Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,227 members, 7,780,430 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 02:09 PM

A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) - Religion (8) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) (262111 Views)

Athiesm The "No God" Religion / Atheist State Your Reasons For Not Believing In God/Religion / Atheism: The “No-God” Religion (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 7:27pm On Apr 15, 2015
cyrexx:
4.A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation. If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies.
This was just a lot of words to say that you believe religion was made by man and not by God because it fits the cultures of those men that created it…. As I ended my last statement, religion was not the creation of God, it was created by man. (Religion only mentioned 7 times within the whole bible and 6 times it was negative) God wants us to have faith in him and honor his word. It’s as simple as that, he doesn’t want us to make religions, war, or hate anything that doesn’t comply with his word.

cyrexx:
Christianity, again, is a perfect example of this. The theology of this religion blends apocalyptic fears, Jewish monotheistic ideals, Greek ethical philosophy, and the worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults at precisely the time when those things were mixing at a cosmopolitan crossroads of the Roman Empire. Granted, God could decide to reveal his wisdom to humanity at a time and place when it would exactly resemble a syncretistic fusion of the prevailing theologies of the day. However, all else being equal, the principle of Occam's Razor should lead us to conclude that it is nothing more than that. Positing a deity is an extra assumption that is not necessary and gives no additional explanatory power to any attempt to explain the origins of the Christian religion.
The term Christian can be classified more as a label than a religion. Christianity is only labeled as a religion due to its ultimate origins of the Old Testament. Christianity itself is a faith that focuses on the salvation of man through Jesus. The Christian mission is to try and save as many people as possible in this world, it doesn’t focus on how the universe was created. There are many different “religions” that fall under Christianity such as Baptist, Protestant, Catholic, and so on. I have already made a statement on how I do not agree with religion because men corrupt the word of God through religion. So trying to judge Christianity because of a small part is like labeling all atheist evil because a few atheists are evil.
You try to state that Christianity is just a blend of other cultures and ideals. One the Holy Bible does not teach us to fear, but to rejoice and be hopeful, so the term “apocalyptic fears” is very invalid. Just because there is scary stuff in the Holy Bible does not mean it is preaching fear. “Jewish monotheistic ideals” Yeah, we believe in one God, the same God that Jews believe in, there is no argument there. “Greek ethical philosophy”… You’re claiming that the Holy Bible stole its work from Greek society. I already touched this topic above about how some try to use this idea to disprove God does not exist. This link can help explain the connection between the Holy Bible and Greek philosophy. https://biblethingsinbibleways./2013/07/14/paul-and-his-use-of-greek-philosophy/ . Just because philosophies agree with each other does not mean that one copied the other. If two societies come to the same philosophical conclusion on separate terms, all that proves is the philosophy can be valid. “worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults” There are no “practices” of Christianity that come from mystery cults. This claim is nothing more than a wild accusation with no evidence at all.
Your last sentence, as with much of what is written is just an inflated statement. You claim that God is not necessary and the idea of God does not explain the origins of Christianity. The simple counter to this is God is necessary and perfectly explains the origins of Christianity. Either way it is put it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God.

cyrexx:
Another way in which this aspect of the Argument from Locality applies is in regard to those religious tenets which state beliefs and approve practices that were widely agreed upon at the time, but that today are recognized to be false or morally wrong. One particularly glaring example is the way the Christian and Jewish scriptures both implicitly and explicitly approve of the practices of human slavery and the institutional inequality of women. Likewise, these writings show no special insight into the workings of the universe other than what was widely known to the people of their time, and make many mistakes common to those who lived in that era - for example, the belief that mental illness and physical disability were caused by demon possession. Again, under the Argument from Locality this is exactly what we should expect: these religions, being the product of those time periods, cannot be expected to show knowledge advanced beyond what the people of those periods possessed.
You are only making false claims that Christianity and Judaism approve of human slavery as we see it today, and the unequal treatment of women. The truth is that Christianity is a huge proponent to the abolition of slavery as well as the equal treatment of women. If you ever opened a text book you would be able to find this easily. (By the way I am a history teacher) As far as the Slavery question is concerned I can refer you to this link to explain more about the slavery topic. http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html . You can look at this link to find out more about the equal treatment of women. http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_womensrights.htm

cyrexx:
In closing, consider what would refute the Argument from Locality. We could have found ourselves living in a world with only one religion, spread throughout the globe, with prophets from among every people. We could have found that, when we first contacted isolated native tribes, their religion was identical to one that already existed rather than being entirely their own. We could have found religions that bore no resemblance to the culture of their time and place of origin, in possession of advanced scientific knowledge or advanced ethical principles totally unlike what was commonly believed at the time. These are reasonable things to expect if there really was a god genuinely interested in revealing itself to humanity and being worshipped.
What you are asking for is to have a perfect society on this planet. To sum up this statement you claim that if God exists then this world would be perfect. This is not a reasonable claim. And the simplest research into the Holy Bible counters this belief. This world is just a big test. And just like any test you have to study and do your research. Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

