Does God Exist?

[xcoder]

What is an Atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist.


Why don't you believe in God?
There is simply no more evidence for Jehovah than there is for Zeus. Christians find no reason to believe that Zeus exists, so they do not believe in him. For the same reason, I do not believe in Jehova. God himself is more than welcome to share an honest conversation with me. Until he does, I have no reason to trust that anyone is a reliable spokesman for any god.




Don't you want to go to heaven?

I do not believe there is a heaven. But even if a real heaven did exist, and for some reason a god chose who went and who didn't, if that god is a good and noble being he will judge me for my value as a human being, and not for my belief in him.




How can you turn your back on true happiness?

I cannot imagine being happier than I have been already. I live a very spiritual, fulfilling life, and am filled with an abiding love of being and thinking. I find love, reason and a practical, humble approach to life to be more than enough for me.




How can you trust sinful humans, ignoring all the good god does?

It offends me that an invisible god is given credit for every good thing that happens in the world, while every evil is blamed on humanity. There is much evil in the world that is not the fault of human beings, such as ignorance and disease and droughts, and most of the things that are good are entirely the product of human love, effort or genius, such as friendship and vaccines and even irrigation pipes.
Not all human beings are evil. We all possess great potential for good. Yet a god could do so much good in the world that is not being done, such as warning innocent children when to stay away from danger, or preventing too many people from being born, or turning all the weapons in the world into flowers. Surely a loving god would do these things, and more, just as any wise and compassionate human being would if they had the means.
And so, when a doctor saves someone's life, we truly owe our thanks to the doctor, and the society that made her education possible. It is insulting to both when a god is thanked for something that he could have done himself but didn't. If a loving god really existed, we would not need doctors in the first place.




If there is no god, then where do you think the universe came from?

I do not even know if the universe had a beginning, much less what may have started it. No one knows. Inventing a god to do the creating only leaves open the question of where that god came from.


So why be moral?

I dislike the kind of people who hurt me or lie to me or who are insincere or inconsiderate. Thus, if I were to be like such people, I could not escape disliking myself. I could never do something that would make me the sort of person I hate, because I could never be truly happy if I hated myself, no matter how hard I tried to rationalize what I have done. But this also means that to truly like myself, and thus to be truly happy, I must be the sort of person I really like, and I like people who are honest and principled and who care about others. So I strive to be like the sort of person I see to be good. I have also found that virtue earns stronger and fonder friendships, and secures the trust of my neighbors, and both of these things are essential to living a good, full life.


What do you think happens when you die?

I see that the brain is what gives me existence, and I depend on its health for my ability to think and survive. When the brain dies, I die, and when the brain ceases to exist, so do I. I do not find this to be sad. We all enjoy everything we experience, even when it doesn't last. I love life deeply, and as death would end my experience of living and loving I do not want to die. But I do not fear death, because there is no reason to fear the end of fear itself.


What about all the people who experience god?

There are people in the world who experience the essence of Buddha, who remember past lives, who truly feel the power of ritual magic in their lives, or who walk with the spirits of their ancestors. There are so many different experiences I do not think it is wise to arbitrarily assume that any one of them is truer than another.
I have looked all over the world, and I see Buddhists are mostly in Asia, Hindus mostly in India, Muslims mostly in the Middle East, and Christians mostly in the West. The idea of god, and all the assumptions of our respective religions, are taught to us as children. That Americans are mostly Christian is more likely the result of Christianity being taught there, and not the result of that religion actually being true or superior to any other.


Haven't Christian values done much good in the world?

I know that people have done much good in the world, whether they were Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., or Hindus like Gandhi, or atheists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Honesty and compassion are good values anywhere. They are not unique to Christianity.


So what do you believe in?

I believe in many things. I believe in the potential of humanity, in the power of reason, in the comfort of love, and in the value of truth. I also believe in the beauty and joy of human experience, and the nearly unlimited power of the human will to endure almost any hardship or solve almost any problem.
I believe that faith can mislead people into falsehood, and that we need reason and doubt as necessary checks against our capacity for error. I believe that we need to allow our fellow human beings to make choices for themselves and to live the life they wish to, in mutual peace and goodwill.
I believe that political negotiation and compromise -- fuelled by an honest measure of respect for different opinions, beliefs and lifestyles -- is the only way the world will find universal peace and goodwill, and that using the scientific method is the only way the world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything.
I believe that it is better to preach the gospel of "be good to your fellow man, and love each other as life itself," than to preach the gospel of "believe in our religion or be damned." For it is better to be good to each other and to build on what we all agree to be true, than to insist that we all think alike.


