Kill Yourself Guy

Kill Yourself Guy Meme | I CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST IT TAKES TOO MUCH FAITH | image tagged in memes,kill yourself guy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
667 views, 5 upvotes, Made by JJJR 3 months ago memeskill yourself guy
Kill Yourself Guy memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Bill time | YOU KNOW THAT MAKES NO SENSE RIGHT? | image tagged in bill time | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I makes perfect sense if you understand what atheists believe.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What do we believe?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Thanks for asking. If atheism is true then no one created everything out of nothing for no reason. Sorry, but it seems mre reasonable that someone created everything out of nothing for a reason. Therefore atheism requires more faith than theism.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Let's break that down:

"If atheism is true"

Atheism is a rejection of the claim of theism, not necessarily a claim in itself.

"then no one created everything out of nothing"

That is a straw man fallacy and a misunderstanding of the current scientific model of cosmology

"for no reason."

That is an appeal to consequences fallacy. So what if the universe actually does exist for no reason? Does that prove that a God exists?

"Sorry, but it seems mre reasonable that someone created everything out of nothing for a reason."

Maybe more reasonable to you. Not more reasonable to me. And who is this "someone" and how did they "(create) everything out of nothing for a reason"? And what is that reason?

"Therefore atheism requires more faith than theism."

Rejecting a claim for which no sufficient evidence has been presented requires no faith whatsoever

All you have done is take something we don't know (the origin of the universe) and said "a god did it". Okay, how did a god do it? Which god? Why? When? Your answer is a non-answer because it tells us nothing. It explains nothing. It is an intellectually lazy argument used by people who don't like to say "I don't know".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Thanks for your response. Atheism IS a claim and makes claims just like theism. The atheistic claim is a belief that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Since I only addressed the "reasonablness" of the two possibilities then it is you who have committed the straw man fallacy by making assumptions about things which I have not agrued for - yet.

Everything which begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause. Because the universe consists of TIME , SPACE and MATTER then the cause would have to be TIMELESS(because it created time) SPACELESS(because it created all of this space) and IMMATERIAL(it created the material universe). This has the charachteristics of what we call God. So,I am not simply agruing from the lack of evidence but from the evidence. The evidence leads to an all powerful, spaceless, timeless immaterial being.

The more we advance scientifically the more unlikely that atheism is true. There is a superintellect behind the universe. The discovery of the DNA code is another piece of evidence as in all of our known experiance - codes come from minds.

The great Einstein wanted to know how God did it but we can absolutely see the signs of intelligence in all of creation. So, regarding your last questions and statements - for the purpose of this conversation, I have made a positive argument, it's not lazy and I can narrow down to which God but for now I think I have answered the question as to which is more reasonable. Codes don't just happen and neither does anything happen without a reason. Since the Bible has never been proven false then I defend Yahweh.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'll try to keep my reply brief

Some atheists make the claim that god definitely doesn't exist. Those who make that claim have the burden of proof. I don't make that claim. I simply don't accept the claim that god does exist.

Your argument is a copy and paste of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and that argument is lousy for numerous reasons. It's basically a regular cosmological argument, tweaked a little bit to avoid the infinite regress in the first premise.

The Kalam argument makes unfounded and unproven assertions, such as the creator having no beginning. How could you possibly know that? Not having a beginning in our universe doesn't prove that it has no beginning at all.

It's a special pleading fallacy, because you're trying to say that everything *except god* had a beginning, without proving that god (a) exists, and (b) had no beginning.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

Your argument that it leads to the god of the Bible fails because it doesn't prove there is only one creator being. There could be thousands of them, every last one of them uncaused, spaceless, timeless, etc. And it certainly doesn't get you to the specific god of the ancient Hebrews. You're just taking the characteristics of the god in which you already believe and then working backwards to try and make them fit with the argument.

Also, you say god is immaterial, yet super intelligent. Intelligence comes from a brain. A brain is a material object. Please explain how an intelligent being that is immaterial is even possible.

