can any athiest argue against the universal negative theory?
923641
Atheists have nothing to prove but just saying "there is no god" like a broken record with no basis or supporting facts.
149110
The principal flaw I found is in premise 1, and because of that, it actually invalidates the balance. The proper premise would be written:\n\n1) If the Christian God exists, He wants ALL humans to SEEK to know him.\n\nThe corrected structure of premise 1 is because the limitations of our terrestrial existence prevent us from having the ability to know Him (Biblical concept-a finite mind of finite understanding cannot grasp the infinite).\n\nThis, in turn, would change the balance as follows:\n\n2) If God exists (with omnipotence and omnipresence), He has provided sufficient evidence to cause mankind to seek after Him (Evidenced in the fact that there is ever any discussion anywhere about a Higher Being)\n\n3) Not ALL humans will choose to believe He exists.\n\nStatements 4 & 5 become irrelevant, based on the fact that men will choose to believe what they believe.  The flaw in most dicussions of this nature is that they begin with non-belief of possibility.  Most people who maintain a position of atheism or anti-theism refuse to accept a premise that there is something or someone they cannot know, and the logic that follows that premise is that they consider themselves to be the higher or highest being.
1111253
Good Question....I think most people hate Athiests for the same reason people hate christians.. No one wants to hear your reason or philosophy for your belief/dibelief in god. Because you cannot prove it either way. It is an endless arguement which all sides, religious or athiest, claim to be right....And neither side can prove the other wrong without a shred of doubt. Sometimes Claiming you are right is just as bad as a person Claiming you are wrong.
976796
I can point you in  direction that Christians will not like at all, my friend. Look at the Creation: it consists of possibly infinite number of parallel universes, each containing billions and billions of galaxies, each one with billions and billions of stars.\n\nThe only way the Bible can possibly be true, is if the God that Christians believe in is limited to the solar system or just this planet. I don't believe that is true at all. You have asked a very sensible question.\n\nIf there is one God (yes, I do believe that) then 'He' is the God of the whole Creation and we are but tiny little specks on the edge of one galaxy. What the Bible says only matters to the people who were alive when they wrote it - and they didn't know anything about astronomy or science as we know it.\n\nThis doesn't mean that the Bible is all rubbish - there is lots of wisdom in there about how to lead a good life and get on with your neighbours and all that. But when it comes to unscientific dogma and tortured theology, it's now time to take it all with a pinch of salt.\n\nThere are Christians who enjoy this kind of question and are not fightened of them. If you are interested, you could try the Quakers, the Bah'ai faith, Unitarians, the Progressive Christianity Network, etc.\n\nDon't be frightened to 'think outside the box' - it's your divine intelligence to ask good questions and seek proper answers.
482072
If the person making such a generalization was a serious scientist, researcher, philosopher, etc. -- that is, someone whose JOB is to discover universal truths or principles about nature, mankind, society, etc. then the generalization could have merit.\n\nIf an ordinary person makes that kind of sweeping statement, then there probably is no merit or validity to it.\n\nTo answer your question: Yes, a statement about a universal principle CAN be made. But it should be made by someone trained in discovering and verifying such principles.\n\nOrdinary people should perhaps restrict their statements to particular situations or individuals, because then, they would be more believable. There is no point in saying something that nobody believes.
