Help me refute this argument "proving" god. Lets use our collective intelligence!
Posted Mar 28, 2012, 11:40 AM UTC
010
This is not an argument "proving" gods. This is an uneducated view of atheism.
4
As soon as the babies are born "mom" throws the one who didn't believe in an oven.
3
...but she loves them both equally and unconditionally.
3
here, let me show you. Put your hand on your belly. Feel that tube protruding from it? Follow it. You can actually touch mom, silly.
2
If babies assumed there was a Mom regardless of lack of evidence.
Baby 1 "I believe Mom is blonde and she loves me" Baby 2: "I believe Mom is black haired and she loves me" Baby in the womb fight based on unprovable assertions!!!
2
The sad thing is that she is a redhead.
1
Do they gain or lose anything in whether or not they believe? Nope? Then this is nothing like believing in God.
1
I bet the person who came up with this thought they were about the most clever person on the planet. Religion hasn't anything to do with truth or reality, those things aren't understood or else they are feared on some level. Religion is probably more about getting yourself and other to believe a bunch of nonsense despite observations, common sense and evidence to the contrary.
1
[deleted]
0
[deleted]
0
I see nothing wrong there, they shouldn't believe in mom as long as they don't have proof of mom.
EDIT: However, if they could do science in the womb they would be able to test the existence of mom, and whether there's something beyond.
perfect answer.