DNA is not an actual code. It is a molecule. Comparing it to a code doesn't mean it is actually a code.

The Bible has absolutely been proven false, numerous times. For example, Genesis says that having livestock mate in front of striped sticks will result in them bearing striped offspring. This is 100% false. Genetics determines physical characteristics like stripes, not mating in front of sticks.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
You can call it whatever you want or say it’s tweaked but I presented a valid argument with a conclusion which follows. If it’s flawed then please point out which premise is flawed. So far you have not done so. The argument does not make the claim a creator without a beginning but it is a philosophical conclusion based not only on the Kalam argument but on Einstein’s discovery which is that time, space and matter has a beginning and are related. Big Bang Cosmology states that these three came into being at a definite moment. Well, it stands to reason that whomever created time is not bound by time. So, it is reasonable to assume that the creator is TIMELESS. In the beginning, there was no time, no space and no matter. Furthermore it was argued for centuries by a lot of atheist that the universe was eternal. Now that we know that it isn’t then something has to be eternal – because as you stated – we cannot have an infinite regress. This is not case of special pleading at all. It is simply following the evidence to where it leads – as I have already pointed out. Either the universe is eternal or something outside of it is. Well, it ain’t the universe. If the universe had abeginning then it had to have a BEGINNER. Something or someone had to set the whole show off as opposed to nothing setting it off. The Bible absolutely demonstrates that there is one true God and it is the one described in the pages of the Bible. You are correct in that the Cosmological argument I gave doesn’t get us to the God of the Bible specifically but it narrows the field down to Him and Allah. Are you saying that minds don’t exist? Humans need brains but we also have minds and our mind is immaterial. Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated that He was divine by His being able to control nature, His supreme wisdom, ability to perform miracles, predicting and accomplishing His resurrection from the dead, leading a morally perfect life and telling the future – and fulfilling ancient prophesies. He spoke of spirits, angels, demons, Heaven and Hell and because He never told a lie then these things exists. If DNA is not a code you should tell this to the scientists because in just about every discussion on the subject, it is referred to as a CODE. But let’s say that “IT CODES”. Well, how did it know to code? Bill Gates said of DNA that it is like a software but far more complex than anything that Microsoft could come up with
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Einstein's discovery that time, space and matter are related doesn't say anything about an intelligent first cause.

The second premise is flawed because it doesn't distinguish between the universe and the matter and energy therein. Even if the universe as we know it today had a beginning, matter and energy don't appear to, because they cannot be created or destroyed, which means they are eternal.

"Big Bang Cosmology states that these three came into being at a definite moment."

Big Bang cosmology doesn't say that matter came into being. Matter appears to have always existed, since it cannot be created or destroyed.

"Well, it stands to reason that whomever created time is not bound by time."

First of all, "whomever" is begging the question. It assumes the existence of a creator being while trying to prove it exists.

"In the beginning, there was no time, no space and no matter."

There were matter and energy going back, as far as we can tell, infinitely.

"...something has to be eternal..."

Matter and energy appear to be eternal.

"This is not case of special pleading at all. It is simply following the evidence to where it leads"

You are starting with your conclusion and trying to work backwards, not following the evidence where it leads. That's why you try to say it leads to the specific god you already believe in.

"Either the universe is eternal or something outside of it is. Well, it ain’t the universe."

Matter and energy appear to be eternal.

"If the universe had abeginning then it had to have a BEGINNER."

Even if that's true, how would you prove that it's an intelligent being?

"Something or someone had to set the whole show off as opposed to nothing setting it off."

How do you know it had an intelligent cause behind it?

"The Bible absolutely demonstrates that there is one true God and it is the one described in the pages of the Bible."

That is circular reasoning. You got the idea of the god of the Bible from the Bible itself, and then use the Bible to prove the god of the Bible exists. You're basically saying the Bible proves itself true. A Muslim could use that same argument to prove Allah exists "the Koran absolutely demonstrates that there is one true God and it is the one described in the pages of the Koran." It's horribly flawed reasoning.

