POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

LOL. How wonderful, you continue to enforce what we already know.

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO clueless one... I CANT explain
the origin of the universe, and this in no way makes your
silly fable any truer.

Laughable. Arguing that something is TRUE, soley because someone
else cant provide an explaination is fallacious.

If I were debating my friend on the subject, and asserted
that little pink unicorns created the universe, and he had NO
explaination, this DOES NOT MEAN THAT LITTLE PINK UNICORNS
PROBABLY CREATED THE UNIVERSE. Duh!!!!!

It carries no weight, because following this logic, my non-explaination
would provide evidence to **ALL** other theories, not just
yours, even if they are contradictory.

In other words.... since I dont know WHY the universe exists,
does this mean that your god is true, and zeus is true?
and little green universe creating elves are true?
Of course not.

Omg.... you are beyond help. LMAO

The fact that you cant even grasp this simple concept is amazing.
Go away now.... your bothering the people who can actually REASON around here.

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

You are the most ignorant individual I have ever debated on this subject. You claim to understand logic and reason but you do not.

Again you have dodged the most important aspect of this debate.....How do you explain the origin of the universe?
More...

Guardian Angel · Dec 4, 2003

Put up or Shut up?
You can no longer dodge the bullet.

Quote from Guardian Angel:

It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.

IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
More...

ARogueTrader · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from axeman:

LOL. 777 proves again that he doesnt understand the terminology.

Atheism is a LACK OF THEISTIC belief.

If you know NOTHING of god, then your are in fact an atheist.

An agnostic REQUIRES knowledge of god, because and
agnostic is in an "undecided" state about gods existence.

You were in FACT born an atheist, like all humans, by definition.

And using your own logic, YOU ARE A FAILED ATHEIST!
Further, using your own poisoning the well fallacy, you
simply are bitter about atheism failing you, and this is
the ONLY reason you are a theist! LMAOOOO....

Poor poor failed atheist. He just couldn't stand the truth,
and ran to theism with his tail between his legs because
he feared death so much. What a wuss!

peace

axeman

More...

Your definitions are incorrect.

Theism is a belief in God. This state is a positive state toward God.

Agnosticism has no belief in God, no disbelief in God, a suspension of belief. This state is neutral.

Atheism has a belief that there is no God, which is quite different than a no belief in God. This state is a negative state toward God.

theÂ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Ag*nos"ti*cism, n. That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies.

aÂ·theÂ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Your verbal abuse continues unabated, further evidence of deep seated issues with your own personal failure with faith, and lack of acceptance of that failure.

DT-waw · Dec 4, 2003

Quote from axeman:

It carries no weight, because following this logic, my non-explaination
would provide evidence to **ALL** other theories, not just
yours, even if they are contradictory.

In other words.... since I dont know WHY the universe exists,
does this mean that your god is true, and zeus is true?
and little green universe creating elves are true?
Of course not.

Omg.... you are beyond help. LMAO

The fact that you cant even grasp this simple concept is amazing.

More...

Yes, it is truly amazing....
Looks like some people simply can't understand and can't use basic logic. Probably their way of reasoning, discussing is dominated by emotions.

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

See....now you have to post idiotic theist crap which
proves itself wrong in the very first sentence:

"Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God."

BZZZZZZZZT WRONG. This is FALSE.
This a strawman which only attacks STRONG ATHEISM.
This is only a very specific kind of atheism.

I am NOT a strong atheist.

I am a weak atheist, or agnostic atheist.

Most atheists are weak/agnostic atheists.

In MOST cases an atheist does NOT assert that god does NOT exist.
He simply see's no rational reason to BELIEVE in god.

Once again you are showing your philosophical ignorance
of the subject and have proven beyond a doubt that
you dont even understand that BASICS of atheism.

Why dont you try reading a few books on the subject
before spewing such complete nonsense.

Being an ex-theist I have read the bible many times as
well as other theistic writings.

Time for you to read up on the other side, since its obvious
you havent a clue about atheism.

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.

IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
More...

