There is no hell because no one has observed it.

[Techne]

Every god which can fit into the following catagory:

God
ɡɒd/
noun

1. 1.
   (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. 2.
   (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Either of these don't exist and if you do insist they exist... well you have an extraordinary claim and will be required to provide all the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

Well, since you insist God does not exist, at least provide us with your understanding of the concept of God. You do know that classical theists view God as the ultimate creating and sustaining cause of reality here and now and whenever. So evidence is not an issue, look around, plenty of reality for you. Of course, reality as we observe does not imply that there is a creating and sustaining cause, it just makes more sense (for classical theists anyway) than any of the alternatives.

Maybe smoke green bong and try to make the alternatives more palatable, you know, be constructive. This unconstructive and destructive new atheism is rather boring don't you think?

 

[Swa]

Would like to see this one. Classic atheists believe in the notion of God but reject that He exists. Gnu atheists dumb it down to a man in the sky which is of course not the straw man theists believe.

 

[Prawnapple]

Not observing something, does not mean it does not exist.

Can you elaborate on that?

 

[Prawnapple]

Not observing something, does not mean it does not exist.

Can you elaborate on that?

Well, since you insist God does not exist, at least provide us with your understanding of the concept of God. You do know that classical theists view God as the ultimate creating and sustaining cause of reality here and now and whenever. So evidence is not an issue, look around, plenty of reality for you. Of course, reality as we observe does not imply that there is a creating and sustaining cause, it just makes more sense (for classical theists anyway) than any of the alternatives.


Maybe smoke green bong and try to make the alternatives more palatable, you know, be constructive. This unconstructive and destructive new atheism is rather boring don't you think?

1) I did provide my idea of what God or gods are above:

God

ɡɒd/

noun

1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


2) It's not my job to make it any more entertaining.


3) Who said anything about new Atheist? LOL - Every time an atheist talks out louder, there's some theist to go, "don't you think it's boring how atheists are now?".

4) I just had a bong

Would like to see this one. Classic atheists believe in the notion of God but reject that He exists. Gnu atheists dumb it down to a man in the sky which is of course not the straw man theists believe.

1) Do you have any examples of classic atheists believing in God and then claiming it/he/she doesn't exist?
2) New-Atheism isn't about straw manning at all. You've just blindly asserted 2 claims without any evidence to back it up.

 

[Techne]

Can you elaborate on that?



1) I did provide my idea of what God or gods are above:

God

ɡɒd/

noun

1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


2) It's not my job to make it any more entertaining.


3) Who said anything about new Atheist? LOL - Every time an atheist talks out louder, there's some theist to go, "don't you think it's boring how atheists are now?".

4) I just had a bong




1) Do you have any examples of classic atheists believing in God and then claiming it/he/she doesn't exist?
2) New-Atheism isn't about straw manning at all. You've just blindly asserted 2 claims without any evidence to back it up.

Meh, so nothing interesting, just predictable... nothingness

 

[Swa]

1) Do you have any examples of classic atheists believing in God and then claiming it/he/she doesn't exist?

Look it up. This isn't about who is or isn't.

2) New-Atheism isn't about straw manning at all. You've just blindly asserted 2 claims without any evidence to back it up.

And turns out I'm right. You're just asserting that the God theists believe in doesn't exist. No indication you know what He is/would be if He exists. That would be like me saying a hippoclattamus doesn't exists without knowing what a hippoclattamus is. Without having an idea of what it is I reject I can't claim to truly be rejecting the thing I say I reject.

 

[Spizz]

Look it up. This isn't about who is or isn't.


And turns out I'm right. You're just asserting that the God theists believe in doesn't exist. No indication you know what He is/would be if He exists. That would be like me saying a hippoclattamus doesn't exists without knowing what a hippoclattamus is. Without having an idea of what it is I reject I can't claim to truly be rejecting the thing I say I reject.

Brilliant. Your smoke and mirrors made you right so god exists :crylaugh:

 

[Spizz]

Meh, so nothing interesting, just predictable... nothingness

Echo


Echo


Echo

 

[Swa]

Brilliant. Your smoke and mirrors made you right so god exists :crylaugh:

Ignorance is bliss it seems. Well done for deflecting.

 

[Prawnapple]

Look it up. This isn't about who is or isn't.

And turns out I'm right. You're just asserting that the God theists believe in doesn't exist. No indication you know what He is/would be if He exists. That would be like me saying a hippoclattamus doesn't exists without knowing what a hippoclattamus is. Without having an idea of what it is I reject I can't claim to truly be rejecting the thing I say I reject.

1) It's not my job to provide evidence, it's yours. You're the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof lies with you.

2) It's not an assertion, it's a statement. Nothing exists outside of the natural / physical. Prove me wrong.

 

[SkippyRamirez]

Question...how do you know that no one has observed hell?

 

[rietrot]

1) It's not my job to provide evidence, it's yours. You're the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof lies with you.

2) It's not an assertion, it's a statement. Nothing exists outside of the natural / physical. Prove me wrong.

Lol people that think they are clever because they read an atheist website once years ago.
1. You are making claims that require proof.
2 wow look claims that require proof.

 

[Prawnapple]

Lol people that think they are clever because they read an atheist website once years ago.
1. You are making claims that require proof.
2 wow look claims that require proof.

1) Sounds like you read a few bible passages once a few years ago too and you believed that.
2) Perhaps I should reiterate. As an atheist, I do not believe that there is any evidence for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent god.

 

[rietrot]

1) Sounds like you read a few bible passages once a few years ago too and you believed that.
2) Perhaps I should reiterate. As an atheist, I do not believe that there is any evidence for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent god.

1 Yes, obviously
2 Good for you. You are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[rietrot]

1)
2) It's not an assertion, it's a statement. Nothing exists outside of the natural / physical. Prove me wrong.

And just for extra credit. Unknown unknowns.

 

[Swa]

1) It's not my job to provide evidence, it's yours. You're the one making the claim and thus the burden of proof lies with you.

Only if making specific claims. I didn't mention any specific person. You're the one who asked for someone.

2) It's not an assertion, it's a statement. Nothing exists outside of the natural / physical. Prove me wrong.

Ok, so a statement of ignorance then.