Atheism destroyed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I can be pretty clear I think to asking you a question.
How did God come to existance?

I bet your answer is just as vague as some scientific answers how life did come to existance.

The main logic IMO is the arrogance of humans. How can I explain this simple? That is hard. We don't know what we differ from other living animals. We don't know what we differ from other living beings. We tend to discuss or theorize that, but is anyone really sure about that? We only have our conceptions and written words about that. IMO it is arrogant to think a supreme being created and cares for us. That is what you asked in your OP right? Well that is what I believe. That humankind is so arrogant to belief that a supreme being or God as you would call it, would be creating such a low form of existance in his or her grand scheme that logic would show that we would be a gazillions steps below the place some would like to think we are. I mean really? A deity supposedly created us in His/Her/Its image? and this is all we got?

It is IMO pretty simply, as far of now, we don't know how life started, we are not capable of grasping such a concept. Either it was a deity or a natural event, in both ways it would be arrogant to belief we could grasp the defenition of existance and how it come to *spark* by either a book in our languages or science in our languages. IMO if there was a God/Allah/Yahweh or any other Supreme Being He/She/It would have created the existance of our Universe as an evolving form of energy or it could be another form of natural devolpment but in both cased we, as human species would be irrelevant in the total proces of existance in this universe.

It is just the thinking of humankind to make itself special in either scientifical theories or spiritual thinking because we don't know anything different.. We are just human. Focused on theorizing from within itself.

Did I make any sense to you?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The OP is attempting to use the Transcendental Argument.

I knew the OP was working from some type of apologetics workbook but I really wasn't interested enough to investigate what it was. Good job on figuring which fallacious ploy was being used this time. I think you nailed it when you said the OP is "attempting". I see now why my reply was skipped and forgotten on page one. I didn't give him anything to work with.

I think the OP has been getting all his material from Christian Apologetics courses. Did you know people can get masters in them. I had seen a video on the brainwashing most go through in them so they actually believe these things. IMO it's sad.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Finally

Well, he admitted to trolling early on. This is typical of the OP and most of his posts. As soon as you caught him red handed using flawed arguments from the apologetics handbook, he copped to it and abandoned his own thread. Which makes me believe that he knew his arguments were flawed from the beginning. With a final post like "finally", it begs the question, was that all this was about? Somehow calling him out was what he was after? Are these really the best arguments they have to defend themselves? They have to use known flawed arguments to back their position and then scurry off when it's pointed out?

I think he was reading from Sye Ten Bruggencate. One of the worst debaters i have ever seen.

a reply to: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Woodcarver
With a final post like "finally", it begs the question, was that all this was about? Somehow calling him out was what he was after? Are these really the best arguments they have to defend themselves? They have to use known flawed arguments to back their position and then scurry off when it's pointed out?

My guess is to reaffirm and strengthen his own belief system. It is clear from this users posts that he isn't really interested in discussion or other points of view. Since his book says unbelievers are fools completely incapable of understanding truth, in his mind he won the argument before it even started. These threads are for him to stroke his ego, in my opinion. Perhaps one day the hardened shield of his indoctrination will be cracked and he'll gain a better understanding of things. Deep down I think he may struggle with his faith but has a hard time being honest with himself and agreeing that not everything is adding up the way he was taught. Only the OP really knows though.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
Finally

Well, he admitted to trolling early on. This is typical of the OP and most of his posts. As soon as you caught him red handed using flawed arguments from the apologetics handbook, he copped to it and abandoned his own thread. Which makes me believe that he knew his arguments were flawed from the beginning. With a final post like "finally", it begs the question, was that all this was about? Somehow calling him out was what he was after? Are these really the best arguments they have to defend themselves? They have to use known flawed arguments to back their position and then scurry off when it's pointed out?

I agree the OP has multiple posts(all) that are a subterfuge of deception with an ulterior motive.Their logic is twisted and not grounded in any reason...however that is why they post(unbeknownst to them)...to provide ample evidence of the foolishness and flaws of Christianity(and all religion).They are trying to prove what they don't know which is a definition of insanity.