Finally, i advice everyone to watch this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaOVPaYf780

[Google]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

This guy still thinks that just because religion says they adopt God, then the God must be the God of religion. I pity you. This is something that a one year old can find illogic in and yet you still can't even after many attempts to spoon them to you. Stop trying to be systematic and pseudo-intellectual. If you feel I am Satan and you can't understand what I say, refer to some religious people in this thread to tell you what flaw of logic you are repeating.

When you decide whether you're arguing about the existence of God or if God is the same one as the God of the religions, go to the part where I talked about it and read.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Doing the "A=45345 so B =644yf then Y=A8767B" thing won't get you anywhere. It will end up , if you're immature enough to debate about God, to a formal fallacy.

Seb7an 2allah. Mafi marra I gave a logical statement w ne2ashetne fiya. It is either 2ennou moush 3am tefham or ma baddak tefham. The method I'm using is for your brain to understand. This is the core method of logic. Read on logic. Read on Aristotle.
Houwe sa7i7 2ennou you are quoting me and replying to me bas fe3liyan you are not replying to any logical argument I'm giving.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

You haven't been in God to, but you found some illogical way to "prove" him. I'm sure you can find your way in this case too. If you want I can help you by checking the last question I posted before the thread was revived which religious people in here never answered.

I don't know why you run when I give logical arguments.
When I gave the five first logical arguments. You we like:

"Noooooooooooo. This is shit. This is nothing. No, no this is not true! It's pure illogical."

I assure you. 2eza betshere3ne in logic bjibak joura . I'm so sure.
Bas in the other way, mafine 3lek. I don't have the free time you have to post here.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

If you still can't understand read a book or don't reply with your A, B, C fallacies anymore.

Halla2 2ente 2eben 2el 17 jeye tetfalsaf 3laye? lol
Rou7 sheflak shi drums darbek 3lek. Farjine 2ente chou 2enjezetak 2el sa2afiye, chou keteb w chou 2ere w chou moustawek 2el 3elme.
La2etle yeha hayde "Go read a book". Should I go read a book about sex or about what? Lek b7et mit sharet 2ennou mennak dareb 2idak 3a kteb bi7ayetak 2ente. Mni7 yalle 3endak internet ta 2deret tla3et shway wikipedia.com. Fa dakhil 3ardak aba2 t2elle to go read a book. Law mazbout 2ente zalme fehmen kenet betsamme chou henne 2el books yalle 2eriyon w 3am testened la2elon w kell we7ed 3an chou bye7ke.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Assumptions ... assumptions. Just like me assuming now Big Bang is The God itself.

Assumptions? Halla2 tele3 ma3ak 2ennou 2el BIG-BANG being an explosion is an assumption. Ya 7abibe, 2el BIG-BANG mennou 3elke 3a na3na3.
2addesh 3ambetjib 3al physics bel maderse 2ente?

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

What the **** does that have to do with anything ? I mentioned that to tell you that other religions believed in God, the same God who created everything as you say, so why aren't they right ?

Braj3ak la 2esset 2ennou IF A says that B is 1, 2, 3 and 4. IF 3 and 4 are wrong does not mean that 1 and 2 are wrong also.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

God. Prove me wrong.

Sar scorak ta7et 2el sofer. Beddak tenzal ba3ed?

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

LOOL What does relativity have to do with us being the centerpoint of God's plan. Are you kidding ?

I told you to read on relativity bas akid mbayan 2ennou you didn't understand why I said so. La7 fasserlak yeha bishakel 2awda7: 2el 3alam mabidour 7awelek. If you see that the world turns around you fa heda 2el shi relative bel nesbe la2elak wa7dak. Fhemet halla2?

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Read again what I said, and if you're not qualified to answer ( remember I'm God) I urge some other religious person to do so.

lol. Bhal wa2et tarou7 2eshwile 7abten kastana.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

How we are here ? I told you it's an highly improbable chance followed by evolution.