"You are correct in that the Cosmological argument I gave doesn’t get us to the God of the Bible specifically but it narrows the field down to Him and Allah."
reply
0 ups
"Matter and energy appear to be eternal." It isn't.
“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Alexander Vilenkin
Arno Penzias – “The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole.”
Robert Wilson – “Certainly there was something that set it all off.... I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis.”
George Smoot – “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

I'm sorry that I lack the time to go over thinwith you in detail but the I think you know that the quotes are not from theologians. We know that there is intelligence behind the universe because it is so finely tuned for life. There is not a chance that chance is the cause. Too many variable which if they were changed to the slightest degree would destroy us and our system. The Bible is a collection of books and many are eyewitness accounts which makes them authorative. That is not circular. Furthermore, there are also extra-Biblical accounts of the New Testament. While it is not part of this conversation, The Quran is easily proven false and contradicts itself while the Bible does not. There is also archaeological evidence which supports scripture. Thanks for the conversation though.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
(part 2)

No it doesn't. This is a false dichotomy. It doesn't only lead to the god of the Bible or Allah. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of other gods that fit those same qualifications.

"Are you saying that minds don’t exist? Humans need brains but we also have minds and our mind is immaterial."

I'm saying that minds do exist but cannot exist apart from a physical brain. You say that the creator of the universe is intelligent yet immaterial. If it's immaterial, what is the source of its intelligence?

"Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated that He was divine by His being able to control nature, His supreme wisdom, ability to perform miracles, predicting and accomplishing His resurrection from the dead, leading a morally perfect life and telling the future – and fulfilling ancient prophesies."

I don't believe that, partly because we have no evidence outside the Bible to confirm its claims are true. We only have stuff written down by people who already believed he was god.

"He spoke of spirits, angels, demons, Heaven and Hell and because He never told a lie then these things exists."

I don't care what Jesus said. I care about what can be proven or shown to be real. What proof do you have that spirits, angels, demons, Heaven or Hell exist, outside of the Bible? Also, you can't possibly prove that Jesus never told a lie. Did you follow him around for every single waking moment of his life? No. Did anybody? No. So you cannot say with any reliability that he never lied or did anything wrong.

"But let’s say that “IT CODES”. Well, how did it know to code?"

It doesn't. It just does it naturally, without direction. That's like saying "how does a river know to follow a riverbed?" It doesn't. It just flows where the path takes it. "How does a dropped object know to fall downwards?" It doesn't. It just follows the pull of gravity.

"Bill Gates said of DNA that it is like a software but far more complex than anything that Microsoft could come up with"

And he was making an analogy. Also, Bill Gates is not a biologist.
reply
0 ups
There are only a couple of dieties described as spaceless, timeless, immaterial and all powerful. There are a lot of mythical and man made gods but there aren't thousands of ones who could be The One. Your own intelligence is immaterial, so do you not believe in your own intelligence? You cannot touch it or taste it and yet, you have it.

There is plenty of evidence outside of the Bible. The NT alone cites more thn 30 people confirmed by secular sources or archaeology. There are 10 ancient non Christian sources including: Historians: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon -Government Officials: Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian -Other Sources including The Jewish Talmud and Greek writer Lucian. When one combines what they all wrote, none contrdicts the NT.

Jesus proved His divinity and it was puntuated with His resurrection. Men did follow him around for 3 years - night and day and it was said that even His enemies couldn't find a lie in Him. Neither you or I could live under such scrutinity and have someone say this about us. There is an embarassment of riches when it comes to evidence of the Bible. BTW, 40 different author wrote it so that also takes away your "circular reasoning" claim. The book of Acts has 84 actual archaelogically confirmed details right down to the depth of the waters. I'll leave you with this:“I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Acts]….;but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.”
(Archaeologist William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, p. 8)
reply
1 up
If I say magic pixies exist, and you don't accept my claim, which takes more faith: my claim that magic pixies exist, or your rejection of my claim?
Flip Settings
Kill Yourself Guy memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
I CAN'T BE AN ATHEIST; IT TAKES TOO MUCH FAITH
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back