cyrexx:
But in reality, we find none of these things. What we find are numerous contradictory and conflicting religions, some with specific "chosen" races or ethnicities, and the further separated they are in time and space, the more their beliefs clash. When we encounter previously isolated tribes, their religions are always new and unique. When we examine the ethical codes and scientific knowledge of religions, they always bear strong resemblances to the times and places where those religions originated. Under the assumption of atheism, this is precisely what we should expect.
Again man created religion, man is flawed and this has led to the society we live in today with war and suffering. IF you were to claim that God is bad because he allows all the bad stuff to happen, who do you blame if there was no God? The only thing you have to blame is man. As explained in my prior posts, this world is just a test. It is the way it is for a reason. Not agreeing with that reason does not prove God does not exist.

cyrexx:
One could, of course, argue that this does not prove anything, that God deliberately intended things to be this way. Maybe he has reasons of his own, unknowable to us, for sending his messengers to only one people. Maybe he decided not to disclose advanced knowledge to primitive people. Maybe he allows evil spirits to delude people into creating false religions. Maybe, maybe, maybe - but that is precisely the point. When one believes in supernatural beings that can violate the laws of nature at will and that have motivations inscrutable to humans, all grounds for believing one proposition over another vanish, all knowledge disappears. There is no longer any reason to expect any state of affairs rather than any other. Such a doctrine is impossible to falsify and leads to nothing but epistemic chaos. In explaining anything, theism turns out to explain nothing.
Again there is a lot of fluff in this statement to say one simple thing. Believing in God can only lead to chaos because it doesn’t require critical thinking. This is just an opinion; it is not a fact or a reasonable assumption. Your final statement is that believing in God explains nothing…. In actuality it explains everything, if you do your research. You just choose not to believe it.

cyrexx:
But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact. Given a few first principles - physical laws and observations whose existence no one disputes - atheism requires that the world can only be one way, and that is the way we in fact find it to be. Believers may argue why God set up the world in just the one way we would expect it to be if he did not exist, but for a freethinker, the conclusion is obvious.
“But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact” You are claiming that believers don’t use facts with their reasoning. I have given you nothing but facts with direct quotes from the Holy Bible. I understand you do not believe the Holy Bible. The fact of the matter is that the Holy Bible has not been proven unreliable with its references to events that can be compared with other historical documents. There are many other Roman documents that give details of Jesus and back up if not prove his existence. All it takes is research and you can find the truth out for yourself.
This whole argument could have been summed up into a couple of sentences. But the author wanted to use ambiguous (unclear) wording to try and make his logic seem undeniable. I could have easily just dismissed his claims, but I wanted to make sure to clearly show where he was flawed in his thinking.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 9:51pm On Apr 15, 2015
[size=18pt]Eight) Debunking the claim that morality comes from God; an objective law giver[/size]


Christian and muslim apologists claim that morals come from God. The say that God is the absolute or objective moral law giver. His laws are the best for humanity.

You use the term "objective" to try and describe God. The definition of objective is "without bias or prejudice; detached". This does not describe God as is written in the Holy Bible. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So God loves us according to the Holy Bible, therefore he is not objective in any way.

There are many problems with this line of thought;


a) Objectivity is a biased human concept;
Human beings will always see things from a human perspective. Our truth and knowledge begins with the use of the 5 senses. Our objectivity is subject to a human bias.

My first statement eliminates this claim. In any case all this states is that humans are limited in our ability to be objective.

b) Moral objectivity does not exist both in the purest sense and in the religious scripture
Since pure objectivity doesnt exist due to our natural human bias, morality objectivity as well doesnt exist. Also, the holy books of the Abrahamic faiths (the bibles and the Quran) can not be objectively interpreted. There are so many interpretations of the Quran and the bibles that are quite contradictory. For example, some muslims scholars support wife beating, others dont. Also, some christians believe in tithing, others dont.

Again my first statement nullifies the argument of moral objectivity because your first assumption was incorrect that God is morally objective.

You also claim that people interpret the Holy Bible and the Quran which creates division between those religions. This has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It only validates what is said in the Holy Bible that men are fallible. People have been twisting both the Holy Bible and the Quran to fit their needs of their agenda for hundreds of years.

c)We can not understand a true objective moral giver (God)
We human beings can not understand beyond our 5 senses or beyond our human perception. A being that is outside our five senses with an objective morality beyond human perception will mostly be invisible or unknowable to us. His laws would always be interpreted from a human perspective and therefore misinterpreted.

Minus the term "objective" you have just summed up the existence of our world as described by the Holy Bible. As far as the misinterpretations, I explained that in my prior statement. Men are flawed, so we will make mistakes and get things wrong. And as I stated in one of my earlier posts, we can not understand God. If we were able to understand God then he would not be God.

d) God is a subjective experience
Some see God in visions, some see him in dreams and some see angels that represent him. The holy books that are supposed to be God's word have various interpretations. How do we then get objective morals from such a subjective experience?