WAW. H-I-G-H-L-Y_I-M-P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E_C-H-A-N-C-E !!! What an intelligent statement! 2ennou mfakkar bi hal jemle 2el zakiye bte2ta3 w khalas byemshe 7alak? Ya ret fik tfasser aktar. You are being an EPIC in illogical arguments!
Ya3ne fe3lan, your words bel red legyou 2alla men 2el woujoud. Lek 2eza ken beddou yenwejed bikoun khtafa halla2.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Why we are here ?? stop being a kid, if you ever learned or even heard anything about evolution you would understand we have no purpose. Assigning purposes to everything is only to make people who can't accept the truth feel "safer" in this world. So hope you feel safe in your life that way.

This is ignorance at its best.

WAW_again!
Halla2 all people and all the philosophers who asked this question are kids. No. Babies. 2ente 2el fehem bi 7ad zetou.

[Neoxter]

This ain't a debate anymore, I can see members bashing each other

[KeXasthur]

Originally Posted by Google

When you decide whether you're arguing about the existence of God or if God is the same one as the God of the religions, go to the part where I talked about it and read.

You talked about the slave and master which is pure nonsense. Even religious people find no connection between what you said and the difference between God and the God of religion. If you STILL couldn't find what wrong you said I suggest you just stop talking about this subject because I am looking immature just debating with you. You know atheists ( some of them) always refuse to make debate with the bigot religious people and always aim at doing debates with only scientists or more informed people. I didn't understand it at first and I thought they were arrogant but now I do. This is stupid not arrogant. Master and slave relation to prove that God is god of religion.

Seb7an 2allah. Mafi marra I gave a logical statement w ne2ashetne fiya. It is either 2ennou moush 3am tefham or ma baddak tefham. The method I'm using is for your brain to understand. This is the core method of logic. Read on logic. Read on Aristotle.
Houwe sa7i7 2ennou you are quoting me and replying to me bas fe3liyan you are not replying to any logical argument I'm giving.

What Logical arguments.You were trying to make a relation to the God and the God of religion. It doesn't work you know why ?
Because It can actually turn into a fallacy like ........ this one:
Religion adopts a God.
God is true.
Therefore That God is the God of religion.
If you still don't understand the fallacy, please refrain from debating.

I don't know why you run when I give logical arguments.
When I gave the five first logical arguments. You we like:

"Noooooooooooo. This is shit. This is nothing. No, no this is not true! It's pure illogical."

You never gave a logical argument. The only argument you offered anyway is the one about God of religion being the same of God. When I told you I didn't understand what you said because of your poor English apparantly, you came and gave me a fallacy to describe it. To make it short !!! You can'ttttt in no way prove that God according to the principles of the Summa theologica is the God of religion.

I assure you. 2eza betshere3ne in logic bjibak joura . I'm so sure.
Bas in the other way, mafine 3lek. I don't have the free time you have to post here.

Bitjeebne joura ? Is that why you are debating ta tjeebni joura ? 7ake shweri3 wwled hayda. I care less about confronting you and appearing more logical than you. But,you ...you are not looking for the truth then. Trying to act that confident and arrogant is not a sign of wisdom by the way. Fa battili yeha shway.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
— Charles Darwin

Halla2 2ente 2eben 2el 17 jeye tetfalsaf 3laye? lol
Rou7 sheflak shi drums darbek 3lek. Farjine 2ente chou 2enjezetak 2el sa2afiye, chou keteb w chou 2ere w chou moustawek 2el 3elme.
La2etle yeha hayde "Go read a book". Should I go read a book about sex or about what? Lek b7et mit sharet 2ennou mennak dareb 2idak 3a kteb bi7ayetak 2ente. Mni7 yalle 3endak internet ta 2deret tla3et shway wikipedia.com. Fa dakhil 3ardak aba2 t2elle to go read a book. Law mazbout 2ente zalme fehmen kenet betsamme chou henne 2el books yalle 2eriyon w 3am testened la2elon w kell we7ed 3an chou bye7ke.

