Sentences with phrase «argument of atheists»

I read about three pages of responses and realized that this has just turned into an argument of atheists vs. believers, which is quite dumb IMO.

So one of the most stupid arguments of atheists, about not «seeing» God does nothing to convince but a few fools.

Julie in Austin, (I actual used to go to school at the Jewish temple in downtown Austin) «In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach».

In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach.

I find it interesting that one of the main argument of atheist against God is that they are for free will.

Now, now one of the most stupid arguments of atheists is their absurd claim that: «they don't see God».

Not exact matches

This argument landed me in one of the world's largest atheist discussion boards, the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The episode made me far more famous among people who advocate the design argument than anything I could have without the participation of the atheists.

Atheists, the bottom line is this: if there is no God, no afterlife and as a result of that no standard of behavior, your arguments to disprove him are pointless.

No hard feelings, I would write the same thing if you would have said the same type of argument against a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, etc..

Atheists currently hold the overwhelming majority of the Noble Prizes, make up less that 0.5 % of the US prison population, have less that 1 % of the divorces in America and have given us many of the scientific and technological achievements you enjoy today... your argument has just been utterly destroyed.

There have been Atheist throughout history and I highly doubt that it was not until two generations ago that someone put forth the argument that there is no God, or do you think that doubt of a God or Gods, is a totally new concept?

This is the craziest argument I ever hear out of militant atheists.

Denying Christianity is vile??? I'm an atheist and believe in equal treatment for everyone... and if your ideas / arguments don't withstand the rigor of doubt, then they are meaningless, worthless positions to maintain.

Unless, of course, said atheist inadvertently destroys his / her Tooth Fairy argument, which you have done.

Throughout you have twisted and confused the definitions of words like religion, belief, faith, Agnostic and Atheist with faulty logic and broken arguments.

The ridiculous part of your argument is why are you atheists and Satanists so determined to hunt down believers to call them names and ridicule their beliefs?

And fellow Atheists, many of whom are famous authors, TV personalities, philosophers, scientists or YouTube stars agree with me and have already refuted your ridiculous argument countless times over.

Many Atheists constantly read topics on religion because that is how rationality works, in order to refute or support an argument you have to be knowledgeable about as many aspects of the problem as possible.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

This is likely the most frustrating aspect of the atheist argument.

What the atheist TV presenter said was not particularly new (or even a logical argument), but the combination of celebrity and visceral emotion caught the imagination of many.

I see the argument against the term «atheist,» but I don't like «non-believer,» either, because I believe in lots of things — science, truth, empathy, the power of creativity, etc — just not in anyone's god (s).

«I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist»... book you should check out explaining the arguments for God and why the God of the Bible is the most fitting explanation for what we see in the world.

The atheists are seeking out arguments about God because this is their way of getting closer to destination that they are denying themselves.

If as you say, «two wrongs [don't] make a right argument» then why not debate @Blarg's statement instead of inciting atheists condemnation of his / her arguments by indirectly making a blanket statement about how Atheist should be offended?

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

Bertrand Russell - philosopher, logician and leading atheist - was clearly a brilliant man, and he's famous for his «celestial teapot» argument regarding the burden of proof: «Nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice.

As atheist writer Douglas Murray recently noted, after sitting alongside Dawkins in a debate: «The more I listened to Dawkins and his colleagues, the more the nature of what has gone wrong with their argument seemed clear.

I'm a materialist as well as an atheist and therefore don't believe in free will so I don't agree with some of what you said anyways but that's an argument for another thread.

Isn't that one of the arguments Atheists use.

Perhaps if atheists change the verbiage, it wouldn't be offensive to Christians and many of these arguments wouldn't start.

Based upon my experience, it is all too often the atheist / agnostic audience that poses emotional, baseless, illogical arguments that show a lack of actual critical thinking.

I know of none of my atheist friends who celebrate Easter with bunnies and eggs and know of no Christians who don't except maybe the JW's, but for the sake of argument I will concede that if they do then yes, they are also co-opting a pagan holiday.

I remember many of the arguments we made were moral in nature, but our «atheist» kept relating a moral code that was just as triumphant as the Christian one, so we were forced to abandon that tactic.

your role now as atheist, is to be the opposing argumenter for the modern day change process or evolution of the present religion from monotheism which you have shown in your arguments to be flawed so that the future faithfuls will shift to the ultra modern faith called PANTHROTHEISM - the synthesis of theistic monotheism vs.humanistic atheism.I suggest to you to be more aggressive and conscise in your arguments, God needs you

Cal, they are trying to show atheists to be hypocrites and think it is easier to try to use the cry of «hypocrite» instead of making an actual argument because they do not have any arguments that can not be torn down.

when was the last time you heard of arguments between atheists and, well, anybody resulting in physical violence?

Students of religion will recognize the dodge — it used to be called fideism, and atheists gleefully ridiculed it; and the expedient suspension of rational argument; and the double standard.

That's a great debate to have, and I personally believe that if you lay out Christian theology point by point and let each side objectively prove their «truth», the atheist ends up with the larger stack of chips, but that's not germane to the argument.

God, these boutique atheists never get tired of this argument.

Instead they (atheists) simply don't believe any of the god claims that have been put forth (this requires no proof on their part), and * may * claim that they are convinced some god concepts that have been presented to them do not exist (this requires supporting argument).»

Atheists use this argument all the time to sort of counter pascal's wager.

i just know i use these same arguments A LOT — because a lot of atheists don't seem to want to read other atheists... which makes me wonder if they really know what they believe.

There never was a time in History that atheists exist, only in this present stage of our intellectual developement that they deny His exisrence, but it can be easily explained that they are just part of the dialectical process of having to have two opposing arguments or forces to arrive to the truth, The opposing forces today are the theists or religious believers of all religions and the other are the atheists who denies religion, The reslultant truth in the future will be Panthrotheism, the belief that we are all one with the whole universe with God, and that we Had all to unite to prepare for human survival that will subject us humans in the future.Aided by the the enlightend consevationist, environmentalists, humanists and all of the concerned activists, we will develop a kind of universal harmony and awareness that we are all guided towards love and concern for all of our specie.The great concern of the whole conscious and caring world to the natural disaster in the Phillipines,, the most theist country now is a positive sign towards this religious direction.Panthrotheism means we will be One with God.

Men kill yes even atheists like Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot kill millions so your use of that argument is dead as are all the people killed by atheists.

Just proves atheists babble vainly most of the time and more so when they FAIL an argument or FAIL to see reason as is the case above.

This bottom of the barrel, level of debate, as an exchange of the billboards between religious and atheist only serves to highlight a profound ignorance on both side of the argument.

I hereby hold atheists incapable of holding any discussion and deem them not fit for any kind of argument.

Jefferson knew that every state in the Union (except Rhode Island) had a state sponsored religion since before the days of the Revolution, so by relegating himself to the settled national issue, he could not easily be accused of more atheist sentiments.So, what does this mean to the issue of «separation of church and state» for today's argument?