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

[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.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

listen you stupid jackass it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters

Stop getting all emotional and shit over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a bitch then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a dumbass for even trying.

you don't even know what an adjective is you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position. stop or shut the duck up you did not even know the difference between hard and weak atheism you are unqualified to talk to me in this thread

I know what an adjective and a noun is. You're the clown who thinks the word monster only describes something real when used as an adjective despite the fact that I pointed you to several definitions of the word monster as a noun referring to non-imaginary things. I could care less about some classification of atheism thst only came into existence in 1976 but I find it funny how you think that you're somehow qualified for anything because you learned some other man's terms for over complicating a simple position.

under any of the meaning you gave for monster afflying spaghetti monster cannot exist

Really?

: something that is extremely or unusually large

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

So why exactly couldn't the flying spaghetti monster exist based on those definitions?

lol you cannot be this stupid

pasta cannot fly it is also very easily controlled

I'm well aware of that but you still don't seem to understand the point that's being made. You can't prove that some kind of being isn't in existence out there that you would consider ridiculous, not even with your current understanding of pasta and it's capabilities. You can try to rationalize it so it makes more sense logically but based on your very own argument of not being able to disprove the existence of a god that no one has seen, you can't honestly claim that any kind of deity, no matter how ridiculous you may find it, doesn't exist.

 

[zombie]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

 

[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.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

listen you stupid jackass it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters

Stop getting all emotional and shit over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a bitch then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a dumbass for even trying.

you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position.

I could care less about your position on hard atheism. I responded to your comments that you can't prove god doesn't exist by telling you that you couldn't disprove the existence of another being that you've never seen before. You've failed to disprove unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters just like anyone else would fail to disprove the existence of Yahweh, Osiris, Ra or whoever. The comment you originally posted had nothing to do with hard atheism and as I said earlier, I'm not reading through 11 pages just to watch you backtrack and try to change your position.

you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are fucking up the thread with bullshit

I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was bullshit and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.

"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"

That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.

 

[zombie]

I read the thread up to the point where you made the comment that I replied to. That's why I replied to it in the first place.

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.

What came later was after the fact. You didn't mention anything about positive or negative atheism.

In fact, I wasn't even speaking to you on the concept of atheism. I was explaining to you how it's your burden to prove that the god you claim to exist is real and not the burden of somebody who chooses not to believe in that god.

If you were paying attention to the thread you would have known that i don't believe that you can prove god or disprove him or that it is my burden to do so and that i don't find it irrational to be a weak atheist which is the position you just described in the bolded.

that's not what i have a problem with it's the hard atheist position that is irrational.

 

[onthafly]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of God.

 

[onthafly]

I read the thread up to the point where you made the comment that I replied to. That's why I replied to it in the first place.

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.

What came later was after the fact. You didn't mention anything about positive or negative atheism.

In fact, I wasn't even speaking to you on the concept of atheism. I was explaining to you how it's your burden to prove that the god you claim to exist is real and not the burden of somebody who chooses not to believe in that god.

If you were paying attention to the thread you would have known that i don't believe that you can prove god or disprove him or that it is my burden to do so and that i don't find it irrational to be a weak atheist which is the position you just described in the bolded.

that's not what i have a problem with it's the hard atheist position that is irrational.

Okay and for the third time now, I'm not going to search through 11 pages to watch you change your position or try to change the argument completely. My response was to the initial argument that even you seem to agree makes no sense. If you truly believed that the existence of god couldn't be proven or disproven then you should have just said so instead of claiming that you could disprove the existence of something else that you can't prove or disprove unless you're still not able to make the logical connection between the two.

 

[zombie]

if the description of the thing invalidates any chance of it being real for example an invisible pink unicorn or a flying creature made out of pasta. the very description destroys it's possibility of being real. However, Anything that is logically possible i cannot disprove that includes god and that fact is also a reason why hard atheism is illogical because being a hard atheist means you have taken an absolute stance that A GOD CANNOT EXIST. I said all THIS in this thread many times already.

 

[LUClEN]

if the description of the thing invalidates any chance of it being real for example an invisible pink unicorn or a flying creature made out of pasta. the very description destroys it's possibility of being real.

The description includes characteristics that are beyond your understanding, with which have no experience. Any claims about invisibility or monstrousness require experience of them to be valid. You have never observed it, therefore it is possible that they can exist as we do not know otherwise.

Your anicornism is still irrational

 

[zombie]

I read the thread up to the point where you made the comment that I replied to. That's why I replied to it in the first place.

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.

What came later was after the fact. You didn't mention anything about positive or negative atheism.

In fact, I wasn't even speaking to you on the concept of atheism. I was explaining to you how it's your burden to prove that the god you claim to exist is real and not the burden of somebody who chooses not to believe in that god.

