What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dave Matson's picture
m m m m m m m m m m

dejess m m m m m m m m m m troll m m m m m m m m m m

watchman's picture
@ UmmHurayra ....

@ UmmHurayra ....

Greetngs and welcome.... We don't get many muslimas here but its always interesting when they do turn up.....

Don't worry too much about Dejess... he is working to his own ends ..... he has an agenda.....

I think everyone here knows that and that is why no one will fully engage him.....

He is somewhat delusional... he believes he is the founder and President of the Society for Research on Atheists' Attitudes....

You can find his Researchgate contributions here....

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marius_Dejess

it is notable for the almost total lack of interest he demonstrates.... 5 posts in 5 years.... (watch out for the tumble weed)

Dave Matson's picture
watchman,

watchman,

Wow! A genuine, certified nut!

Marius Dejess's picture
Don't forget the OP!

Don't forget the OP!

Produce your arguments against God existing.

CyberLN's picture
No.

No.

Stu. K.'s picture
If you "know god exists"

If you "know god exists" wouldn't you like to take 2 minutes out of your day to share this proof you know for a fact? If its factual then all atheists would become christians then, right? But watch, you won't share it because even you yourself knows its not real proof.

chimp3's picture
Why Mariosep? Why produce an

Why Mariosep? Why produce an argument you will ignore them write "Dear atheists ....." . Been through your circular thread circuses before!

LogicFTW's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess

"Don't forget the OP!

Produce your arguments against God existing."

I did, you ignored it, and here you are asking again. Yeah you are not going to get answers you want (if that it what you are seeking at all,) if you ignore the few folks that do answer it. At this point you are getting ridiculous. It is like talking to a 5 year old who just had as much sugary caffeinated beverage as they wanted.

Marius Dejess's picture
"I did, you ignored it..."

"I did, you ignored it..."

I say to produce your argument in 100 words or less.

When I see so much words but no systematic exposition at all, instead all into waving your hands, I know that I will be wasting my time and trouble.

Put at the top of your message box, your argument in 100 words or less, and that in bold red color.

Otherwise you will not be into any argument but a lot of hand waving, i.e., evasions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dejess - I say to produce

Dejess - Put at the top of your message box, your argument in 100 words or less, and that in bold red color.

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." -Laplace

The extraordinary claim of the existence of a deity(s) does not meet this standard (imo).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We had a good example of this recently here when a theist provided list of testimonials from people who already believe, as the evidence of god's existence.

FYI: red text is not an option for post formatting.

LogicFTW's picture
Heh, nowhere in your original

Heh, nowhere in your original post does it say: " produce your argument in 100 words or less."
You added that later, I and others refused because you did not even respond to our responses to your original post.

If I actually felt like you would respond, I would still, despite everything you demonstrated so far in this thread, re-word my original reply to fit 100 words or less. As it is a simple exercise and I am interested in your response if you actually responded to them. I do grow tired of the evasions you take part in however.

Dave Matson's picture
Dejees m m m m m

Dejees m m m m m fruitcake m m m m m m troll m m m m m m

UmmHurayra's picture
ROFL hahaha I agree

ROFL hahaha I agree

UmmHurayra's picture
@ dejess

@ dejess

Why don't you post here your comment from your research site? The one Is the universe infinite...
At least then you will be bringing something to the table as atheists request you give them an idea as to WHY YOU believe God exists. I don't think they so much have a problem with your beliefs, its just that as a scientist or philosopher you need to bring with some form of proof to your theory. Whether they accept the hypothesis or not is fine, at least you provided it. As a believer in God, and this is my stance in Islam, it is your job to convey the message. But you cannot change someone, cannot convert them, and cannot force them to accept your views. As believers in God , we are just messengers. If you feel you have knowledge on physics/ astrophysics and creation of the universe then this is the perfect post to place it on.

algebe's picture
@LogicForTW: It is like

@LogicForTW: It is like talking to a 5 year old

Actually it's more like talking to a robot. I think Dejess may be another species of the Love Magic Baba Guru wankers who daily pollute this site with their blather. Not one of the Dejess thing's posts contains a real response to any of our posts. They seem to be computer-generated.