Again this claim is also nullified based on my first statement. God is not objective.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 12:56pm On Apr 16, 2015
Quote" "it" was founded upon a "rock" " end quote , now "look" around and "he" will liken "it" to a man who built "his" house upon a "rock" for wind and rain won't wash "it" away , now the term "upon" is either "on top", "with", "the use" or "in" now the whole worlds foundation as we "know" "it" to day , is founded upon a "rock" for "mineral" and "manufacturing" and "metal material" all come from "rock" so there for "mining" is the "aim" of the "game" , assuredly I say do u not understand these sayings of "mine" .
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 3:18pm On Apr 16, 2015
[size=18pt]9) Why can't God heal amputees? [/size]


Regeneration of limbs for humans is quite impossible and difficult to fake. It comes as no surprise to atheists that we hardly hear the faith healers claim tat they have grown back a leg or an arm for an amputee.

There are two rationalizations made by apologists for this problem (which both fail)

a) God has a special plan for amputees

Well, there is no such plan in the bible or Quran. This is a simple excuse for God.

b)Amputees dont need healing

This is a sad but not surprising argument that I have heard. I would really like to know how a footballer who lost his leg wouldn't like to play football again?Or a pianist who lost his hand wouldnt liek to play the piano again. It is quite insensitive to make such an argument- unfortunately such is the rationalization and mental gymnastics for God.

The reason why God doesnt heal amputees is simple. A personal omnipotent God doesnt exist. A god may or may not exist but an ambulance god does not.

This question has nothing to do about the restoration of an amputee's lost limb or digits. Ultimately what it comes down to is why God doesn’t reveal himself.

If God were to let everyone know that he existed, most people would stop doing evil things just to act like a good person. God does not want us to do what is right because he is telling us to do the right thing. He wants us to do what is right because we want to do the right thing. Look at it this way. If you invite a friend over to your home he or she will be a good guest while you are in the room watching them, but if you leave the room will that person still be good or will s/he steal from you? You can agree that you would rather have a friend who you can trust to do the right thing no matter what the circumstances are over someone you have to always watch over. God is inviting us into his home, his kingdom. He does not want people who just pretend to be good to enter his house.

I stated in a prior post that God does not reveal himself to us because that would interfere with his plan for us. If he were to perform obvious miraculous miracles such as restoring the limbs or digits of amputees that would be too much proof that he exists. God gives us just enough proof to have faith in him.

Now as far as the amputees go, that is part of their life. We all have to face different struggles in this world to test our worth. Is it fair? No, but as I explained in an earlier post God is not fair, he is just.
To answer your question, it’s not that God cannot restore limbs or digits, it's that he won’t; At least on this Earth.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 3:59pm On Apr 16, 2015
Actually he can threw man for the practice of the "theory of god" has made it possible for the "human" to do so by the human made technology that comes from the "theory"
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 5:23pm On Apr 16, 2015
[size=18pt]10) Did God come out of nothing?[/size]

"Something can't come out of nothing", the theist apologists commonly say.


However, no one knows where God (at least the Abrahamic God) came from. The usual answer atheists get from the question is that God is eternal and didnt need a creator. However, this is a circular argument-

-If we keep identifying a cause for everything, we will into an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, we need a first cause which is uncaused
-God is the first cause and he doesnt need a cause because he is the uncaused.



Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument. This is replacing an infinity with another infinity. You solve a paradox of infinite causes with another paradox of an infinite being.

.

What you are trying to do here is place God under the same rules that we are bound by. The definition of omnipotent is "having unlimited power and authority."(Not limited by anything)(Webster's New World College Dictionary). God is omnipotent, so the idea that he is eternal does not contradict his own existence. He is not bound by time, and therefore does not have or need a beginning.

You cannot place limits on God in the attempt to create a paradox that disprove his existence.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 6:56pm On Apr 16, 2015
,Ramble on , man went "down" or "nothing" happened, agree or argue for infinity , according to the "theory" man must go "down" or all these things "won't" come to pass , one must "think logically" for , for all these things to come to pass man must go "down" to the vineyard, for the "material" u must create a "street" to reap the fruit of the earth and send men standing idle in to your vineyard at a penny those who go in first shall be last and those in last shall be first, its like a man who finds riches in a field , he sells all his got and goes and buys that field for there is more fruit of the earth under that field as I mentioned, do u not understand these parables of "mine"
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 7:42pm On Apr 16, 2015
[size=18pt]11) Problems with an omnipotent intelligent designer and his designs[/size]
To sum up your claim, you are saying that since God is supposed to be perfect then his creations should be perfect. The problem with this claim is that you conclude that God did not intend to create us the way that we are. The truth is we are designed to be flawed. This world is not meant to be perfect. As I stated in an earlier post, we are told that we will suffer on this world, only through this experience can we truly understand and appreciate paradise.