I hope you were just kidding about the being 17 part, because if you're not I suggest you stop replying to me in this thread and "wasting your valuable time". Once again this is stupid. Moustaweyi el 3elme mashi I am helpless and I can't write 3ijbak ? Why are you feeling offended when I tell you to read a book ? Heh All religious people are like that close-minded and will always look at the negative side of the comment to stir problems and become defensive. If you want to debate and be taken seriously you take the positive side of the comment, and then I assure you you won't appear as childish as you are right now. The sex comment by the way was not funny, you can do better.

And finally, To prove to you you never read anything I posted, I told a name of one book two-three times in this thread and referred to it more times, yet now you come and ask me : name me a book. You know now why you are not qualified to debate ?

Assumptions? Halla2 tele3 ma3ak 2ennou 2el BIG-BANG being an explosion is an assumption. Ya 7abibe, 2el BIG-BANG mennou 3elke 3a na3na3.
2addesh 3ambetjib 3al physics bel maderse 2ente?

God is the assumption. I said this like 10000 times this thread.

Braj3ak la 2esset 2ennou IF A says that B is 1, 2, 3 and 4. IF 3 and 4 are wrong does not mean that 1 and 2 are wrong also.

And this symbolizes nothing. Can you tell me what it symbolizes in reality ?

Sar scorak ta7et 2el sofer. Beddak tenzal ba3ed?

Are you happy, nizzalet score wa7ad jehel 3omro 17 sene ta7et el sofer ?

I told you to read on relativity bas akid mbayan 2ennou you didn't understand why I said so. La7 fasserlak yeha bishakel 2awda7: 2el 3alam mabidour 7awelek. If you see that the world turns around you fa heda 2el shi relative bel nesbe la2elak wa7dak. Fhemet halla2?

Do you seriously think you told me something ? Inno seriously you are assuming I'm that ignorant to ask you such question ? If it makes you feel smarter to answer me, do it go on. But I didn't mean this question.lol
I meant in God's plan we are his purpose.So so tell that to religion.

lol. Bhal wa2et tarou7 2eshwile 7abten kastana.

You have typical Lebanese arrogance, and look at where we are now ?
Debate 2al, hay maskhara.

WAW. H-I-G-H-L-Y_I-M-P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E_C-H-A-N-C-E !!! What an intelligent statement! 2ennou mfakkar bi hal jemle 2el zakiye bte2ta3 w khalas byemshe 7alak? Ya ret fik tfasser aktar. You are being an EPIC in illogical arguments!
Ya3ne fe3lan, your words bel red legyou 2alla men 2el woujoud. Lek 2eza ken beddou yenwejed bikoun khtafa halla2.

I will only say this once more. The universe has a lot of galaxies, planets whatever. Having a habitable planet is improbable. ok ? walla berja3 bfasserlak shou ye3neh improbable so that you don't make fun it ? Therefore the probability of our existence must be very improbable. If you look at the universe , you will see that we are in that very improbable minority. Voila ! It's not intelligence, it's pure common sense. But you are busy acting arrogant and considering this debate as some form of intelligence or something. Frankly, I will tell it to you now, Good for you if you are more intelligent than me. If it makes you feel better, have it, but that is not what we are debating.

WAW_again!
Halla2 all people and all the philosophers who asked this question are kids. No. Babies.

2ente 2el fehem bi 7ad zetou.

Are you saying that since we existed we have to have a purpose ? heh. Anyway if you like purposes so much tell me what is the ultimate purpose of God creating the universe ?
Also check what philosophy is. Maybe on wikipedia since you think it's accessible even for the stupid. Philosophy doesn't concern itself with why God created Earth. Talking about throwing words left and right.

Originally Posted by Kain

See what i mean by iq challenged??

I was telling you eno IF God was influenced by time then he would not be God.
IFFFFFF
bta3rif to2ra to2borne?

If basic physics can't get through your head then there is no hope in you.

Which means you are assuming that God has to exist to say that he exists. If you want me to add question marks and tell you you are iq challenged to make you feel stupid and actually think twice about what I'm saying, I can do that. But it's just childish.

God doesn't have a purpose. God gives purpose
His all knowingness is exactly why this world should be made more complex and more intricately designed.
And yes evolution is guided. There is no reason why it cannot be guided.

