Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
you used "Angelo" and "thought" in the same post, yet the two are mutually exclusive.
Good sir, I respectfully disagree with this - the person in question does indeed think. Although not too much in quantity or quality, he does have a few thoughts of his own.
Mainly, he thinks that there is actually a living person reading this who believes a word he writes. He also thinks he will be able to convert people towards worshipping his clearly absurd deity. Moreover, he thinks that people won't notice his dishonesty, manifesting in double standards, ignoring other peoples' questions, et al.
So yes, he does think quite a few things. Seems like Kir was right after all.
WS3001 - I truly cannot say if you're right or wrong - Angelo's posts are sprinkled with poor English, followed by bursts of perfect English.
I would never criticize anyone from another country not speaking English perfectly, as I lived in Mexico for a time, and if those kind people could tolerate my pathetic Spanish, the least I can do is extend the same courtesy to others.
But my point is, that Angelo relies so much on cutting and pasting the answers of others to our questions, that I have no real idea where his own thoughts, if any there are, begin, and the thoughts of the writers of all of the Fundamentalist websites he quotes, leaves off.
So I can neither concur nor disagree - will the real Angelo/Michael please stand up?
@archaeopteryx, I am not aiming at his English at all. I am not a native English speaker either, and whether someone's english is good or bad is purely their own problem - as long as I can understand them.
My point is that I'm not having a problem with the things he says which I don't udnerstand - the problem are the things which we all do understand very well. How many questions of yours has he really answered? How many times has he answered them truthfully? Compare that to the number of (relevant!) questions which were left unanswered. (And now he insists that I haven't answered his own question, which is another blatant lie.) How many times has he obviously been spreading outward lies just to show you that "your argument for strong atheism is invalid"?
Bottom line, it doesn't really matter whether those are his thoughts or not. He has posted them here. Would you care to post something here without taking responsibility for it afterwards?
@Wintershade - He doesn't need to answer our questions, because that's not why he's here.
He clearly knows by now that his cut-and-paste rhetoric will not convert anyone here to Christianity, and his reluctance to read any of the links I and others have offered him, makes it equally clear that he has no interest in learning anything, in advancing his knowledge. Additionally, he's getting verbally smacked about the head and shoulders by everyone here.
The only logical conclusion to which I can come as to why he would stay and continue to endure the abuse heaped on him, is that he desperately craves even negative attention over none at all, which tells me he likely lives a sad, pathetic life in which he goes unnoticed everywhere he goes, but on this board, he controls ALL of us - all he has to do, is utter a couple of nonsensical sentences, and half a dozen of us leap at the opportunity to heap the attention on him that he so desperately requires.
The only logical conclusion to which I can come as to why he would stay and continue to endure the abuse heaped on him, is that he desperately craves even negative attention over none at all
Either that, or he is actually a nonbeliever troll who finds some perverse satisfaction in making Christianity and the Christians look as bad as possible. However, if that's the case, he has proven his point indeed more than once.
Is he coming back? I've heard so little from him. I would really like to see how he looks at this contest.
Hi Angelo, my reasons are,
1. Historical: yes the bible names places and events that probably happend, so does Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. The city of Troy existed but yet to find any cyclopse skulls..etc....
2. Philosphical: I wouldn't condone the mass genocide of the Old Testement for ANY reason..and jesus says "keep all the old laws" except for what he teaches, which is forgiveness. So ignoring that contradiction, the problom of omniscience is god would had to of already known about this problom of his own creation and thus couldn't deal with it, or he allowed it or had no control over it. Perhaps jesus was a different person?
People like Angelo played a large role causing a teenage version of myself to begin questioning religion (especially Christianity). I think this is a good thing, even if it likely was not their intentions. I was presented with a message claiming to be fact, and when I asked questions they were unable to answer, they did not appreciate it very much and would always give the same responses..."aren't you concerned about hell", "the bible has all the answers" < (always my favorite, as they failed to realize I was reading and still occasionally read their version of the Bible. Know your enemy), absurd comments regarding me failing to realize how much Christ loves me. I think if Christ loved me even half as much as some of these people claim (agape love, which is another silly concept), and if he is really concerned about my eternal salvation as they claim, he'd make himself a bit more obvious to me. Word of mouth and some old books should never be accepted as fact without question.
All of this said, I know Christians that make no attempt at indoctrinating me with their beliefs. They make no attempt at trying to prove anything. If their faith works for them, and they aren't attempting to shove it down my throat, I can appreciate it.
At first I felt Angelo had good intentions. After a while I began to question these intentions.. Now I feel he is just another Ray Comfort. I'm not saying that to be taken as an insult, but I'm definitely not saying it to be taken as a compliment either. The world needs people like him, for good or bad.
Michael/Angelo - RE: "Its obvious there were no big mounains like the mount everest back then......the earth was geologically different."
Interesting you should say that - when exactly did your flood occur? Just curious, because Everest was formed about 60 million years ago. http://www.mnteverest.net/history.html
Everest was formed about 60 million years ago.
and they know that how for sure ?
and they know that how for sure ?
Why do you repeat questions which have already been answered?
Michael/Angelo - RE: "Everest was formed about 60 million years ago." - "and they know that how for sure ?"
God told them.