CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:111
Arguments:110
Total Votes:112
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Which is the funniest argument for existence of a God? (103)

Debate Creator

JatinNagpal(2678) pic



Which is the funniest argument for existence of a God?

For your religion or someone else's, or even generic, it doesn't matter. 

Some, like the ontological arguments, are funny due to humour, while some, like the "Low probability, therefore God" arguments, are funny due to the absurdity. 

So, which are your favourites? 

PS : Religious fanatics might prefer to stay away. If you can't understand this sentence, then you'll deserve any insults or related stuff that may come. At least don't make the fanaticism obvious, and I'll be fine with your participation. 
Add New Argument
2 points

13) Because the atheist can’t live consistently with his claims, and that he needs to steal from other worldviews:

---------------

The atheist can claim that no God exists, or that there is no immaterial reality, or that there is nothing beyond the natural. He can claim that events are random, and that there is no purpose in the universe. He can claim that reality is nothing more than matter in motion, but the atheist cannot act or reason in that way. So, as long as the atheist continues to reason, or to assume the uniformity of nature, to assume past experience as reliable, to trust his cognitive faculties he is not reasoning within his worldview. Instead, the atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview whereby such things are grounded within the being and nature of a transcendent God. In other words, the atheist has to sit in God’s lap and slap him. The atheist has to steal from the worldview he is opposing!

seanB(736) Disputed
2 points

The atheist can claim that no God exists

Yes, that's right.

Or that there is no immaterial reality

Also right.

or that there is nothing beyond the natural.

This is self evident. I think anyone who says this as though it is silly to say, is a very silly person who doesn't actually understand what "natural" means.

He can claim that events are random

Not really. Time moves forwards, never backwards. That means that what did happen, is the only possible way it could have happened. That's strictly deterministic. I wouldn't say anything is really "random". The anthropic principle applies especially here: the universe is what it is, and we don't know what it would be like if it wasn't.

and that there is no purpose in the universe.

Purpose for whom? I have purpose, and I ascribe it to my life at my leisure.

He can claim that reality is nothing more than matter in motion

Who says it is "nothing more" than that? I certainly don't. Yes, I'm made of matter, which is a construct of energy, but that doesn't mean that I have no values or beliefs or goals or desires, that I can't love or be compassionate or altruistic. I might be matter, but I'm matter with the faculties of reason and conscience and heart.

but the atheist cannot act or reason in that way

So, as long as the atheist continues to reason, or to assume the uniformity of nature, to assume past experience as reliable, to trust his cognitive faculties he is not reasoning within his worldview.

I disagree.

Instead, the atheist must borrow from the Christian worldview whereby such things are grounded within the being and nature of a transcendent God

No, he mustn't.

In other words, the atheist has to sit in God’s lap and slap him. The atheist has to steal from the worldview he is opposing!

No. Total nonsense.

It's all rather fine, but you ignored the main stuff that built his argument.

Yes, these are all indeed funny, but which is your favourite one, Rob?

dadman(1690) Disputed
1 point

the one you successfully refute ....................................................................... lol Brad ?

1 point

THIS ONE IS PRETTY GOOD. GO GIVE IT A PEAK...

https://www.facebook.com/The-Christ-Project-1890498114505768/

1 point

The things Sean said, with...

Causation and uniformity are a priori knowledge.

And science is pretty clear about the problem of induction - all empirical things are, since Hume pointed it out.

Try proving that the universe is random and nature has no laws. It is nothing more than your ignorance.

I don't remember any proof or even an assertion worthy of attention that a universe without God is necessarily entirely random at every moment.

2 points

10) Because most atheists hold to the view of scientism:

---------------

Science, according to this atheist, is the only tool in which we can use to discover all the truths of reality. If such were the case we would need to disband philosophy, art, religion, language and all other non-scientific fields of knowledge. Such is called scientism – the view that science can explain all aspects of reality. As the atheist scientist Peter Atkins says in a debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig that “…science is omnipotent.”

---------------

However, the belief that science can explain everything is self-refuting as science has the inability to explain moral/ethical truths (you can’t scientifically determine if murdering someone is good or evil, but you can perform an autopsy to determine the cause of death), logical truths, mathematical truths, aesthetic truths, metaphysical truths (that other minds exists other than my own, that the external world is real), natural law (science only describes them, but presupposes their existence), science itself (due to the fact science is full of unprovable assumptions), the laws of logic, and it also cannot rule out the existence of God since God would have created the natural uniformity of which science explains. For these reasons William Craig comments:

---------------

“…scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. It would, if adopted, compel us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge.”

