Shred my argument?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Shred my argument?
(23-04-2015 06:19 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 06:08 PM)n7natnat Wrote:  I got a lot of things you can use to disprove theism. First off this: know that you don't have to prove anything. Science doesn't know everything, but religion knows nothing. First step. Second: you need to ask him for evidence of god. He may reply "no I have faith". That's not evidence. Faith is admitting there is no evidence for your claim so you rely on "hope". Should I still have faith that allah, the hindu gods, are any other contemporary god is real? Cause all religions do. What makes theirs any different? Plus if he says something that he thinks disproves evolution (which he can't. Evolution has not been falsified for decades. Making it harder to disprove), tell him that first off, micro evolution is a fact. Macro evolution is micro evolution except on a larger scale. We have evidence for it unlike god. But lets say he does say something you don't know the answer too. Such as "what caused the big bang"? Answer truthfully and say "we don't know". He will then reply "then god must of caused it". But then ask "where is your proof for that? science doesn't act on unfalsifiable claims or claims with no evidence." There is no evidence that god caused the big bang. And tell him that if he says the bible is coherent with the big bang, tell him otherwise. The bible says god made earth before light (stars, the sun, etc). But that totally goes against the big bang and the nebular hypothesis. It doesn't work. Honestly I could keep going on, but I have work I need to do. If you want to hit me up, my kik is: 8natenate
or you could just message me here. Just know that even if evolution "was disproven" (which it isn't yet) it just means evolution was wrong. Not that god is real. If it turns out that shoving glue up your butt doesn't feel good, but the original theory was that it would we don't say "that must mean god is real!" because something turned out to be wrong. That's called "god gaps". Filling in what we don't know "yet" with god. That's not how science works. We need evidence and we test it with the unbiased process of the scientific method. Saying "god must of done it" means you need evidence. And tell him the bible or whatever religious text he believes in isn't proof of god. Not with all the incorrect historical and scientific elements in them. Plus if we just take the bible or the Quran's word for it at face value, that means we have to do that with everything. We can't double standard. That means if we take the bible's word for it, we have to do the same with the vedas and the quran and etc. It's logical reasoning. You will find that your opponent doesn't know much about the topic they may bring up fully. Just the parts they heard would disprove them. To really one up em, you have to know the topic to the point you will understand their argument and counter it. Point of logic fallacies with their arguments. A book that really helped me is "Atheism and the case against Christ" by Matthew S. McCormick. And know this: if they say you need faith to believe in evolution and etc, tell them "Its the same kind of faith I know the sun will rise tomorrow. The evidence says it will." Your faith rides on evidence. Theirs rides on hopes despite there being no rational reason for it. And even if you do provide valid points that they ignore, oh well. There is no point in arguing with a dogmatist. Actually, before you even start debating, ask them this question: "Do you think that you are right without a shadow of doubt and nothing will change your mind?" If they reply no, say "alright then, have a nice day". Why? Because if you are going to provide a valid argument against there irrationality but they never acknowledge it, what was the point? When going into a debate, both parties need to be willing to be wrong. Science is willing to be wrong. It has thrown away many theories. But religion is the opposite. Despite never having any evidence, it still stands by it's unfalsifiable claims of god. And if you go by Newton's Flaming Sword analogy, discussing unfalsifiable claims is useless and pointless. Science only takes falsifiable theories. If a variable comes in and changes a perspective of what we know about science, we conform to reality. If science replaces a supernatural claim with evidence, religion ignores it. Dogmatism is known as the "will to ignorance", or as I call it "stupidity". Just know that if theyre not going to be willing to change their mind, there's no point to it. Though it might be fun to exploit their stupidity, there's no overall point to it. And also, ask him when was the last time a supernatural claim replaced a natural claim science has provided us? The answer is never. Has anything replaced the explanation of photosynthesis? Nope. Has anything replaced the big bang theory? nope. Has any magic replaced modern medication at the hospital? no. And tell him everytime that a miracle such as prayer healing has been tested, it has been proven wrong every time. Every time. No lie. And have you heard of the Lourdes water in in france? People go there to be healed by the waters. Millions of people have gone and claimed that they have been healed for decades. So the church decided to investigate. Out of all the miracle claims, the church decided only "67" were actually real. So lets get a percentage here and apply that to all miracle claims: by the church's definition, if some one sees a miracle, there's a 99.99836% chance that it wasn't a miracle. That's if we go off the church's bias claims (cause when those miracles were tested, again, they failed miserably). Now think about this way back when with the miracles of jesus and the claims people made about him. Apply that percentage to it, and how logical is it to believe that? Plus we don't even know who wrote the gospels. We only have copies of copies of copies of the originals. We don't have the originals to compare them to. And there are enough documents about jesus to fill a shoe box. No joke that's it. And between those documents, there are as many differences between them as there are words in the new testament. Some documents claim jesus "didn't" rise from the grave. Why didn't that make it into the bible? Because the people who were making "their" version of the many versions of the bible didn't like them. They didn't harmonize like the gospels that we have in the bible today do. Plus there are still "major differences" about the resurrection: where he appeared, who went to the tomb, who was in the tomb, was jesus there, who witnessed it, and how long jesus stayed after. Major points of the story: big differences between them. Sorry to leave with this, but remember: it's the theist's job to prove that their god is real, not for you to disprove it. You can't disprove god because god is not falsifiable. We cannot disprove god made us 15 seconds ago with our memories. But we can ask: what does the evidence of reality says is plausible? Is there any evidence for god? Do we need god do create a universe? And is the belief of god rational based off this evidence? Without a shadow of doubt from me, the answer to the last 3 questions is no. So the reason you don't believe is because there is no evidence. That means it's up to the theist to prove their god is real (which they cant. you can't prove or disprove god because its such a vague notion and can't have any plausible evidence). I hope I helped, and I hope to hear more from you. -ThatGuy

Bro, do you even paragraph?

No. Maybe. Sometimes. I do. Do I? Idk. You'll see later. Love me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: