Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.
Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of ? .
I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again ? off.
Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?
No you ? fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »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 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.
you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are ? up the thread with ?
I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was ? and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.
"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"
That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.
It's not you ? idiot
ATHEISM BACKED BY SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT BACK ATHEISM.
I never said it was. I was just pointing out that you called it science backed atheism but somehow you missed that. Perhaps your letting your internet feelings cloud your judgment? -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »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 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.
you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are ? up the thread with ?
I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was ? and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.
"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"
That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.
It's not you ? idiot
ATHEISM BACKED BY SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT BACK ATHEISM.
I never said it was. I was just pointing out that you called it science backed atheism but somehow you missed that. Perhaps your letting your internet feelings cloud your judgment?
I am done with you ? you are too ? stupid to talk to me -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.
Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of ? .
I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again ? off.
Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?
No you ? fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster.
You take this internet thing way to seriously buddy. And I still don't think you've dis-proven anything. Additionally if you really think that you've dis-proven the existence of a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster that for all either of us know is a ? himself, then I don't think you understand the very statement that you're saying we agree upon with what can and can't be dis-proven. -
@trashboat you still have not answered my question
-
http://www.venganza.org/
He's got a church so I'm pretty sure the flying spaghetti monster is a ? and not a thing, therefore you can't dis-prove his existence by your own logic. Unless you've got some kind of ? meter than can point out false deities. I've got to also remember to update my definition of noun to person, place, thing or ? . -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.
Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of ? .
I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again ? off.
Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?
No you ? fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster.
You take this internet thing way to seriously buddy. And I still don't think you've dis-proven anything. Additionally if you really think that you've dis-proven the existence of a unicorn a a flying spaghetti monster that for all either of us know is a ? himself, then I don't think you understand the very statement that you're saying we agree upon with what can and can't be dis-proven.
I take most things serious now ? off a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster can not be ? in his wholeness because both things real or made up would be creations. This is my last post to you now ? off -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.
Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of ? .
I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again ? off.
Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?
No you ? fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster.
You take this internet thing way to seriously buddy. And I still don't think you've dis-proven anything. Additionally if you really think that you've dis-proven the existence of a unicorn a a flying spaghetti monster that for all either of us know is a ? himself, then I don't think you understand the very statement that you're saying we agree upon with what can and can't be dis-proven.
I take most things serious now ? off a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster can not be ? in his wholeness because both things real or made up would be creations. This is my last post to you now ? off
How do you know the flying spaghetti monster didn't make spaghetti in his image? I'll also take your silence as a concession if you so desire. -
But you have no evidence against ?
We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.
That's not good enough to make a statement like ? does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeingExperiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.
our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of ? .Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.
Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.
just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove ? .To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.
All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheismI do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.
certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of ? should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively provenThank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrationalI am still as sure that no ? exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.
It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about ? .HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument
His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at allNo it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like ? a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.If ? = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.
In a way ? is his law and the law is ? , in a sense ? is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and ? . so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be ? all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about ? and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that ? does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about ? has to be, when will you atheist understand that
The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.
But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about ? you have to talk about the non physical
there being a logical possibility is enoughWhat we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.
I presume you reject it?
i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibilityis it possible for a ? to exist???
Define ? . Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.
the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.
Great meaning power?
That seems unknowable without omniscience of some kind, because until one knows how powerful every being in the universe is they cannot undoubtedly know that the being they are calling ? is the most powerful.
Moreover, I doubt the universe was created with intention by a being. That seems like something we would have evidence of. -
Just had a convo about evolution as it pertains to speciation. Folks thought I didn't understand (when I obviously do understand the elementary concept that's been contrived for thousands of years even before Darwin) it just cause I don't agree with it in its total frame of thought, specifically where it states "every single living organism was once one organism and due to billions of years passing slowly or quickly they mutated and changed/evolved into the billions of species we see today." Now b/c I'm trying not to hog other folks posts I'm just saying if a billion species are on the earth and a billion more ain't even here no more, you're running out of DAMN billions of years to talk about species slowly by the millions or billions of years to evolve from one or 10 species to the billions we have and had. Arithmetic/basic thought should challenge it. It don't even add up. How long is it gonna take for a species to go from fish to human (I'm a laugh at stuff like fleas, giraffes, rhinoceri, dinosaurs, aids, cancers, plants)? It don't matter how slow it take or quick, the point is someone silly enough to say it.
