I am superior to theists and atheists.

Atheists go around all the time going "WHY DOES GOD LET EVIL HAPPEN" and theists never have an answer.

Well I have an answer, but it's wrong because it is based on the assumption that god exists and is benevolent. So I am both superior to atheists who are incapable of self criticism and I am superior to theists who are plain ignorant.

Assuming god exists and is benevolent. The answer is that we are wrong. The things that we consider evil are in fact good in the larger scale of things.

Maybe the rape victim goes to heaven whilst the rapist goes to hell and in the eternity that followed the rape turns out to be an infinitely small event in the larger scale of things, 1/infinity=0 after all. Maybe there is some divine wisdom we are unaware of.

Regardless there is nothing to suggest god exists in the first place so if a theist plagiarises this their point is moot. Also I am agnostic and I thought of this, I am not an atheist, proving I am of superior intellect. Unlike theists I am debating with people who read volumes of Dawkin's garble, not retarded bible camp nuts so I have every reason to make it seem as though I am intellectually superior.

So the jist of my argument is this.

Theists. If you are to afraid to think of whatever you want you have a serious psychological problem.

Atheists. You're not superior übermen after all, there are a lot more people out there with different opinions who are more intelligent than you. SHOCK HORROR!! All you have done is pick on a group of people with psychological problems.

And I'm done.

>>1
Actually on further note, on a total good/evil graph it would mean that the evil that occurred would get closer and closer to, but never quite reach 0. God would have to reward the rape victim in order to get it above 0. Which is what heaven is for.

or god just warps logic and does whatever it wants because god is omnipotent etc..

wf34t

good and evil don't exist and are just aesthetical scales. Atheists who believe in good or evil are plain fucking stupid and probably faggit humanists.

>Atheists go around all the time going "WHY DOES GOD LET EVIL HAPPEN"

An atheist doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a god, thus whether said god lets evil happen or not is entirely irrelevant. Any atheist who makes a statement such as your quote does so for the sake of argument only (or else he is not an atheist).

I think you are not entirely understanding atheism. Your post seems to assume an atheist is questioning of god, or of holding a grudge against god in some way. If you make this assumption, you are not debating against atheism. If that is not the meaning you hoped for, please reconsider your words.

>Assuming god exists and is benevolent.

Ok then I will assume you aren't discussing atheism at all, then. Atheists are entirely excluded from your argument, now.

>Well I have an answer, but it's wrong because it is based on the assumption that god exists and is benevolent.

What kind of man makes an argument by declaring himself wrong before even stating the argument? Or is this not really your answer? Please choose your words more carefully because the meaning is not clear.

So far it just seems that your answer is that there is no answer, which is a pretty weak point to make (not to mention next to useless to anyone else).

>So I am both superior to atheists who are incapable of self criticism and I am superior to theists who are plain ignorant.

Two things here: 1) Declaring your own superiority is not a good way to make an argument. You are anonymous. I don't care how superior you feel about yourself. Make your claim and back it up with an argument. And 2) I think you will find many more self-critical atheists than you will find self-critical theists. Though, I'll admit that is just my own subjective opinion.

>The things that we consider evil are in fact good in the larger scale of things.

I don't think you realize exactly what evil is contained in your sentence.

>Maybe the rape victim goes to heaven whilst the rapist goes to hell

Maybe what? Of what consequence is their place in the afterlife to YOU if you are neither the rape victim nor the rapist? How do you want to live YOUR life right now? (I'm not speaking to you exactly, since it seems you are only eluding to an argument in theism here and not necessarily holding it as your own belief. But I could be mistaken.)

>and in the eternity that followed the rape turns out to be an infinitely small event in the larger scale of things,

This is only true if you hold the belief that the afterlife exists. If you do not hold such a belief, a rape could very well turn out to be a very BIG event in the scale of things (human life).

>Maybe there is some divine wisdom we are unaware of.