---------------

I highly recommend all readers to view this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE three minute clip on how William Craig answers this very objection in his debate against Atkins.

seanB(736) Disputed
2 points

Science, according to this atheist, is the only tool in which we can use to discover all the truths of reality.

Which atheist is that according to? Not me, clearly.

The rest of this is irrelevant, a strawman.

2 points

The funniest one is by Ray Comfort who tries to claim that because of bananas (a fruit engineered by humans to be perfect for humans) God must exist because God made the banana for us.

1 point

The Bible openly declares the final point of the end of the age.

1)Gospel goes worldwide. Check.

2)There is a falling away (great apostasy). Things become Sodom and Gamorrah-esque. Check.

(HEADLINES OF TODAY: The New Atheism Movement AKA "militant Atheism", The Women's March, "Become Ungovernable")

3)Syria is a part of some great destruction. (Isaiah 17:1) Check.

4)Christians are beheaded, genocided, and imprisoned in mass. (Revelation 20:4, Revelation 2:10, Revelation 13:10, Revelation 13:17) Check.

(HEADLINES OF TODAY: Genocide in Middle East, Christians paying Jizya, beheadings of Christians, Christians being thrown in prison)

5)Now we just need a temple in Jerusalem... Guess what...

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/30506/Default.aspx

6)A "Beast system" must emerge. Islam is literally looking for "The Beast of the Earth" in its eschatology who marks their foreheads and admonishes the non-Muslims.

Now this is the funniest one. Oh wait... it makes sense, a little too much sense...

1 point

1)Gospel goes worldwide.

Not really. If nothing else, there's the uncontacted tribes.

Things become Sodom and Gamorrah-esque.

Real concept of human rights began from the Enlightenment. It also had a major part in founding of your country. You have the option to live in a medieval-style Islamic country if you want.

3)Syria is a part of some great destruction. (Isaiah 17:1) Check.

4)Christians are beheaded, genocided, and imprisoned in mass. (Revelation 20:4, Revelation 2:10, Revelation 13:10, Revelation 13:17)

Islamic State is dying.

5)Now we just need a temple in Jerusalem... Guess what...

It should take time to build. IS would not be concrete by then (I have been monitoring them for a while).

6)A "Beast system" must emerge. Islam is literally looking for "The Beast of the Earth" in its eschatology who marks their foreheads and admonishes the non-Muslims.

Fundamentalist systems are always doing such things.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Now this is the funniest one.

For a split second you got something right.

1 point

12) Because of insurmountable improbabilities that defies atheism:

---------------

As a whole the atheist has to have an enormous amount of faith to sustain his worldview. For instance, they have to assume evolution was an unguided process without any intelligence involved at all (which is a philosophical assertion and not a scientific postulation) – if that is true then the odds are so improbable as to be incomprehensible (see point 2 in this article). The atheist has to assume that Big Bang cosmology will one day have a natural cause; such amounts to the fallacious naturalism-of-the-gaps argumentation (see point 3). He has to assume that the fine-tuning of the universe was simply the product of incomprehensible chance; such is to go over the border of reason and into the irrational (see point 10). He has to assume that miracles are all made up constructs thus purely imaginative or that those who have witnessed them are just too uncritical of reality (see point 9). The atheist has to assume uniformity in nature where he cannot justify why uniformity even exists – yet he does his science on the basis of this uniformity. He has to believe that biological complexity is a result of blind chance (see point 4), and that science will one day explain all aspects of reality in order to justify his naturalistic worldview, which is another naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy (see point 6). Lastly, perhaps the most damning of all, is that his very own thought processes carry no value whatsoever. The evolutionary process compels us to spread our genes, and couldn’t care about true belief – it only cares about reproductive fitness and survival, yet the atheist still holds the belief that his worldview is the sole arbiter of truth, which is therefore an antithetical position on his own worldview.

seanB(736) Disputed
2 points

As a whole the atheist has to have an enormous amount of faith to sustain his worldview

No, he doesn't.

For instance, they have to assume evolution was an unguided process without any intelligence involved at all (which is a philosophical assertion and not a scientific postulation) – if that is true then the odds are so improbable as to be incomprehensible (see point 2 in this article).

You obviously don't understand infinite probability, or Murphy's law, or Occam's Razor.

