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

[luke1733]

Speciation by way of Natural selection takes a long time, it isn't hard to understand. That's why most of the examples we have evidence of are the ones observed due to hybridization.

When a bear is born it is not born to a snake, or anything even remotely close to that dissimilar to a bear. It is born to something only slightly different. By presenting evolution in such a way as to make it seem like new species are produced over a single generation you have informed us all that you know very little on the matter.

Every observable instance of life on earth shows it has a parent, yet somehow I am to believe spontaneity created life. It doesn't add up no matter how many times you say it happens slowly.

Dude, it's a rat race. Just cause you keep repeating "it takes time" even after I acknowledge before that theory states "it takes time," doesn't make much of a difference to the point I'm making. Let me reach conclusion with you. That theory of speciation (which I've admitted I agree a specific species can change some features of itself, but my opposition is that it will still remain that kind of animal or species. It won't change species) gives itself a loophole that makes it non-debatable. Just because it's non-debatable doesn't mean its true. But it states, to protect itself, it happens so slow *punctuated equilibrium* that there isn't gonna be a real ability to trace the DNA, bones records, carbon, methane or any other trace method of when and what parent species is to the different species it gave birth to. Trust me, the world gets it. We were all taught it in elementary and watched that little film of the fish coming out the water and the monkey and then the caveman and then the human evolution. We know it. It doesn't make it true.

Christians say the parallel to the nondebatable also. If a cell with such complexity exists then it had to be created, thus their is a Creator. Some creationists say you can't get around everything comes from something--which is what speciation theory states. I say Just cause a statement or theory is phrased so in a careful way not to lend itself debatable according to its definition doesn't make it true and doesn't make it untrue.

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Answer it yes or no. No matter how you answer it doesn't really allow you address the fact that you may never have beat your wife.

The same way as just because the complete theory of speciation (I do believe in species within its kind being able to adapt to changes and have different characteristics but remain the same species) is not able to be proven on all grounds DOES NOT make it so that God exists. All I'm saying is, just because someone throws a theory out, doesn't mean it's right and not to be questioned just because people don't want it to be.

The way you all see Creationists as crazy is the same way I can see you all as crazy and translate it as:

"Somehow a planet called Earth floating with nothing on it, someway/somehow just one day happened to have some type of cell or organism on it or invade it that came from nowhere. * If you can believe that a cell this complex is floating around in the universe and never contacted Venus, Mars, or any other place and made life within billions of years but just so happened to contact earth and not only contact earth but bare within it every single thing necessary to replicate into two cells, three cells and form everything (plants, animals, rain, death, order, rules, laws of nature, music) you see to be able to perfectly exist within a foreign planet then I can say you have the right to believe what you want. I can understand the rationale, but it doesn't pass the smell test for me and many scientists and people in the world, but on the otherhand it does provide enough for also a lot of people.

The chances and requirements for pure luck, logically would not create such order by a chance encounter. Every observable instance of life on earth shows it has a parent, yet somehow I am to believe spontaneity created life. It doesn't add up no matter how many times you say it happens slowly.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

 

[whar]

You motherfuckers with this fucking pink faggot unicorn

you cannot be invisible and pink ok stop the bullshit.

How dare you, sir!!

It is by faith and holy scripture that we known our creator is pink.

It is by logic and rationalism that we know she is invisible, since no one has ever seen her.

Do not bring your silly physics into this trying to argue that color is a property of light and something pink could not be invisible. You are simply showing your ignorance of the theological implications of the holy duality that is the invisible pink unicorn.

 

[whar]

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

Congrats Zombie, you are a strong atheist.

 

[zombie]

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

Congrats Zombie, you are a strong atheist.

that reply made no fucking sense because hard atheist cannot refute the possible existence of any possible god I can however refute the existence of a pink invisible unicorn because you cannot be pink and also be invisible

 

[zombie]

You motherfuckers with this fucking pink faggot unicorn

you cannot be invisible and pink ok stop the bullshit.

How dare you, sir!!

It is by faith and holy scripture that we known our creator is pink.

It is by logic and rationalism that we know she is invisible, since no one has ever seen her.

Do not bring your silly physics into this trying to argue that color is a property of light and something pink could not be invisible. You are simply showing your ignorance of the theological implications of the holy duality that is the invisible pink unicorn.

I understand perfectly what you atheist are trying to say but you are using a stupid fucking example

 

[whar]

Zombie simply replace invisible and pink with any of the various impossible things assigned to God. Omniscience is as impossible as being invisible and pink. If you create scenarios for a God to retain an impossible feature like omniscience then those same scenarios can retain pinkness and invisibility of the Great Unicorn creator. The examples are meant to be silly, like pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters, because a lot of silliness gets assigned to God but is obscured by thousands of years of tradition and history.

