Forums → WEPR → Why would got hate an atheist?

98 11147
Yodadude53
offline
Yodadude53
1,497 posts
Nomad

People always say that if you're an atheist, you're going to hell. This got me thinking. Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fiery hole of despair? Doing this horrifying act just because I don't believe he exists. There was no evidence to support the fact he exists. I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy. If god is real in this manner, he is a evil villianous character sending me to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

So what do you think?

  • 98 Replies
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,088 posts
Nomad

Religious people are the ones asserting a claim, that a deity or deities exist, Atheism asserts no claim.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

I have yet to see any evidence that prooves Atheism.


atheism is the lack of believing. atheists do not believe in something els because something is illogic. we don't believe at all. because there is lack of evidence that supports the religions and it's illogical.

it's not that we believe in something els or that we have rituals for something els. atheism only means that the people do not believe in a creater.

and science is based on facts, not faith. thats why most/all atheists agree whit science.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,804 posts
Peasant

Atheism asserts no claim


If they have no claim, than what is the reason for the beliefs' existence? As a Christian, I put my faith into God, whom I claim to be the supreme being. An Athiest would, in this case, say that God does not exist. I'd say thats a claim.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

han what is the reason for the beliefs' existence?


once again,

atheism is not, a believe in something.
atheism is, not believing in something.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,804 posts
Peasant

atheism is the lack of believing


Precisely; it is the belief of non-belief. An Athiest holds that there is nothing to believe, or nothing worth believing.

science is based on facts, not faith


Not all science, actually. Take the Theory of Universal Gravity, for example. We accept as truth that certain laws of gravity are evident throughout the universe, because it makes the most sense. We can't test this outside our own Solar System, so we accept on faith that this holds true in other regions of space.

Math also, has its own articles that we accept on faith that it holds true all the time. Precepts in Geometry, for example.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

oops pressed submit to early.

An Athiest would, in this case, say that God does not exist. I'd say thats a claim.


it's not a claim, it's discarding the claim that there is a god.
why do we discard this claim? because there is no proof backing up this claim.

and there is the big bang theory, abiogenesis and evolution. wich can explain about evrything "god" created in a natural way that does not involve god. and those sciences all have actual proof backing it up.
so we can see that what they say is actual true.
(and not only because 1 guy says it. you need multiple ways to proof your theory in science befor it can become a scientific fact.)

Take the Theory of Universal Gravity, for example. We accept as truth that certain laws of gravity are evident throughout the universe, because it makes the most sense.


indeed, it makes the most sense.
i can't say that the bible makes alot of sense.
science always go's out for what makes the most sense and is proved the best sofar. untill there is other / beter proof that go's against it. then we can update the ideas on the subject (in this case gravity) because of the proof that we have found.
untill that time theory of gravity makes the most sense.

Precepts in Geometry

example plz.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,804 posts
Peasant

it's not a claim, it's discarding the claim that there is a god


And then substituting with the claim that He does not exist.

big bang theory


Wouldn't have created the stars, which are needed to produce the heavier elements in said theory. The Hydrogen wouldn't have condensed fast enough or hot enough to produce the fission/fusion reactions in stars.

abiogenesis


Disprooven in the 17th and 18th centuries. Pasteur, I believe, took samples of meat, and left some uncovered and others covered. The notion was that flys spawned from rotting meat. The uncovered meat soon produced maggots, but the covered meat had no maggots.

evolution


Without abiogenesis or the big bang theory, how could it have gotten started?

i can't say that the bible makes alot of sense


I beg to differ. For starters, the history in its been backed up with archaeological evidence.

example plz


Blergh. Postulates, not precepts. Anywho, heres the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry_Postulates

In Euclidian Geometry, you begin by stating 'Let the following be postulated:'. You hold the following logic and math to be true, on faith.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,476 posts
Farmer

But that napkin doesn't say it's the true religion. It just says it must be the true religion because it says so on the napkin.


Since it says it must be the one true religion then that must be the case that it is the one true religion.

... Of course, the Bible never says it's the one true religion, either. It just says that everything written within is true.


The point of this is kind of going over your head isn't it?

Bible says It's the word of God so it must be the word of God. Napkin says it must be the one true religion so it must be the one true religion. You don't see the similarity here?

Precisely; it is the belief of non-belief.


Oh so close but you had to add that belief in there. Try again but without it. Like this, "Precisely; it is non-belief."

An Athiest holds that there is nothing to believe, or nothing worth believing.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/atheistjokes/Straw_man4-300x242.jpg

Not all science, actually. Take the Theory of Universal Gravity, for example. We accept as truth that certain laws of gravity are evident throughout the universe, because it makes the most sense. We can't test this outside our own Solar System, so we accept on faith that this holds true in other regions of space.


Here I thought gravity denialism was just a joke. It's not accepted on faith idiot and considering how long you've been around hearing these debates I'm pretty comfortable in calling you that.
Of course your ignoring that we can and have observed the effects of gravity outside our solar system.

Math also, has its own articles that we accept on faith that it holds true all the time. Precepts in Geometry, for example.


