Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)

[onthafly]

OP your analogy is retarded 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 god 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 god, 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 god I hate when you jackasses bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as fuck.

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 god. You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be god. the whole concept of god was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like god 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 god and man.

I believe in god so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of god the bolded is bullshit 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 fucking thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.

I'm talking about the concept of a man-like god 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 god a hard atheist.

 

[LUClEN]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

 

[onthafly]

you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the fucking 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.

 

[zombie]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

 

[zombie]

OP your analogy is retarded 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 god 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 god, 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 god I hate when you jackasses bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as fuck.

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 god. You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be god. the whole concept of god was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like god 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 god and man.

I believe in god so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of god the bolded is bullshit 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 fucking thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.

I'm talking about the concept of a man-like god 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 god a hard atheist.

Hard atheism also called positive atheism is the stance that god does not exist it is an absolute statement weak atheism is simply not believing in god most atheist are weak atheist.

 

[onthafly]

Alright so a weak atheist basically doesn't believe that god exists but doesn't have the balls to state their beliefs? Anything further than that sounds too close to agnostic.

 

[zombie]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

 

[onthafly]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

 

[onthafly]

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.

 

[LUClEN]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

 

[zombie]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

 

[zombie]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

 

[LUClEN]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

 

[zombie]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Hard and weak atheism is as bullshit 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 shit. He's a hardcore 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 shit 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 shit 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.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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

We describe invisible things all the time because we can measure their real world impact on the visible, like light waves that can't be detected by our human optics, but they can be used to transmit data.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.

 

[onthafly]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

 

[LUClEN]

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 God. 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 god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god 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 god 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 god 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

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

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.

Description would destroy your deity's existence potential too

Also you are making Claims about the invisible pink unicorn's existence but have no evidence of its non-existence which is irrational

 

[onthafly]

http://i.word.com/idictionary/monster

meriam webster definition of a monster. As you can see there are multiple different definitions and only one of them uses the word imaginary. You can pick which one you want but there are several dictionaries in existence that all have multiple definitions for the same word. Not only that but those definitions can be changed. When you start letting those words dictate your understanding of something then you allow the person creating those definitions to control your thinking. Unless you're the guy trying to control someone's thinking by selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument.

Monster-

: a strange or horrible imaginary creature

: something that is extremely or unusually large

: a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems

Full Definition

1 a :an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure

b ne who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character

2 :a threatening force

3 a :an animal of strange or terrifying shape

b ne unusually large for its kind