|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:53 pm
There are many arguments saying that we are immoral, fools, evil, ect. and I was wonder what the dumbest one that you have ever heard is.
For me, it would be the following:
"Everyone knows that scientists use complicated words to confuse Christians, like, deoxyribonucleic acid. Pretty impressive huh? You know what happens to stuff when they are droped in acid? They dissolve. If we where full of that acid we would dissolve."
First of all, our stomachs are filled with acid. Second of all, things like salt and shugar dissolve in water and water isn't an acid. Finnaly, even scientists call deoxyribonucleic acid "DNA".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:35 pm
water is more acidic than basic, isnt it? The worst i've heard are: "atheists dont feel the way normal people do, so it must be wrong" and " Water is so perfect and is such a staple for life that it couldnt just come naturally. The odds are impossible"
I think i saw that DNA comment in a youtube video mocking a chirstian forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:40 pm
Basically any agruement against atheism is childish.
But those just give me a headache. ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:05 pm
Dude Morality is common the stupidest argument I have ever heard is the "If god ditched us everyone will feel empty hopeless and desperate like atheist. Missionaries will lose reason to help people with Malaria AIDS and Hurricane Katrina victims helping people pointless no afterlife no point success will depend on hard work and luck (it does) god will help one man over another before when he leaves they will earn it (Sounding better already) missing children might or might not be returned home (doesn't this already happen?) thanksgiving another diner (doesn't thanksgiving celebrate a successful harvest?) we would have no food without god (there is no god we have food it is slander) Disasters strike at random (They do strike at random.) simple pleasures lose meaning (They already have no meaning) giggle from a baby becomes a mere sound. Puppies no longer cute (how can they say that) we can then have sex with them (oh god the guy that said this is screwed up) society breaks down immediately the laws based on bible in constitution somewhere (Dude non religious people founded America.) this guy said he will kill people and eat them. fear of disobeying god (does a good person create fear?) we would suffocate.(shoot glad we have a god oh wait we don't) I was scared to watch the video here is the link to his channel http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrenthis channel is a joke of idiotic christains things mixed together
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:22 am
G4NTZ water is more acidic than basic, isnt it? Are you being cereal or is that some crap someone said to you? Water is neither basic nor acidic. It is because water has equal numbers of OH- and H+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:03 am
Yevn Dude Morality is common the stupidest argument I have ever heard is the "If god ditched us everyone will feel empty hopeless and desperate like atheist. Missionaries will lose reason to help people with Malaria AIDS and Hurricane Katrina victims helping people pointless no afterlife no point success will depend on hard work and luck (it does) god will help one man over another before when he leaves they will earn it (Sounding better already) missing children might or might not be returned home (doesn't this already happen?) thanksgiving another diner (doesn't thanksgiving celebrate a successful harvest?) we would have no food without god (there is no god we have food it is slander) Disasters strike at random (They do strike at random.) simple pleasures lose meaning (They already have no meaning) giggle from a baby becomes a mere sound. Puppies no longer cute (how can they say that) we can then have sex with them (oh god the guy that said this is screwed up) society breaks down immediately the laws based on bible in constitution somewhere (Dude non religious people founded America.) this guy said he will kill people and eat them. fear of disobeying god (does a good person create fear?) we would suffocate.(shoot glad we have a god oh wait we don't) I was scared to watch the video here is the link to his channel http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrenthis channel is a joke of idiotic christains things mixed together That may be the dumbest anti-atheist argument ever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:27 am
Actually, this is an argument that I fell for the first time I heard it, but once it was explained to me why it was wrong, I realized it is really, really dumb.
Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? It's a classic, and it's so easily refutable. It goes like this:
If you don't believe in God and He doesn't exist, then nothing happens.
However, if you believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Heaven!
If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Hell.
If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you've lost everything.
Conclusion: Bet on the safe side and believe in God.