The atheist has to assume that Big Bang cosmology will one day have a natural cause; such amounts to the fallacious naturalism-of-the-gaps argumentation (see point 3)

We freely admit we don't know some things -- yet. That doesn't mean we have to fill the gap with God. All of our discoveries so far have been discovered in SPITE of what the churches have tried to tell us about the universe. And each one disproves all the religious horse shit just a little bit more. We have now cumulatively narrowed the theistic stranglehold on knowledge to the point where you -- the religious -- have to do mental pretzels to align the bible with what science has taken from you. It's embarrassing, and funny.

He has to assume that the fine-tuning of the universe was simply the product of incomprehensible chance; such is to go over the border of reason and into the irrational (see point 10).

The anthropic principle applies here as well. You should also educate yourself on how biochemistry functions. It is a science of attraction and repulsion, which naturally allows complex molecules to form. There's not much in the way of "incomprehensible chance" there.

He has to assume that miracles are all made up constructs thus purely imaginative or that those who have witnessed them are just too uncritical of reality (see point 9).

Delusions are real to the sufferer.

The atheist has to assume uniformity in nature where he cannot justify why uniformity even exists – yet he does his science on the basis of this uniformity.

If the universe were not to function in the way that it did, we would not be around to comment on its uniformity. We don't need to justify WHY the universe acts in the way that it does: it just does, aways, unerringly so. Which by deduction means evolution is true, biochemistry works, Murphy's law is accurate and Galileo was correct.

He has to believe that biological complexity is a result of blind chance (see point 4),

Not blind chance. See above re. biochemistry by nature produces complex molecules.

and that science will one day explain all aspects of reality in order to justify his naturalistic worldview

Science explains material realities in terms of materials. It can explain which chemicals the glands release when one feels intense love towards his partner, but it takes humans to explain what that FEELS like. Science deals in facts about materials. We don't pretend like it's a blueprint for how to live. For that, we have great philosophers and intellectuals, writers, poets, singers, teachers, our parents, our siblings, our friends, our lovers.

which is another naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy (see point 6).

Strawmen in the fields today.

Lastly, perhaps the most damning of all, is that his very own thought processes carry no value whatsoever. The evolutionary process compels us to spread our genes, and couldn’t care about true belief – it only cares about reproductive fitness and survival,

Just because we know that species tend to live by their impulses in terms of reproductive selection, doesn't mean that this is ALL we ever care about, every day, all day, for all our lives. There are other things in the world worth attention.

yet the atheist still holds the belief that his worldview is the sole arbiter of truth, which is therefore an antithetical position on his own worldview

Strawman again.

1 point

The evolutionary process compels us to spread our genes, and couldn’t care about true belief

Why else would you think that so many people are actually religious?

Because evolution doesn't care about true beliefs.

Reason, on the other hand, does. That's why we don't see fanatics among the reasonable, but mostly atheists.

1 point

11) Because the atheist has to delude himself daily:

---------------

Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading anti-theist, writes in his book ‘River Out of Eden‘ that life is “nothing but pitiless indifference.” On atheism such is true, life is pointless, henceforth why one can immediately see that the atheist is deluding himself into creating meaning in his life where at the very bottom there is no meaning. Atheists recognize that the universe is one big meaningless, empty mass, hence it is very common to hear him say: “I make my life as meaningful as possible. I don’t need God for that.”

---------------

Well, the fact that the atheist has to create meaning in his life really shows that there is no meaning at the very bottom of his existence, hence he needs to delude himself on a daily basis into believing that meaning really exists, where it doesn’t. One would not need to create meaning, or make one’s life meaningful, if meaning already existed in the first place.

seanB(736) Disputed
1 point

Richard Dawkins, arguably the world’s leading anti-theist, writes in his book ‘River Out of Eden‘ that life is “nothing but pitiless indifference.” On atheism such is true, life is pointless, henceforth why one can immediately see that the atheist is deluding himself into creating meaning in his life where at the very bottom there is no meaning. Atheists recognize that the universe is one big meaningless, empty mass, hence it is very common to hear him say: “I make my life as meaningful as possible. I don’t need God for that.”

---------------

Well, the fact that the atheist has to create meaning in his life really shows that there is no meaning at the very bottom of his existence, hence he needs to delude himself on a daily basis into believing that meaning really exists, where it doesn’t. One would not need to create meaning, or make one’s life meaningful, if meaning already existed in the first place.

I don't personally require a cosmic, godly, outside force to give my life meaning. That doesn't mean it doesn't have any. Yes, the universe is -- so far as we know -- a cold, desolate, lifeless vacuum. It's also incredibly beautiful. And Earth? Earth's a vibrant, teeming paradise for anyone willing to see it. Objective meaning, in cosmic terms, eternal meaning ascribed and in full swing throughout all existence, is too much to ask, frankly. You think you have it, but you don't. You're just as meaningless as you want to make yourself.

