Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
-
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. -
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, you want to fight christians go to another thread i was talking about ? that ? does not have to be the christian one.
This thread was about the illogical nature of atheism I HAVE PROVEN IN THIS thread that hard atheism/atheism that is backed by science is not a logical position to stand on. -
housemouse wrote: »OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in ? I hate when you ? bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as ? . -
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 -
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, you want to fight christians go to another thread i was talking about ? that ? does not have to be the christian one.
This thread was about the illogical nature of atheism I HAVE PROVEN IN THIS thread that hard atheism/atheism that is backed by science is not a logical position to stand on.
Please do disprove the flying spaghetti monster. You said you were a christian in you're thread so whether or not you claim to be referring to the christian ? right now it's obvious which one you believe to be responsible for all of creation. You can't prove that a ? exists all because ? is just a man made title. -
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
-
housemouse wrote: »OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in ? I hate when you ? bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as ? .
So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a ? . You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be ? . the whole concept of ? was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like ? a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are ? and man. -
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
So does that mean monster trucks aren't real too? A definition of a word is just that. It's not a law written in stone. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in ? I hate when you ? bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as ? .
So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a ? . You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be ? . the whole concept of ? was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like ? a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are ? and man.
I believe in ? so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of ? the bolded is ? people believed in gods before there were kings in africa. all over the planet from as far back as any one can trace people believed in gods and the supernatural and that goes for people who had no real contract with africa.
you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the ? thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in ? I hate when you ? bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as ? .
So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a ? . You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be ? . the whole concept of ? was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like ? a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are ? and man.
I believe in ? so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of ? the bolded is ? people believed in gods before there were kings in africa. all over the planet from as far back as any one can trace people believed in gods and the supernatural and that goes for people who had no real contract with africa.
you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the ? thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.
I'm talking about the concept of a man-like ? that so many religions believe in today just like they believed in the ancient civilizations. That started with deifying kings and ancestors. Sure some civilizations may have worshiped stones at some earlier point in history but that doesn't mean that they credited those inanimate objects as the origin of all creation or anything else that they couldn't explain. And please explain to me what hard atheism is. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure nobody practices atheism religiously. It seems like sensitive theists like to consider anyone who puts up a strong logical argument against blindly believing in a ? a hard atheist. -
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 -
you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the ? thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.
And I'm not reading through 11 pages just to see you try to backtrack on what you're initial post made pretty clear. You get one first impression.
-
housemouse wrote: »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
So does that mean monster trucks aren't real too? A definition of a word is just that. It's not a law written in stone.
lol you do know words can be adjectives a monster truck is just a truck -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »OP your analogy is ? and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called ? rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it ? , the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.
don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in ? I hate when you ? bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as ? .
So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a ? . You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be ? . the whole concept of ? was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like ? a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are ? and man.
I believe in ? so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of ? the bolded is ? people believed in gods before there were kings in africa. all over the planet from as far back as any one can trace people believed in gods and the supernatural and that goes for people who had no real contract with africa.
you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the ? thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.
I'm talking about the concept of a man-like ? that so many religions believe in today just like they believed in the ancient civilizations. That started with deifying kings and ancestors. Sure some civilizations may have worshiped stones at some earlier point in history but that doesn't mean that they credited those inanimate objects as the origin of all creation or anything else that they couldn't explain. And please explain to me what hard atheism is. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure nobody practices atheism religiously. It seems like sensitive theists like to consider anyone who puts up a strong logical argument against blindly believing in a ? a hard atheist.
Hard atheism also called positive atheism is the stance that ? does not exist it is an absolute statement weak atheism is simply not believing in ? most atheist are weak atheist. -
Alright so a weak atheist basically doesn't believe that ? exists but doesn't have the ? to state their beliefs? Anything further than that sounds too close to agnostic.
-
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. -
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.
-
I'm going to take the intelligent design concept that I hear so many people talking about and explain my point of view in another way that hopefully makes more sense. You assume that because it's so complex or because it appears to be beautiful that it must have been by design but isn't it possible that you've been conditioned simply by exposure to the natural world to see nature as beautiful? Man could try to reproduce nature and that might make it intelligent design but that doesn't mean that nature had to go through the same intellectual process to produce something as complex. I'm just looking at the other side of the coin. Some people look at nature and it's complexity and they assume "If man and all his intelligence is only able to create a computer that's nowhere near as complex as the human brain, then whoever/whatever created the human brain must be even more intelligent". I don't believe that it took intelligence to create the universe. That's just another artificial measure created by humans who aren't as intelligent as we think we are. Again, I'm not going to read through 11 pages to wait for you to clarify a point and maybe you did prove something about hard atheism buried in one of these pages but I've got to disagree with the initial post. There's nothing illogical about atheism because at the end of the day, that too is just another superficial label placed on somebody for not believing in a deity that they may have never been given any reason to believe.
-
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.
Now disprove the invisible pink unicorn -
housemouse wrote: »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. -
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.
Now disprove the invisible pink unicorn
Ok to begin with you cannot have an invisible unicorn because a unicorn has a human created description and for it to have a human given description it would mean that it would have to be visible.
you also cannot be invisible and be pink -
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.
Now disprove the invisible pink unicorn
Ok to begin with you cannot have an invisible unicorn because a unicorn has a human created description and for it to have a human given description it would mean that it would have to be visible.
you also cannot be invisible and be pink
You can't know that for sure, you're just speculating
it's invisible and you can't have knowledge of it only think you do'
Therefore it is possible it exists -
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.
Now disprove the invisible pink unicorn
Ok to begin with you cannot have an invisible unicorn because a unicorn has a human created description and for it to have a human given description it would mean that it would have to be visible.
you also cannot be invisible and be pink
You can't know that for sure, you're just speculating
it's invisible and you can't have knowledge of it only think you do'
Therefore it is possible it exists
actually for you to say that it's pink that means you have knowledge of it otherwise you could not say it was pink and that's no speculation your own description destroys any chance of an invisible pink unicorn existing. -
Hard and weak atheism is as ? as hard and soft porn. You still a freak in the sheets displaying your goods. The guy who came up with that is full of ? . He's a ? Christian now. You basically either blindly agree with the stance of theist whom offer no proof. It's a distraction. No wonder dude became religious, he added all this unnecessary ? on top of a simple position of pointing out the lack of facts and indoctrination into fantasies and superstitions.
Dudes up in here reading fiction novels talking about Dracula is real. No, it's obvious some dude created the story just like people created stories in the bible an the Koran and all those other fictional novels. Science has nothing to do with Atheism and to juxtapose the two is fictitious. What scientist do you know that is going around actively attempting to prove a fallacy with nothing to work with?
A scientist offering their opinion on the subject of the universe based on ? they discovered is just that. If they decide to write a bible and relied strictly on belief surrounding and unproven fact, they would be drummed out of the building. You can ponder all you want, but the proof is in the pudding and theist do not have the recipe.