You have to assume that God exists to be able to say that he doesn't have a purpose but only gives. Anyway even if I gave it in to you, my question was what ultimate purpose he had to create the unvierse.( He is giving it)

Also, How does all powerfullness and allknowingness mean it has to be more intircately designed. He could have made such a more complexly functioning world very simpler in design because in the end he has one purpose which he will serve either way. Logic. Less "struggle". Purpose served. It can only be guided if God exists. And if he exists, then why evolution ? Why not simple creation that is talked about in religion, you gave up on that now ? eh ? Since evolution shouldn't be guided it might have those "accessories" because it wasn't designed to avoid them which is the case. That doesn't apply on evolution only but on the whole creation of the universe, but taking it on evolution scale makes it simpler.

You were the one who started the whole trivial creation thing not me
I just told you that i see that everything has a purpose and nothing as trivial.

You were the one who started it actually. In my world I see nothing trivial. It was all necessary for evolution and adaptation to happen. In your God world ( which has purposes for eveything), there are trivial things. This is why I'm telling you you have green cards to assign purposes for everything. And this is why I'm telling you why not cut of all these and go back to the point it all started and givethat ultimate purpose that made God create everything.

Again...you act as if we were the first creatures to be created.
Illogical...repetitive.

He could have done it in one finger snap. He didn't need all these years.
We weren't the first creatures to be created. ok . What was the purpose of creating those before us ? That means what applied to us applies to those creatures now. Why did he create them in the first place ? And even them why did it take him all this time to create them since creating us or them took billion of years.

Luckily i know my science, my biology and my philosophy and i certainly don't need any lessons on them from a kid who thinks he's grown up because he read a couple of books on atheism in a pathetic attempt of non-conformism and to stand out.

Look how defensive you got. I didn't attack you I told you philosophy is not atheism, which is something you assumed in your previous post by saying you read philosophy. So why are you getting defensive and turning the debate to me ? Admit you made a false assumption already. If i wanted to be non-conformed, I could have done that exactly two years ago( check first post) or one year ago ( when I was in a more rebllious phase than I am now). I thought and changed my mind. It wasn't the books that changed my mind. They only gave me more knowledge. It is that sheep-like conformism that you should be ashamed of. I am not a cool guy because I'm atheist. I'm the very opposite on real ground. But this Lebanese mentality that you have to label everyone who thinks out of the box as non-conformist just for the sake of it is due to arrogance which I mentioned before. And look how the country is now.

God has a purpose? who assigned it to him dakhlak?

Dunno you have to assume he exists so that you can prove that no one assigned it to him.hehe We go back to the same formula of God exists, Therefore God exists which is what you are basing most of your arguments on.
Anyway, that isn't my question. I don't know how you understod it that way. He has a purpose for creating the world not he has a purpose to be created. Isn't that what they say in English : God's ultimate purpose ? The prupose is his not for the one who created him.

That scripture was engraved based on knowledge. I didn't turn religious until i was fully convinced so quit stereotyping it's not working.

Some atheists suffer after turning atheists. The only reason is not because atheism is scary but because of the fear of hell that is encraved in their heads by religion ever since they were small. If even the most absurd idea of religion ( Hell ) can cause people who actually reasoned to become atheists still be afraid of it, then imagine what religion can do to someone who hasn't reasoned that God doesn't exist. It's absolute power. Actually as I mentioned before, evolution books talk about this subject because it is part of Darwinism.

Once you learn to debate me instead of repeating the same BS you've read in some book for lack of better evidence then you come and debate me. Otherwise i don't have to stay and repeat myself because you demand explanation.

This is funny, you want to beat me ? or beat the arguments of Atheism ? If it's the former, then no surprise, but if it's the latter, you shouldn't be angry about this.

Mesh eza 2reet shaghelten 7elwin bi kteb ya3ne khalas ma 7ada 2addak w no once can disprove you. What you said has been refuted. Get over it w get something better w stick to the topic w quit skipping from one topic to another

I became atheist before reading any book. What's the story with the books, btw ? I only refer to books because I am sensing you think you have higher ground since you are religious so maybe someone with a widely known name would actually make you think he is on higher ground than you and then you would listen to him. That and ofcourse to be able to debate about this subject you have to have knowledge of evolution and adaptation.

Side note: get something new. If i'm going to repeat myself then i have much better things to do than debate someone who has nothing but 1 idea to support him throughout this entire debate.

