Omnipotent God
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@ Nitin27
In response to:
Oh! I am so sorry. I used big words you cannot understand. How about this?
I refuse to believe what you have posted unless you can provide some objective (cold) hard (solid) empirical (factual) evidence (data) instead of beguiling (deceitful) dialectical (idiomatic) apologetic (repentant) bullshit (horse hoowhee).
Is that any better for your illiterate mind?
rmfr
lol, you just proved my point.
@ Nitin27
Fabulous! You admit you are illiterate and incapable of reading comprehension.
rmfr
Nitin27 "You have just typed some random words from dictionary which makes no sense at all."
Which word is tripping you up?
But what about:
Achelous
Aether
Alastor
Aristaeus
Ares
Asclepius
Athena
Apollo
Artemis
Aphrodite
Atlas
I haven't even gotten out of the A's yet.
You obviously confine your religion to a god, or you'd have to worship all of these.
@Nitin
Sounds like you're on the right track. Though if you delve into the former a touch more you will rid yourself of the religious crutch.
Cosmic woo in 3-2-1..........
You are asking the wrong question Nithin, everyone has the burden of proof to support his or her position. Atheists must make a positive case that only material things exist.
Instead of debating "Does God exist?" I prefer to debate the question "What better explains reality: atheism or theism? Anyone? Hello?
You're avoiding to answer the first question, so you don't meet the burden of proof. It seems to me that your second question is the first one disguised.
@ JimM
"Atheists must make a positive case that only material things exist."
I am an atheist, and no, I do not have to. My position is that I lack a belief in a god. The burden of proof is yours to prove a god. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof, as well as muddy the waters by dragging in extra arguments with things that are not related to the god question. Whether or not there is a god is not related to whether or not I believe in a purely material universe.
"Atheists must make a positive case that only material things exist."
Nonsense.
"Instead of debating "Does God exist?" I prefer to debate the question "What better explains reality: atheism or theism? Anyone? Hello?"
Your subjective preference doesn't make the question any less specious and irrational. Why can't theists understand this? Anyone? Hello?
I find these sorts of arguments tiresome. I get that you're trying to make a logical point, I just have trouble seeing past how ridiculous it all is. Belief in a God that can do literally anything regardless of laws of nature or logic means you can argue for anything.
God can choose to not be able to move a rock while literally juggling the moons of Jupiter (but not affecting their orbits) and eating a cupcake made of cats, but that is simultaneously only made of trees. God can be it's own father, mother, grandfather and niece all at the same time while also not having any relatives at all.
I don't see a rational way to interact with that belief.
Pages