If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Lill-Leif]

The Bible has yet to be proven wrong

Fail.

[RocketMoose]

Originally Posted by Lill-Leif [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fail.

Great evidence.

[zenoo]

Compelling arguments of reason, you must be joking? A few links to Richard Dawkins garbage is hardly a compelling argument. Dawkins is indeed a smart and effective scientist, but his philosophy is terrible and he is in fact a laughing matter for most serious philosophers in academia.

Poster whose name starts with a D here actually did a pretty decent job of laying things out for you, but you just blew right by the important points and tried to flame back instead of responding carefully. You can't even stay on track in your own thread.

So check it out, heres some logical thought on the God matter, pretty much the stuff you can learn at a junior college. We exist, and we depend on contingent things in order to exist. My existence depends on my parents whose existence depends on,,back,,back we go to the starting point. All these contingent events seem to trace back, but endlessly and that is unsettling. If you believe as I do in the principle of sufficient reason (there is an explanation for everything basically) then you need to explain this contingent chain of events which is your existence. A contingent thing can never be the starting point. The only way to break this chain is to posit a necessary being, call it God, but this God hardly commits me to anything terrible Christians have done in the last 2000 years. Anyway, this is known as the cosmological argument and of course it is hardly airtight and has created a pretty interesting debate. Many brilliant people accepting this argument, others rejecting it.

Point is..belief in God is not fanatical or illogical. As you have already been told in this thread but failed to digest--people are illogical. Events such as the inquisition reflect how terrible humans can be, it has no bearing on the metaphysical objective truth of gods existence or non-existence.

If your beef is with Churches being abusive or intermingling with our government that is a legitimate gripe, but you arn't talking Philosophy now, just saying you don't like corruption.

Sit on a forum and regurgitate bullshit you youtubed from Richard Dawkins, a good scientist turned bad philosopher and claim all theists to be idiots while not offering any premised arguments is absurd. Atheists seem to think they are free from the burden of proof, but that just isn't so. If you make a positive empirical claim, then claim to have logic on your side, it is on you to show that--otherwise become agnostic and stop looking like a moron.

[purist]

Originally Posted by zenoo

So check it out, heres some logical thought on the God matter, pretty much the stuff you can learn at a junior college. We exist, and we depend on contingent things in order to exist. My existence depends on my parents whose existence depends on,,back,,back we go to the starting point. All these contingent events seem to trace back, but endlessly and that is unsettling. If you believe as I do in the principle of sufficient reason (there is an explanation for everything basically) then you need to explain this contingent chain of events which is your existence. A contingent thing can never be the starting point.

This is just your standard cosmological argument. I don't even need to refute it because you already contradict your own conclusion in the premise of your own argument. Everything needs a cause = Your premise. God is the first cause = Your conclusion. You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. Your nonetheless assert a first cause, so, I ask you how you can assume there can be a first, uncaused cause? The answer is you don't. You're just replacing a mystery with a mystery. Sophomoric and weak argument.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

yaaaflow said : "Well equiped twink tanks stuff within 3 levels of himself news at 11"

Lame.

[Harrison]

This may be the first time I agree with cocksheath here.

[Lill-Leif]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Mardur]

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone busted out Aquinas' Five Ways, ZENOO.

[zenoo]

You guys really do behave like hungry jack terriers on here. I was hardly trying to say the cosmological is definite proof that god exists, I was just showing the original poster that there are arguments out there for god that arn't based on blind faith or zealotry. I am not going to go into a back in forth debate playing cosmological argument defender here. There are arguments and counter-arguments on either side, and we hardly do the debate justice writing 1 paragraph in support or to attack.

Go back and reread the post where I introduce the cosmological argument and try to determine by the tone if I was showing an example of how the god debate can be done logically or if I was claiming to have discovered the winning hand in the debate. In fact I admit that it isn't airtight and that brilliant people on both sides accept and deny it.

It isn't my fault that people with knee jerk responses on here don't understand what is meant by a necessary being and I hardly feel the need to try to explain. As I said, it isn't airtight, but no you don't know how to absolutely refute it in 1 paragraph.

Because reading comprehension here is so poor: My original post is to the OP trying to show that he has to do a good job supporting atheism, actually debate philosophical notions of god, or give up and become agnostic; because currently he looks like something between a troll and an idiot.

[nalkin]

Originally Posted by zenoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My original post is to the OP trying to show that he has to do a good job supporting atheism, actually debate philosophical notions of god, or give up and become agnostic; because currently he looks like something between a troll and an idiot.

Going to say this in this thread now because, having looked it up, I have such a strong urge to correct everyone on their mistaken semantics.

Agnosticism is not a third choice instead of atheism or theism. Atheism and Theism are the only two choices as they span all possibilities. If you are "agnostic" you are still technically a theist or an atheist.

Atheism is not the belief that a god or god does not exist. Although it can be, that isn't necessarily the case.

So everyone go update your facebook pages now