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

Funny how a theist is trying to tell an atheist WHAT atheism is.

You are completely incorrect.

Do some philosphical research and you will find the truth.

Try going to www.infidels.org and read up on strong and weak
atheism.

Atheism is a LACK of belief. It is NOT necessarily the
belief that god does NOT exist.

I am an atheist and do NOT assert that god doesnt exist.

So catch a clue and stop pretending to know definitions you
are clearly clueless of.

Why do I bother? So fricken clueless.
Im debating amateurs here.
Do I really need to hold philosophy class here?

Bunch of ignorant theists running around trying to tell
an atheist what atheism is. LMAO

peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your definitions are incorrect.

Theism is a belief in God. This state is a positive state toward God.

Agnosticism has no belief in God, no disbelief in God, a suspension of belief. This state is neutral.

Atheism has a belief that there is no God, which is quite different than a no belief in God. This state is a negative state toward God.

theÂ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Ag*nos"ti*cism, n. That doctrine which, professing ignorance, neither asserts nor denies.

aÂ·theÂ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Your verbal abuse continues unabated, further evidence of deep seated issues with your own personal failure with faith, and lack of acceptance of that failure.
More...

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

LOL.... you have already obviously lost.
Thats what is so funny. You dont even recognize this fact

Ive already put up...and you have been destroyed.
You dont even understand the basic terms or basic reasoning.
Its over. Now go away.

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

Put up or Shut up?
You can no longer dodge the bullet.

More...

Guardian Angel · Dec 4, 2003

The "Presumptuousness" of atheism

Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist". Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism". Another atheist Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues tha the atheist does not treat the statements "God exist" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exist"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist mus give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Forth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheist fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe- in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)- demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answeres the question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe- with complexity balanced conditions that seem tailored for life- points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just culteral, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness", on strictly nateralistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply culteral). These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational- not presumptuous- in embracing belief in God.

Quote from Guardian Angel:

It is now time to blow your silly illogical ramblings out of water.

IS ATHEISM LOGICAL?

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional
atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally
justifiable?
Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You
see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all
things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to
all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you
would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes
these special abilities. The atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist
is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.
The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot
adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live
cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself -- however, the atheist is unable to
provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to
account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic -- and, of course, absolute moral
standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.
If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims
of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This
astounding claim was supported, however, by his matchless personal character, His fulfillment of
predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history -- and most importantly, the
historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic
to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: "God is there and He is not silent."
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny
the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to
his creator.
More...

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

LOL... what a stupid argument.

Ill point out the flaw.

Its right here: The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence.

This is categorically false.

This is a strawman, because this is NOT what atheism states at all.

When an atheist has no evidence for the belief in god,
he claims that he does not BELIEVE in god, he does NOT
claim that god does NOT exist. That would be illogical.

Try again... next time... try using your own argument instead
of some other theists fallacious argument.

Again the theists try to attack the atheist position by
redefining what atheism is and pretending to KNOW what
atheists claim.

What a joke. Too easy.
Neeeeext....

peace

axeman

Quote from Guardian Angel:

The "Presumptuousness" of atheism

Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist". Unless compelling reasons for God's existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism". Another atheist Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God's existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness. The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.....All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues tha the atheist does not treat the statements "God exist" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God's existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist- whether or not one has evidence against God's existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exist"). Therefore, the atheist's denial of God's existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist's claim; the atheist mus give plausible reasons for rejecting God's existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God's existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God's existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God's existence.

Forth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheist fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe- in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death)- demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answeres the question of the universe's origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe- with complexity balanced conditions that seem tailored for life- points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just culteral, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness", on strictly nateralistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply culteral). These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational- not presumptuous- in embracing belief in God.

More...

axeman · Dec 4, 2003

Your verbal abuse continues unabated, further evidence of deep seated issues with your own personal failure with atheism, and lack of acceptance of that failure.

LMAO

Try bringing a new argument to the table 777.
This one is old and dusty and just as weak as when
we started.

peace

axeman