Again, Stiff (since you probably think I'm crazy for what I just said) I'll get back on your point of there is just way to much order the world exists on at all times and even the moon and sun operate off for me to rationally convince myself that through all this order that it came from chaos.
Back to my other riff/rant I'm not saying people or the world wasn't created or done in a way that we don't know about but I am saying that I don't completely buy the speciation theory (I do believe species can mutate/adapt according to the mutations already within their cells or through diseases invading their cells but more often than not like 99% of the time that species dies off from the plague or just adapts and does not change its kind/human kind/monkey kind/plant kind/fish kind and not a plant becomes a flamingo just because billions of years pass)and don't buy at all the big bang. Just cause it's been said and researched by scientists and in many ways can make sense doesn't mean it also doesn't have flaws also acknowledged by thousands of scientists who themselves admit the holes in speciation and the Big Bang don't add up and that it is a theory, but a theory based on a lot truths with some requirements of faith.
Recognizing things don't add up is a rare trait when popular thought is distributed and taught/forced on people Stiff. I don't know how the world was created but I would bet alot to say it wasn't no damn Big Bang or a comet floating around with the ingredients to life just right enough to match up with the distance from the sun and moon to stop the ocean right at lands, create lava to make earth, oxygen to breathe, death to make room for life, cells to replicate, rules that all species abide by for diet and sanity. I'm talking too much which and of itself isa degree of order, not to mention music,rhythms,patterns and rap music. Order up. Peace -
Don't know if you read Aristotle The Complete works, but you quoted his entire philosophyin order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.
-
Luke - your idea of speciation is a snake giving birth to a bear. Based on this I cannot reach the conclusion you understand the elementary concept.
Zombie losing his mind over Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters ... priceless. -
Luke - your idea of speciation is a snake giving birth to a bear. Based on this I cannot reach the conclusion you understand the elementary concept.
Zombie losing his mind over Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters ... priceless.
I am annoyed with stupid ass question that idiot ? up the thread with ? -
No i have never read aristotle but what i said is basically nothing more than logic and alexander vilenkin said -
But you have no evidence against ?
We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.
That's not good enough to make a statement like ? does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeingExperiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.
our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of ? .Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.
Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.
just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove ? .To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.
All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheismI do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.
certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of ? should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively provenThank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrationalI am still as sure that no ? exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.
It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about ? .HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument
His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at allNo it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like ? a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.If ? = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.
In a way ? is his law and the law is ? , in a sense ? is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and ? . so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be ? all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about ? and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that ? does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about ? has to be, when will you atheist understand that
The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.
But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about ? you have to talk about the non physical
there being a logical possibility is enoughWhat we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.
I presume you reject it?
i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibilityis it possible for a ? to exist???
Define ? . Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.
the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.
Great meaning power?
That seems unknowable without omniscience of some kind, because until one knows how powerful every being in the universe is they cannot undoubtedly know that the being they are calling ? is the most powerful.
Moreover, I doubt the universe was created with intention by a being. That seems like something we would have evidence of.
suppose this being does exist don't you think it would be easy for him to hide himself or better yet suppose he leaves lots of evidence that we have simply misunderstood to be something else or maybe we have not developed the senses yet to even see the evidence that exist all around us. -
Luke - your idea of speciation is a snake giving birth to a bear. Based on this I cannot reach the conclusion you understand the elementary concept.
Zombie losing his mind over Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters ... priceless.
I am annoyed with stupid ass question that idiot ? up the thread with ?
Since you can't see beyond your hand your own logic I'll define what you believe.
