Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

An idiot is always an idiot, no matter what jargon, semantics, or logic they try to use, it's obvious that an idiot lacks comprehesion in logic, reason, and objective reality. (I've not claimed here who's the idiot, take it as you will, the one who may feel, or think I'm talking about them, then this party who may it ever be, is obvious the idiot!) :)
 
As an atheist that loves a good disagreement, it aggravates me that religious debates always end up right here... with a few strong theists resorting to semantic gambits, and a group of atheists shaking their heads in sadness and frustration.

Where are the intelligent theists that can debate these points with sense? Or is intelligent + theist impossible? I'm not trying to be mean here, I really want a good, long discussion with theists who won't resort to the Atheism = Religion tactic, or the Science = Faith nonsense. I want someone who embraces illogical faith as a superior epistemological method to debate that choice. Someone who knows more about Christianity than we, as atheists, do.

*Sigh...*
 
since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple
Click to expand...

You need to do your homework pal. 'Atheist' does not mean "someone who 'knows' there is no god".

Come back and apologise once you've done some studying.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Swiv, since it takes faith to "know" that there is no Creator God, Atheists are people of faith, very simple.
Click to expand...

This, unfortunately, is an assumption that many theists make with regard to atheists. For some atheists, there may well be a "faith" that god doesn't exist, but for most (at least the ones I know) that isn't their position.

The only logically tenable position to maintain is that of agnostic-atheism: being without god(s), but recognizing that there is no way to "know" if there is or isn't a god(s) in the universe. There almost certainly isn't, particularly one based upon the various myths and philosophical fallacies of various human cultures and religions, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that there isn't one sitting in some remote corner of the universe (or an infinite number of gods for that matter) that simply hasn't interacted with us.

So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.
 
SkinWalker said:
So it would seem that you're wrong on that point. Atheism, in general, doesn't state that there is any knowledge that a god(s) doesn't exist; it is simply a position of not believing in a god(s) based on a lack of evidence. Should the evidence arise, then a god would be naturally accepted.
Click to expand...



Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.
 
kl5k said:
Exactly what evidence do you need? If it existed. I am wondering if there is a way you could state the conditions: if this or that existed, then I would believe in God.
Click to expand...

What if everyone's prayers started being answered? Or things kept happening that defied the laws of physics, like: People that could fly through the air. People that could immediately speak in every language known to man, with a perfect accent. People that could cure blindness, AIDS, cancer, etc... with nothing but a touch.

How about if God's face appeared to every human being at the same time, and delivered a message. And as we went to our family and friends, with this amazing story, EVERYONE corroborated the story with their own. And God's message included information that no human could possibly know, but that could be verified. Like the recipe for a chemical that cures all diseases through magical means, or the solution to the top 10 mathematical problems of today.

Any of these events would sway my doubt. What will not is a very old book that was written by men, translated by men, cobbled together by men, and details the lives of mere men.
 
zenbabelfish said:
What about proof? That would be good evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your comment. Proof is not evidence, but evidence(s) should support the proof. 1st def. in Webster's says: "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
"Testable and verifiable," yeh, like Darwinian evolution?! Ahahahaha, woops, wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean "Darwinian Natural Selection"? Darwin didn't dream up Evolution. Evolution is an OBSERVABLE FACT. It just means that species have changed over time. Natural Selection is the current best Theory to account for these changes.

It's no wonder you think this stuff requires Faith, you don't even understand the basics.

Atheists at least have the courtesy to know more about religion than theists, so that we can converse about their passions. Why can't theists expend the same effort in learning about the things that they reject?

Or perhaps they do, but they can not remain theists afterwards. Hmm...
 
lightgigantic said:
then how would you know that?
Even this platform of agnosticism requires faith
Click to expand...

You're not even going to walk us through that? Talk about making confidence statements, LG.

Tell us: how does saying "I don't know" translate to having faith, which is blind trust without evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top