Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
housemouse wrote: »So is the argument being made nowhousemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.
I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another.
I can't prove that the universe was always in existence in one form or another, but most currently held beliefs in science states that it wasn't.All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.
Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
If you know something that most cosmetologists don't know, maybe you should speak up. -
housemouse wrote: »So is the argument being made nowhousemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.
I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another.
I can't prove that the universe was always in existence in one form or another, but most currently held beliefs in science states that it wasn't.All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.
Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
If you know something that most cosmetologists don't know, maybe you should speak up.
First off, a theory doesn't equal proof. Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form. -
housemouse wrote: »First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..
I concur.housemouse wrote: »Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form
I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator? -
housemouse wrote: »First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..
I concur.housemouse wrote: »Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form
I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator?
I haven't reached any conclusion. I just asked you to prove that the laws of conservation of energy and mass don't apply to the universe. I'm also going to correct my post. The article says that the beginning of real time can be determined by the state of imaginary time, not necessarily the end of imaginary time. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..
I concur.housemouse wrote: »Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form
I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator?
I haven't reached any conclusion. I just asked you to disprove that the laws of conservation of energy and mass don't apply to the universe. I'm also going to correct my post. The article says that the beginning of real time can be determined by the state of imaginary time, not necessarily the end of imaginary time.
Why would I do that? -
Meant prove typing on a phone.
-
That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?
-
That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?
No. Not religious either. Personally I believe that ? exists in every living thing. I just disagree with the statement that atheism is illogical. -
That theory is an Interesting read though.
-
housemouse wrote: »
It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.
Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is. -
housemouse wrote: »
It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.
Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is.
What leap in logic are you talking about? Until someone introduces the concept of a ? to you and you start believing it then you're atheist by definition whether you call yourself that or not. There's nothing illogical about not believing in ? or a ? that created the universe especially if that person has never seen concrete evidence of a ? . -
housemouse wrote: »
It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.
Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is.
Theism by its very nature is a simple belief. The Dogma is attached to religion. Atheism as murky as the word is, is simply the denial of the beliefs posited by theist because of the lack evidence. Simple as that. All that strong and weak atheist ? poisoned the well. You are a atheist by the very nature of your position that theism is illogical. Or isn't it? I'm not sure that that is your stance because, instead of supporting the argument that ? as presented has no backing evidence or Scientific or Mathematical theoretical support, you are exclusively arguing in support of it being the only accurate theory and dismissing all scientific investigative attempts. I'm not with any of these labels. Prove it, actually show your attempts to prove it, or ? . -
On the other hand, a person claiming to know the origins of the universe whether based on science or religion and holding a position that he would never change even in the face of evidence would be illogical. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in ? or gods and there's nothing illogical about lacking belief in something that hasn't been proven to exist.
-
Let me use an example. The theory you posted on that Steven Hawkins website proposes that the universe is self contained and you don't need to look to an external factor for the creation of the universe. That's just one unproven theory as is the idea that an external being with no beginning or end created the universe. Why is it illogical to lack belief in one of those contradicting theories and not the other? Unless you're saying that both atheism and theism is illogical in which case the only way to be logical is to be agnostic.
-
housemouse wrote: »Let me use an example. The theory you posted on that Steven Hawkins website proposes that the universe is self contained and you don't need to look to an external factor for the creation of the universe. That's just one unproven theory as is the idea that an external being with no beginning or end created the universe. Why is it illogical to lack belief in one of those contradicting theories and not the other? Unless you're saying that both atheism and theism is illogical in which case the only way to be logical is to be agnostic.
What they are presenting is not a theory. It is hypothesis. It's like presenting the topic to your thesis paper and never turning it in. We learned this in basic science. Using it any other way is just colloquial. Basically, it's not just a defined term, it's the results of the practice of the scientific method created for accurate presentation and study through experimentation based on observable and measurable evidence which is peer reviewed. It is presented with evidence and once proven without a doubt, it is law.
-
My mistake. But to the best of my knowledge,theism isn't a theory in the scientific sense either.
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/monster
meriam webster definition of a monster. As you can see there are multiple different definitions and only one of them uses the word imaginary. You can pick which one you want but there are several dictionaries in existence that all have multiple definitions for the same word. Not only that but those definitions can be changed. When you start letting those words dictate your understanding of something then you allow the person creating those definitions to control your thinking. Unless you're the guy trying to control someone's thinking by selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument.
Monster-
: a strange or horrible imaginary creature
: something that is extremely or unusually large
: a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems
Full Definition
1 a :an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
b :one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 :a threatening force
3 a :an animal of strange or terrifying shape
b :one unusually large for its kind
words also don't exist on their own you cannot just use any ? meaning for any ? word or you lose the concept and lose the purpose of communication
How do you think slang and different dialects come into existence? And I never said you could use any meaning for any word. I said and demonstrated that there are already multiple meanings for the same word. You just selectively chose which meaning you wanted to apply to fit your argument.
THE ONLY thing slang does is convey the same concepts by the use of a new word. All the meanings of the word monster actually fit my point. pasta is not an animal, plant or force nor can it fly it has no behavior or character
Just because you've never seen flying pasta doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
what is pasta -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters
Stop getting all emotional and ? over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a ? then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a ? for even trying. -
This ? done went and posted to my facebook. I can't have all my religious family members know that I'm arguing in favor of atheism.
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters
Stop getting all emotional and ? over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a ? then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a ? for even trying.
you don't even know what an adjective is you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position. stop or shut the duck up you did not even know the difference between hard and weak atheism you are unqualified to talk to me in this thread -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters
Stop getting all emotional and ? over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a ? then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a ? for even trying.
you don't even know what an adjective is you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position. stop or shut the duck up you did not even know the difference between hard and weak atheism you are unqualified to talk to me in this thread
I know what an adjective and a noun is. You're the clown who thinks the word monster only describes something real when used as an adjective despite the fact that I pointed you to several definitions of the word monster as a noun referring to non-imaginary things. I could care less about some classification of atheism thst only came into existence in 1976 but I find it funny how you think that you're somehow qualified for anything because you learned some other man's terms for over complicating a simple position. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters
Stop getting all emotional and ? over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a ? then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a ? for even trying.
you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position.
I could care less about your position on hard atheism. I responded to your comments that you can't prove ? doesn't exist by telling you that you couldn't disprove the existence of another being that you've never seen before. You've failed to disprove unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters just like anyone else would fail to disprove the existence of Yahweh, Osiris, Ra or whoever. The comment you originally posted had nothing to do with hard atheism and as I said earlier, I'm not reading through 11 pages just to watch you backtrack and try to change your position. -
Additionally I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you understood logic when I told you how the burden of proof is on the person making the claim but then you went on to talk about how you could prove a table existed so I gave you the flying spaghetti monster. I would have thrown a visible unicorn at you as well but I figured the flying spaghetti monster would have made the point clear. You can't disprove the existence of something. You can only make assumptions based on lack of evidence.
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
listen you stupid ? it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters
Stop getting all emotional and ? over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a ? then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a ? for even trying.
you don't even know what an adjective is you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position. stop or shut the duck up you did not even know the difference between hard and weak atheism you are unqualified to talk to me in this thread
I know what an adjective and a noun is. You're the clown who thinks the word monster only describes something real when used as an adjective despite the fact that I pointed you to several definitions of the word monster as a noun referring to non-imaginary things. I could care less about some classification of atheism thst only came into existence in 1976 but I find it funny how you think that you're somehow qualified for anything because you learned some other man's terms for over complicating a simple position.
then shut the ? up I am only talking about one kind of atheism.under any of the meaning you gave for monster afflying spaghetti monster cannot exist