219702
Yes Very Easy,\n\nMany rational arguments exists, however I will show you one such argument:\n\nWhen one observes the Universe, it can be seen that the Universe is ordered, and this order is regulated by laws. These laws are what we call the laws of Physics, others refer to them simply as the laws of nature. \n\nA fundamental question arises, who or what established these laws? Did they create the Universe that they govern or did the Universe create them so as to bring order to itself?\n\nNeither case can be logically possible, since matter in the Universe is dependent on the laws that govern it, and the laws are a function of matter. Therefore there must be something independent of both matter and the natural law that created them.\n\nIt is the Creator, the only one who is unlimited, self-subsistent and eternal that is worthy of being worshipped. The Creator in Islam is called Allah\n[Partially copied and re-worded from the book “Islam and Science” Al-Khilafah Publications]\n\nThe Athiests Bedrocks:\n\n(1) Materialism (Steady State Universe)\n(2) Evolution\n\nThese have now been demolished:\n\n(1) The recent discovery of the Big Bang has killed the steady state Universe model that the Atheist have held so long.\n\n(2) All modern scientific data no longer supports evolution (however many scientists still remain shakled to this dead thoery, why? blind faith I assume)\n\nFor every Atheist argument a Thiest counter exists, evolution is really  the ONLY thing that is the last bastion of hope, and even this is dead (except they deny this EVEN though IT GOES AGAINST THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE)\n\nEDIT:\n\nAs for the question of life after death, I've answered that on yahoo answers more than twice (so heres a copy):\n\nPeople misunderstand the correct model of life and death. \n\n(1) Death is not the opposite of life (Dualism), Death is simply the ABSENCE of life.\n(2) If death is nothing, then what were you before you was alive? You were nothing i.e. dead, so the correct order is lifer AFTER death and not the other way round like some people assume. So it is incorrect to say that no one has come back from death, since everyone that has life has come from death.\n\n\nI hope that helps\n\nAnhar Hussain Miah
560870
Aha, So you have discovered one of the roots of existential angst! Existentialists believe that a perfect form for every idea exists in the universe, whether it has been put into words or not. This is a difficult argument to make because its basis is that if the idea exists, then the thing the idea represents exists, a huge leap.\n  Simply stating a disbelief in a philosophical construct does not validate the existence of the construct. One may argue for the validity or invalidity of the construct based on empirical evidence in support of one's position, however the conceptualiziton of an idea does not thereby bring it into reality. In order for your hypothesis to be valid we would have to accept that something exists because we had the idea for it to exist. To show that this is false one need only point to the Empire state building which, as an idea, did not exist in reality until bricks and mortar were set. If the idea were the reality, then every criminal act ever concieved in ones mind and not acted upon would make one guilty of the concieved act.\n   Comitting oneself to an Atheistic viewpoint is a comittment to a belief which is not possible to prove or disprove beyond redoubt, it is therefore an act of Faith in ones position. Atheists DENY the existence of a  supreme being. If on the other hand, one chooses to neither accept or reject the existence of a supreme being, one is considered an Agnostic. An Agnostic is one who neither believes nor disbelieves, they simply do not make a choice. Belief in God is a choice just as disbelief is a choice, that is the basis for free will.
1155655
It is hard, probably impossible, to prove the negative argument. \n\nLet me  say that \n1) the world itself is proving that no human being can control all of it. Earthquakes and hurricanes seem beyond the control of even the super rich.\n2) the super rich can get together and control much of the economies. Most of them are NOT Freemasons. Why should they be? Freemasons work toward improving their morals and actions, improving the plight of the poor (check out the Shriner's hospitals as an example.)\n3) Many of the super rich belong to religions or cultures that are hostile  to Freemasonry: Fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, and Fundamentalist Muslims all preach against Freemasonry. None of them would range under Freemasonry's tolerant banner.\n4) Many masculine rite Freemason lodges are closing and consolidating in the United States. Their membership is dwindling. It is hard to find men who wish to be morally straight, free of drugs and other enslavements, who want to spend a night a week doing work on themselves and the community. \n\nWith all of that said, I am a Freemason, a Co-Mason (not the mainstream Freemason as some will tell you). I spend at least two days a month in Lodge. No, I cannot see that we control the world. Fact is, I have enough to do just working on getting myself together. \n\nI think we wish someone smart and savvy were in charge. I think we all have a list of complaints we would like to take up to them and have things fixed. \n\n Best of luck in finding the people who run the machinery at the center of the world. I hope you are not disappointed. Remember the scene in Apocalypse Now where the bridge is being blown up and the guy is looking around wondering who is in charge. He stops and asks a soldier. The soldier looks back at him and says, "I thought YOU were, Sir." Oh well.
