Reasons you believe there's God
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Rock of God, you got the logic of granite, no common sense. You have come not to respectfully analyse our views you have come with the intent to discredit them when we were polite to you you were not polite to us. After trying to help you continued down the bumpy road to a point where you are at least considered by me to be a lost cause. Your closed-minded.
You have provided no evidence as to why atheism is wrong. All you evidence is just you opinion evidence is not just formed opinions.
You don't seem to get the point of debate. The point to debate to to more fully understand the viewpoints of others and come to a higher understanding through discourse. Proving the other sides view wrong or invalid does not make one right. Expressing both sides view and furthering the understandings of all side's views is the point.
Last but not least your not being made fun of for being a theist, your being made fun of for being you. You refuse to acknowledge the points of others or see things from their perspectives. You came on here of all places, a forum for atheist, with the aim of showing us that our view is lacking supportive evidence, it took you forever to even get it sunk in that it was a view and not a belief like your belief in God is. You refused to listen to our logic and twisted our words to mean things we never said and apply them to how our view was as you put it "invalid". It not that your a theist, if that was the case every theist on here would receive similar treatment. Its that your impossible to reason with and a megalithic poster who is ruining the forum for us. I miss the good ol' days when we could talk about real things and not the rock of God's God.
Your dense. Like a rock in case you didn't catch that . By the way the way you undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it fits the definition of ad hominem to a T. So I am not sure if you understand the term correctly.
Fristly, I am quite open-minded. Ask anybody who knows me personally. Should I bring them to this site? A lot of them are atheists, as well.
Secondly, I haven't shown your claims to be invalid? Then why is it that my claims have failed to be vitiated, yet I've been able to negate your, and everybody else's, claims?
You can make fun of me for whatever, it doesn't hurt me and only shows your immaturity and inability to have a proper debate, which is what I do. I present my views and support them with science and history, then refute any claims made against my own. That is how a debate works.
Thirdly, I listen to everybody's views. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, and being an atheist does not make one any less of a person. I've never even-so-much as insinuated anything different. I have also not distorted anybody's words. I didn't know *you* owned the word atheist and are at liberty to define it as you please. My definition of the word comes from the words originality, the Oxford Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I have solid evidence to back up the fact that atheism is maintaining that there are no gods.
Fourthly, an "argumentum ad hominem" is an argument in which somebody attacks the character of the debater instead of the argument itself. This renders the attackers arguments utterly useless, and invalidates their arguments on the basis that they had to resort to an ad hominem attack in the first place. People are not inclined to listen to somebody who likes to insult others.
I would find that I have a lot of common sense. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to properly debate people. I'm also very polite. I haven't been rude or made any rude remarks toward anybody, including you, who has insulted me multiple times.
I tried to help you out man, but you just keep digging your grave deeper. Half your issue is how you word what you say, and the other half of the issue is how you interpret what others say. Rather than trying to tell people that they are 100% wrong, just present your personal views on the matter, look at what other people have to say, and take it into consideration when defending your views that you sound like you are calling all the atheists on here stupid.
No... I'm not? I Present my information in a very civil, formal way, and then allow the atheist to respond. I, then, use science, history, or whatever subject be needed to show why their claims are invalid. This is how a debate works.
It is also frustrating that you guys claim I don't see things from your perspective. Many times in my life I was on the verge of becoming an atheist myself, but I always held my faith. I know why some people are atheists, I understand that. My job is not to convert them to Christianity, my job is to provide evidence for the existence of God, and to share my opinions and views on various topics. If I see somebody posting information that is incorrect (like somebody asking the question "what caused/created God", I correct them. For example, I would tell them that God, by his very nature, is uncaused and creationless.
Thirdly, I don't know why you keep bringing up the fact that I "changed" the definition of "atheist". The thing is, *I* didn't change it, I am using the word in the context for which it was created, literally. I also use the word as the way the Oxford Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of Philosophy would use it. The atheist is the one who changed the definition of "atheist" to "lack of belief in any god". That is not its true definition. By that definition, babies are atheists, regardless of the family they grew up in, simply because they don't believe in God. They don't yet understand that concept.
I have not yet insulted anybody, in any way, on this website. So, what confuses me is why I'm being persecuted for doing such when I haven't.
It is not entirely about WHAT you say but HOW you say it. You seem very conceited and give the IMPRESSION of bigotry and stubbornness. How many times to I have to say that you need think before you type, and be willing to be flexible with your ideas rather than constantly suggesting that only your ideas can be correct, even though they are no more valid than the theories you oppose.
Fair enough. Sometimes, I feel that the theists view atheists as we do the Tea Party: as crazy, ignorant, and stubborn extremists.
Not at all. The theist is a rational person who maintains a belief on the basis that there is not enough evidence for them to come to a conclusion. Well, that's the way I see it. Not all theists (obviously) see it this way. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, nor is there anything wrong with atheism. I just *personally* believe atheism to be an invalid claim.
You know, you sound more like an agnostic than a theist there. Theist: there must be something. Atheist: there is nothing. Agnostic: I am not sure of anything.
Theist: "I believe there is a God."
Agnostic: "I withhold belief in any deity on the basis that I do not/ cannot know."
Atheist: "I assert that there exists no god or gods."
And I, myself, am an agnostic Christian theist.
So just Gregory Pek is like this?
Look, shock of god, atheists kinda like the idea that their lack of religion is logical. So often we react the same way to you questioning that logic as theists do to our questioning of religion. I am not saying that this reaction is ok or valid, but you should keep it in mind. People abandon all logic when you anger them.