These types of threads are the purpose of ATS ... to expose untruths and deny ignorance ...DI...

a reply to: Grimpachi

Its not just the transcendental argument.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why don't you just reference the type of arguments you are trying to use instead of presenting them as if they are something new?

It would save everyone a lot of time.

BTW do you ever look to see if your arguments have been shown to be fallacious before you post them or are you simply going by some workbook that you were told to be valid?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Describe the main reasons you do not believe in the Biblical God and the Resurrection of Christ.

It's very simple.

I reject it.

What it represents is not worthy of my recognition.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Because I'm.not using just arguments from.previous people. I use the understandings from those arguments to build a case. There is no work.book no one taught that to me.

Yes I have. But all I have done is pose a question.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Definitely not reading from him or ne1 else.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Someone told you the Bible was the word of God....so you either fell for what was written in the book or fell for what that person told you.
You have accepted a non original version of what God is when you should have figured it out yourself.
Spiritually lazy that is.

Oh and this thread has backfired on you hasn't it.
Don't worry you can run around claiming to be persecuted you lot like that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because I'm.not using just arguments from.previous people.

Really because when I looked up Sye Ten Bruggencate who Woodcarver pointed out in rationalwiki it had a lot and it covered everything you have postulated in this thread including every reason they are flawed fallacious arguments. If you are not copying him on purpose I guess it must be one of those things where you had forgotten about his video debats then later thought it was your own idea.

Just seems strange you would come up with the same flawed arguments.

Well you did acknowledge you are using the Transcendental argument but you seem to think your argument is more than that. So what other argument are you trying to use?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I think the OP has been getting all his material from Christian Apologetics courses. Did you know people can get masters in them. I had seen a video on the brainwashing most go through in them so they actually believe these things. IMO it's sad.

Yeah, actually I know a guy... My mom's husband. Not sure of what courses he took but he went to one of the better known Bible Colleges and eventually went on to be a Pastor for awhile. He worked a lot with Kenneth Copeland and many of the guys in that circle. We can talk about the Bible just fine but if it get's to talking about my opposing perspective.. well, it's a touchy subject so we just don't. He is a great guy, don't get me wrong! Not as hardcore, just devout.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Someone told you the Bible was the word of God....so you either fell for what was written in the book or fell for what that person told you.
You have accepted a non original version of what God is when you should have figured it out yourself.
Spiritually lazy that is.

the human race is always looking to make the world operate more conveniently as our needs or desires dictate. this also includes spirituality. notice how everyone is always so sure that their god somehow organized itself into the sort of personality that matches them perfectly while somehow missing the fact that this puts said god at odds with 99.9% of the rest of the world both past and future. and 100 people in the same room doing this exact same thing always fail to recognize it in each other along with the cherry picking game they play as they compete with each other to see who can find the most supporting scripture while happily overlooking every line that contradicts their beliefs because "special pleading".

tl;dr "welcome to church, may i take your order?"

a reply to: boymonkey74

Not at all. Not being mean, but I assumed that the people who would post would have a more complete knowledge of logic, however I was wrong, and should have posted a more in depth OP so there weren't as many confusions.

You are the one failing to use proper logic.
You are presupposing an opinion while failing to produce any evidence to back up your claims. All the while claiming that it is absurd for us to expect any evidence. Logic and reasoning REQUIRES EVIDENCE.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You ignored people for the most part, hardly addressing anything.

The only thing I took away from this thread is that, you basically believe anyone who isn't a believer is incapable of understanding anything. We don't believe in God therefor we are fizzing idiots. Many valid points were made in this thread, and many good questions asked. You didn't address anything unless you could use semantics in your attempts to do so. If you as a believer are the only one here with a basis for logic etc. than blowing us out of the water should have been pretty easy. It seems when you are challenged you back away.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The only thing I took away from this thread is that, you basically believe anyone who isn't a believer is incapable of understanding anything

Not what I said at all...I said with out God a person is incapable of justify living as though causality in the future will be like causality in the past and present. I am not saying that can't live that way, but I am saying that it is logically absurd to live that way without justified true belief as to why causality in the future should be like causality in the past and present.

In this thread I also was posing the statement that an atheist cannot justify the existence of the laws of logic.