Whether you accept or not the argument you put forward to dismiss the existence of the Pink Unicorn god is a strong atheist argument.

"something cannot be omniscience therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

"something cannot break the laws of physics therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

"something cannot be infinitely powerful therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

Those are all clear cut strong atheist arguments.

 

[zombie]

Zombie simply replace invisible and pink with any of the various impossible things assigned to God. Omniscience is as impossible as being invisible and pink. If you create scenarios for a God to retain an impossible feature like omniscience then those same scenarios can retain pinkness and invisibility of the Great Unicorn creator. The examples are meant to be silly, like pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters, because a lot of silliness gets assigned to God but is obscured by thousands of years of tradition and history.

Whether you accept or not the argument you put forward to dismiss the existence of the Pink Unicorn god is a strong atheist argument.

"something cannot be omniscience therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

"something cannot break the laws of physics therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

"something cannot be infinitely powerful therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence."

Those are all clear cut strong atheist arguments.

The problem is god has no definite descriptions unlike your invisible pink unicorn and indeed there are literally thousands if not millions of different possible understandings of what god is that vary wildly and that's not including the future ones.

Not everyone believes in a god that is omniscient not to mention that some people even have a different understanding of what it means to be omniscient in the first place.

we have observed that " laws of physics " as we understand ( which we really don't ) them are broken at the quantum level

also i can tell you why a pink unicorn is logically impossible. can you give me a reason why a being cannot be omnipotent??? unless hard atheist can disprove all possible descriptions of god the hard atheist position will remain an irrational one there is really no way around that fact AND that fact is why the vast majority of atheist are soft atheist.

 

[zombie]

To be a hard atheist and also be fully rational you have to show that the evidence proves that any kind of god logically cannot exist to be a soft atheist all you have to have in lack of belief in god you don't have to prove anything you just have to be unconvinced.

 

[whar]

"The problem is god has no definite descriptions unlike your invisible pink unicorn and indeed there are literally thousands if not millions of different possible understandings of what god is that vary wildly and that's not including the future ones."

One of which is a pink unicorn with the power of invisibility while retaining her pinkness.

"can you give me a reason why a being cannot be omnipotent???"

Because then it would have the power to be invisible and pink. This has been established as logically impossible.

 

[zombie]

"The problem is god has no definite descriptions unlike your invisible pink unicorn and indeed there are literally thousands if not millions of different possible understandings of what god is that vary wildly and that's not including the future ones."

One of which is a pink unicorn with the power of invisibility while retaining her pinkness.

"can you give me a reason why a being cannot be omnipotent???"

Because then it would have the power to be invisible and pink. This has been established as logically impossible.

another useless reply god being without any definite description means he cannot pink not to mention that

according to some people being omnipotent means god can do all things possible and not the impossible so that rules out invisible pink unicorns. Good try but you fail again.

 

[whar]

If I point to Yahweh he has a definition. If I point to Allah he has definition. If I point to Thor he has definition. All of these are Gods.

If I point to the Invisible Pink Unicorn she has a definition and is a God. You have no more power to claim Thor is not a God as you do to claim the Pink Unicorn is not.

After railing so hard about the concrete definition of "strong atheism" it is humorous to see you to scurry to the soft pudding definition for omnipotence. Omnipotence means "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything." And I agree with you such a being can not exists.

However if you want to assign any creator powers to this God, beyond the basic prime mover argument of the Deist, then I would like to quote my favorite poster

"something cannot be a Personal God therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence." Zombie - Strong Atheist

 

[zombie]

If I point to Yahweh he has a definition. If I point to Allah he has definition. If I point to Thor he has definition. All of these are Gods.

If I point to the Invisible Pink Unicorn she has a definition and is a God. You have no more power to claim Thor is not a God as you do to claim the Pink Unicorn is not.

After railing so hard about the concrete definition of "strong atheism" it is humorous to see you to scurry to the soft pudding definition for omnipotence. Omnipotence means "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything." And I agree with you such a being can not exists.

However if you want to assign any creator powers to this God, beyond the basic prime mover argument of the Deist, then I would like to quote my favorite poster

"something cannot be a Personal God therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence." Zombie - Strong Atheist

do you know how fucking stupid the bolded is ??

pointing to something is not describing it and yahweh and allah are only two gods for a hard atheist position to be rational you have to deal with all possible gods.

If god is personal or unpersonal either way hard atheism becomes irrational You are sadly under educated in a ideology you hold. you did not even know what hard atheism was i explained it to you you should thank me for bringing you out of ignorance.

Gods omnipotence and how it works has been in debate among theologians for centuries unlike atheism which has really only 2 positions hard of soft. Only the unlearned claim that omnipotence as applied to god is simply god being able to to anything. You lost the fucking debate be a man and accept it.

