Every argument ever between Christians and atheists

[dfr52]

First, we get it. You hate Christians. To me, there is no point in continuing to bring up arguments.

Second, allow me to ask you this: what if you're wrong? Honest question. I didn't see this in your 10 responses. What if you're wrong? What if you've wasted your time and life arguing with Christians, attempting to disprove God's existence, and you die, and you're wrong?

I believe he's fine w/ the decisions he has made.

[duane1969]

Doubtlessly some kind of off-handed slam at the theory of evolution. Perhaps I should call you "Dirt Boy" since your holy book says we came from dirt. Yes, that's far more glorious than coming from monkeys.

So it's OK for you to call people Private Pyle and Sunny Jim in an obvious attempt to be underhandedly snide but you are supposed to be above the same snide commentary? Newsflash there Sunny Jim, don't dish it if you can't take it.

Also, I never argued that I descended from dirt. I descended from humans. You are the one that fervently argued that you descended from monkeys/apes. Calling me "Dirt Boy" would childish and inane.

The deist god is a non-anthropomorphic, non-specific, non-intervening, non-personal god. In other words, we do not and cannot know its nature. So no it isn't Allah or Buddha, but it sure isn't Yahweh either.

You are applying a modern description of deism to people who died hundreds of years before that modern definition was created. Logical...

A good deal of them were quite critical of Christianity. Including presidents Adams and Jefferson, no less. Surely they had read the Bible, surely they had seen how Christians act, and surely that's how they discovered that Christianity is not the divinely inspired bastion of morality it pretends to be. Many of the founding fathers have been quoted as being dismissive of Christianity. I don't care what Smiley the Preacher told you in Sunday school.

What does Sunday school have to do with politics? As I have said before, anything you have to say that might have legitimacy goes right out the window because of your unbelievable needs to be crass and rude. Instead of making a valid point you just come off as rambling and incoherent in a pathetic attempt to be underhandedly insulting.

And that's like saying flapjacks isn't a stupid name for pancakes.

What???

[duane1969]

First, we get it. You hate Christians. To me, there is no point in continuing to bring up arguments.

Yet he continues to bring up the same argument over, and over, and over, and over, and over.......and over.

[Umpy9]

First, we get it. You hate Christians. To me, there is no point in continuing to bring up arguments.

Agreed, and I think a few others agree too; hence the fact that people were actually partaking in the pancake debate.

[gatorboymike]

"What if you're wrong?" is just shorthand for Pascal's Wager, one of the shoddiest arguments for Christianity ever made.

Anybody can ask anybody "what if you're wrong?" Would that argument sound convincing or persuasive to YOU coming from a Muslim or a Buddhist? No? Well then you should understand why it doesn't sound convincing or persuasive to me coming from you.

I don't believe there are any gods or afterlifes. If I'm wrong, then here's the position I'm in: A god and/or an afterlife does exist, but I know absolutely nothing about them. And don't pull out the old "my personal god will stomp your face in when you die" line, because that does me no good at all in the here and now.

If there is a supernatural hereafter, we know nothing about it, no matter how much you want to pretend you do. If there are more than one of same, of differing levels of pleasantness, and there are some criteria determining which one you'll end up in, we know nothing about it, no matter how much how want to pretend you do. As far as that goes, everyone is in the same boat, no matter what religion they are or if they are none. Evangelists want to convince people that "Either my exact interpretation of my specific version of my god exists, or no gods exist, because my exact interpretation of my specific version of my god is the only god that could ever possibly exist!" Uh, no. It's not that cut and dry, me bucko. You're just as clueless, and therefore as likely to be wrong, as I am whether you admit it or not. The only difference is that you are making claims to impossible knowledge and I'm not.

[Umpy9]

Yes you are, your constant claim is that God and the afterlife don't exist. So based on your theory, your just as ignorant and moronic (since that's the category you seem to place us who have faith) by saying that there is no such thing and claiming to know that there is nothing to look forward to after you die.

[gatorboymike]

So it's OK for you to call people Private Pyle and Sunny Jim in an obvious attempt to be underhandedly snide but you are supposed to be above the same snide commentary? Newsflash there Sunny Jim, don't dish it if you can't take it.

Also, I never argued that I descended from dirt. I descended from humans. You are the one that fervently argued that you descended from monkeys/apes. Calling me "Dirt Boy" would childish and inane.

I never said I can't take it. But I always have good reasons for calling people what I call them...except for Sunny Jim, which is a catch-all. You can call me whatever you want, but if you're just saying "monkey boy" to be insulting for the sake of being insulting, that's a bit like saying "doo-doo head." It's your own holy book that says you came from dirt. If you don't believe what it says, I guess it's not really all that holy, now is it? Or are you one of those people who only believes the parts of the Bible that suits his agenda?

You are applying a modern description of deism to people who died hundreds of years before that modern definition was created. Logical...

Translation: "I declare that America's founding fathers were actually Christians whether they admitted it or not, and whether they realized it or not!" I'm sure you have reasons n(1)...n(k), wherein k is a positive integer greater than 1, for asserting this. Kindly list reasons n(1) through n(k).

What does Sunday school have to do with politics? As I have said before, anything you have to say that might have legitimacy goes right out the window because of your unbelievable needs to be crass and rude. Instead of making a valid point you just come off as rambling and incoherent in a pathetic attempt to be underhandedly insulting.

So you're accusing me of making ad hominem arguments. Wrong. Ad hominem is when the insult is used in place of an actual argument. Adding an insult alongside an argument is not ad hominem. The point here is that somewhere along the line, you fell for the old "America is a Christian nation" schlock, which has "America's founding fathers were all Christians" as a corollary 99% of the time. And you WANT that to be true, so you don't really care if it IS true or not. As I said in another thread, you value dogma over truth, and I find that contemptible. I find it hard to not be insulting to people I have contempt for, and you have proven that you are the same. So stop standing on tip-toes and calling it a high ground.

[gatorboymike]

Yes you are, your constant claim is that God and the afterlife don't exist. So based on your theory, your just as ignorant and moronic (since that's the category you seem to place us who have faith) by saying that there is no such thing and claiming to know that there is nothing to look forward to after you die.

That's not my claim at all. That's a strawman argument. My claim is that I don't believe in those things. That's not the same thing as claiming to know they don't exist, and if you say it is, you'd just be lying.

People who do have faith and people who don't are equally ignorant about what happens after we die. And I don't mean that in an insulting or condemning way, it's just the truth. We don't know.

Here's the key point, however: if you want to claim you do know what happens after we die, you have to back up that claim. And if all your justifications are as toothless as "this old book says I'm right, so that proves it" or "I just feel it in my heart that I'm right, so that proves it," then I have no reason to assume you're right. Those justifications are intellectually bankrupt. So if you've got something stronger, by all means, bring it out.

[Umpy9]

That's fine, and that just brings us to the perpetual debate. I have personally experienced God's existance, so I have reason to believe. You haven't so you have no reason to think anything different and that's understandable.

What isn't understandable to me is the reason you berate Christians, still don't get it and you probably will never make a valid argument for that. Especially since your arguments are so condescending.

[gatorboymike]

That's fine, and that just brings us to the perpetual debate. I have personally experienced God's existance, so I have reason to believe. You haven't so you have no reason to think anything different and that's understandable.

Well that's fine for you then. I can't tell you what you did or didn't experience. Just understand that you can't expect someone else to believe because of what happened to you.

What isn't understandable to me is the reason you berate Christians, still don't get it and you probably will never make a valid argument for that. Especially since your arguments are so condescending.

Personal experience. You know all about that, right? If you had been in my place, you'd understand.