257471
There is no one god, no argument with that. Does it prove that every single other claim by any religious system is false? Not necessarily. All the flaws you pointed out refer only to the axiom of single omnipotent entity. How about the collective of entitites who created the universe together, without actually creating the man, at least not intentionally? Just a suggestion, no brainwashing intended here.\nSome people have taken the modern science as a god of its own, and refer to it just as religiously as Muslims to their\ngod. I suppose this god has to be more benign, but that is not the point. How was Stonehenge built? The Pyramids?\nWhat happened a single second before the big bang? To my mind, science doesn't give satisfactory answers to those questions because it is intent on the materialistic view, rejecting the interactions of several kinds of energies.\nScientific assumptions are not invalid, they are just, in my opinion, part of the greater whole, of the science that encompasses everything that has been discovered, and more.\nIn the same way, I can see a seed of wisdom in certain religions, without accepting them as the whole truth.\nTo me, any inflexible outlook on the world, being totally monetheistic, or totally scientific, is inaccurate. Binary thinking, black versus white, is a the kids thinking mode. Adults ought to realize the world is more complex than that. And yes, there can be a Democrate who is a Republican. I would probably vote for such, because he would share some of the Republican opinions that I welcome, and some of the Democratic ones, that I would approve of.\n(Our problem is that there is no such person currently, we always choose one extreme or the other). T.S. Elliot said it's a property of the brilliant mind to contain two contradictory notions at the same time. At the same time, this is my own addition, inability to do so, is the trait of the younger mind. Not a worse one, just a younger one.\nThe fundamentalistic view of the Muslims is based on their inability to operate with complex notions. It is all about\nus versus the enemy, even if "us" happen to abuse us. Good versus bad, "we" being the good of course. And so on. Brainwashing is easier accomplished when the mind decids it wants simple explanations to anything, and is too rigid to accept any other. In main stream religions, Muslims are guilty of it more than most, no matter what the politically correct approach says. But they are not the only ones. Communists, Atheists, Democrates and other monotheistic religions are just as guilty of it, and there are many other kinds of thinking categorically.\nThe point is, don't dismiss everything, just because one crucial point of their creed fails. Or else, you're being just as inflexible in your mode of thinking as they're in theirs. Would you reject all mysteries of the world just because God doesn't exist? Would you believe in science as blindy as they believe in their god? What is then the difference between you? Are scientists not real people? Don't they write their dissertations to prove what they intend to prove? How many of them can be completely, inhamanly, objective when one of their baby projects is challenged? Some of them have simply different techniques of brainwashing. If they decide the string theory is looking good, how many scientific publications would be allowed that claim differently?  How different are some of them from the preaching pastors? Just food for thought, no attempt to convert, I don't really have anything to convert you to. LOL.
558891
If everybody could approach the Bible as rationally as you do, then there would be no need to point out contradictions. But so many millions of people do take the Bible as the infallible word of God and to be interpreted completely literally. Using a flawed book as the sole code by which you live is dangerous, and Atheists feel obliged to point this outto them.
625245
Having read your question and the answers given thus far, I for one find it poor logic to infer that  atheist or any one else, for that matter, are free thinkers. Everyone has a predisposition in their thinking, in one form or another. Most people will not or can not look at both side of an issue objectively.
882540
"Clearly hate based" campaign?\n\nLOL.\n\nEvery one - EVERY SINGLE ONE - of Dawkins arguments is intellectual refutation of an IDEA.  Not an attack on a person, not slander.  NOT HATE.   Sorry if intellectually you guys can't cut the mustard, but you can't resort to dismissing Dawkins' ideas as mere hate.
653177
******\nRudy Can't Fail\nHawking's theory (and that's ALL it is) did nothing to disprove the existence of God or the Bible and in fact, \nSTILL has NOT shown how to make SOMETHING from NOTHING!\n\nMaking Hawking's cosmology nothing more than fodder for the COSMOpolitan magazine
804564
I dont think they can be right, especially those that refute the others.  I think a spiritual path with no fixed ideas about God, the form he takes, is best.  It allows athiests and believers to agree.
913315
No, you would not have to be smug if you were an athiest.  There are plenty of athiests who are not smug.  \n\nHowever, recently, it seems as if there is a movement where athiest's are stating that it is not correct to believe in science and still have faith.  In fact, that it is not alright to even respect those who believe in god.\n\nI have listed an article from wired about it.
991090
No. God is forever. Atheists are whatever.
909374
I agree with everything but the notion of a sentient god / universe.\n\nEdit:\n\nWhy would I get a thumbs down for my opinon? ... must have been a christian.