I personally find the fact that we exist on a tropical, lush planet full of life, amid a vast and empty space, of great meaning. I think that we are all extremely valuable precisely because of it.

dadman(1690) Disputed
1 point

I think that we are all extremely valuable precisely because of it.

valuable to who ?? .... something or someone is only as valuable as another places said value on it ....

what !? are you going to now launch into some kind of "black lives matter" jumbo ??

1 point

9) Because of the presupposition of human dignity and worth:

---------------

Atheists presuppose human dignity and worth, and thus, for instance, they will attend the funeral of a friend, or a relative as if their lives had meaning. But then the atheist will turn around and argue that man has no dignity, and has no more worth or value than a rat or a dog, or any other product of the evolutionary process. After all man is just a clump of protoplasm, and mere stardust on such a worldview – nothing but a blind product of the evolutionary process (time + matter + chance) and chemical factors controlled by the laws of physics.

---------------

But the same atheist will kiss his wife, and children goodnight as if something called love actually exists. The same atheist will feel violated if someone does him wrong as if his emotions actually have value to them.

---------------

Furthermore, the atheist will also argue that in sexual relations we must not impose our views on others (for instance that homosexuality is sinful), and sometimes he will even defend prostitution. However, he will condemn child molestation and necrophilia as morally abhorrent sexual activities. Why is child molestation morally wrong, and a heterosexual relationship morally right, on atheism? The atheist cannot bring his worldview into harmony, or live consistently with it.

DS0330(267) Disputed
1 point

How does this disprove atheism or demonstrate Gods existence?

smilinbobs(600) Disputed
1 point

You are not understanding dignity and worth. Worth is individual and based on familiarity that is why people would attend a funeral of a friend or family. The person who died had worth to those people who showed up but no worth to people who did not know that person existed. That is also why humans will have ceremonies of mourning for pets that are not human. These animals had worth to the person who knew them. Due to the time spent together they form a bond most would call "Love". This bond does NOT come from a supernatural being. These bonds come with familiarity. That is why you love your "God" it is familiar to you.

----------------

Love does exist as does anger, sadness, jealousy, joy, ect. these are not constructs of some supernatural intelligence. these are a product of evolution. These occur not because of some external factor but by electrical and chemical processes.

---------------

If you will notice what you have listed as condemned acts are ones where there in not mutual consent. That is what the difference is. Homosexuality with mutual consent or prostitution with mutual consent is not the same as child rape or necrophilia as there is not mutual consent.

1 point

8) Because of the reality of miracles:

---------------

From a comprehensive two-volume study of miracles from around the world in Craig Keener’s book ‘Miracles’ we find that they are widely reported, widely witnessed, and thus have convinced many previously sceptical people, villages, and families to embrace Christianity as the truth after witnessing such an event.

---------------

Multiple witnesses report healing from deafness, blindness, many diseases, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, paralysis, fractured/broken bones, severe burns, cancers, sores, deformities, among others are experienced after prayer in the name of Jesus. To view some statistics of these miracle reports please visit point 9 of this article. Also, go here to glance over 40 miracle testimonies I collected from just two chapters of Keener’s book.

---------------

Nevertheless, the atheist has to blindly assume that all of them are either lying, or being deceived. Yet the closer one looks at the abundance of cases of miracle testimonies the less that argument seems to be plausible, and the more irrational the atheist appears to be by blindly denying them. Again, the atheist has to have immense faith that miracles do not happen where evidence suggests otherwise (see point 9 here where I have included a handful of miracle statistics) .

smilinbobs(600) Disputed
1 point

The biggest problem with miracles is the fact that they are eye witness accounts of events and situations. Factually and scientifically we know that these are unreliable. I have not found one miracle story that was credible. Most things which people are claiming as miracles are natural occurring events where they just beat the odds. That is not a miracle just statistics.

Atrag(5445) Disputed
1 point

Can you explain why miracles don't hold up to investigation using scientific theory? What percentage of prayers are answered?

1 point

Oh good. I don't have to show how Darwinism is a lie. You did it for me.

