"Atheism Produces Evil on Incredible Levels"

Provide me evidence and I'll examine it. Until then, it doesn't exist.
I provided you evidence for God. So, why not examine it?

 

Of course God knows. His divine status necessitates Him knowing. Buy we don't know, hence the importance of faith.

It can't be a test if you already know the answers.

 

In my reply to you in the faith thread I told you to create a new thread and I would be happy to examine your "evidence", you ignored everything I said so it makes since you didn't notice it. But stop dodging and prove that the hyper intelligent firecracker doesn't exist or perhaps you forgot...

"You cannot reject a claim without first claiming that rejection. Either way, you're still making a claim.

For example: You're claiming Leprechauns don't exist."

~Qchan

 

I don't think I've ever met an atheist (and that's ALOT of atheists) who asserts that there are no gods. Theists to need to believe that we do, in order to support their argument that atheism is as dogmatic as theism. I'm not sure why this false point is seen as a bolster to the theist position, but there you go. What you miss though, is the fact that indulging these falsehoods makes your position look desperate and shaky.

FTR, I'm an agnostic (because I have no idea if gods exist, just as you have no idea), anti-theist (because the gods thus far described seem pretty much all ghastly), atheist.

 

It can't be a test if fate is sealed before you were born. So your God doesn't know everything and has it all planned?

 

why don't they get this?

send 'em in to an exam room here on earth, and tell them their results are already known before they start. see how they process that. further, tell them the examiners decided what result they'd get. you can feel the brain freeze from here.

 

and what truth is that?

 

Dave's Truth, of course

like most Christians, he's convinced that his version of events is the correct one. being entirely (self)satisfied with his own genius in this regard, he's come to a full stop on his little collection of capitalised woo words.

 

I've seen many people who classify themselves as atheists and not agnostic. Its nice that you correctly identify yourself, though.

I don't need to make a new thread for that. I mean, I've already given you the info. Just examine it. ** shrugs **
If you have any information or evidence that suggests that perhaps I'm wrong, I will examine it. I ask that you at least provide me with one thing. Just one.

 

First you actually have to define God. You cannot possibly provide proof without first defining exactly what is necessary for identifying a God.

 

It s a marketing technique.

 

So true. Women got the vote, slaves were freed and we stopped burning witches. Oh, for the good old days when we were a religious country.

 

The stat answer, and it is a dumb one, it is beyond all human understanding. Then why follow something you can't understand. How are you not sure the devil didn't have a hand in creating the book you follow?

 

the dogma lets them down at every turn.

 

You make a new thread so other threads can stay on topic and not have a bunch of new conversations. You make a new thread to clarify your position and so others can join the discussion. How hard is it to create a new thread and show everyone the proof you have that your god exists?

And no I don't have to provide you with anything other than what I have because it's not my claim we are talking about it's your claim that the hyper intelligent firecracker doesn't exist and why you think you can make it without having evidence to support it.

"You cannot reject a claim without first claiming that rejection. Either way, you're still making a claim.

For example: You're claiming Leprechauns don't exist."

~Qchan

Don't worry, it will hit you eventually.

 

That's wrong. These thing happened despite of religious organizations who were and usually are, for the most part, conservative tradtionalists who attempt to preserve the former status-quo and or reflect the main zeitgeist of the current populace when they can no longer be conservative traditionalists. Just like with the Gay situation, they will attempt to preserve the old way of thinking until they feel that they lose influence by doing so, then they begrdgingly adopt changes and reforms.

In all the cases that you mentioned, religion is as responsible for the preservation of these various oppressions as any other.

 

It was sarcasm in response to One Minds' post.

 

Ah, apologies.

 

Someone alluded to this at the beginning of the thread, but I thought I would link directly to the author. This is coming from Rummel, the same man you are pulling the Communism numbers from, but this time he is talking about Christian colonialism. Click on the statements themselves for the link to the source:

"I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000."
"As a result of this research, I'm willing to estimate that over all of colonized Africa and Asia 1900 to independence, the democide was something like 50 million. This is way above my original 870,000. Even 50 million may be too conservative. If this figure were roughly close, however, then I must raise my total murdered by governments in the 20th Century from 174,000,000 to 223,000,000.

We should all weep."

Keep in mind that this is only for the 20th century.

 

You brought up the "intelligent firecracker" not me. So, since its from your imagination, you should provide the evidence for it.

As for creating a thread about the topic... I've given you proof already. Also, this is *my thread*. I am the OP in case you weren't aware. So, examine the evidence I just gave you.

 

The "evidence" you provided me was a few youtube videos spouting pseudo scientific crap. What's next a video on how the Illuminati are creating a new world order or maybe a video proving the existence of underground alien bases? You claimed to be an educated theist and yet you think posting some videos makes a good argument?

What is your position? What is the evidence exactly and what does it prove? Point by point what am I suppose to refute, what am I supposed to debate? I've seen all that William Craig has to offer in terms of "evidence" this is just old bull(*)(*)(*)(*) presented by a new user who thinks that they are special, that they know what others don't, that they are more intelligent than the rest of the theists we've debated, that I've debated for over a decade, when in fact you couldn't be more like the rest of them in every single way if you spent your entire life trying.

I'll make it easier for you since you have all this evidence, hell the first video is what, two and half hours long? Just post one piece of evidence that we can see and test in order to verify it's validity, just one. Personally I can't wait.

Now back to your claim that the hyper intelligent firecracker doesn't exist. Are you going to provide me with evidence of this claim of yours or not? Why can't you just admit you hate the hyper intelligent firecracker?

 

Well, God is the force that created the universe. So, we all know what the universe consists of. The universe is space, time and material. So, for space to be created, something would have to be space-less, time-less and material-less. That something would be God. So, there's your answer.

 

So, you didn't examine the evidence I provided you. Seems like you're unwilling to either.

So, why are we talking? You don't have evidence for me to examine, and you refuse to look at my evidence. As far as I can see here, our conversation is over.

 

I'm curious as to why Qchan is avoiding this post.

 

The same reason that he wants to use militant Marxist to represent all atheists, but doesn't want to allow Aztec priests, Jihadists terrorists or Christian colonialists to represent all theists. People who make this argument already have their conclusion in mind and then use that conclusion to distort the facts. It is no different from the way my racist uncles spout crime statistics and historical nonsense to "prove" that blacks are inherently more violent and less civilized than whites. It's the exact some line of thought.