Dude, I want to read your refutations of certain arguments for God’s existence?

Biases in reasoning may lead people to create beliefs based on false assertions, then reach flawed conclusions which may motivate irrational behaviors. “Dude, I want to read your refutations of certain arguments for God’s existence?” – Challenger  My response, What is a god? I need no more than that not you nor anyone can actually get past that. Here is a meme.   My response, Ha ha, there is a meme. “Begging the question. Ha ha 🙂“- Challenger My response, What the offer of the term god “is” but an example of Begging the question. as the terms meaning assumes the initial point that the term god has a valid beginning, it does not. The empty term god is no more than the noise of words, talking unjustifiably, it is indeed a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the term god statement which is under examination to be true or contain a truth quality, to which it does not in any way. “This is similar to the Omnipotent Paradox question: “Can God create a stone so heavy that He can’t lift?” If He can’t then He is not all powerful but asking God to create such a thing is an act that is contrary to His nature which is omnipotence because it is defined as doing all that is logically possible.“- Challenger My response, If you cannot give a valid ontology of what is a “god” and limited only to what a god is, to even get me to entertain the god concept seriously. Until then I will not. It is the same vacuous waste of...

Is god choiceless or standardless or removed from ethics?

Is god choiceless or standardless or removed from ethics? Let’s say gods are real and if they could interact with us be thought to have a conciseness thus be held to an ethical slandered? Is not a choice or thought not a rational requirement to have ethical understanding in the real world thus a rock cannot make an ethical choice nor can a baby but an adult or god could as well as purposed right? If believed prayers of millions of abused children can’t get answered why not a hold them to an ethical slandered just as a person who could stop a child’s suffering? Is it not the “body of matter” (human and not a god) but the ethical understanding, because of a rational conciseness that we hold responsible in the first place? We need more then theories we must obtain freedom or ethics you can feel. We must have a rational ethical understanding in the real world. Can you hold a rock responsible for crushing pain than death? Seemingly, the Ethics of religion found in books like the bible range from reasonable to psychotically barbaric and unethical. So they simply need to be rejected, due to their unethical support for harm, no it’s not even ok if its ones claimed to a god. No, such untrustable unethical sources just will not do, if a god is the creator of such unethical instructions in said holy books, then this god is clearly unethical and as it would be this same god that had decided to created the sensation of pain and pain is not ethical to inflict on others,...

Guest post: Atheism’s Conclusion by Rational Thinking” by Marquis Amon

Guest post: Atheism’s Conclusion by Rational Thinking” by Marquis Amon Religion causes irrational thought because it is not reality-based. Irrational thinking alters judgment in reality, therefore not mentally healthy. Society must remain secular to protect everyone for that reason. It isn’t about enforcing atheism; it is about having equality in reality, for everyone. The idea of sin offends me. “So you are saying my creator created me with the capability of offending him, yet knew this in advance that’d he’d be offended?” Illogical and petty of said god. Which is why I champion secularism, every other away oppresses someone or lessens their value. In societies with dominant religions even if they allow other religions view others not of the religion as inferior, because the religion teaches that the religion itself is right. That is flawed thinking… I oppose religion, but not human rights. People have a right to believe, but that right should not be forced on others. Even if god existed, it would violate human rights. Therefore I oppose the concept. A god that would not violate human rights would not need to be believed in. So morally speaking, there is never a need to believe in such gods. The existence of god would be proof of manifestation in reality; no one says that we have to agree with the concepts by the entity even if it did create the universe. Capability/ability is irrelevant in equality. God would merely possess ableism not an account of virtues of character. It is being intellectually honest. Both of us possess ethical objections to gods. That is what theists miss most. Regardless of...