If you were paying attention to the thread you would have known that i don't believe that you can prove god or disprove him or that it is my burden to do so and that i don't find it irrational to be a weak atheist which is the position you just described in the bolded.

that's not what i have a problem with it's the hard atheist position that is irrational.

Okay and for the third time now, I'm not going to search through 11 pages to watch you change your position or try to change the argument completely. My response was to the initial argument that even you seem to agree makes no sense. If you truly believed that the existence of god couldn't be proven or disproven then you should have just said so instead of claiming that you could disprove the existence of something else that you can't prove or disprove unless you're still not able to make the logical connection between the two.

OK then fuck off, i never changed a fucking thing you don't know my initial argument unless you read the 11 pages.

@ the bolded i did that multiple times you fucking jackass

I said i could disprove "things" god is not a thing therefore it is impossible to disprove him and any possibility of any kind of god existing is enough to make positive atheism irrational

 

[onthafly]

if the description of the thing invalidates any chance of it being real for example an invisible pink unicorn or a flying creature made out of pasta. the very description destroys it's possibility of being real. However, Anything that is logically possible i cannot disprove that includes god and that fact is also a reason why hard atheism is illogical because being a hard atheist means you have taken an absolute stance that A GOD CANNOT EXIST. I said all THIS in this thread many times already.

You only think it invalidates it because you believe that pasta can't fly just like we all believe that children's toys don't come to life when we're not looking. You can either take the invisible out of the pink unicorn or imagine that it's a shade of pink outside of the visible light spectrum that can only be seen with the third eye but the point still stands. There's no way for you to absolutely prove it to be false other than the fact that I'm obviously just making up some bullshit right now. The point is, how do you know the concept of god isn't bullshit that's been passed on for centuries? You can't and that's why people believe based on faith. Just because you can find a dictionary definition of god in modern times that seems like it could be a little less ridiculous doesn't mean that the first deities that were worshiped were any less ridiculous than a flying spaghetti monster or a unicorn. Plenty of gods are supposedly capable of doing things that aren't logically possible so it's erroneous to try to use logical possibilities to disprove something that could potentially have illogical abilities.

 

[zombie]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of God.

I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again fuck off.

 

[onthafly]

I read the thread up to the point where you made the comment that I replied to. That's why I replied to it in the first place.

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.

What came later was after the fact. You didn't mention anything about positive or negative atheism.

In fact, I wasn't even speaking to you on the concept of atheism. I was explaining to you how it's your burden to prove that the god you claim to exist is real and not the burden of somebody who chooses not to believe in that god.

If you were paying attention to the thread you would have known that i don't believe that you can prove god or disprove him or that it is my burden to do so and that i don't find it irrational to be a weak atheist which is the position you just described in the bolded.

that's not what i have a problem with it's the hard atheist position that is irrational.

Okay and for the third time now, I'm not going to search through 11 pages to watch you change your position or try to change the argument completely. My response was to the initial argument that even you seem to agree makes no sense. If you truly believed that the existence of god couldn't be proven or disproven then you should have just said so instead of claiming that you could disprove the existence of something else that you can't prove or disprove unless you're still not able to make the logical connection between the two.

OK then fuck off, i never changed a fucking thing you don't know my initial argument unless you read the 11 pages.

@ the bolded i did that multiple times you fucking jackass

I said i could disprove "things" god is not a thing therefore it is impossible to disprove him and any possibility of any kind of god existing is enough to make positive atheism irrational

I know everything you posted up to the post that I responded to which has nothing to do with hard and soft atheism and everything to do with the burden of proof. You seem to want to erase your previous statement more so than make any kind of legitimate point.

 

[onthafly]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of God.

I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again fuck off.

Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?

 

[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.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

listen you stupid jackass it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters

Stop getting all emotional and shit over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a bitch then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a dumbass for even trying.

you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position.

I could care less about your position on hard atheism. I responded to your comments that you can't prove god doesn't exist by telling you that you couldn't disprove the existence of another being that you've never seen before. You've failed to disprove unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters just like anyone else would fail to disprove the existence of Yahweh, Osiris, Ra or whoever. The comment you originally posted had nothing to do with hard atheism and as I said earlier, I'm not reading through 11 pages just to watch you backtrack and try to change your position.

you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are fucking up the thread with bullshit

I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was bullshit and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.

"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"

That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.

It's not you fucking idiot

ATHEISM BACKED BY SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT BACK ATHEISM.

 

[onthafly]

I read the thread up to the point where you made the comment that I replied to. That's why I replied to it in the first place.

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.

What came later was after the fact. You didn't mention anything about positive or negative atheism.

In fact, I wasn't even speaking to you on the concept of atheism. I was explaining to you how it's your burden to prove that the god you claim to exist is real and not the burden of somebody who chooses not to believe in that god.

