In defence of Atheism, Prove me wrong

Oh dear, this is a long one. Let’s get going. Quotations in the section are abbreviated to accommodate the character limit. “All right...replying!!” To start, you’re saying that responding to your post, tackling each… ah, “resolution” of your claim in the order you’ve presented it makes me a heckler. I’m going to start posting definitions for you, but I’ll still hold off on criticism regarding your grammar, as that would take too long and it doesn’t inhibit the conversation too terribly. These are from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, for reference. -heck·le verb \he-kəl\ : to interrupt (someone, such as a speaker or performer) by shouting annoying or rude comments or questions- I can see how this might’ve seemed appropriate to you, but this is a text format. Anyone reading through this (including myself) has read your post in its entirety directly before my response, and is free to go back and do so any time. Replying to your points individually is not interrupting or any kind of harassment, I’m sorry. Also, being that my “method of considering the debate before responding” is offensive to you, I believe I have a better insight into the nature of your posts here; myself and the few people I’ve shown my response to for criticism/suggestions regarding editing have been somewhat mystified to this point. “Second:... here.” Well, what you’ve done is linked me to two other unfinished debates on this site that are at most progressed to round two, and have little to nothing to do with what you’re proposing here. One is between creation and evolution, where the instigator is trying to defend creation and you outright say you don’t believe in evolution after agreeing to represent the opposing viewpoint, so that’s worthless. In the other, you seem to be taking an entirely different stance that, again, has nothing to do with what you’ve put forward so far. For example, the word “notion” doesn’t appear once. You go on to say that (I think, hard to interpret) your last post, which you used to fill up a round of the debate, was just a fun fact about what you believe and wasn’t actually an argument for your particular brand of theism. If you present something in the format of an argument in a debate forum, I’ll respond to it like it’s an argument. Please do not waste our time. “Because..choice.:” Sneakily? One person I had look over this thought that, after using Google translate, you might be using a thesaurus to find bigger words to use, and seeing as I can’t imagine anyone actually trying to talk like this, I think they may have been on to something. Also, you don’t avoid it. I was actually gonna say thanks until I read three sentences ahead. “The Considerate.. saying.” I responded to everything you said, I even broke it up into chunks to make sure there wasn’t anything that slipped my mind. Believe me, as best a human being can, I understood what you were saying. “If, God,... proportions!.” Sorry, I came up with another god. Spode, my deity, is defined as being greater and more powerful than all other conceivable gods. Very simply, Spode > YourThing. No matter how much you build yours up, mine usurps it and is stronger for all the power you tried to outfit yours with, simply due to his nature. This includes any and all variations. Also, how notion-Kratos and Spode deal with each other and their variations is up for you to explain. “As a... teething!” You are a troll. I’m going to continue responding to you as if you actually believe this because it will entertain the internet, but, for reference, I know you’re a troll. Kratos is not Kronos. Kratos tore the Stone of Olympus out of Kronos, smashed a long, sharp segment of his harness through his chin, and stabbed him in the forehead with the Blade of Olympus to have him topple to his death. As a Christian believer of Greek Mythology, you should be familiar with the Sony Revised Edition. Now, since the rest of this segment is you trying to say that Greek philosophers supported whatever it is you’re trying to convince me of, I’m just gonna move on to the next bit. “To be... variation.” -time noun \tīm\ a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continuesb : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future- So we know what time is, right? Outside of time means no events, no action, absolutely nothing happens, theoretically. You still haven’t shown that anything does or even can exist outside of time, or provided a mechanism by which something outside of time could influence a universe that is subject to time. I wouldn’t think a being outside of time could do anything, because absolutely nothing at all happens as a rule, but that’s just me. -con·sid·er·ate adjective \kən-si-d(ə-)rət\ : thinking about the rights and feelings of other people : showing kindness toward other people: marked by or given to careful consideration- Again, this is just close enough to what I think you mean that a thesaurus could have