Sapporo's picture
@Dejess it isn't for atheists

@Dejess it isn't for atheists to produce evidence of "god" not existing - it is for you to produce evidence "god" does exist.

You have made the following claims, neither of which have been backed up:
a) that there is empirical evidence of "god".
b) that atheists are being willfully ignorant of this empirical evidence.

As it is however, empirical evidence of the supernatural is an oxymoron. By definition, any phenomenal evidence of the supernatural cannot be valid proof. It is readily apparent that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being does not exist in my garage, so it is certain that such a being does not exist anywhere.

mykcob4's picture
I suggest CberLN act on

I suggest CberLN act on Dejess. He is an obvious troll. Everyone has tried hard to answer his OP and all they got for it was insults and being called terrorists. CyberLN has warned many of us for far less. Dejess is entitled to his opinion but he suggests that atheists are not entitled to even exist. Now, what more does anyone need to know that this guy is just a troll.

Marius Dejess's picture
Tell you what, dear atheists,

Tell you what, dear atheists, go back to your best selling fellow atheist authors, and see whether they have any decent argument which you can rehash into a 100 words or less.

And put your 100 words or less précis of an argument from your best selling atheists, at the top of your message box, in bold red font.

mykcob4's picture
No Dejess YOU go read

No Dejess YOU go read statements and books by best selling atheist authors. You are baiting for a fight, for an excuse to proselytize. YOU are the one evading, not we. YOU are trolling. You are clearly here to cause discord and disruption. The very definition of a troll.
I have a suggestion for you. Get an education. This might take you some time but it is worth it. Exclude from that education any religious dogma and propaganda. Learn what "evidence" is, what constitutes "fact", and the definition of atheism. You obviously don't know what any of these things are. You know what "hyperbole" is because that is all you do.

Sky Pilot's picture
Dejess,

Dejess,

"Tell you what, dear atheists, go back to your best selling fellow atheist authors, and see whether they have any decent argument which you can rehash into a 100 words or less."

Do you remember the Noah guy? He's the one with the boat and the animals during the flood. Even his own grandkids didn't believe in his delusion about a God. And he was alive to tell them all about his great adventure. They worshiped idols instead of Noah's God. So if Noah's own grandkids didn't believe his fairy tale he told them with his own lips why in the hell do you believe it?

Dave Matson's picture
Dejess m m m m m

Dejess m m m m m m troll m m m m m m m troll m m m m m m

Sapporo's picture
The best "argument" Dejess

The best "argument" Dejess has for "god" is the assertion he has empirical evidence of "god". The truth is, this is bullshit - he has no evidence, otherwise he would have presented it, rather than grandstanding.

As none of us have evidence that "god" exists, and Dejess has no evidence that "god" exists, why is an argument needed for why we lack a belief in the existence of "god"?

Dejess is acting from a position of weakness, that is all there is to it.

Sheldon's picture
Im not sure there is a better

Im not sure there is a better argument for not believing a claim than the fact that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence to support it.

FormerAtheist's picture
I think of the argument

I think of the argument rather different. I think of it more as in a question of cause of the reality of where we are today. Could life and the Universe have gotten to where we are today without an outside intelligence? The answer as I have found is clearly no. The science doesn't go that way. And so if it is impossible without outside intelligence then there is a God.

Whether we like it or not.

mykcob4's picture
No Former you are wrong.

No Former you are wrong. Science doesn't come to a conclusion then try to change the facts to fit that conclusion. You said, "Could life and the Universe have gotten to where we are today without an outside intelligence?" That is purely a philosophical question and any answer would be highly speculative. Even with that glaring fact, you decided to answer it and imply that YOUR speculative answer is fact. It isn't! AND you had to JUMP to that conclusion with NO evidence whatsoever. PLUS you even go further and conclude that any possible "outside intelligence" HAS to be your fucking god! It doesn't and isn't I assure you. Consider THIS possibility. INSTEAD of YOUR FUCKING god, a group of aliens that EVOLVED from excited amino acids on their own planet created OUR life as we know it.
WHETHER YOU FUCKING LIKE IT OR NOT!