1 point

7) Because of uniformity in nature:

---------------

The atheist presupposes uniformity in nature, as well as attempts to use reason to draw conclusions on past experiences. He uses such uniformity to understand the natural world and how it works, yet he has no basis on which to do so on his worldview. The atheist cannot appeal to experience of uniformity (such as the sun will rise tomorrow like it did today) because that would beg the question as it is already assuming uniformity on his worldview. Why does the universe adhere to uniformity if there is no intelligence involved to hold it all together? On atheism, the universe is just one big, meaningless result of cosmic explosion and expansion – since when would throwing a grenade into a pile of wood and metal scrap produce a log cabin? Yet, despite these insurmountable improbabilities he will do his science on the basis of this uniformity in nature. Hence the atheist has no grounding to even do his science that he believes negates the existence of God, therefore atheism is irrational.

1 point

6) Because of the origin of life itself:

---------------

Even if we assume that naturalistic causes alone could have created the universe, it would still follow that non-living material had to become living at some stage. This is also an unproven (and impossible) position that must be accepted when denying the existence of God, and embracing atheism. How did non-living matter in motion, which is all we are on atheism, create conscious biological life? Inorganic matter cannot by a mechanical reconfiguration give rise to organic life. Such needs to be accepted on atheism.

---------------

I must make it clear that I do not use the origin of life as an argument for God as such would fall foul to the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and reasoning. What I do argue is that this impossible, thus irrational, position must be accepted on atheism – that non-life can give rise to organic life; the atheist has no other alternative within his worldview. Either way, as the atheist denies supernatural causation he must therefore attribute such an event to an unknown natural cause, hence he falls for the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. That is blind faith.

1 point

5) Because truth seeking is not the ultimate good on atheism:

---------------

Searching for the truth is simply part of being human, we all try to separate what we think is true from what we think is false. We search for this truth to make sense of our existence, for most God provides the most rational explanation, but for an atheist it is his atheism that he holds to which inevitably results in a set of beliefs on the meaning of existence. He wouldn’t be an atheist if he didn’t believe that his atheism was true.

---------------

Yet, on atheism why should we be obligated to search for truth? As on atheism he will usually appeal to the flourishing of humans to be the ultimate good, but although such flourishing is a good thing it still inevitably leads to further issues. For instance, if seeking the truth on any given subject would diminish human flourishing then seeking that truth would be evil, and thus we would be morally obligated to avoid or suppress knowledge of that truth.

---------------

An example would be an elderly woman who is about to die but faces death joyfully because she believes she is going to be with God and her other loved ones. But on atheism, given it were true, would it be good for this elderly lady to know the truth of atheism? No, as atheism would give her no comfort whatsoever in the face of death – her existence is simply going to end, she will rot away in a grave, and she won’t be with God or her loved ones – thus, any sense of human flourishing would dissipate, provided atheism were true.

---------------

On the same note, if the elderly woman were to ask an atheist standing by her bedside if his atheism was true, the atheist would be morally obligated either to lie to her or tell her a half truth, or risk making the elderly woman miserable.

---------------

The fact is that on atheism seeking the truth is not intrinsically good, nor can the atheist claim it as such.

smilinbobs(600) Disputed
1 point

Truth seeking is neither good nor evil. As an atheist the truth set me free from an oppressive set of beliefs which were grounded in an imaginary ruling force. Just like the moment you find out that Santa is not real that truth comes with a consequence for better or worse. With things like Santa, God or Jesus the truth is suppressed for an alternate reality to make others feel happy. As in your example with the person who is dying. It makes the person happy to have an alternate reality where they are eternal (not dead). So at that point their existence is short lived what good would knowing the truth for a very short time do. Just like if a child were dying around Christmas what good would come of telling them that Santa didn't exist. It is the same thing. It doesn't mean that Santa or God exist because it's not the best answer to tell them the truth just before they die.

1 point

4) Because to be a true atheist is impossible:

---------------

A true atheist, in my view, is how the ‘Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’ defines him: “The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.” (source)

---------------

‘The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’ also defines it thusly: “Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” (source)

---------------

Both define the atheist in the affirmative by denying the existence of God, yet many atheists believe that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. This in itself basically equates atheism (as defined above) with agnosticism. This is not unusual as atheists often like to redefine their worldview to mean the absence or lack of belief in God, and therefore minimize any intellectual responsibility they need have to substantiate their worldview. However, such means that atheism is no longer a worldview, but rather a mental state – on such a view babies and cats are also atheists. As the well-known quip goes: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

---------------

I believe that a worldview is irrational if it needs to be redefined because it cannot bear the burden of proof it needs to carry – especially of those who claim to be an agnostic atheist… Such is what I see with atheism, I believe the atheist would be quick to point me out for redefining my theistic worldview in order to lighten the burden of proof.

1 point

Perhaps you could also read about the definition of agnostic.