a) Circumcision
We are made by an omnipotent and intelligent designer. However, after creating us we are told that circumcision is necessary for men in the old testament of the bible. While not mandatory as before, circumcision is still popular among the Abrahamic religions (christianity, islam and judaism). One has to ask the question- why did God forget to circumcise us before creation?
The necessity was not because God forgot to do something, it was an action in the Old Testament to show your loyalty and faith to God. This was no longer necessary after the New Covenant created with Jesus.

b) Abortion
We are told that abortion is a sin by conservative religious people. Unfortunately, the intelligent designer is one of the greatest abortionist known to mankind as miscarriages are the most common complication of human pregnanct. 75% of women trying to conceive face this problem
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260495-overview

First you try to state that all miscarriages are God's fault. So every time a woman was punched in the stomach, it was God's fault she had a miscarriage, every time there was an accident... God's fault. You can get where I am going with this. So my question to you would be If God does not exist, who do you blame for these tragedies? Trying to use the flaws of man is not a valid argument to disprove the existence of God.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that sometimes miscarriages happen when there seems to be no cause. It is known that the female body will force a miscarriage when it knows that something is wrong with either the fetus or the pregnancy all together. So babies die, and people suffer. Death is a huge part of this world, it does not discriminate. Is it fair, no. Life on this world will never be fair. As I have stated before, we are told that we will suffer in this world according to the Holy Bible. Not agreeing with how the world was created does not disprove the existence of God.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 7:55pm On Apr 16, 2015
Seems "its" a one man show. .
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 8:11pm On Apr 16, 2015
[size=18pt]12) A problem of borrowed prophets in Islam[/size]

Christians and Jews believe that Jesus was a religious Jew. However, muslims believe that Jesus was a muslim. Now these two beliefs are contradictory, and at best, only one can be true.

Why Jesus can't be a muslim;

-Jesus was born into a Jewish community (ethnicity)
-Jesus quoted Jewish scriptures
-Jesus talked about the Jewish God.
-Jesus debated Jewish scholars.
-Jesus didnt live by Quranic laws. He turned water into wine for a party.

This does not prove God does not exist. All you did was argue that Islam is wrong. Now I am not Muslim and don't follow Islam. But In it's defense Muslim means one who submits to the laws of God. Its a label not a religion. The religion is Islam.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 8:14pm On Apr 16, 2015
negativecreep:
Seems "its" a one man show. .
Considering I woke a half year old forum. I expect people to eventually reply, I just hope its civil.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 3:28pm On Apr 17, 2015
[size=18pt]13) The forgiveness loophole[/size]

God is ever merciful and will forgive if you repent of your sins, according to the Abrahamic faiths. Unfortunately, this presents a loophole in human actions and going to heaven.


-A religious man can molest and kill an atheist who rejects all religions and gods. This religious man can repent later in his life and worship God. The problem is that the religious man will go to heaven according to Abrahamic theology while the atheist will probably end up in hell for rejecting God.

This falls under the belief that God can be fooled, in which case God would not be all powerful, therefore not God.

Anyone who willfully sins thinking he can just repent and get away from it is only insulting God. What’s worse is that that person truly believes in God. This is considered blasphemy. The definition of blasphemy is "profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held divine. Any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful. (deliberately mocking or contemptuous (scornful) of God)" "Webster's New World College Dictionary"

Mark 3:28, 29, 30 "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:" "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

What this says that if a person truly accepts God and believes in him, then purposely and willfully denies and insults God he is committing blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, and this is unforgivable. So by denying and refusing to truly accept the Holy Ghost this leaves your spirit unclean. So this person is truly worse off than the atheist. The atheist can be forgiven for the denial of God because he is not purposely denying God, he does not believe in God.

This does not say that once someone accepts God that they must live a perfect life. Humans are imperfect, and we will always sin on this earth. As long as a person is truly making the attempt to prevent those sins from happening God knows and understands our struggles. But if we just think that God will give us salvation without us keeping our end of the deal we are mistaken.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 5:01pm On Apr 17, 2015
"Man" has already "sinned" and caused all man to "sin" for the "greatest" sin of all is going the wrong way , "down" is the "wrong" way , because of man going down into the earth and extracting "material" for personal gain and for "something" to "sell" and then "creating" a "theory" that promotes the "practice" of going "down" for more personal and by now monetary gain , for the "theory" as we know couldn't be kept from the public for long and there for had to be kept under supervision of the ruling body and rash end into use with all laws and policy's and regulations that go with "it" for the "intention" of "it" is for u to talk of "it" "spiritually" and ramble on and on about something u so confused about for u don't "know" what u dealing with , most don't , this is the "intention" of "it" , so YOU can ramble on and on and on about something "you" got no clue on what u talking about , but don't be afraid "its" the "intention" of "it" for u to do so for its the "intention" of "it" that u do so "fooling" "intentionally" is the aim of "its" human brain "undermining" game "intentionally" and assuredly under "mining" YOU literally , so look to your "feet" for "it" does, while "its" got YOU looking "up" , better "catch" a wake "up" shocked
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 7:23pm On Apr 17, 2015
Oh u gotta "hand" "it" baby "its" a "game" you just "can't" win cry.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 8:25pm On Apr 17, 2015
LordBabs:
Much have been said already. In addition:
14. ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD'S DISCRETIONARY MERCY:
Based on the biblical quote below:
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans 9:18).
A direct reference to the biblical account of Pharaoh, when God hardened his heart, purportedly to manifest its omnipotence to Pharaoh and the Isrealites at large. Now, the obvious atheistic questions are:

Before I start I want to reference one of my prior posts.
Bonetoy:

If God were to let everyone know that he existed, most people would stop doing evil things just to act like a good person. God does not want us to do what is right because he is telling us to do the right thing. He wants us to do what is right because we want to do the right thing. Look at it this way. If you invite a friend over to your home he or she will be a good guest while you are in the room watching them, but if you leave the room will that person still be good or will s/he steal from you? You can agree that you would rather have a friend who you can trust to do the right thing no matter what the circumstances are over someone you have to always watch over. God is inviting us into his home, his kingdom. He does not want people who just pretend to be good to enter his house.
Now with this in mind I will continue

LordBabs:
1. Why would God fault someone it intentionally wished to fault?

God did not force the Pharaoh to turn from God. The Pharaoh was already denying God. God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh to prevent him from changing his mind. Remember if we had too much proof that God existed people would start to act good just because "God is watching" So with the events that were taking place the Pharaoh would have let the Jews go because there was no doubt that God existed. He would not have let them go because he was a good person.

LordBabs:
2. In lieu of hardening Pharaoh's heart to prove your 'Godian' stunts, why not soften his heart, which equally proves your supremacy/omnipotence?

Simply put, if that is what happened then people would have just assumed that the Pharaoh was generous and give no credit to God for the actions that took place.

LordBabs:
3. Since God will show mercy{?} to whom he wishes, why should I, a mortal still bother to please such erratic God? Afterall, even if I please God, my assurance of getting its reward is on a 50:50 scale; so, why not follow my heart's desire?

Even if your assumption was true that God does not honor his word and will pick and choose who he wants to enter heaven. Your assumption is that it is better to just do what you want on this world and go to hell rather than be a good person and take a 50% chance of going into heaven. Either way you look at this question it is not logical.

LordBabs:
4. God's discretionary mercy to mankind is inversely a curse and mockery of its omnipotence. An omnipotent one needs not appeal to authorities(inciting Moses to appeal Pharaoh to let its people go), in accomplishing its godly agenda.
Theistic Counter-argument: that man is liken to a clay in the hands of God: which doesn't tell its potter/maker what and how it should be moulded. Then, if man is like a clay and God a potter, why worry about a clay? Or does a clay worry about its maker/potter? Why make appeals to a mere clay? Would I, as a father, ask for the permission of my 1-month old baby to go and urinate? Quite unnecessary!

First, this is not a question, its a statement with hypothetical questions. You make the assumption that God had no other way of getting the Jewish people released from the Pharaoh. That God "needed" to appeal to him. This is nothing more than a statement with no valid evidence to prove it's worth.

If you were to ask why did God bother with the whole exodus? Which is what I can get from your statement, then the answer would be this...

“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth” (Romans 9:17)

God used this event to help spread his name across the world.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 9:12pm On Apr 17, 2015
[size=18pt]15) A problem of a literal Adam and Eve.[/size]

The Abrahamic faiths have Adam & Eve as the first human beings on earth and the parents of all humans.


Here are some problems with the story of Adam and Eve

a) Incest
The only way Adam and Eve could have had grandchildren would have been by incest among their children.

This does not disprove anything. Incest happened to populate the world. It was not looked down upon in that day because it was necessary. Later God gave new laws against incest in Leviticus 18:6, as he tells Moses his new laws, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their unclothedness:"

b) Biologically impossible for 2 people to populate the earth into billions of the present day
Genetic evidence indicates that humans descended from at least 10,000 people with the amount of variation we have right now.

There was obviously no research done for this claim. Even science points to all humans descending from one mother. Research Mitochondrial Eve.


[img]http://t.qkme.me/pbv.jpg[/img]
I usually leave the images out, but this one here shows that, again, there was no research done to validate this claim.
Genesis 5 3-4
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 10:19pm On Apr 17, 2015
Bonetoy:


This does not disprove anything. Incest happened to populate the world. It was not looked down upon in that day because it was necessary. Later God gave new laws against incest in Leviticus 18:6, as he tells Moses his new laws, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their unclothedness:"



There was obviously no research done for this claim. Even science points to all humans descending from one mother. Research Mitochondrial Eve.



I usually leave the images out, but this one here shows that, again, there was no research done to validate this claim.
Genesis 5 3-4
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"
lol this has got to be the most ridiculous comment I've seen so far today....inbreeding populated the world?
How's about you go learn how that's biologically impossible ....

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html


Here's a simple example....When you have two rabbits, get them to mate and produce offspring....and have those offspring mate within themselves.....it reaches a time when the 3rd generation and above are either sterile mutants, sickly mutants or dead...

