Atheist I can't stand

[CabinetMaker]

I don't tell anyone how to believe, but I do study various faiths to find their fallacy. I'm not shy to point it out to someone who believes it either. If they are still strong in their faith faced with criticism then I tip my hat to them and find much respect. If they aren't I would encourage them to find the right faith. Or lack thereof. You may not like antitheist, but we are just doing our part to fulfill Jesus' covenant .

Fallacy based on what? You start from a position that there is no God, therefore, you will find fallacies with any position that is based on faith in God. To the believer who knows there is a God and sets His Truth above all else, there is no fallacy.

 

[Castle]

99% of atheists give the rest a bad name.

 

[asilentskeptic]

99% of atheists give the rest a bad name.

Seems to be that way with Christians too, doesn't it

In fact, I would say that most of humanity gives humanity itself a bad name!

 

[karstkid]

Seems to be that way with Christians too, doesn't it

In fact, I would say that most of humanity gives humanity itself a bad name!

So are you a biocentrist/ecocentrist that thinks humankind is just a virus on God's green earth?

 

[asilentskeptic]

So are you a biocentrist/ecocentrist that thinks humankind is just a virus on God's green earth?

Not in the slightest. We could very easily be the best thing that ever happened to this universe... if we chose to be.

We just don't give a good accounting of ourselves when it comes to what we say we should be and what we do. That is why I responded to the statement that "99% of atheists give the rest a bad name" with what I did.

We (as humans) don't live up to the image of the "ideal" human (whatever that may be). Which is why humanity gives itself a bad name :guitar:

 

[pozzolane]

Hi
Rejection of a noun god.

I fixed it for you. Denial implies an acknowledgement of the aforementioned. An atheist is simply "without god belief".

 

[Asimov]

Fallacy based on what? You start from a position that there is no God, therefore, you will find fallacies with any position that is based on faith in God. To the believer who knows there is a God and sets His Truth above all else, there is no fallacy.

So, you start from a position that there is a God, and THEN conclude that there is no fallacy...and how is doing the same thing as your criticism making your concept valid?

 

[Stripe]

So, you start from a position that there is a God, and THEN conclude that there is no fallacy...and how is doing the same thing as your criticism making your concept valid?

What's wrong with presuming God exists?

 

[Flipper]

Doesn't the bible condemn necromancy?

 

[Rusha]

What's wrong with presuming God exists?

Because it's a presumtion ...

 

[Stripe]

Because it's a presumtion ...

What is your problem with premises? They are quite logical, you know?

 

[icilian fenner]

If your test of truth could be applied to a mutually exclusive idea and still comes up as true, your method is flawed.

eg. I presume God exists.
And
I presume IPU/FSM exists.

Ya know?

 

[HappyCetacean]

Well add me to your list of annoying atheists.

 

[Rusha]

What is your problem with premises? They are quite logical, you know?

It depends ... it means you are *assuming* ... which is fine, for YOU. Now explain why anyone should just agree with your assumptions without absolute proof?

Your premise is that God exists because the Bible says so and because you believe it is the only reasonable explanation of life. I have yet to see any argument that would validate your presumption.

 

[Delmar]

Well add me to your list of annoying atheists.

easymoney hasn't posted here since 2005 but if he stops by I remind him to add you to the list.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Well add me to your list of annoying atheists.

Be happy to, even though the phrase "annoying atheist" is redundant. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

It depends ... it means you are *assuming* ... which is fine, for YOU. Now explain why anyone should just agree with your assumptions without absolute proof?

Premises don't need proving. You either accept them or you don't.

Your premise is that God exists because the Bible says so and because you believe it is the only reasonable explanation of life. I have yet to see any argument that would validate your presumption.

My premise is that God is who He says He is. My conclusions are based on this premise and His word.

 

[Stripe]

If your test of truth could be applied to a mutually exclusive idea and still comes up as true, your method is flawed.

eg. I presume God exists.
And
I presume IPU/FSM exists.

Ya know?

:idunno:

What I am capable of saying and what I have actually said are two different things. How abouts you deal with the latter?

 

[Rusha]

Premises don't need proving. You either accept them or you don't.

My premise is that God is who He says He is. My conclusions are based on this premise and His word.

EXACTLY ... which is fine for individuals only, but never a reasonable basis for creating laws and policies for all society to adhere to ... glad we agree on this!

 

[Stripe]

EXACTLY ... which is fine for individuals only, but never a reasonable basis for creating laws and policies for all society to adhere to ... glad we agree on this!

In a democracy, perhaps...

:think:

Democracy is stupid.