Agnostics are those who don't assert anything.

Atheists are those who dismiss the claims of theists like the nonsense they are.

1 point

3) Because of Big Bang cosmology:

---------------

From Big Bang cosmology I believe that we have rock solid evidence (red-shift of galaxies, microwave background, expansion of galaxies from a central point, second law of thermodynamics, looking back in time via telescope etc.) of the work of an external agent as we now know, with a high degree of probability, that the universe once begun to exist.

---------------

This scientific discovery has caused atheists problems all over the place for the implications are obvious and significant, hence why atheist scientists try to posit the speculative multiverse theory in order to avoid the implications.

---------------

Nevertheless, for atheism this is disadvantageous, and some that I have encountered simply declare that they “don’t know” when challenged about the beginning of the universe, and leave it at that. That’s fine, we don’t know everything, but as an atheist he needs to posit an unknown natural cause even where the implications seem threatening to his worldview. This is blind faith, and something called naturalism-of–the-gaps, as he needs to plug a hole in his lack of knowledge in the hope that the resolve will be purely natural, and hence not supernatural. On top of this we have never observed something coming from nothing, so on atheism this is literally a miracle, yet they scoff at Jesus turning water into wine.

---------------

Again, this illustrates that one needs faith, great faith, to be an atheist – too much faith for me.

1 point

Atheists don't use the multiverse theory these days. And everyone knows time had a beginning for the universe.

How does that change anything? Eternity still means, from the beginning of time.

1 point

2) Because of a lack of moral motivation, on atheism:

---------------

If atheism is true, then the universe has no ultimate moral meaning, life itself has no meaning unless we delude ourselves into creating meaning where none exists in the first place. When one dies their body simply rots, and they exist no more. Thus, what good or evil one does in their life has no significance whatsoever – the atheist could try to make life more bearable for others but those same others are just going to die and amount to nothing anyway, and in 100 or 200 years everything he did will be forgotten. In a couple of billions of years from now the universe will undergo a heat death, and none of the atheist’s choices would have made even the slightest difference to anything. Whether one wishes to live like a Mother Teresa or an Adolf Hitler, it really doesn’t matter.

Now, say we constantly reminded ourselves of this reality every day, then how much longer would it be until one chooses to cheat on his or her partner, or cheating in an exam knowing it will go undetected? What about making some extra money on the side via the exploitation or manipulation of some people, or by cheating others out of business? Or to make some extra cash in a dishonest way?

---------------

If our decisions have no eternal moral consequences, are we more or less likely to resist our temptations and make the morally right choice?

---------------

Now, this point does not mean that the atheist cannot be moral, he can. Rather on his worldview he has no moral motivation to do the right thing – if he cheats on a test, or steals from a loved one, or makes extra money in a dishonest way it amounts to nothing more than if he did the right thing.

Atrag(5445) Disputed
1 point

If atheism is true, then the universe has no ultimate moral meaning, life itself has no meaning unless we delude ourselves into creating meaning where none exists in the first place. When one dies their body simply rots, and they exist no more

False. The molecules will exist forever. We always have been and always will be part of the universe.

Now, this point does not mean that the atheist cannot be moral, he can. Rather on his worldview he has no moral motivation to do the right thing – if he cheats on a test, or steals from a loved one, or makes extra money in a dishonest way it amounts to nothing more than if he did the right thing.

Both Christians and atheists do both bad and good things. Why do atheists do good things? Many factors come into play... sense of empathy, duty, self perservation whatever. Why do Christians do good? Because God will give themselves if they do. Atheists move passed reward based morality at about the age of 10 or so - depending on the individual of course.

1 point

1) Because thoughts have no value, on atheism:

---------------

On atheism all we are is matter, and our thinking is nothing but the misfiring of electrochemical processes in our brains. On top of this the atheist has to hold dogmatically that evolution supports his naturalism. Not only would this be unprovable but it can’t be used to dismiss God’s activity in the world, for God could have guided, overseen or initiated the process. However, if naturalistic atheistic evolution is true then we have no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, especially when determining what is true, as our thoughts are merely aimed at survival, and fitness. So, if the atheist thinks that his atheistic worldview is true he is therefore being deceived, yet he still thinks that he is right. In other words he perpetually lives inconsistently with his worldview as he believes certain things to be true, and other things to be false when such does not even factor into the evolutionary equation that his worldview demands.

---------------

I outline this in a bit more detail in my article: Evolution: The self-defeater of atheism

1 point

I don't think any of them are "funny". If one wants to believe in ANY "god", they should be allowed to.