There's that "Maybe" again. So many maybe's doesn't make a very good argument, either. If you yourself aren't even sure of the words you are using, please reconsider them, for it does not help us to discover the point you are trying to make.

>Also I am agnostic and I thought of this, I am not an atheist, proving I am of superior intellect.

You have not proven anything. By now, you've barely even made a coherent argument, or even led us to understand what it even is that you believe.

>Unlike theists I am debating with people who read volumes of Dawkin's garble, not retarded bible camp nuts so I have every reason to make it seem as though I am intellectually superior.

So by discrediting the entire remainder of the world's population within a single statement (besides agnostics I'm presuming? Though you don't directly include them in your ring of superiority) you've declared yourself superior. Way to go, anonymous, you've made your point. You should be writing books or selling T-shirts or something.

>So the jist of my argument is this.

Oh, finally, we're getting to a conclusion.

>there are a lot more people out there with different opinions who are more intelligent than you. SHOCK HORROR!!

I KNOW that there are a lot of people out there more intelligent than me. In fact it is incredibly likely. To claim intellictual superiority over the entire world would be an ENORMOUS position to undertake. But somehow you've managed to do it in less than a full page of text!

>All you have done is pick on a group of people with psychological problems.

And we know that there is no end to them, either. So it is really of no difficulty to pick on them. It has never been so easy to be intellectually superior!!!!!11

>And I'm done.

Finally. I thought that your 9 tiny paragraphs of text would never end. Now I can rest easy knowing how superior you are and sleep happily forever. If only I could reach your level of enlightenment. Maybe someday I will get there, too...

my, aren't we impressed with ourselves?

Are those the same fingers you stick inside your mom?

>>6
Stop nitpicking. I cannot mean atheists believed in god (HAHa Are you seriously incapable of understanding the concept of an atheist hypothetically assuming god exists?). It cannot be my argument if I've stated it is wrong. I said several times that I don't assume god exists and several hints as to why I did so, but it seems you lack the reasonning skills to figure out why. I guess it's my fault for over-estimating you.

Atheists are part of the argument as they think they keep on repeating logical contradictions they think they've found the most popular being "IF GOD EXISTS, WHY WOULD GOD LET EVIL HAPPEN". Nitpick at this all you want, atheists repeat arguments like this almost perpetually.

First off theists are wrong because there is nothing to suggest god exists.

The atheists are wrong also because all they do is constantly belittle and mock theists and pretend they are superior, when in fact any person could contend with them in debate on the theists side if they wanted and make them look like idiots.

If you nitpick at the fact that I was being hypothetical and stated clearly several times that I was working under the assumption there is a god then you need to cry harder.

>>9
LOL U DID TEH TYPOEZ!!!1

OP is 14 and a little retarded

>>11
your mom is 41 and a little retarded, but that doesn't stop me fucking her

>Nitpick at this all you want, atheists repeat arguments like this almost perpetually.

I guess that you and I have met different atheists, then.

>The atheists are wrong also because all they do is constantly belittle and mock theists and pretend they are superior,

Ok, now I KNOW that you and I have met different atheists.

>If you nitpick at the fact that I was being hypothetical and stated clearly several times that I was working under the assumption there is a god then you need to cry harder.

The only problem is you weren't being hypothetical. You were supposing the statement to be true to discredit the atheistic position. It wasn't clear what kind of point you were trying to make at the time, other than how superior you were over them, without actually stating exactly "HOW", other than a thinly worded application of the "because I say so" argument.

If you want others to understand you, you need to learn how to make coherent arguments. If all you want to do is declare yourself superior to others, then you will probably always fail at arguing, anyway. Unless you can provide some sort of substantial evidence to support your claim (which I didn't find a single piece of in your posts yet).

Until you do, I will nitpick. Because that's the only way to reply to posts where no intelligent point is even hinted at.

>>1
This is sum sad trolling attempt
>>12
forget your triptroll tripcode for tripfail, tripfag