FormerAtheist's picture
You say that Science doesn't

You say that Science doesn't come to a conclusion then try to change the facts ... wrong not long after Darwin published the Origin of the Species the Burgeous Shale discovery was made. The scientist that discovered did his best to do what he could to make the fossils fit into the Darwin model as he was a follower and friend. But it didn't last forever. The point is that Scientists are human. They are smart but human.
It is not a philosophical question but instead the central question of the origin of life and the universe. I think it is becoming obvious that we are seeing serious problems with the dated Darwinian model. If nothing else we will need something different to say the least. The tree of life is ripped to shreds for example. Seems like DNA and Gene data is not cooperating to put it mildly.

Outside intelligence would be necessity be powerful to be considered a God by default so of course there is a God. As to Aliens you would still have the same problem of life arising on their planet.

Grinseed's picture
Like a zealous theist, you

Like a zealous theist, you distort facts to best fit your preconceived ideas about history AND science.

The Burgess Shale is not about scientific conspiracy and cover up but about the success of the scientific method.

Darwin and Walcott (the discoverer of the Burgess Shale) never met. They hardly qualify as friends.
Walcott made the single largest discovery of fossils from the Middle Cambrian Period which included a lot of unique and unclassified, incredibly weird and wonderful forms. He was a student of evolution and of course he tried to fit all his fossils into the known classification of his time, but not because he was Darwin's best buddy, ffs, but because he was a scientist. He never quite succeeded and sixty years later another biologist Harry Whittington revealed that the collection only included a few species that survived the Permo-Triassic extinction, aka the "Great Dying", in which 96% of the earth's species were wiped out meaning that the Cambrian period created far more species than was earlier thought possible and that all the new protocrusteans and arthropods Walcott had identified were simply wrong. The critically self correcting, self assessing quality of the scientific method ultimately produced the truth.

Theism cannot boast any similiar treatment of its beleifs, canons or dogma. From St Paul to Thomas Aquinas to today its all just pious unfalsifiable "wistful" speculation and self deluding deception.

algebe's picture
@Former Atheist: Outside

@Former Atheist: Outside intelligence would be necessity be powerful to be considered a God by default so of course there is a God.

Why is outside intelligence a necessity? Outside of what?

Putting "of course" in front of a statement doesn't make it true. That takes evidence and logic. You're just dropping wild assertions like "the tree of life is ripped to shreds" without any evidence or attribution. That's the trouble with theism. It stops you from thinking clearly.

FormerAtheist's picture
"The tree of life is ripped

"The tree of life is ripped to shreds" is not my words but rather the words of evolutionary scientists that are atheists. There are serious problems that are being exasperated every year as the genetics investigating goes forward. Your right "of course" may not be a finer moment for me. That is just my personal opinion but then its hard to escape ones personal opinions.

Outside intelligence is needed for the life we see today. The cell is just too complex there are too many systems that are way too complicated to come about without design. Some systems would require parts of the system that would serve no use to "evolve" by chance with no necessity. In other systems the organism experimenting with this new system would expire just by experimenting with this new system.

All experimentation that I know of to show meaningful evolution has not produced a specimen that can survive long enough to reproduce.

In order to get meaningful change you have to begin the mutation early on in the embryonic stage of development but this creates problems with the over all system and leads to termination of the species or dysfunctionality on a level that leads to early death before reproduction. Mutations that are made later in embryonic development only lead to the kind of changes that we can observe like different colors or sizes of this part or that part.

We haven't even talked about the difficulties of getting useful protein folds.

Then there is the epigenetic information that I am most crucially interested in at the moment. This is the real thing for me. The sugar code and other forms is very exciting. Its a fascinating time to be alive ... but then humans have said that for centuries have they not?

CyberLN's picture
FA, you wrote, “ "The tree of

FA, you wrote, “ "The tree of life is ripped to shreds" is not my words but rather the words of evolutionary scientists that are atheists.“

Who would that be then?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.