You believe (according to speciation) in the evolutionary formation of new biological species exist by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Now since you're dumb, let me spell it out. What you just read is "single species". Now that means, according to that theory, that if you keep tracing all species on earth of anything back that it should lead to either one organism/cell that at some point (according to speciation theory) divided itself into two species or three species and then every other species on earth (plant or animal). This is what your own theory states.
So, taking your theory into consideration this is supposed to take a lot of time for these changes/mutations to happen before [microevolution]all the mutations that exist in the species qualify it as having enough differences (I'm skipping science terms) to qualify it as a different species.
So, here's why my comparison is correct. At one point each new species that came from one species eventually gave birth in some way (due to environment, diet, etcetera) to a different species (a different species that shares many characteristics with the parent of the new species, but enough differences to be considered different after a lot of time has passed and the old/original species through natural selection has died off). After many more centuries pass then a new species is formed after the previous species and this process repeated itself until we have all the life we see here on earth [macroevolution].
So, back again to why I am correct is: who knows the order of the species in what came first and what came second (according to your theory it was cells and then those turned to fish and then fish transformed out of the water and began changing species to being land species) and that's where the snake giving birth to a bear is, because that's ultimately the gist of your dumb A theory, that again many scientists today are backing away from. Because what you're saying is one kind of species (primates, felinae, canine) at one point changed itself enough to birth others, thus all species came back from one similar ancestor. Thus whatever living thing your talking about (snake or bear) is according to this theory sharing at some point the same ancestor.
If this wasn't the case then what you would have to say would in fact discredit the entire theory.....and that is that many species (plants animals) spontaneously came about on earth and were parents of other species as it pertains to their genus/kind. Which of course, that leads you back to Intelligent Design. -
Luke - your idea of speciation is a snake giving birth to a bear. Based on this I cannot reach the conclusion you understand the elementary concept.
Zombie losing his mind over Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters ... priceless.
I am annoyed with stupid ass question that idiot ? up the thread with ?
Since you can't see beyond your hand your own logic I'll define what you believe.
You believe (according to speciation) in the evolutionary formation of new biological species exist by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Now since you're dumb, let me spell it out. What you just read is "single species". Now that means, according to that theory, that if you keep tracing all species on earth of anything back that it should lead to either one organism/cell that at some point (according to speciation theory) divided itself into two species or three species and then every other species on earth (plant or animal). This is what your own theory states.
So, taking your theory into consideration this is supposed to take a lot of time for these changes/mutations to happen before [microevolution]all the mutations that exist in the species qualify it as having enough differences (I'm skipping science terms) to qualify it as a different species.
So, here's why my comparison is correct. At one point each new species that came from one species eventually gave birth in some way (due to environment, diet, etcetera) to a different species (a different species that shares many characteristics with the parent of the new species, but enough differences to be considered different after a lot of time has passed and the old/original species through natural selection has died off). After many more centuries pass then a new species is formed after the previous species and this process repeated itself until we have all the life we see here on earth [macroevolution].
So, back again to why I am correct is: who knows the order of the species in what came first and what came second (according to your theory it was cells and then those turned to fish and then fish transformed out of the water and began changing species to being land species) and that's where the snake giving birth to a bear is, because that's ultimately the gist of your dumb A theory, that again many scientists today are backing away from. Because what you're saying is one kind of species (primates, felinae, canine) at one point changed itself enough to birth others, thus all species came back from one similar ancestor. Thus whatever living thing your talking about (snake or bear) is according to this theory sharing at some point the same ancestor.
If this wasn't the case then what you would have to say would in fact discredit the entire theory.....and that is that many species (plants animals) spontaneously came about on earth and were parents of other species as it pertains to their genus/kind. Which of course, that leads you back to Intelligent Design.
are you confusing me with some one else?? because evolution as you explained it is not my theory -
Speciation by way of Natural selection takes a long time, it isn't hard to understand. That's why most of the examples we have evidence of are the ones observed due to hybridization.
When a bear is born it is not born to a snake, or anything even remotely close to that dissimilar to a bear. It is born to something only slightly different. By presenting evolution in such a way as to make it seem like new species are produced over a single generation you have informed us all that you know very little on the matter. -
But you have no evidence against ?
We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.