There are so many ways that this doesn't work... Let me know if you need an explanation, tho, cause I did the first time I heard it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:13 am
alteregoivy Actually, this is an argument that I fell for the first time I heard it, but once it was explained to me why it was wrong, I realized it is really, really dumb. Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? It's a classic, and it's so easily refutable. It goes like this: If you don't believe in God and He doesn't exist, then nothing happens. However, if you believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Heaven! If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Hell. If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you've lost everything. Conclusion: Bet on the safe side and believe in God. There are so many ways that this doesn't work... Let me know if you need an explanation, tho, cause I did the first time I heard it. Excuse me, but it goes a little differently. Pascal's Wager doesn't say "if you believe in god then god exists". It would be too naive for someone who invented a prototype computer and probability theory, wouldn't it? smile It's not supposed to be a proof of god's existence, it's just a pragmatical argument. And just like most of such "arguments" it will only work for you if you see benefits in what it states as benefits. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ for details razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:15 pm
Raticiel alteregoivy Actually, this is an argument that I fell for the first time I heard it, but once it was explained to me why it was wrong, I realized it is really, really dumb. Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? It's a classic, and it's so easily refutable. It goes like this: If you don't believe in God and He doesn't exist, then nothing happens. However, if you believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Heaven! If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you'll go to Hell. If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If you don't believe in God and He does exist, you've lost everything. Conclusion: Bet on the safe side and believe in God. There are so many ways that this doesn't work... Let me know if you need an explanation, tho, cause I did the first time I heard it. Excuse me, but it goes a little differently. Pascal's Wager doesn't say "if you believe in god then god exists". It would be too naive for someone who invented a prototype computer and probability theory, wouldn't it? smile It's not supposed to be a proof of god's existence, it's just a pragmatical argument. And just like most of such "arguments" it will only work for you if you see benefits in what it states as benefits. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ for details razz I think you need to read through that post again... IF you believe, AND he exists, THEN... sounds like BASIC...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:46 pm
I think most of the anti-atheist arguments are just pragmatical. But I don't know of any relevant argument that could really show that atheism is false. There's no proof of god's existence that wouldn't be deniable. Still, on the other hand, there's also no way to prove god's nonexistence. That's why I remain agnostic (or skeptical sometimes) ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:50 pm
My, sorry, my mistake again. sweatdrop didn't notice that little "and" whee
well, still I think it's just pragmatic. Sorry again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:03 pm
the du,mbest one would have to be when a guy told i was going to go to hell, yet he's the one who beats up his girlfriends and treats people like s**t. I find it ridiculous when these horrible people are incredibly rude and extremely douchys ay that atheists are evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:52 pm
Raticiel My, sorry, my mistake again. sweatdrop didn't notice that little "and" whee well, still I think it's just pragmatic. Sorry again. Well, the intent is pragmatism, anyway. The problem is that even from a pragmatic point of view, it's full of holes! The world of religion doesn't exist as a yes/no checkbox like Pascal implies. Any God or gods could be substituted for the Christian god, and nearly all of them are jealous, so you'll end up on the wrong end of the deal no matter who you believe in if you're wrong. I think the best response I've heard to that argument, though, is this: "You believe your God is omniscient, right?" "Yeah." "So then wouldn't he know if the only reason I believed in and worshiped Him was on the off chance that He existed so that I wouldn't go to Hell? Don't you think He would be a little pissed off about that?" "Oh, uh...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:55 pm
Louis-Auguste Robespierre Raticiel ...someone who invented a prototype computer and probability theory.... IF you believe, AND he exists, THEN... sounds like BASIC... Not surprising that the logic sounds like that, then, considering the source, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:01 pm
alteregoivy Raticiel My, sorry, my mistake again. sweatdrop didn't notice that little "and" whee well, still I think it's just pragmatic. Sorry again. Well, the intent is pragmatism, anyway. The problem is that even from a pragmatic point of view, it's full of holes! The world of religion doesn't exist as a yes/no checkbox like Pascal implies. Any God or gods could be substituted for the Christian god, and nearly all of them are jealous, so you'll end up on the wrong end of the deal no matter who you believe in if you're wrong. I think the best response I've heard to that argument, though, is this: "You believe your God is omniscient, right?" "Yeah." "So then wouldn't he know if the only reason I believed in and worshiped Him was on the off chance that He existed so that I wouldn't go to Hell? Don't you think He would be a little pissed off about that?" "Oh, uh...." Well, you've got the point. The same goes with kantian view of god as a regulative idea of our reason which lets us act "good". It is often ctiticized. Still, as for poor old Blaise, I think considering how faithful he was it's just natural that he'd think that way... I like Wittgenstein's or Nietzche's views on ethics, as they say our morality should never ever be controlled by our image of afterlife and morality is not a transaction with god. And sorry again for that misuderstanding from before xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
