The atheist argumentation from bankruptsy or no rationality needed

Why are you an atheist? http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/atheismanalyzed.htm

There seems to be no good proof for atheism.

Here is the website: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-presumption-of...

now before you get angry and call me names I ask if you see the weakness of your position? There is no intelligence needed for this kind of atheism. And no one need be rational or have any intelligence or higher intellect to be this kind of atheist. Yet I see many on youtube who argue that weak and bankrupt tactic all the time.

You bet you are an atheist and it takes nothing to be this kind of atheist. In fact is is a nice way to be pseudo-intellectual while not facing actual evidence of any kind.

Or rather you can keep your bankrupt view and deny there is anything that is sufficient for you to change your thinking.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• weak atheism
• strong atheism
• logic
• philosophy
• rational
• atheism
• Presumption
• tentativeness
• non-belief
• belief
• debate
• empty
• weak
• bankrupt
• poor
• deception

[saiyanmage]

We all have our imaginary friends, atheists like us just grew out of theirs.

[rusty2029]

@saiyanmage You would have the burden to show this as anything other then a fallacy of equivocation. I have no need for massive views or popularity. Objective logic is quite outside of you or me and points to a higher agency as foundation to our own cognitive ability to divine what is truth.

[saiyanmage]

@rusty2029 took you 3 weeks to answer?

[JesusforLife2]

@saiyanmage [We all have our imaginary friends, atheists like us just grew out of theirs.]

You still believe your in your imaginary friend - billions of years.

[saiyanmage]

You know, just because YOU say that our argumentation is wrong doesn't mean you're right.

I've seen people like you many times over. You apply your own logic to matters instead of adopting that matter's logic and arguing against it. Your method simply fails because of that.

And that's why you have crap views lots of dislikes. Because you're a deluded buffoon.

[DeimosSaturn]

I have to reply in PM because youtube is randomly eating my comments.

[DeimosSaturn]

I am not claiming actual infinities exist, I am asking you to prove things begin to exist. As far as we know, we've never seen anything begin to exist.

Secondly, You're telling me I'm making arguments on personal incredulity? Ha. You're making claims without presenting evidence. I don't have to believe anything you say. You are just too easy!

[rusty2029]

your definition for agnostic is incorrect as agnosticism is about the question of God is not knowable or a knowledge question that can be answered

--Premise 1: Prove things begins to exist. Things which already exist simply change form.

There can be no actual infinite so this premise is invalid.

Premise 2: You're assertion that the universe in some form did not always exist is without basis.

This premise is a good example of your own personal incredulity thus you invalidate your own argument.

[rusty2029]

Gravity is only known by indirect means. What gravity actually is has yet to be manufactured or negated by artificial scientific means. The fine tuning of the Universe requires a fine tuning to the forces of gravity otherwise life could not have existed. It is deductively valid to say that the periodic table can only exist if there was fine tuning of the universe.  There is as yet no empirical evidence of any other universe but the one we occupy.

[rusty2029]

The focus of this topic is the absence of any positive arguments for atheism.

I have not only shown the necessity of atheism as proof of free will but also why God will not manifest for you in a way that will rob you of your free will denial of God.

bigfoot is a red-herring and not relevant to my positive argument for both God and Atheists.