FREE BBS!!!

[PLAYER57832]

For a God to give man free will and then to punish man for using that free will would suggest more douchiness than it does all-lovingness, in my opinion.

Even if the alternative was unthinking zombihood?

Also, harm is not necessarily punishment. If you tell your child not to touch the stove, but they do, and get burned... is that you punishing them?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not sure why you believe I want to postpone this as much as possible when all I'm really doing is letting you hang yourself with your own rope. So if you could answer my question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

yeah i think there is evidence for atheism, just as there's evidence for theism. otherwise why would there even be a debate?
your turn

The most obvious case for the lack of God's existence is the very little evidence that there is for his existence. While absence of PROOF is not PROOF of absense, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

There are simply far too many questions and assumptions to overcome in order to show evidence that God exists, and in almost every case, there is a simpler answer than "God".

what absence of evidence? thousands of years of testimony of some kind of divine being from countless different cultures and civilizations not enough for you? arguments by some of history's most influential philosophers not enough for you?

at this point i'm just waiting to see if any of the atheists here can identify one bit of evidence for their beliefs. thinking critically about your worldview is important, guys. don't just take what the modern atheist movement tell you ("atheism doesn't need any evidence!") based on faith alone. that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Since when ISN'T Atheism a religion? Belief in God is not a requirement of a religious belief.

and yes... I agree with your argument above completely

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure why you believe I want to postpone this as much as possible when all I'm really doing is letting you hang yourself with your own rope. So if you could answer my question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

yeah i think there is evidence for atheism, just as there's evidence for theism. otherwise why would there even be a debate?
your turn

The most obvious case for the lack of God's existence is the very little evidence that there is for his existence. While absence of PROOF is not PROOF of absense, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

There are simply far too many questions and assumptions to overcome in order to show evidence that God exists, and in almost every case, there is a simpler answer than "God".

what absence of evidence?

That big smoking pit of a hole of "not much".

thousands of years of testimony of some kind of divine being from countless different cultures and civilizations not enough for you?

No, not particularly, when their testimony is routinely based on their own preconceptions as well as (in many cases) a desire to retain power/control.

arguments by some of history's most influential philosophers not enough for you?

The arguments by some of history's most influential philosophers does carry some weight for me, actually, because I consider them to be intelligent, thorough-thinking individuals, even when I disagree with them. However, they're also philosophizing based on their own preconceptions, which, for the most part, is that God does indeed exist.

at this point i'm just waiting to see if any of the atheists here can identify one bit of evidence for their beliefs.

I just did.

thinking critically about your worldview is important, guys.

I find it hilarious that you would actually use that statement in defense of religion.

don't just take what the modern atheist movement tell you ("atheism doesn't need any evidence!") based on faith alone. that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Don't make stupid assumptions about what you think I believe.

[Woodruff]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

[PLAYER57832]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

No, the comparison is between the flat statement about one set of beliefs versus another.

[Woodruff]

For a God to give man free will and then to punish man for using that free will would suggest more douchiness than it does all-lovingness, in my opinion.

Even if the alternative was unthinking zombihood?

I'm not saying he shouldn't have given us free will. I'm saying that to punish us for using that free will is not the action of an all-loving God.

Also, harm is not necessarily punishment. If you tell your child not to touch the stove, but they do, and get burned... is that you punishing them?

Are you suggesting that God's decision to banish unrepentant sinners into eternal damnation isn't a punishment on his part? Really?

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure why you believe I want to postpone this as much as possible when all I'm really doing is letting you hang yourself with your own rope. So if you could answer my question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

yeah i think there is evidence for atheism, just as there's evidence for theism. otherwise why would there even be a debate?
your turn

The most obvious case for the lack of God's existence is the very little evidence that there is for his existence. While absence of PROOF is not PROOF of absense, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

There are simply far too many questions and assumptions to overcome in order to show evidence that God exists, and in almost every case, there is a simpler answer than "God".

what absence of evidence? thousands of years of testimony of some kind of divine being from countless different cultures and civilizations not enough for you? arguments by some of history's most influential philosophers not enough for you?

at this point i'm just waiting to see if any of the atheists here can identify one bit of evidence for their beliefs. thinking critically about your worldview is important, guys. don't just take what the modern atheist movement tell you ("atheism doesn't need any evidence!") based on faith alone. that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Since when ISN'T Atheism a religion? Belief in God is not a requirement of a religious belief.
and yes... I agree with your argument above completely

A belief does not make a religion, first of all. Secondly, the comparison of an agnostic atheist to a religious fundamentalist is a retarded one.

[Woodruff]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

No, the comparison is between the flat statement about one set of beliefs versus another.

No it isn't. He asked me for MY evidence of lack of a God. I am an agnostic atheist. He is not equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. He is equating a simple belief (that there is no God) with religious fundamentalism, which goes far beyond "a simple belief", to be sure.

