Essay talk:10 Reasons I Am Not An Atheist (and never will be)

“”Note for especially dumb people...

Nice. Starting out your essay with an ad-hominem is really a great way to get people to understand your argument. There's no better way for you to demonstrate that the rest of your essay is an incoherent screed. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem against whom? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone asks that question, despite God being defined as the creator... calling that person dumb is, it occurs to me, an accurate description --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

explain this again.

You write: "Note for especially dumb people...Since God is the creator of the natural world (time, space and matter), the question -"where did God come from"- becomes irrelevant!"

Could you explain why this is not an example of Special pleading on your part?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Because we have already defined God as the creator of time and matter... For something to come out of somewhere, it has to have a beginning (time)... if he is the creator of time... the argument is invalid...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You've defined God as not needing a creator, you've yet to show this definition represents reality. Christopher (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing is exactly what special pleading is. Read the article - and explain why you are not doing it. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably worth doing the same re: Ontological Argument. Daev (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

HOW IS IT SPECIAL PLEADING? If he is the creator... If he is the one who creates the very concept of creation and existence... If he creates matter and time... How is it special pleading?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Because you cannot make it true by just saying it.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, you are claiming that your proposed creator is exempt from cause and effect. Daev (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have given 10 reasons why such a being (who does not need to be created) exists... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven't actually. You listed ten assertions in support of your beliefs. These assertions do not provide a coherent case for the existence of such a being as you envision, nor any explanation for your interpretation of the properties which you claim for it. Daev (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Buddy that is the definition of God... If you have been fed lies that God is a mythical creature varying from one person to another... well, then we are both "atheists", cause I do not believe in that god either... God is intelligence behind this life... There are only 2 views... I have supported mine... Now I want to see reasons why I should believe there is no intelligence (NO... ATTACKING MY BELIEFS does not make yours true!)Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Being able to formulate a definition of something does not prove it possesses existence (see my previous re Ontological Argument). To state that there are only 2 views is a false dilemma. Also, I haven't shared with you my beliefs - you have absolutely no knowledge of my stance on any religion. Daev (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If we find a letter... There are 2 option: It was written consciously or unconsciously... This can be done by looking at the content of the letter. After looking at the letter I show ten sentences where it is obvious that at the time of the writing the author was conscious (intelligent etc)Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What? I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that string of sentence fragments honestly. Daev (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

We find a written letter... 2 options: either the writer was aware that he was writing or he was randomly writing words (e.g child)... I examine the letter and give ten sentences from the letter that indicates the author was awareKingdamian1 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are awful though. Christopher (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well... I have yet to hear a reason for being an atheist (outside of attacking theistic beliefs)!Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

On reason for being an atheist > you are shifting the Burden of Proof. With regards to your letter ?analogy? > My brother is 34 years old and has a severe intellectual disability. He cannot read or write but can doodle the shapes of letters and draw that which he sees. Occaisionally he will form short sentences, though not with any comprehension. Someone unaware of his condition could point to such 'writings' of his as evidence of reading comprehension; but they would be incorrect. That there is a third case not contained within the false dilemma you have constructed (consciously or subconsciously) at the core of your argument. Daev (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"outside of attacking theistic beliefs" In point of fact it's theistic arguments which are really dissected. Your beliefs are your own - it's when you try to present arguments in favour of those beliefs that you have problems. It's like the defense of special pleading which you use. I frankly think you don't understand the argument.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Weird

You ... Pippa (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is why each of your arguments are wrong

Some of them are rather hard to understand.

1. "Nothing makes sense without God"- you repeat your "cosmic afterthought" argument which is a blatant appeal to consequences, if atheism was true I wouldn't matter, I want to matter therefore God.
2. If atheism was true there wouldn't be absolute morality-You don't provide any evidence that absolute morality does exist which would cause atheism to conflict with reality. The fact you want there to be absolute morality doesn't mean there is.
3. Teleological argument-This complexity can be explained through evolution, even if it couldn't it would be a God of the gaps argument to conclude this proves God.
4. Prime mover-You've yet to show that the universe needs a cause and that God doesn't.
5. Fine tuned universe-Why should I favour God over the multiverse theory? Both have 0 evidence to support them and both are unfalsifiable.
6. No absolute justice-A repeat of number 2.
7. We believe we have purpose etc but there's no evidence this is the case.
8. You simply assert that life proves God and that it's undeniable without elaborating on why.
9. The burden of proof lies on the theist not the atheist and there have been many arguments for atheism. Christopher (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh... but you forgot NON ATHEISTIC REALITY.... we observe morality, purpose, design--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

How many of your arguments do you concede I have refuted? Christopher (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say you got the full set. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly hard, if you remove the repeats you probably have 2 arguments. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I appear to have forgot one, the one about the existence of atheists disproving God. This is about as relevant as bananas not disproving God (although some would argue they do the opposite). As no-one ever claimed the existence of atheists disproves God this is irrelevant. Christopher (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that the multiverse is the best response to the "Fine tuned Universe". In point of fact most of the universe is incredibly badly tuned for any sort of life (as we know it). Most of the volume is empty space, which is hardly conducive for life and most of the mass is either in suns or, even worse, in black holes.

Obviously any particular version of god or gods can use magic as profligately as they like. But creating an entire universe just so that human life can exist on the tiniest imaginable speck of it seems weirdly inefficient.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not rebutted any of my arguments... We do not see atheistic reality... even you do not live an atheistic life... You live a life where you work, respect others, try to be fair and always have some purpose, be it, marriage, school or work... this is the exact opposite of your philosophy that we are a cosmic afterthought, no more significant than rocks on mars! So, on one hand you are preaching that nothing matters... And on the other hand you are living a life that is in sharp contrast to your philosophy Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kingdamian1 - Please wiki-format your essay properly, and also use the correct level of capitalisation in articles and talk pages, as not doing makes people think less of you. 'Having a purpose in life' is part of 'being conscious' - and has nothing to do with faith.

Given that the universe is not starting to disintegrate into sub-particle nothingness, you cannot argue that we are a cosmic afterthought.

And, surely, the fact that some small components of the universe (whether or not human) can contemplate, discuss, and analyse the whole #is the point.# 86.146.99.29 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Buddy my point is that we DO NOT live in an atheistic world... You, for example, were raised with a purpose... You have respect, morals, hope, decency and the understanding of objective good. NOTHING we observe is compatible with the atheistic view... The only atheistic place -where there is NO GOD, no purpose, no hope- is hell!Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this apparent purpose requires God? Christopher (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

God is the purpose giver! As you correctly admit... "Nothing matters"- without Him!Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The keyword being apparent, I never claimed life actually has purpose. If you could show either 1) even the illusion of purpose requires god or 2) that there actually is purpose to life, that might be an argument for god. Christopher (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Skydaddy

Just wanted to say, including the term "Skydaddy" in the essay is just awesome. My new favorite term to call God.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 17:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Little extreme for an essay. Personal attacks are the BEST way to start an essay

While I am not atheist (I made that very clear in various discussions), this essay is just insults and poor foundation for discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)