(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The thread that was the shining light of the last two debating sections(ugh, really?) that was God vs Fact has been trashed or something(ugh, again) so this thread is here to take the place of that one.

Some extremely basic terminology...

Theist: believes in a god(s).
Deist: believes in a god(s) that created the universe but subsequently abandoned it and/or believes that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of god(s).
Atheist: does not believe in a god(s).
Agnostic: does not claim to know if a god exists or believes that such knowledge cannot be known, depending on the definition. Typically when I personally use this label I'm referring to the former.
Gnostic: claims to know one way or the other if a god exists.

There are some more but that's the basics down. I'm an agnostic atheist. What are you and why?

Edit: Thanks to whichever mod/admin butchered the thread's title and poll. The poll now makes no sense whatsoever.

It isnt basic logic if some of the examples they use are theory's, and alot of the stuff there is biased against there being God such as " Even if there is some supernatural being behind what science can't explain"

Of course it's biased, it's an atheistic wiki of theistic arguments and their refutations. Again, just like the 'sources' thing, bias should have no influence on the validity of logic, only the willingness of the speaker to consider it sound.

If you have any 'decent' theistic argument it's on there and well refuted. Look it/them up.

So what is a decent theistic argument? I'm yet to come across one that has taken me more than half an hour to conclude is complete nonsense.

Why would i believe a biased website that is against God.

'ecent' being it's popular and worth refuting. 'Popular' would have been a more apt word in hindsight.



There's nothing to believe about refutations - they're either valid or they're not, and you can be the judge of that.

Stop being afraid and just read the damn site haha.

Why would you believe a biased website that is for God? The whole point of reason is too take into account both sides of the argument and make an informed choice. Reading one side of the argument isn't logical.

Ah gonna spoil this thread.

Pretty much every single arguement for and against the belief in God can be found in these 2 pages.
Oh there are more... but these 2 make decent summations.
A few omissions, a few corrections I am sure.
But overall, there is nothing more that can be presented in this thread, that has not already been debated elsewhere.

You must login or register to view this content.
You must login or register to view this content.

For and against... wrapped up in a little bow.
Something to justify the scientists... and also the theists.

Now everybody can carry their banners back to the couch, and play video games.

I did read it.

---------- Post added at 12:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------


I did read it and the pionts were not enough to convince me.

All I'm seeing is some theistic arguments on one page and their refutations on the other. How does that equal a draw and the end to this debate?

It'd be a ton easier if you proposed some 'good' theistic argument(s) and allowed us ol' atheists to refute them.



Specifics..?