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by UyiIredia(m): 10:33pm On Apr 17, 2015
There's no argument against God's existence for which there isn't a sufficient counter-argument.

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by UyiIredia(m): 10:34pm On Apr 17, 2015
davien:
lol this has got to be the most ridiculous comment I've seen so far today....inbreeding populated the world?
How's about you go learn how that's biologically impossible ....

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html


Here's a simple example....When you have two rabbits, get them to mate and produce offspring....and have those offspring mate within themselves.....it reaches a time when the 3rd generation and above are either sterile mutants, sickly mutants or dead...

If such the organisms involved contain much genetic diversity it is possible.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 11:56pm On Apr 17, 2015
UyiIredia:


If such the organisms involved contain much genetic diversity it is possible.
You've shot yourself in the foot here...how much genetic diversity can two individuals possess to not produce inbred offspring?... undecided
Can you see the problem now? grin

For two organisms to produce genetically diverse offspring they have to be reproducing outside their offspring and close relatives... grin
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by UyiIredia(m): 6:33am On Apr 18, 2015
davien:
You've shot yourself in the foot here...how much genetic diversity can two individuals possess to not produce inbred offspring?... undecided
Can you see the problem now? grin

For two organisms to produce genetically diverse offspring they have to be reproducing outside their offspring and close relatives... grin

SMH.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 9:18am On Apr 18, 2015
UyiIredia:


SMH.
You can shake your neck too if you like...grin
Thats basic biology....higher population sizes have more genetic diversity and it's maintained by reproduction outside siblings and close relatives...
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 7:29pm On Apr 18, 2015
Ramble on and on with no clue This is no library of "Atheism" seems more like full blown "Christianity" bashing "Atheism" thread for it lacks debate with the "so called "main" dudes that love to submit long non sensible statements that keep honoring the written word that's commonly spoken by "believers" of the "theory" with "one" or "two" of them that really think that "spiritually" speaking and answering questions with "knowing" , they would be "mistaken" for knowing they know not " the kingdom of god" the true "god" that is .

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 9:57pm On Apr 18, 2015
davien:
lol this has got to be the most ridiculous comment I've seen so far today....inbreeding populated the world?
How's about you go learn how that's biologically impossible ....
First of you failed to acknowledge mitochondrial eve, scientific (not biblical) evidence that all humans descended from one common mother. So weather you believe in evolution or creationism we all come from one mother.

Inbreeding does not cause birth defects or sterilization. It gives certain traits more opportunity to appear. So as new generations are born a negative trait will surface. Some defects are minor and don't interfere with the survival of the race, while others are more serious and can decrease the chances of survival.

Now again science (not the Holy Bible) explains how the species continues to survive. Natural selection weeds out those genetic defects that hinder human survival. The defects stay in the gene pool but when ever it does pop out those humans would most likely die. If they do manage to survive their chances of reproducing are very low. So, survival of the fittest.

As societies advanced, and medicine evolved we began to save the lives of those people who would have died. This is why those traits begin to become more and more common. So the idea that you cannot populate the world through incest is incorrect.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 3:52am On Apr 19, 2015
Bonetoy:

First of you failed to acknowledge mitochondrial eve, scientific (not biblical) evidence that all humans descended from one common mother. So weather you believe in evolution or creationism we all come from one mother.

Inbreeding does not cause birth defects or sterilization. It gives certain traits more opportunity to appear. So as new generations are born a negative trait will surface. Some defects are minor and don't interfere with the survival of the race, while others are more serious and can decrease the chances of survival.

Now again science (not the Holy Bible) explains how the species continues to survive. Natural selection weeds out those genetic defects that hinder human survival. The defects stay in the gene pool but when ever it does pop out those humans would most likely die. If they do manage to survive their chances of reproducing are very low. So, survival of the fittest.

As societies advanced, and medicine evolved we began to save the lives of those people who would have died. This is why those traits begin to become more and more common. So the idea that you cannot populate the world through incest is incorrect.
OMG! I'm speechless.. shocked

Mitochondrial eve isn't the "First woman"....she's the first female whom our mitochondria dna descended from.... Lol grin


Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.
Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time...


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

And telling me inbreeding doesn't lead to birth defects and sterilization when anyone can demonstrably go look for peer reviewed papers documenting just that is lying.....no two ways about it.

The adverse effects of inbreeding in animals are well known. The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding. Performance in several characters, particularly those concerned with reproduction and survival, declines following the mating of close relatives.

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html


I bet you just read an article titled "First woman" in a paper... grin

I'm not amazed anymore by the amount of lies Christians put forward to believe what they want to believe, from equivocation fallacies(mitochondrial eve = biblical eve) to lying(inbreeding doesn't lead to sterilization and birth defects)....Lol grin

All this speaks volumes for the credibility of your position...
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 4:41am On Apr 19, 2015
LordBabs:
16.) ARGUMENT ABOUT GOD'S ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND PERFECTION:
1. That man is created in the image of God hypothetically implies God's anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. having head, bûms, pênis....a complete denigration on the part of a Super Power persona.

