1 2
#854457
Cathasach
Well, reality is a pretty good argument for non-existence.
1/16/2009 7:42:40 PM
#854463
Lucilius
We "need" to prove it because you yahoos keep screaming that one exists, is going to burn anyone who disagrees with him, and that he just happens to share all of your personal prejudices. Demonstrating the hollowness of your arguments removes any inclination to pay attention to you.
1/16/2009 7:46:17 PM
#854468
Papabear
"Atheists are illogical. If there is no god, why do they need to try to prove it."
We ask YOU to prove there IS a God bevause you and your ilk keep trying to run the country, the world and everyone's lives based upon your God delusions.
"There are, by the way, three classical arguments for the existence of god - ontologyical, teleological and cosmological; there isn't one for the non-existence."
The fact that you can't show the IS a God IS the argument against there being a God.
"Of course, a lot depends on the definition of god."
Indeed. If you would simply accept the premise that I am God we could move on as it is certain that I exist.
1/16/2009 7:48:39 PM
#854469
Eden
Of course, a lot depends on the definition of god.
I agree.
One version of god that can easily be disproven however is the personal god of fundamentalist christians (i.e. god who definitely did all the things ascribed to him in the bible and in the way like it was ewritten in the bible (especially the old testament)).
And it is usually only the christian fundamentalists who piss off all other people because of their tendency to constantly try to force their beliefs upon others.
1/16/2009 7:49:03 PM
#854474
anevilmeme
We're not the ones making a claim, you are.
1/16/2009 7:55:13 PM
#854476
Headache
Please show me that your god exists in any other place than in a six inch area between your ears...
1/16/2009 7:56:55 PM
#854480
Lucilius
@Headache: That's easy. It's probably in his pants.
1/16/2009 7:59:41 PM
#854482
werewolf
I don't bother proving your god's non-existence. It's your belief. You try to prove your god exists. I will question your definitions, though.
Read up on the classical arguments. Modern theologians seem uncomfortable with them.
1/16/2009 8:00:54 PM
#854483
Mister Spak
Theists are illogical. If there is a god, why do they need to try to prove it.
Of course, a lot depends on the definition of logic.
1/16/2009 8:01:35 PM
#854494
emau99
[Atheists are illogical. If there is no god, why do they need to try to prove it.]
THEY DON'T.
If you claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claim. You can't, so the discussion should be over.
But, of course, it isn't. This isn't the atheists' fault.
1/16/2009 8:16:33 PM
#854497
DevilsChaplain
"There are, by the way, three classical arguments for the existence of god - ontologyical, teleological and cosmological"
All of which have been excellently refuted by now. Thanks for playing!
"there isn't one for the non-existence."
Can't prove a negative. Burden of proof, motherfucker.
1/16/2009 8:20:07 PM
#854498
Pule Thamex
Atheists haven't heard or seen any evidence for a god, so they don't believe in a god. There is nothing for us to prove. To be honest we hardly ever think about religions and gods, but we do realise the danger that fundamentalism poses. Most of the time we are just responding to fundie non-sense.
On the question of proof and belief, you can very easily change that situation today, just provide the evidence and we'll have to believe. Of course, you won't provide the evidence because you can't. You can't, because there isn't any. Belief in a god is a matter of faith.
I take the dictionary definition of a god in preference to the fundie word-redefinition meaning, since words can have any meaning with fundies, depending on who you talk to.
So what was that you were saying about illogicality?
1/16/2009 8:20:12 PM
#854505
aaa
Protip to you: Please back your claims or you'll get slaughtered in the debate.
1/16/2009 8:29:32 PM
#854506
Mike
Atheists are illogical. If there is no god, why do they need to try to prove it.
::facepalm::
There are, by the way, three classical arguments for the existence of god - ontologyical, teleological and cosmological; there isn't one for the non-existence.
WELL DUH. You can't prove a negative. In any case, all three of those arguments FAIL.
1/16/2009 8:29:58 PM
#854508
A Friend
You make the claims and I disagree with you. Burden of proof is on you and the only evidence you have is badly written books and circular logic. Bigfoot and Nessie laugh at you.
1/16/2009 8:30:54 PM
#854510
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
1/16/2009 8:31:56 PM
#854515
Osiris
You claim that God exists, that he died for our sins, that an afterlife exists, and if we don't accept that God is real, that he died for his sins, and that an afterlife exists, the said God will burn us forever when we die.
Atheists are calling bullshit. You have to prove your claims. That's just logic.
1/16/2009 8:36:21 PM
#854520
Headache
@Lucilius :
(In the best RR tradition)
1/16/2009 8:40:35 PM
#854522
Illuminatalie
a lot depends on the definition of god
If God is a pancake, the Holy Spirit is syrup, a church means a glass of milk, a rug is Satan, and your house is the Baby Jesus, then if an ember falls from the fireplace onto the rug, you say, "Quick, we can't waste any Holy Spirit on God, we have to pour it, with the church, on Satan or else Baby Jesus will burn up!"
1/16/2009 8:41:15 PM
#854529
Brent
The bloody, epic failure of the three classical arguments for god is pretty convincing...
1/16/2009 8:45:38 PM
#854550
Damen
1/16/2009 9:13:50 PM
#854561
misterchipotle
yeah... well any atheist who does think logically knows it's impossible to prove conclusively that your fairy tale god doesn't exist. seems that you are the illogical one.
1/16/2009 9:28:21 PM
#854567
a mind far far away
If there is no god, why do they need to try to prove it
We don't. The burden of proof is on you guys. You all just line up your arguments for why you think some sky fairy exists, and we knock them down.
There are, by the way, three classical arguments for the existence of god - ontologyical, teleological and cosmological; there isn't one for the non-existence
All three of those have been adequately debunked. Anyone who still tries to use them is holding onto a really pathetic situation. Grow the fuck up.
Of course, a lot depends on the definition of god.
God: n a non-existent sky fairy believed to be real by the weak and stupid. There, I defined god.
1/16/2009 9:36:40 PM
#854581
myheadhurts
I agree with 95464
Argument against god: Reality
Why do you need arguments to prove god? Wouldn't evidence work much better?
1/16/2009 10:09:53 PM
#854589
Boy, I guess that whole semester I took on Philosophy of Atheism didn't exist.
1/16/2009 10:24:25 PM
1 2