 

[zombie]

There being an invisible pink unicorn is logically impossible if you try to flip that reasoning around on god however it does not work because what god are you talking about??? and how can you describe him/her/it.

and if you attribute omnipotence omniscience or omnipresence to a deity then you have to define how they work together and how each individual attribute functions

 

[LUClEN]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

That's true but not for pink

pink is very visible so to say that anything covered in pink is invisible is wrong so once again we have the fact that something cannot be invisible and pink. If something is invisible to you but not to me then it is incorrect to call it invisible in the first place and if you cannot see pink how the fuck can you call it pink you would not know what pink is. This has become a juvenile and stupid argument.

 

[LUClEN]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

That's true but not for pink

pink is very visible so to say that anything covered in pink is invisible is wrong so once again we have the fact that something cannot be invisible and pink. If something is invisible to you but not to me then it is incorrect to call it invisible in the first place and if you cannot see pink how the fuck can you call it pink you would not know what pink is. This has become a juvenile and stupid argument.

There are many shades of pink and you have no way to specifically identify the one pertinent to the unicorn.

All of the absurdity of this argument is applicable to your deity.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

That's true but not for pink

pink is very visible so to say that anything covered in pink is invisible is wrong so once again we have the fact that something cannot be invisible and pink. If something is invisible to you but not to me then it is incorrect to call it invisible in the first place and if you cannot see pink how the fuck can you call it pink you would not know what pink is. This has become a juvenile and stupid argument.

There are many shades of pink and you have no way to specifically identify the one pertinent to the unicorn.

All of the absurdity of this argument is applicable to your deity.

Any shade of fucking pink will do because it would still be pink you can say nothing definitive about a nonphysical deity. You are arguing to be arguing you have nothing to say.

 

[LUClEN]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

That's true but not for pink

pink is very visible so to say that anything covered in pink is invisible is wrong so once again we have the fact that something cannot be invisible and pink. If something is invisible to you but not to me then it is incorrect to call it invisible in the first place and if you cannot see pink how the fuck can you call it pink you would not know what pink is. This has become a juvenile and stupid argument.

There are many shades of pink and you have no way to specifically identify the one pertinent to the unicorn.

All of the absurdity of this argument is applicable to your deity.

Any shade of fucking pink will do because it would still be pink you can say nothing definitive about a nonphysical deity. You are arguing to be arguing you have nothing to say.

Pinks that are visible are not relevant. You only have experiences with visible ones so you're speculation on invisible ones is unreliable.

I've clearly showed you how terrible your argument in favor of a deity is by way of application to an equally absurd entity.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat

I know what pink is and trust me i have experienced more than enough of my share of pink

But you have no observations of invisible things, unicorns or invisible unicorns

The conclusion you are drawing is thusly irrational as it is not proportional to the evidence. The claim that it logically can't exist cannot be known with certainty which makes it possible to exist. Like your deity.

something cannot be both invisible and pink therefore i don't need to have experience of it because it's description invalidates it's possible existence with 100% certainty you don't need evidence if something is logically impossible.

but once something is logically possible you cannot refute it's possible existence.

But you haven't shown it to be logically impossible. Simply saying that it is the case, without any analog to draw from, is not a necessary conclusion.

Moreover, many colors are invisible to us, due to where they are in the spectrum and how our eyes work. Women actually have greater ability to see color than men and can see many men cannot. Animals even more so. This in mind, you really cannot say it is impossible to be invisible and pink because many things are invisible yet have color.

That's true but not for pink

pink is very visible so to say that anything covered in pink is invisible is wrong so once again we have the fact that something cannot be invisible and pink. If something is invisible to you but not to me then it is incorrect to call it invisible in the first place and if you cannot see pink how the fuck can you call it pink you would not know what pink is. This has become a juvenile and stupid argument.

There are many shades of pink and you have no way to specifically identify the one pertinent to the unicorn.

All of the absurdity of this argument is applicable to your deity.

Any shade of fucking pink will do because it would still be pink you can say nothing definitive about a nonphysical deity. You are arguing to be arguing you have nothing to say.

Pinks that are visible are not relevant. You only have experiences with visible ones so you're speculation on invisible ones is unreliable.

I've clearly showed you how terrible your argument in favor of a deity is by way of application to an equally absurd entity.

if there was an arbiter you would have lost any debate with me many many posts ago

There is no such thing as invisible pink you idiot if there was i could not call it pink you clearly showed that you are a fucking sophist idiot. i cannot have an experience with invisible pink because such a thing cannot exist because to truthfully say something is pink means i have to see it therefore making it visible.

invisible pink unicorn are logically impossible and the atheism made that up to laugh at theist but really all they did was making themselves look foolish so You idiots can keep talking about invisible pink, until you have something even remotely intelligent to say it means nothing to me.