This is ridiculous. Do you know what the idea of God is based on ? God of gaps. That's the whole story. It is the same idea which would have left us in the 1st century had we not decided to use science instead. So talking about my 1 idea is making you seem ridiculous.

[Kain]

^^^
your reply is not worth me quoting you, it is a repetition of what you've had to say so far, and a repetition of the same ideas.

Yes bi kell tawado3 i do hold a higher ground over you. I am not all knowing and deAtheganized helped change many of my views on certain things in matters of religion...so manne ma3soombut i do know nonsense when i see it and this is nothing but utter nonsense at best if not useless BS.
deAtheganized was able to change some of my views because he was a very logical person and used good arguments.
You however are useless in debates.

FAIL!

Ya bte7ke 3a zaw2ak w ya bet3id l 7ake nafso in more than one way w ya betra22i3 time and time again.

Baddak t2ool biggot w baddak t2ool clueless 2ool lli baddak yyeh. Anyone with half a brain who read this thread from beginning to end would see what logic we have provided and what the atheists countered with from: hungry kids, to "God not healing people", to "God causing natural disasters".

I told you to debate about the existence of God before anything at which point you brought up the issue of complexity which was so easily refuted. And you repeated it time and time again which is a clear sign of bankruptcy. You only had this one argument and it was shot down. Deal with it already and quit talking nonsense in an attempt to better your stand.

I've had enough of talking to people who think they're smart because they've read a couple of books in a (and i repeat) desperate and sad attempt of non-conformism. And i've also had enough of talking to people who don't know the first thing about logic .

edit: in this case it extends to people who know nothing about biology or simple physics, and not just logic.
Yes i know my biology. Most of my uni courses emphasize on biology. Mesh la2annak t3allamet a thing or two about chromosomes seret moukhawwal te7ke in the name of science or biology or evolution.

As an example i will simply quote you

Originally Posted by Kain

I was telling you eno IF God was influenced by time then he would not be God.
IFFFFFF
bta3rif to2ra to2borne?

If basic physics can't get through your head then there is no hope in you.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Which means you are assuming that God has to exist to say that he exists.

that fish burger must sound like a pretty good idea right about now doesn't it

oh and God's purpose:

كنت كنزا مخفيا فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق

For more info on this you may refer to the "Is religion useful" thread where me and deAtheganized had a debate over this matter.

This is the last time i reply if faced with similar "bal3ata" men jenbak.

[KeXasthur]

IF God was influenced by time then he would not be God.

This is the single most absurd statement you can use in such debate.
You want to prove that God exists, yet you already gave him attributes of not being influenced of time ( which means you assumed he exists according to the attributes of omnipotence, even over time)
From another side, you still didn't realize time is irrelevant in both cases.

If you don't understand this, stop blabbering in this topic.
Religious people used to have only one argument:
1)God exists
2)Therefore God exists
But they got over it, and you still can't get over it. Once you do and start to have other arguments, you can come and debate. Maybe even then you won't consider yourself on higher ground anymore, because you are not.


About other arguments. I will repeat I barely mentioned anything about hunger and all. You are looking very weak now giving no importance to these subjects though, but misleading everyone by saying we are talking about them is even weaker.
More importantly stop talking about one topic, The idea of God is referring to the unknown by the name of God. That is what arguments in the favor of God are all based on, so any argument you try to come up with is based on some stupid god of gap theory. Come to think how immature people are to base their lives on such theory. Heh

كنت كنزا مخفيا فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق

Haha the poetry, know what ? He is an all-knowing God. He knows everything before anyone else so suddenly he wants to knows about us ? Plus why would he want to know about something that hadn't existed yet ? I repeat, he would be creating the problem to solve it or in this case heh( know about it) .What a joke.

I've had enough of talking to people who think they're smart because they've read a couple of books in a (and i repeat) desperate and sad attempt of non-conformism. And i've also had enough of talking to people who don't know the first thing about logic .

Thank you for being immature. If it makes you feel better I am a desperate non-conformist. Except I could have done that without trying to prove anything. Actually, I can be even more desperately non-conformist by refusing to debate with you, but I did debate with you. But it seems you are immature to realize that.

[Kain]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Haha the poetry, know what ? He is an all-knowing God. He knows everything before anyone else so suddenly he wants to knows about us ? Plus why would he want to know about something that hadn't existed yet ? I repeat, he would be creating the problem to solve it or in this case heh( know about it) .What a joke.