Most Atheists, I think, would never mention religion or gods, if those with a religion would keep it to themselves and not try to force others to follow their religious agenda or rules. The only time it gets "funny" is when the believers fight among themselves about THEIR "god" being the only one that REALLY EXISTS! Now THAT'S funny!

"God is a comedian playing to an audience to afraid to laugh." [Voltaire]

dadman(1690) Disputed
1 point

"God is a comedian playing to an audience to afraid to laugh." [Voltaire]

----------------------

Everyone who hears these words of mine and acts on them .. may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock ..

and the rain fell .. and the floods came .. and the winds blew and slammed against that house ..

and yet it did not fall .. for it had been founded on the rock ..

everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them ..

will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand .. the rain fell .. and the floods came ..

and the winds blew and slammed against that house .. and it fell .. and great was its fall ............ [Jesus]

1 point

And, of course, the religious man is the foolish one, because he didn't think, but just obeyed his masters, on where to build a house.

1 point

Like I've said before .................. http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8#p8 choose your poison

I don't know how you expect anyone to give proof or evidence of God on a debate site.

You think it's a mathematical formula?

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/at-what-point-must-science-admit-existence-of-god/

dadman(1690) Disputed
1 point

Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician? ....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jremlZvNDuk ... obviously so ........... Michio Kaku says that God could be a mathematician: "The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God."

Transcript--

Some people ask the question "Of what good is math?" What is the relationship between math and physics? Well, sometimes math leads. Sometimes physics leads. Sometimes they come together because, of course, there's a use for the mathematics. For example, in the 1600s Isaac Newton asked a simple question: if an apple falls then does the moon also fall? That is perhaps one of the greatest questions ever asked by a member of Homo sapiens since the six million years since we parted ways with the apes. If an apple falls, does the moon also fall?

Isaac Newton said yes, the moon falls because of the Inverse Square Law. So does an apple. He had a unified theory of the heavens, but he didn't have the mathematics to solve the falling moon problem. So what did he do? He invented calculus. So calculus is a direct consequence of solving the falling moon problem. In fact, when you learn calculus for the first time, what is the first thing you do? The first thing you do with calculus is you calculate the motion of falling bodies, which is exactly how Newton calculated the falling moon, which opened up celestial mechanics.

So here is a situation where math and physics were almost conjoined like Siamese twins, born together for a very practical question, how do you calculate the motion of celestial bodies? Then here comes Einstein asking a different question and that is, what is the nature and origin of gravity? Einstein said that gravity is nothing but the byproduct of curved space. So why am I sitting in this chair? A normal person would say I'm sitting in this chair because gravity pulls me to the ground, but Einstein said no, no, no, there is no such thing as gravitational pull; the earth has curved the space over my head and around my body, so space is pushing me into my chair. So to summarize Einstein's theory, gravity does not pull; space pushes. But, you see, the pushing of the fabric of space and time requires differential calculus. That is the language of curved surfaces, differential calculus, which you learn in fourth year calculus.

So again, here is a situation where math and physics were very closely combined, but this time math came first. The theory of curved surfaces came first. Einstein took that theory of curved surfaces and then imported it into physics.

Now we have string theory. It turns out that 100 years ago math and physics parted ways. In fact, when Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905, that was also around the time of the birth of topology, the topology of hyper-dimensional objects, spheres in 10, 11, 12, 26, whatever dimension you want, so physics and mathematics parted ways. Math went into hyperspace and mathematicians said to themselves, aha, finally we have found an area of mathematics that has no physical application whatsoever. Mathematicians pride themselves on being useless. They love being useless. It's a badge of courage being useless, and they said the most useless thing of all is a theory of differential topology and higher dimensions.

Well, physics plotted along for many decades. We worked out atomic bombs. We worked out stars. We worked out laser beams, but recently we discovered string theory, and string theory exists in 10 and 11 dimensional hyperspace. Not only that, but these dimensions are super. They're super symmetric. A new kind of numbers that mathematicians never talked about evolved within string theory. That's how we call it "super string theory." Well, the mathematicians were floored. They were shocked because all of a sudden out of physics came new mathematics, super numbers, super topology, super differential geometry.

All of a sudden we had super symmetric theories coming out of physics that then revolutionized mathematics, and so the goal of physics we believe is to find an equation perhaps no more than one inch long which will allow us to unify all the forces of nature and allow us to read the mind of God. And what is the key to that one inch equation? Super symmetry, a symmetry that comes out of physics, not mathematics, and has shocked the world of mathematics. But you see, all this is pure mathematics and so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And when you read the mind of God, we actually have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. That is the mind of God.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/at-what-point-must-science-admit-existence-of-god/

....n..nn..n.n.........................n..............nnnn.....nn.n..n........n.nnnnn

Atheism the claim of not believing in the supernatural but yet cannot complete a sentence without mentioning God.