For any one who has truly read and studied the Holy Bible it is known that the passage doesn't imply we were created in God's physical likeness. God is spirit. John 4:24 "God is a Spirit" this is the likeness that we are created in. God gave man a soul.

Being created in the likeness of something is not being made exactly the same way. Definition of likeness "the state or quality of being like; similarity" Definition of similar "two things that have characteristics that resemble each other but are not exactly alike." Webster's New World College Dictionary.

LordBabs:
2. If God is described as a perfect entity, and man is fashioned after its likeness, it won't be wrong to assume that man is also a perfect body. But since it's a popular truth that no man is perfect, it sounds crazy to say God is perfect. Moreover, how possible could an imperfection(man) be created out of a perfection(God)? It's either the latter is not perfect, or the former is perfect just as the latter, or the latter is non-existent.

Yes it would be wrong to assume that man must be perfect because God is perfect. As I stated before being made in the likeness of something is not being made the exact same way.

Your last statement you ask how can a perfect being create an imperfect being? Then you try to rationalize that they both have to be prefect otherwise God doesn't exist. This is not a logical argument.

LordBabs:
3. If man is created in the image of God, it is not illogical to posit that man's instinctive tendencies are in tandem with their maker's. And as such, the human natural appeal to evil, typical of the Bokoharam, Ku Klux Klan...is inherited from God.

This argument also falls under the assumption that men are supposed to be exactly the same as God. I have already showed how this reasoning is wrong.

LordBabs:
Theistic Counter-Argument: that everything God created was good and perfect, but man's fall (in Eden?)precipitated his imperfection and disconnection from God. The logic is this:
(a) does man's fall discontinue the fact that he's still the image of God?
(b) if man is no more an image of God, then whose image is man adopting now?
(c) if it is impossible for a perfection(God) to be birthed by an imperfection(Man), then why should it not be impossible for an imperfection(Man) to be birthed by a perfection(God)?

(a) still in the likeness, just imperfect and flawed.
(b) man is not adopting a new image.
(c) translation of what you wrote. "if it is impossible for man to make God why should it be possible for God to make man" ... All you did here was use ambiguous wording to try and make this seem logical.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 4:57am On Apr 19, 2015
davien:
OMG! I'm speechless.. shocked

Mitochondrial eve isn't the "First woman"....she's the first female whom our mitochondria dna descended from.... Lol grin

Read your statement here, she isn't the first woman, she is the first female...

davien:
I'm not amazed anymore by the amount of lies Christians put forward to believe what they want to believe, from equivocation fallacies(mitochondrial eve = biblical eve) to lying(inbreeding doesn't lead to sterilization and birth defects)....Lol grin

Not once did I ever state that mitochondrial eve was biblical eve. If you even read my post you would notice that I removed the Holy Bible from that evidence all together.

And again, I didn't say that inbreeding didn't lead to birth defects or sterilization, I said it doesn't cause them. But obviously you didn't read my post thoroughly.

davien:
All this speaks volumes for the credibility of your position...

You try to discredit my posts through insults and derogatory remarks. Where is your credibility?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Weah96: 5:27am On Apr 19, 2015
Bonetoy:


What you are trying to do here is place God under the same rules that we are bound by. The definition of omnipotent is "having unlimited power and authority."(Not limited by anything)(Webster's New World College Dictionary). God is omnipotent, so the idea that he is eternal does not contradict his own existence. He is not bound by time, and therefore does not have or need a beginning.

You cannot place limits on God in the attempt to create a paradox that disprove his existence.

No one is placing anything on anyone. That's just the way language works. Any language. If someone is UNDEFEATED, he cannot have a loss on his record. In the same way, if someone is omnipotent, it means that there's nothing that he cannot do. There is no such person on earth or in human history BTW. So if you choose to decorate your imaginary friend with that label, be prepared to answer the paradoxes.

Can an undefeated boxer have a 50-3 record? Can an omnipotent God kill himself?

Direct your frustration at the creator of languages. Or find another word to use besides omnipotent. Almost-omnipotent, for example, is better.

2 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 10:43am On Apr 19, 2015
Bonetoy:


Read your statement here, she isn't the first woman, she is the first female...
First female it of which mitochondrial dna descended from outside others....you can't escape using tautology, you've been caught....but instead to admit it you still want to prolong your lie...


Not once did I ever state that mitochondrial eve was biblical eve. If you even read my post you would notice that I removed the Holy Bible from that evidence all together.

You tried to use science to back up the notion that there was a "First mother" by saying this below...

Bonetoy:

" scientific (not biblical) evidence that all humans descended from one common mother"
So weather you believe in evolution or creationism we all come from one mother.

Whether you admit it or not the statement you made "whether you believe in evolution or creationism,we all come from one mother" has given you away of trying to equivocate the two.....
When science implies mitochondrial dna ancestry you believe it's the same as spontaneous acts of creation(creationism)....


