Comments on: Strong Atheistic Arguments Against Christianity Including Bertrand Russell’s Teapot And God’s Omnipotence.

By: Mandat

Mandat — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:29:44 +0000

thats one way of saying it the main problem is that you cannot cancel through zero and a^2 – ab must always equal zero

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:33:56 +0000

I’ll give it a go, Mandat.

let a = b /** Ok
a^2 = ab /** As demonstrated
ab – 2ab = -ab /** 1 – 2 = -1
2ab – 2ab = ab – ab /** 0 in any case
2(ab – ab) = (ab – ab) /** Also 0 in any case

0 = 0
But the same maths cannot be applied to
2 = 1
Because 0 is a concept of nothing, and nothing has no proportions

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:43:21 +0000

As the above post mentions, you said that “we need him
in order to be good.” This infers that atheists who do not get their morals from the bible are “bad.” This is very obviously false. There is no indication of a higher crime rate or anything
else of the like in atheists. How many wars have been
caused because of christianity? Undoubtably you have heard this argument many times before, but it is an adequate one. It is simply illogical to critisize atheists for lack of morals while speaking in favor of a religion which has killed millions of peoply for simply disagreeing with their ideas.

By: jesus christ

jesus christ — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:08:57 +0000

quote:
“I understand what you’re saying about the teapot but it’s a poor analogy. There’s absolutely no evidence for a teapot in outer space AND there’s absolutely no need for tea making facilities in the outer cosmos. This is why the teapot is an absurd notion.”

And there is absolutely no evidence for a invisible god in the sky AND there’s absolutely no need for a invisible friend in my and many people’s lives.

you see, i did not just disprove god just as you did not disprove that theres a teapot in space. how is the teapot any more absurd then an invisible sky god?

quote:
“we need him in order to be good”

i believe this notion scares me more then anything else you have said. so basically by believing in god you have completely lost your ability to differ between good and evil? of course you haven’t. so why then do you need him in order to be good? this statement is logically unsound. if your conscious ability to determine, without god, whats right and wrong is still sound then why do you need him? is it for the same reason that most christians do? that you fear hell? then dose that not make god and the bible forms of terrorism? for terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

By: Mandat

Mandat — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:16:53 +0000

you can and coonversly cannot proove or disprove anything

for example below is algebraic proof that 2=1 which clearly it does not

let a=b

therefore

a^2=ab (-2ab)

a^2-2ab=-ab ( a^2)

2a^2-2ab=a^2-ab

2(a^2-ab)=1(a^2-ab) (divide by (a^2-ab))

2=1

this is based on a mathematical fallacy and only really demonstrates how pointless a lot of our debate is, only those with a good knowledge of algebra and mathematics will be able to work out why the above is incorrect.

out of curiosity can anyone?

i will be back later to discuss your rebuttal Don (nice of you to think of me as famous)

mandat

p.s i do not think of you as a hitler (although your views on various books are similar) i would much rather confront you calmly and rationally as oppose to this continual sniping over the internet. this is why i suggested the video debate

By: Persia

Persia — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:42:25 +0000

“On earth there may be no ’scientific’ evidence for God but there is a need for him. I feel this is a very strong argument.”

I agree with this statement, but I interpreted as a different way. Is this need emotional, mental, or physical?

Also logical and illogical is quantum physics. In quantum physics, all normal physic rules are thrown out the window; perhaps our scientific knowledge has not yet reached the point where we can prove or disprove the existence of a powerful deity?