If you were paying attention to the thread you would have known that i don't believe that you can prove god or disprove him or that it is my burden to do so and that i don't find it irrational to be a weak atheist which is the position you just described in the bolded.

that's not what i have a problem with it's the hard atheist position that is irrational.

Okay and for the third time now, I'm not going to search through 11 pages to watch you change your position or try to change the argument completely. My response was to the initial argument that even you seem to agree makes no sense. If you truly believed that the existence of god couldn't be proven or disproven then you should have just said so instead of claiming that you could disprove the existence of something else that you can't prove or disprove unless you're still not able to make the logical connection between the two.

I said i could disprove "things" god is not a thing therefore it is impossible to disprove him and any possibility of any kind of god existing is enough to make positive atheism irrational

alright so god being a noun, is he a person or place? Because people and places don't create universes from nothing or any of the other supernatural feats attributed to any god. Or do you want to finally acknowledge that you can't use the logical characteristics or the person place or thing that a deity is modeled after to determine that deities supernatural characteristics?

 

[zombie]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of God.

I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again fuck off.

Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?

No you fucking fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster.

 

[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.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

listen you stupid jackass it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters

Stop getting all emotional and shit over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a bitch then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a dumbass for even trying.

you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position.

I could care less about your position on hard atheism. I responded to your comments that you can't prove god doesn't exist by telling you that you couldn't disprove the existence of another being that you've never seen before. You've failed to disprove unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters just like anyone else would fail to disprove the existence of Yahweh, Osiris, Ra or whoever. The comment you originally posted had nothing to do with hard atheism and as I said earlier, I'm not reading through 11 pages just to watch you backtrack and try to change your position.

you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are fucking up the thread with bullshit

I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was bullshit and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.

"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"

That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.

It's not you fucking idiot

ATHEISM BACKED BY SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT BACK ATHEISM.

I never said it was. I was just pointing out that you called it science backed atheism but somehow you missed that. Perhaps your letting your internet feelings cloud your judgment?

 

[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.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

listen you stupid jackass it's not atheism that's illogical it's hard atheism. and I have disproved all made up creatures from invisible pink unicorn to flying spaghetti monsters

Stop getting all emotional and shit over an internet post. If you can't disagree without acting like a bitch then maybe the internet isn't for you. You've failed to disprove anything and you look like a dumbass for even trying.

you have not been paying attention to the thread and as a result you have been asking me nothing but stupid questions and oversimplified my position.

I could care less about your position on hard atheism. I responded to your comments that you can't prove god doesn't exist by telling you that you couldn't disprove the existence of another being that you've never seen before. You've failed to disprove unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters just like anyone else would fail to disprove the existence of Yahweh, Osiris, Ra or whoever. The comment you originally posted had nothing to do with hard atheism and as I said earlier, I'm not reading through 11 pages just to watch you backtrack and try to change your position.

you don't want to read the thread then shut up with what you think you know about what I have said you are fucking up the thread with bullshit

I understand. You took a stupid position and tried to change it later in the thread so you were hoping that it just got buried in the rest of the thread. The rest of this thread doesn't change the fact that your initial argument was bullshit and trying to redefine your argument doesn't change that fact either.

"you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational"

That statement alone is a contradiction. If atheism was backed by science as you put it then it would be completely ration. I don't expect this to include atheism backed by misunderstandings of science.

It's not you fucking idiot

ATHEISM BACKED BY SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL BECAUSE SCIENCE DOES NOT BACK ATHEISM.

I never said it was. I was just pointing out that you called it science backed atheism but somehow you missed that. Perhaps your letting your internet feelings cloud your judgment?

I am done with you nigga you are too fucking stupid to talk to me

 

[onthafly]

If you were smart enough you would have known i was talking about hard atheism but being a dunce you could not figure out what was evident to anyone with a proper education. There are two kinds of atheism hard or soft BOTH forms of atheism are pertinent to the discussion.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or are you really that dumb? Hard and soft atheism may be pertinent to a discussion you had with someone else but not to the discussion about the who the burden of proof falls on when discussing the existence of God.

I addressed this already within the 11 pages you won't read so once again fuck off.

Okay so you basically recanted your previous statement in the 11 pages I wouldn't read. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that instead of claiming that you could disprove unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters that for all you know falls into the deity category rather than a regular plate of pasta that just decided to start flying?

No you fucking fool i expounded upon my statements within those 11 pages i recanted nothing and i did disprove the unicorns and spaghetti monster.

You take this internet thing way to seriously buddy. And I still don't think you've dis-proven anything. Additionally if you really think that you've dis-proven the existence of a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster that for all either of us know is a god himself, then I don't think you understand the very statement that you're saying we agree upon with what can and can't be dis-proven.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat you still have not answered my question