With math it's debatable if it really can be called a field of science. The use of axioms is an arguing point as to why this is the case.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,192 posts
Regent

[quote]abiogenesis

Disprooven in the 17th and 18th centuries. Pasteur, I believe, took samples of meat, and left some uncovered and others covered. The notion was that flys spawned from rotting meat. The uncovered meat soon produced maggots, but the covered meat had no maggots.[/quote]
Duuuuuuuuh.....
Abiogenesis =NOT spontaneous generations. Of course spontaneous generations have been disproven many times and since then never been claimed again. But abiogenesis is how organic stuff come from anorganic stuff. Not how maggots form out of cookie.

Without abiogenesis or the big bang theory, how could it have gotten started?

Well, now you know that abiogenesis can be held into account. But even if not: evolution has been proved, be there abiogenesis or not. Evolution is about the how, not the from where.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,476 posts
Farmer

Wouldn't have created the stars, which are needed to produce the heavier elements in said theory. The Hydrogen wouldn't have condensed fast enough or hot enough to produce the fission/fusion reactions in stars.


Maybe because like how evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis the Big bang doesn't cover how stars form.

Disprooven in the 17th and 18th centuries. Pasteur, I believe, took samples of meat, and left some uncovered and others covered. The notion was that flys spawned from rotting meat. The uncovered meat soon produced maggots, but the covered meat had no maggots.


Modern abiogenesis is not the 17th century concept of spontaneous generation.

Without abiogenesis or the big bang theory, how could it have gotten started?


This isn't even an argument. Regardless of what ever the origins of it all is we still observe it happening.

So you managed yet again to earn the pic from my last post for every one of these points you made. That's got to be a record.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/atheistjokes/Straw_man4-300x242.jpg
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

And then substituting with the claim that He does not exist.


no we only discard a claim. we never came up whit a new claim.

how would you discard the claim that god is real, whitout saying that god is not real?

Disprooven in the 17th and 18th centuries.


proven again in the 20/21th century. this time not only theoraticaly.

Without abiogenesis or the big bang theory, how could it have gotten started?


doesn't matter, the science of evolution is a science on it's own. in evolution you always start whit a already living something that over time evolves in other living things.

even whit evolution alone, it's disproven that god created humans =)

For starters, the history in its been backed up with archaeological evidence


archaeological evidence have also proven that the bible is wrong about being a young earth. and it has proven ALOT about evolution. wich you seem to deny.
so you only take the evidence that is worth for you instead of all the evidence that it gives.
why?


i hope some1 els can post about the big bang theory. i never toke intrest in it because its a theory sofar.
and about the math i have to seek it up. i'll get back on it if it's still on-topic
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,804 posts
Peasant

Oh so close but you had to add that belief in there


Because that is what it is.

And nice picture, though I don't quite get the point of the scare crow, as I didn't use a straw man.

Here I thought gravity denialism was just a joke. It's not accepted on faith idiot and considering how long you've been around hearing these debates I'm pretty comfortable in calling you that.
Of course your ignoring that we can and have observed the effects of gravity outside our solar system


Clearly the point of this went over your head. To truly proove Universal Gravity, you'd have to go to every point in the universe and test to see if there was gravity. Can we do this practically, if at all? No, so we take what we know (Gravity on the Earth, Moon, and generally in our Solar System, and assume that it must apply to the rest of the universe.

And calling me an idiot serves nothing to further your points. Rather, it gives you some measure of arrogance in your own beliefs. The same goes for your picture.

With math it's debatable if it really can be called a field of science


Many times science and math work hand-in-hand, so I'd say theres a close enough corelation between the two.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

Because that is what it is.


i'm starting to understand why they call you a idiot.

To truly proove Universal Gravity,


it's "the theory of universal gravity".
not "universal gravity" the sientific fact.
it's called a theory because we can't know for sure. (unlike abiogenesis and evolution) but the theory makes the most sense. as i said befor. when we find proof or dis-proof for the theory then we can edit the theory whit te new proof in mind.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,804 posts
Peasant

no we only discard a claim. we never came up whit a new claim


You discard one claim, and then replace it with your own.

Adam from Mythbusters said something like this, I think.

proven again in the 20/21th century. this time not only theoraticaly


I'd first like to apologize for what I said earlier: It was Redi with the meat experiment, not Pasteur.

Not really. There are many, many, many experiments which lend support to biogenesis, while abiogenesis has the Miller-Urey experiment. Which is more of the 'if we squint our eyes, and tilt our heads, these aminoacids might make life.'

doesn't matter, the science of evolution is a science on it's own. in evolution you always start whit a already living something that over time evolves in other living things


Actually, it does matter. Its rather hard to have evolution if you have no life forms to begin with.

archaeological evidence have also proven that the bible is wrong about being a young earth


You mean dating rocks? You have to make so many assumptions before you even begin, its nothing to shake a stick at.

so you only take the evidence that is worth for you instead of all the evidence that it gives.
why


I could ask you the same.

i'm starting to understand why they call you a idiot


Again, this does nothing to further your own points. Rather than bringing up actual points, you have to resort to name calling like a five year old? lol

t's called a theory because we can't know for sure


Thats kinda what I've been saying this entire time...
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,138 posts
Jester

mage can you plz. post your list of video's so this guy can watch and learn and don't have to read it. seems like he is to lazy for it or that he simply does not want to understand.

Showing 76-90 of 98

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More

Got It!