suggested it, but it’s still off. Not one person I’ve shown this to has gone without commenting on your use of considerate and self-considerate. Since I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, I won’t keep harping on the point. You don’t seem to be acknowledging any of the issues I had in my last reply with the concepts you’re bringing out again, so I’ll keep skipping ahead. “Because... God.” This means nothing. I’m not going to stare at this for an hour or so like I did yesterday trying to figure out what’s going on in your head, instead I’m just gonna relent and stop pretending that even you have this straight. “This is Notionism, and it stands firm as a great philosophy. but this was not my debate!” No. “If...God.” Math is a system for understanding and relating quantities to each other. It says nothing about lack of belief in a god. Why is free-will involved? What are you talking about? “- if...respond!” Read a book! “And so.” *Cracks knuckles* “I...understanding.” There is no country, no province, no social construct anywhere on this planet so exceptionally designed that it would be able to successfully accommodate your insanity within itself. There is no way you would still be alive, you surely would have choked to death while sucking your thumb or reverted into a cheeto by now. The utter impossibility of your existence is sufficient to confirm for anyone reading this that they are a brain in a vat living out a simulation, and this is perhaps the only flaw in the façade. If you give me your address, I will send you a plaque to hang above your computer that says “I validate Solipsism”. Then again, NephilimFree is real, so you might be too. I’m afraid I still can’t give a straight-faced response to this part though, there’s simply nowhere to begin. Please go to school. “THE DEBATE:” At last. “Because... things” I’m pretty sure the debate isn’t about whether or not adultery should be promoted. It also needs to be said that everything you listed after that has nothing to do with adultery. Seriously. “- not... theirs.” Who are you talking to? You remember which debate of yours this is, right? “-to...confusion” To clear up some confusion, I am an atheist. I do not believe your god is a thing. You are trying to convince me it is, I think. Until you convince me, I don’t have much of a problem “using the lord’s name in vain”, god damn it. “- believing...ends.” I’ve got some more satisfying gods, I’ve even got more satisfying demigods and envoys of gods. Ask me about Jonathan Measley or Swaghetto some time. “Because...argument.” No one’s arguing with your motivation. “The...mythologies.” This is just factually wrong. I don’t need to convince anyone reading of this, right? Right. “This...me.” Mhm. “Krishna...warrior.” I’m not as familiar with Hinduism, so while I assume you’re misrepresenting at least one aspect of this due to your abysmal track record (probably the same way you do the Greek pantheon), I won’t insist that you are. “Because... faith.” Hmm, here’s the nice thing about communication. I can read and understand the conclusions of someone who works in any given field, who in turn is aware of the data, theories, and conclusions of all others in his field who came before him, or who are working alongside him today. In this way, I can draw from the total accumulated knowledge of humanity, from people who know, for example, how the tides work, or what classical civilizations believed. My being an adolescent doesn’t bar me from this knowledge, so bite me. As for filling me with the enrichment of faith… I suppose I should wish you luck. You have two responses left. “Without...atheism.” Right and wrong are determined by me, as it’s determined by everyone for themselves. Independently of your god, I can judge actions to be either harmful or beneficial, and use that to make up my mind about whether or not it’s moral or immoral. Judging any action your god takes to be immoral demonstrates pretty conclusively that morality does not come from your god. “Testosterone... that." “ -I’m just gonna let this sit here and be in view of the public. “Despite...support.” This too. “Only...institution.” I don’t promote adultery, and it’s definitely not because I’m afraid of something. Do you interact with other people? “Faith... limiting.” You must be unfamiliar with the history of religion on this planet. I’ll let you read up on that. “Amen” -Indeed. Halfway. To summarize to this point, you have created an unreasonable fantasy in order to define your god into existence, and then use this extraordinarily vague definition to say that all religions are worshipping this god so you can take anything from any holy text and put it forward as evidence. You come back a step and say without any justification that this nebulous god of everything is the closest to what the Christians believe exists, and turn this from the weirdest argument for general theism into one of the stranger ones for Christianity in particular. This can only get better.