And again, I didn't say that inbreeding didn't lead to birth defects or sterilization, I said it doesn't cause them. But obviously you didn't read my post thoroughly.
Let me break it down for you....when you try to hide behind tautology like "cause" and "lead to" you're saying an action is either direct(it caused it) or indirect(it lead to it)...
Now inbreeding closely does "cause"(directly) birth defects and sterilization, if you bothered to read the article I gave below...

"These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding."

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html


You try to discredit my posts through insults and derogatory remarks. Where is your credibility?
My credibility is that I clearly demonstrated your dishonesty, and even now I've exposed more of it....Your basically a liar or at an best ignorant person..

1 Like 1 Share

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 3:46pm On Apr 19, 2015
Which one of u two is the "christian" lol or "atheist" never know "two" oposites that have one thing in common, believing that a "character" called "eve" from a "book" was the "first" "female" or "woman" on earth , what a total joke , I think u guys should do something more constructive with your time shocked.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Bonetoy: 6:14pm On Apr 19, 2015
davien:
First female it of which mitochondrial dna descended from outside others
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
"Many suggest that Eve must have had some vast superiority because her offspring are thought to have conquered the whole world without any evidence of any interbreeding."

The name Eve is not used to describe the Biblical Eve, but Mitochondrial Eve.

davien:

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html
A quote from your own link.

"The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding."

Caused by harmful recessive genes INCREASES following inbreeding. Inbreeding does not cause the defects. This is what I have been arguing this whole time. Yet you still want to claim it does.

It's obvious that no amount of evidence I present you will be sufficient. So I will leave it at this. You can choose to believe what you want to believe that is your choice. But trying to force people to believe what you believe by twisting evidence in your favor is wrong for either side to do. Everything that I have posted only leads up to the conclusion that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. I will force no one to follow my beliefs. I just think that every one should have facts that are not doctored to come to their own conclusions.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by davien(m): 12:02am On Apr 20, 2015
Bonetoy:

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrialEve.htm
"Many suggest that Eve must have had some vast superiority because her offspring are thought to have conquered the whole world without any evidence of any interbreeding."
And.....

"Others state that selection had nothing to do with the takeover of the human population. They inject that it was a purely statistical process"

It's referring to mitochondrial eve's mitochondrial dna not being interbred with other groups in the homonoideae family and thus her mitochondria dna was the superior in taking over the world.... exposed dishonesty #1


The name Eve is not used to describe the Biblical Eve, but Mitochondrial Eve.

It's good you've acknowledged that...



A quote from your own link.
Okay...



"The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding."
You cherry-picked that passage...below is the entirety..(i'll use another colour for the part you lifted)

"The adverse effects of inbreeding in animals are well known. The incidence of metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions, caused by harmful recessive genes, increases following inbreeding. Performance in several characters, particularly those concerned with reproduction and survival, declines following the mating of close relatives. This is known as inbreeding depression. These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding"

Above is dishonesty #2 exposed...


Caused by harmful recessive genes INCREASES following inbreeding. Inbreeding does not cause the defects. This is what I have been arguing this whole time. Yet you still want to claim it does.
Again the passage continues as;

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570143.html

"These effects are mainly due to an increase in the frequency of homozygous genotypes (AA and aa) at the expense of heterozygotes (Aa), which is caused by inbreeding"
Above(bolded) is the part you left out...
Cherry-pick all you like,anyone free enough to read the full passages would easily see through your farse..

It's obvious that no amount of evidence I present you will be sufficient. So I will leave it at this. You can choose to believe what you want to believe that is your choice.
You have yet to provide any evidence....i've exposed your so called evidence throughout today to be either equivocation fallacies,lies and cherry-picking...
And to believe something isn't a choice,it's a compulsion attained by convincing arguments,evidence and logical deductions of which you clearly know nothing about otherwise you wouldn't say it's a choice....
one can't instantly start believing something he/she isn't convinced about..
But trying to force people to believe what you believe by twisting evidence in your favor is wrong for either side to do.
This is ironic because all day i've been highlighting your twisting of the evidence by cherry-picking,lying and equivocating...

Everything that I have posted only leads up to the conclusion that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
The topic says nothing about "god/gods" because it's scientific/deductive,so concepts that can't be proven/disproven are empty(and amount to nothing) and inseparable from others that can't also be proven/disproven like the flying spaghetti monster,thor,magic,invisible pink unicorn,etc....thus the concept of "god/gods" purely imaginative and non-existent since it cannot be proven/disproven unless the person presenting the claim can offer convincing evidence..

I will force no one to follow my beliefs. I just think that every one should have facts that are not doctored to come to their own conclusions.
I believe i've presented my case over and over again that you're guilty of doctoring passages by cherry-picking,lying,and equivocating...regardless of your admission.

3 Likes 1 Share

(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply)

Marine Spirits...what Are They?how To Identify Them And Defeat Them. / Testimony Of A Former Devil Worshiper - Nonkoliso Ngeleka / Your Dreams Explained

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 168
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.