This is what i mean about ignorance. I directed you towards the thread in which you could have gotten the information you needed but you definitely didn't visit the thread. If you did you would see that the last post of the first page was by deAtheganized. In which he mentioned the hadith in english.
the word is "o3raf" mesh "a3ref"

You showed your blind ignorance and that you were over-eager to prove me wrong instead of proving you're right.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Thank you for being immature. If it makes you feel better I am a desperate non-conformist. Except I could have done that without trying to prove anything. Actually, I can be even more desperately non-conformist by refusing to debate with you, but I did debate with you. But it seems you are immature to realize that.

No...because then you wouldn't be showing everyone how much of a non-conformist you are...baddak tesbot 7alak enno enta yaba fahmen w 2ossa tlo3et ma bta3rif A men B...as Edgard so graciously explained

Get a life...and a clue...i'm out of this threadThere's no use in debating someone closed-minded or logic-deprived. Luckily this wasn't a waste of time. You proved useless in debates

[KeXasthur]

Originally Posted by Kain

This is what i mean about ignorance. I directed you towards the thread in which you could have gotten the information you needed but you definitely didn't visit the thread. If you did you would see that the last post of the first page was by deAtheganized. In which he mentioned the hadith in english.
the word is "o3raf" mesh "a3ref"

You showed your blind ignorance and that you were over-eager to prove me wrong instead of proving you're right.

I promised I won't debate anymore so this will be my final contribution here.
You were too eager yourself that you missed the fact that this is still a piece of poetry. To want to be known by what is not created yet and by what is inferior by all means even if created is a case of deficiency which contradicts with the notion of Omnipotence and Omniscience. And ofcourse maintains the absurdity in creating a problem to solve it and opens up numerous other questions about the various purposes in the world.

No...because then you wouldn't be showing everyone how much of a non-conformist you are...baddak tesbot 7alak enno enta yaba fahmen w 2ossa tlo3et ma bta3rif A men B...as Edgard so graciously explained

Thank you for assuming that no one who is a non-conformist can be right.
As stated, final contribution.

[The Cheese]

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

You were too eager yourself that you missed the fact that this is still a piece of poetry

How is that poetry exactly?He clearly told you it was a hadith.
It's explained in the thread.I actually read it and it was quite informative.Of course you should know since you read often.
Had you went into the thread he directed you to,you would've replied to him based on his explanation in that thread.
if you really wanted to debate in order to gain knowledge and not just for the sake of debating you would have entered the thread and read both kain's and deAtheganized's replies over this matter.Then you would have either replied to kain based on what he said there,or you would have at least known that the "hadith" meant "o3raf" instead of "a3ref".
If you still can't figure out the difference between the two words,that's something else.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

Thank you for assuming that no one who is a non-conformist can be right.

Kain did not say no one who is a non-conformist can't be right. He said that YOU in particular...as in you the individual based your entire views on a couple of books that you read in an attempt to be a non-conformist. Your reply to Kain is in no way related to what he said.Actually,he was right. You take things out of context and have serious reading and understanding issues and are clearly logic-deficient.

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

absurdity

Funny you mentioned absurdity.Do you know what else is absurd?
Repeating yourself over and over again instead of answering to arguements posed by others.
Observe :

Originally Posted by KeXasthur

you yourself made a false assumption that THAT God is exactly the same God of religions.

You still insisted on repeating that sentence of yours in almost every page of this thread although google answered to that already.
He and kain both continued to defend their statements with logic while you repeated your infamous:God exists,therefore God exists ! as a reply.Interestingly,Neither one of them used God exists therefore God exists in this whole thread,it was actually you.
Your repetition caused kain to start using sarcasm while remaining completely logical,tactful and entertaining.Fish Burgers anyone?
You on the other hand snapped and started calling people bigots.
Sarcasm doesn't sound half bad when compared to that especially since it's highly used it debates.
You also insisted on using the word Pseudo-intellectuals numerous times for some reason.You could've replied to what they posed for a change but no.Repeating Pseudo-intellectuals sounds a lot better.On a side note,do us a favor and take a long hard look at your signature

[KeXasthur]

I said I will not reply to the subject, and I will not. But this has included personal attacks on me so I will have to reply on that basis.

