Argue over the superior religion / belief

[Ben Grapevine]

There are no flaws to atheism. Stop acting stupid.

Sorry I have different views.  I guess atheism is pretty intolerant, sorry I didn't really realize it

[Ad Bot]

[Nymethus]

Sorry I have different views.  I guess atheism is pretty intolerant, sorry I didn't really realize it

You are not forgiven.

[Ben Grapevine]

You are not forgiven.

ok richardpants

[Mega-Bear]

Atheism is perfect.

[Lalam24]

Sorry I have different views.  I guess atheism is pretty intolerant, sorry I didn't really realize it

Atheism is the lack in the belief of a diety.  Considering the proof for it doesn't relate to every single god depicted by each and every individual religion, yes, it is flawed.  However, a similar viewpoint is the lack in a belief promoting the existence of imaginary friends.  Due to the lack of proof, there is absolutely no reason in believing in the existence.

If atheism references mainstream religions, such as, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity, it is correct.  The texts depicted these religions are directly based off of one another, and also based on greek mythology, and other antient, impossible depictions of dieties/stories.  These texts also define absolute paradox (for Mormon, Catholicism and Christianity, see the links I've posted), implying that they cannot possibly act as credible sources.

If you want to reference Atheism as a religion, then you're a moron.  Polytheism and monotheism aren't religions, either; they're all single beliefs.

I also love how I never mentioned Atheism in my original statement, yet you decided to try and bring that into the argument.  I'm using your own religion against itself, if you have a problem with absolute mathematical fact, I don't think you should try to obtain anymore knowledge.  It'll only make your headaches worse, in the long run.

[Snow2]

Stop starting religious stuffstorms on topics that arent related. If you have a strong enough need to pointlessly bicker over other people's beliefs, go start your own topic.

[Nymethus]

Considering the proof for it doesn't relate to every single god depicted by each and every individual religion, yes, it is flawed.

The proof for what? The proof for atheism? What the heck are you talking about?

[Lalam24]

Stop starting religious stuffstorms on topics that arent related. If you have a strong enough need to pointlessly bicker over other people's beliefs, go start your own topic.

Religion and politics go hand in hand.  This has been explained, a long with why it was brought up to begin with.  If you don't want to read it, then don't, but it is relevant.

The proof for what? The proof for atheism? What the heck are you talking about?

Proof stating the existence of every single deity doesn't exist.  Technically, the proof which they aren't able to display is simply the proof any atheist needs.  However, considering a more tolerant outlook, allowing the religions, which have yet to provide contradiction in their teachings, believe in their deity is appropriate.  Read the entire post to understand the point, next time.

[Ben Grapevine]

Atheism is the lack in the belief of a diety.  Considering the proof for it doesn't relate to every single god depicted by each and every individual religion, yes, it is flawed.  However, a similar viewpoint is the lack in a belief promoting the existence of imaginary friends.  Due to the lack of proof, there is absolutely no reason in believing in the existence.

If atheism references mainstream religions, such as, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity, it is correct.  The texts depicted these religions are directly based off of one another, and also based on greek mythology, and other antient, impossible depictions of dieties/stories.  These texts also define absolute paradox (for Mormon, Catholicism and Christianity, see the links I've posted), implying that they cannot possibly act as credible sources.

If you want to reference Atheism as a religion, then you're a moron.  Polytheism and monotheism aren't religions, either; they're all single beliefs.

I also love how I never mentioned Atheism in my original statement, yet you decided to try and bring that into the argument.  I'm using your own religion against itself, if you have a problem with absolute mathematical fact, I don't think you should try to obtain anymore knowledge. It'll only make your headaches worse, in the long run.

I get chronic migraines and I found that offensive

[Lalam24]

I get chronic migraines and I found that offensive

Oooh, nitpicking!  Look at that, in reference to absolute fact, you simply ignore it because it doesn't support your silly perception of how the universe works.

It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old about whether or not 2+2 is 4.  Why do you keep protesting that you "believe" it's 5, yet we've given you solid evidence suggesting otherwise?

[Nymethus]

Proof stating the existence of every single deity doesn't exist.  Technically, the proof which they aren't able to display is simply the proof any atheist needs.  However, considering a more tolerant outlook, allowing the religions, which have yet to provide contradiction in their teachings, believe in their deity is appropriate.

Your sentences make my eyes moist. There's no actual proof for or against any god.

[Lalam24]

Your sentences make my eyes moist. There's no actual proof for or against any god.

There most certainly is.  Do I have to say it again?  Catholicism doesn't contain any proof, therefore implying it is untrue.  However, once again, going beyond reason, let's say they didn't need proof.  The original testament displays depictions of knowledge which were widely accepted at the time (sun revolving around the earth, etc).  We later found out this wasn't true, and, in turn, the book was changed (new testament) to adapt to modern day HUMAN knowledge.  If God created us and the universe, wouldn't he have known about the universe before his creations did?  This is one of many examples of the book and its presenters contradicting their original viewpoints.

[Snow2]

Religion and politics go hand in hand.  This has been explained, a long with why it was brought up to begin with.  If you don't want to read it, then don't, but it is relevant.

Yes, but this thread is not general politics. It is about the 2012 election, which has nothing to do with religious standpoints. I'm just trying to step in and resolve this, so if you want to have a full-on internet fight, be my guest. Go ahead and start pointlessly insulting each other and see how long it takes you persistant, dramatic idiots to get banned. I'm done here. Forgive me for ruining your pontless internet drama.

[Ben Grapevine]

Oooh, nitpicking!  Look at that, in reference to absolute fact, you simply ignore it because it doesn't support your silly perception of how the universe works.

It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old about whether or not 2+2 is 4.  Why do you keep protesting that you "believe" it's 5, yet we've given you solid evidence suggesting otherwise?

Atheism is not some solid fact.  Nobody can go back in time to the creation of the universe to see what "actually happened".  Stop acting like it's the only possibility.

[Lalam24]

Yes, but this thread is not general politics. It is about the 2012 election, which has nothing to do with religious standpoints. I'm just trying to step in and resolve this, so if you want to have a full-on internet fight, be my guest. Go ahead and start pointlessly insulting each other and see how long it takes you persistant, dramatic idiots to get banned. I'm done here. Forgive me for ruining your pontless internet drama.

In the most recent debate, Romney brought up his religious views, trying to use them as a form of credibility.  It is accountable for and otherwise acceptable to protest against this statement.

Atheism is not some solid fact.  Nobody can go back in time to the creation of the universe to see what "actually happened".  Stop acting like it's the only possibility.

You obviously don't have a clue as to what atheism is.  This has nothing to do with any scientific theory.  Are you really so far in denial that you have to make up portions of an argument to try and defend yourself?

I also never said atheism was a fact, nor implied it.  Your inability to comprehend isn't my fault, so, please, take the time to reread what I've stated.