it wasn't to legitimize Jesus through his lineage?
If I believe that the Bible is historically accurate the only reason I wouldn't believe that the miracles also happened is if I didn't have reason to believe in God which I do
Fair enough.
Esther was a queen according to the bible; not just a concubine. Xerxes already had a queen according to third party sources, and it wasn't her. There are many more historical contradictions than that, though.
Book of Esther - Wikipedia
The apparent historical difficulties, the internal inconsistencies, the pronounced symmetry of themes and events, the plenitude of quoted dialogue, and the gross exaggeration in the reporting of numbers (involving time, money, and people) all point to Esther as a work of fiction, its vivid characters (except for Xerxes) being the product of the author's creative imagination.[24] There is no reference to known historical events in the story; a general consensus, though this consensus has been challenged,[25][26] has maintained that the narrative of Esther was invented in order to provide an aetiology for Purim, and the name Ahasuerus is usually understood to refer to a fictionalized Xerxes I, who ruled the Achaemenid Empire between 486 and 465 BCE.[27]
According to some sources, it is a historical novella, written to explain the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim.[28][29]
As noted by biblical scholar Michael D. Coogan, the book contains specific details regarding certain subject matter (for example, Persian rule) which are historically inaccurate.
According to some sources, it is a historical novella, written to explain the origin of the Jewish holiday of Purim.[28][29]
As noted by biblical scholar Michael D. Coogan, the book contains specific details regarding certain subject matter (for example, Persian rule) which are historically inaccurate.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIFhAB&usg=AOvVaw0QGa3m_BNXWPpM97QvBBOT
Can you explain what you mean by "It tends to be that athiests have one standard for the rest of history and the Bible another."
I was raised with the notion that the bible is divine. It is the word of God. If it falls short of perfection and is flawed, why should anyone think it's special enough to build one's concept of reality around?
What makes many gods less likely than one god? Why do gods have to be timeless? What does a god look like? It seems like none of these concepts are actually things we can ever know or see in an objective way. What makes one concept more compelling in a factual way than the other?
While I can claim to k ow everything about every belief system (who can?) With the information I have available I believe it is much more likely than the Christian God exists. And considering the lack of reason why God can't exist or doesn't exist I feel pretty confident.
That's fair enough. Would you say you are an agnostic theist then?
tarasan
Well-Known Member
Ok but is there any evidence that there is
We are getting off track, if u believe that u can assert your worldview with no evidence then it goes to say that I can as well. You tell me there is no evidence for god I tell you there is no evidence against God and we both stay in that neutral place merely asserting our views as correct.
I mean I could just as easily say to you.
"Do you believe in magic?"
Cause if you say no then you have already employed why people believe there is a creator.
tarasan
Well-Known Member
In that case then they sent Unicron's. If u Rob something of all it's qualities then it just comes another word
It's like me saying spegetti is a purple rodent that steals your dreams
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not if it is pink and invisible.To be a unicorn it has be physical it's a horse with a horn and for something to be pink it has to be physical