That's not good enough to make a statement like ? does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeingExperiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.
our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of ? .Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.
Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.
just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove ? .To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.
All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheismI do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.
certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of ? should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively provenThank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrationalI am still as sure that no ? exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.
It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about ? .HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument
His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at allNo it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like ? a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.If ? = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.
In a way ? is his law and the law is ? , in a sense ? is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and ? . so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be ? all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about ? and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that ? does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about ? has to be, when will you atheist understand that
The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.
But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about ? you have to talk about the non physical
there being a logical possibility is enoughWhat we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.
I presume you reject it?
i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibilityis it possible for a ? to exist???
Define ? . Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.
the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.
Great meaning power?
That seems unknowable without omniscience of some kind, because until one knows how powerful every being in the universe is they cannot undoubtedly know that the being they are calling ? is the most powerful.
Moreover, I doubt the universe was created with intention by a being. That seems like something we would have evidence of.
suppose this being does exist don't you think it would be easy for him to hide himself or better yet suppose he leaves lots of evidence that we have simply misunderstood to be something else or maybe we have not developed the senses yet to even see the evidence that exist all around us.
Same could be said for the invisible pink unicorn -
But you have no evidence against ?
We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.
That's not good enough to make a statement like ? does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeingExperiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.
our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of ? .Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.
Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.
just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove ? .To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.
All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheismI do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.
certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of ? should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively provenThank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrationalI am still as sure that no ? exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.
It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about ? .HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument
His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at allNo it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like ? a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.If ? = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.
In a way ? is his law and the law is ? , in a sense ? is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and ? . so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be ? all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about ? and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that ? does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about ? has to be, when will you atheist understand that
The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.
But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about ? you have to talk about the non physical
there being a logical possibility is enoughWhat we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.
I presume you reject it?
i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibilityis it possible for a ? to exist???
Define ? . Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.
the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.
Great meaning power?
That seems unknowable without omniscience of some kind, because until one knows how powerful every being in the universe is they cannot undoubtedly know that the being they are calling ? is the most powerful.
Moreover, I doubt the universe was created with intention by a being. That seems like something we would have evidence of.
suppose this being does exist don't you think it would be easy for him to hide himself or better yet suppose he leaves lots of evidence that we have simply misunderstood to be something else or maybe we have not developed the senses yet to even see the evidence that exist all around us.
Same could be said for the invisible pink unicorn
You ? with this ? pink ? unicorn
you cannot be invisible and pink ok stop the ? . -
But you have no evidence against ?
We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.
That's not good enough to make a statement like ? does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeingExperiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.
our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of ? .Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.
Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.
just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove ? .To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.
All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheismI do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.
certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of ? should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively provenThank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrationalI am still as sure that no ? exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.
It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about ? .HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument
His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at allNo it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like ? a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.If ? = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.
In a way ? is his law and the law is ? , in a sense ? is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and ? . so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be ? all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about ? and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that ? does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about ? has to be, when will you atheist understand that
The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.
But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about ? you have to talk about the non physical
there being a logical possibility is enoughWhat we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.
I presume you reject it?
i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibilityis it possible for a ? to exist???
Define ? . Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.
the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.
Great meaning power?
That seems unknowable without omniscience of some kind, because until one knows how powerful every being in the universe is they cannot undoubtedly know that the being they are calling ? is the most powerful.
Moreover, I doubt the universe was created with intention by a being. That seems like something we would have evidence of.
suppose this being does exist don't you think it would be easy for him to hide himself or better yet suppose he leaves lots of evidence that we have simply misunderstood to be something else or maybe we have not developed the senses yet to even see the evidence that exist all around us.
Same could be said for the invisible pink unicorn
You ? with this ? pink ? unicorn
you cannot be invisible and pink ok stop the ? .
You have no experiences to validate that claim -
-
thread premise is intellectually lazy, stupid as ? and a cop out.
"i cant explain it, therefore... ? ." -
zombie, I wasn't talking to you at all. My bad, I was speaking to whar and I guess trashboat.
-
But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns
The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.
