Comments on: Why Arguing Against God Is Stupid

By: Brownian

Brownian — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:05:37 +0000

When you are arguing against Shiva you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

When you are arguing against Ahura Mazda you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

When you are arguing against Unkulunkulu you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

When you are arguing against Viracocha you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.

Wow. That’s some compelling logic there.

By: Angel

Angel — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:55:50 +0000

God does speak in “easy-to-understand, articulate communication” but those without ears do not hear. Nothing in creation is random. In our limited thinking, we do not understand.

By: vincent

vincent — Fri, 25 May 2007 01:05:51 +0000

i think that jesus is dead just like any other human, i feel that i dosen’t have any thing to say about it. for exampel “jeusus if you are alive any readint this blog do something to prove to the world that you are a live before my next blog”

By: Reece F.

Reece F. — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:37:42 +0000

*applauds*

By: vincent

vincent — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:06:57 +0000

i have never been aware of any god who will speak up about anything in easy to understand articulate communication for him or her self. so it seems stupid to fight od die for something that will not do that.

By: Doug Bird

Doug Bird — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:04:22 +0000

Contrary to this accepted piece wisdom “You can’t argue for or against god”, you certainly can make a solid argument against the existence of God and also make a solid argument against the relevence of any godlike type entity. One is the bizzare and chaotic lack of design in nature, and everything derived from nature. From the workings of a human eyeball to the earth’s hydrologic cycle anyone can certainly understand no being with any mind or intelligence had anything whatsoever to do with the coming about of these systems. They’re simply far too complicated, random, and nuts to be concieved in any mind, human or otherwise! There is no order or equilibrium in nature, despite the trite euphamisms of poets and theocrats. Life is ugly, harsh, brutish, and that’s a fact no human can deny. If there was an all-powerful being that had no need to pay mind to time or the limits of physics, there would certainly be something better in place.

By: A

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:57:48 +0000

it’s true; arguing for or against the make-believe is redundant.
but make-believe is often more rewarding than real life… depends.

By: Trevor

Trevor — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:25:09 +0000

It is stupid to argue against something that can’t be proven empirically, because it can’t be disproven. This tactic removes it from the realm of an argument. Effectively taking down the net in a tennis game. This is also, incidentally the same argument that sentenced Gallileo to a tower for the rest of his life, because he dared to question the nature of the Universe. Heil Bible!