[Funkyterrance]

Isn't the whole point of free will to leave one's actions in one's own hands? The concept of accountability for these actions by the proposed receiver of said free will implies douchiness of the proposed giver? I'm not being funny but is that really what your stance is?

[Woodruff]

Isn't the whole point of free will to leave one's actions in one's own hands? The concept of accountability for these actions by the proposed receiver of said free will implies douchiness of the proposed giver? I'm not being funny but is that really what your stance is?

If you tell your son "You can go out tonight and do whatever you want" and then punish your son for going out and drinking, you SET YOUR SON UP to be punished. Yes, that's my stance.

It's not about accountability. It's about giving the ability to do something and then punishing for having used that ability.

[Funkyterrance]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

No, the comparison is between the flat statement about one set of beliefs versus another.

No it isn't. He asked me for MY evidence of lack of a God. I am an agnostic atheist. He is not equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. He is equating a simple belief (that there is no God) with religious fundamentalism, which goes far beyond "a simple belief", to be sure.

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid. The use of the word itself on a forums such as this is ignorant at best. I'm not attacking your character, just asking nicely to refrain from it because it has the reverse effect you are trying to get. I don't think I am the first person to ask this and I fear I may not be the last.

[Woodruff]

that makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

I can't agree more with you on this point.

See, this is where you guys are stupid. You're equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. Do you have ANY IDEA what a ridiculous comparison that is? Do you even CARE what a ridiculous comparison that is?

No, the comparison is between the flat statement about one set of beliefs versus another.

No it isn't. He asked me for MY evidence of lack of a God. I am an agnostic atheist. He is not equating an agnostic atheist with a religious fundamentalist. He is equating a simple belief (that there is no God) with religious fundamentalism, which goes far beyond "a simple belief", to be sure.

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

[Funkyterrance]

Isn't the whole point of free will to leave one's actions in one's own hands? The concept of accountability for these actions by the proposed receiver of said free will implies douchiness of the proposed giver? I'm not being funny but is that really what your stance is?

If you tell your son "You can go out tonight and do whatever you want" and then punish your son for going out and drinking, you SET YOUR SON UP to be punished. Yes, that's my stance.

It's not about accountability. It's about giving the ability to do something and then punishing for having used that ability.

Since when is it in anyone's religion to "go out tonight and do whatever they want"? There happen to be rules regarding religions. So now apply that information to your above post.

[Funkyterrance]

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

Lovely, now you're going to act like a petulant child?? This is helping your stance in your opinion?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

Lovely, now you're going to act like a petulant child?? This is helping your stance in your opinion?

Perhaps instead of saying stupid things, you'd discuss the issue that was being discussed before you started saying stupid things.

[Funkyterrance]

Woodruff, I really wish you would stop calling other people stupid.

I really wish other people would stop saying stupid things.

Lovely, now you're going to act like a petulant child?? This is helping your stance in your opinion?

Perhaps instead of saying stupid things, you'd discuss the issue that was being discussed before you started saying stupid things.

I would be happy to keep to issues being discussed if you wouldn't constantly interrupt them with "you're stupid" whenever you are at a loss of words. Deal?
At any rate I am starting to see a pattern of you derailing the convo. when your argument starts to falter. Its the equivalent of taking a "time out".

[oss spy]

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

[chang50]

Oh, look. Dumb people who think atheism is a religion and that atheism requires proof.

Since when did YOU require proof for being skeptical that unicorns, big foot, and leprechauns existed?

But you guys do have a point; we atheists do need to show how we reached our conclusions. Tell you what: you tell me how you disproved Zeus and I'll use your method.

Well said,not just Zeus but the countless other deities that have been followed,has anyone honestly systematically researched the evidence for every single god in human history and disproved them all?An atheist only believes in the existence of one less god than the theist.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

[oss spy]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

[Army of GOD]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

I hope you realize that you and a bunch of other atheists are just as dumb when it comes to debating about any possible deity as the religious that argue opposite you.

And this is coming from an atheist.

[chang50]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

Intellectual stimulation is enough motivation for me.Now I've answered your question how about tackling the question of the theist needing to disprove the 99.9999 % of gods he does not adhere to?

You are confusing me for someone who has chosen a side on the subject on here and I haven't. You are asking the wrong person.

[chang50]

Ok, new question...
What motive does an atheist have for trying to prove to a theist that they are incorrect in their belief system? Is it envy? Otherwise I can't see any good reason.

There is a no greater percentage of atheists trying to convert theists than there is a percentage of theists trying to convert atheists. Let me now flip the question back on you:

What motive does a theist have for trying to prove to an atheist that the atheist is incorrect in their skepticism? Is it envy?

A theist is most likely trying to get an atheist to "see the light" as it were and convert the atheist to a more meaningful existence. An atheist would be trying to convert a theist to a less meaningful existence. Its a complete apples and oranges comparison.

More meaningful how?