Is that not proof?

Because i don't believe in the merlinic typa dragons so i never mention them unless the ocassion demands, that is; if it's the topic of discussion.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Atheism the claim of not believing in the supernatural but yet cannot complete a sentence without mentioning God.

That's an obvious false claim.

Is that not proof?

Don't you think it's bad that your proof rests entirely on false statements?

Because i don't believe in the merlinic typa dragons so i never mention them unless the ocassion demands, that is; if it's the topic of discussion.

No one brought up merlinic typa dragons and yet you are talking about them. This occasion doesn't call for it. They aren't the subject. And yet, we can all agree that isn't proof you believe in them

jeffreyone(1349) Clarified
1 point

Give me a minute to reply, as long another minute rises , the reply won't be ready yet.

The ontological argument.

God is, by definition, the greatest possible being. A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist. Therefore, since God is the greatest ever possible, it follows that the greater trait must be accepted here, and that is the existence of God. Therefore, it follows, that God exists.

The funniest argument so far (In my opinion).

1 point

The funniest justification to me is because Bronze Age people far simpler in understanding of the world than ourselves told us these stories and now they are the gold standard for truth beyond anything we can see or learn or think about today.

Heck, if your 19th century ancestor could tell you how to live your life today you'd tell them they don't know what they're talking about, but hey it's OK for people thousands of years ago to do it.

outlaw60(15500) Disputed
1 point

"Heck, if your 19th century ancestor could tell you how to live your life today you'd tell them they don't know what they're talking about"

Does that apply to the 7th century barbarians that are Muslims or do you care to address that issue ?

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Why do you keep attacking people about Muslims? You think Muslims are civilized and you don't think they are terrorists.

1 point

Let's do something. Lets debate one on one.

You will present your arguments for atheism and I will present my arguments for theism. Then we'll

see which one of us ends up looking funny.

1 point

Try your best.

May Zeus make the best one win. Which is, of course, me. You seem to be just another random religious nut, from your history.

You can begin here, or prepare yourself.

I hope you don't want to debate about the christian God. That'd, though relevant here, be disappointing.

Delvis(221) Disputed
1 point

I see you are troubled and back peddling so early. We are going to debate the existence of God.

Period. You are not going to condition the debate.

And I hope you are prepared in logic, kid.

Cuz not only am I going to make you look bad. I'm going to make you look like an idiot.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

and I will present my arguments for theism.

That's not true. You have never once presented arguments for theism.

see which one of us ends up looking funny.

You will.

1 point

I don't think it's the funniest but it does give me a chuckle....the notion that morality only exists because of Him.

The infinite regress of causality is the funniest... oh wait...

https://www.facebook.com/The-Christ-Project-1890498114505768/

The Bible openly declares the final point of the end of the age.

1)Gospel goes worldwide. Check.

2)There is a falling away (great apostasy). Things become Sodom and Gamorrah-esque. Check.

(HEADLINES OF TODAY: The New Atheism Movement AKA "militant Atheism", The Women's March, "Become Ungovernable")

3)Syria is a part of some great destruction. (Isaiah 17:1) Check.

4)Christians are beheaded, genocided, and imprisoned in mass. (Revelation 20:4, Revelation 2:10, Revelation 13:10, Revelation 13:17) Check.

(HEADLINES OF TODAY: Genocide in Middle East, Christians paying Jizya, beheadings of Christians, Christians being thrown in prison)

5)Now we just need a temple in Jerusalem... Guess what...

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/30506/Default.aspx

6)A "Beast system" must emerge. Islam is literally looking for "The Beast of the Earth" in its eschatology who marks their foreheads and admonishes the non-Muslims.

The Atheist God, "The nothing monster", who is nothing yet manifests something is the funniest argument I have heard for a god.

2 points

It's an example of how deep rooted your fanaticism is - that you have to comprehend everything by considering it a monster.

Richard Swinburne's probability argument, of course! The universe is perfect and ordered, and there's a low probability that this would come about by chance. Therefore, it is probable that God exists. Rather clumsy, isn't it, trying to unlock the deepest answers of the universe with a dice roll.

1 point

Ray Comfort's banana argument. Without a doubt! The only way I could explain it is; banana good for man, so banana made for man!