Originally Posted by Black_ice

How is that poetry exactly?He clearly told you it was a hadith.
It's explained in the thread.I actually read it and it was quite informative.Of course you should know since you read often.
Had you went into the thread he directed you to,you would've replied to him based on his explanation in that thread.
if you really wanted to debate in order to gain knowledge and not just for the sake of debating you would have entered the thread and read both kain's and deAtheganized's replies over this matter.Then you would have either replied to kain based on what he said there,or you would have at least known that the "hadith" meant "o3raf" instead of "a3ref".
If you still can't figure out the difference between the two words,that's something else.

I agree, I should have entered the thread and debated upon it but I didn't because I based my argument over the sentence he gave me which turned out I was misinformed at most. What is interesting though is that me, myself I have told all the debaters to read a book about evolution and adaptation to get informed about the subject and they started making sarcastic comments.
So why didn't you criticize that ? eh ? Being selective is not the most "logical" step to take.
Second point is : I was misnformed but that doesn't mean I can't make a stance at the subject before knowing about it. Kain , I and everyone do not know about alot of arguments from both sides. That doesn't mean I can't call myself an atheist or he can't call himself religious. This is because we don't base our convictions on one or two arguments. So Kain coming and calling me trying to prove him wrong is not mature.

Kain did not say no one who is a non-conformist can't be right. He said that YOU in particular...as in you the individual based your entire views on a couple of books that you read in an attempt to be a non-conformist. Your reply to Kain is in no way related to what he said.Actually,he was right. You take things out of context and have serious reading and understanding issues and are clearly logic-deficient.

Hehe so the standard for a desperate non-conformist now is this in bold ?
Haha you are attempting to defend Kain, that's alright but you totally embarassed yourself in the process. Talk about blind faith and what damage it does to common sense and logic.

Funny you mentioned absurdity.Do you know what else is absurd?
Repeating yourself over and over again instead of answering to arguements posed by others.
Observe :

Repetition is not appealing. On that I can agree. It could be perceived in various ways. It can look boring and simple, but in reality that doesn't mean it is not warranted. Repetition's value is only abolished if it was replied to and refuted. Looking boring doesn't have to do with whether it's right or wrong. So your argument is futile.

You still insisted on repeating that sentence of yours in almost every page of this thread although google answered to that already.
He and kain both continued to defend their statements with logic while you repeated your infamous:God exists,therefore God exists ! as a reply.Interestingly,Neither one of them used God exists therefore God exists in this whole thread,it was actually you.
Your repetition caused kain to start using sarcasm while remaining completely logical,tactful and entertaining.Fish Burgers anyone?

But I had a reason, unfortunately for you. If you couldn't follow with what the reason was, don't comment. The reason is simple: everything proposed assumed that God had to exist so that he can prove that he exists. Which is the most absurd fallacy. It's that simple. And yes they used this fallacy constantly. If you are infering they have to write

God exists Therefore God exists

word for word for it to count, I recommend you check your IQ. If they can't get over that, yes repition would be required until it craves in their head. I used to make this false assumption 2 years back ( in this thread even). So I have full motive to enforce it. It would be illogical and stupid not to actually, but how do you know.

You on the other hand snapped and started calling people bigots.
Sarcasm doesn't sound half bad when compared to that especially since it's highly used it debates.

I called people bigots after they showed they are bigots which is a very simple word that describes reality in the case of some members here who tell us "God exists whether you like it or not". If you don't agree, it means you you are enforcing "street talk" and it means you should not hide behind your classy words to makes yourself seem innocent.

You also insisted on using the word Pseudo-intellectuals numerous times for some reason.You could've replied to what they posed for a change but no.Repeating Pseudo-intellectuals sounds a lot better.On a side note,do us a favor and take a long hard look at your signature

I always replied and then added the word pseudo-intellectual. But frankly, when you have a post with 3/4 sarcasm and arrogance and smilies all over the place, the least you can infer they are pseudo-intellectuals. But you won't understand that because I just showed you how biased you were in my reply.

As I said I don't want to continue the discussion about the subject anymore, but people think that just because I take comments positively, then they can "yerekbo 3ala dahre" and attack me personally. If they do, I will reply.