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

[LUClEN]

colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.

No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.

Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.

God is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.

You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of God necessary to prove that

It's possible God is an invisible man in the sky

learn to read I said that in Christianity God is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you fucking swine.

You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible God is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational

 

[zombie]

colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.

No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.

Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.

God is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.

You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of God necessary to prove that

It's possible God is an invisible man in the sky

learn to read I said that in Christianity God is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you fucking swine.

You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible God is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational

the teaching of Christianity do not say that God is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because God being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible

now you are trolling.

 

[zombie]

I have concluded what I wanted to do in this thread. I have proven hard atheism to be irrational. my opponents have been reduced to trolling and lying and as always pathetic misrepresentation of my clear and logical position. they want to talk about Christianity because the arguments against my position are weak.

their comparison of God to a invisible pink unicorn fails because of component fallacy.

the rest of their arguments are composed of straw men, red herrings and out right lies and misrepresentations. it is really too bad that this forum does not have an objective debate judge. because I slaughtered my opponents pages ago.

 

[LUClEN]

colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.

No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.

Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.

God is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.

You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of God necessary to prove that

It's possible God is an invisible man in the sky

learn to read I said that in Christianity God is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you fucking swine.

You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible God is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational

the teaching of Christianity do not say that God is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because God being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible

now you are trolling.

You have no certain evidence of the contrary though. Just like your rational in favor of the deity this means there is a possibility it can be true, thusly making it the case that your absolutism against it is irrational.

 

[LUClEN]

I have concluded what I wanted to do in this thread. I have proven hard atheism to be irrational. my opponents have been reduced to trolling and lying and as always pathetic misrepresentation of my clear and logical position. they want to talk about Christianity because the arguments against my position are weak.

their comparison of God to a invisible pink unicorn fails because of component fallacy.

the rest of their arguments are composed of straw men, red herrings and out right lies and misrepresentations. it is really too bad that this forum does not have an objective debate judge. because I slaughtered my opponents pages ago.

Not really. You did not prove God any more believable than a bird on my head. Any reference to a deity begs the question and you make an erroneous inductive assumption when you try to remedy this by saying that the universe must have a cause and that it cannot be nothingness. Attempts to try and prevent your deity from being refuted essentially led to you saying it is unknowable, which undermines your own argument and the soundness of your premises. You have little in the way of evidence to refute the strength of materialism, which strongly opposes deism. Ultimately your conclusion demands one appeal to ignorance in order to believe something is possible, which was exemplified by the equally nonsensical unicorn example but seems to have gone over your head.

 

[zombie]

it was. never my attempt to prove God you fucking idiot. and in any case there is no judge between us and to keep on arguing is a waste of time and worse it's boring me now

 

[zombie]

colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.

No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.

Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.

God is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.

You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of God necessary to prove that

It's possible God is an invisible man in the sky

learn to read I said that in Christianity God is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you fucking swine.

You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible God is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational

the teaching of Christianity do not say that God is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because God being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible

now you are trolling.

You have no certain evidence of the contrary though. Just like your rational in favor of the deity this means there is a possibility it can be true, thusly making it the case that your absolutism against it is irrational.

that makes no fucking sense

 

[LUClEN]

If you can't prove God any more believable than other unsupported beliefs, like the boogeyman, then it is as rational to reject theism as it is to reject them. Defeats your whole semantics debate regarding the certainty one can have regarding a deity.

It was indeed a waste of time considering how you fail time and time again to give any cogent reasoning as to why one would even consider a deity possible in the first place without begging the question, appealing to authority (whose expertise undermines your argument btw), resorting to circular reasoning, ad hominem, or appeals to ignorance. All that typing to have changed nothing.

 

[DarcSkies]

I have proven hard atheism to be irrational.

You've proven you're delusional and have an inflated sense of intellect.

If you could PROVE Atheism, theism, or any -ism related to religion right or wrong you wouldn't be on the IC you'd be on a world wide book tour making millions and spending half of it on armed guards.

And please STFU about trolling. I destroyed your bitch ass for a whole 4 days straight and reduced you to literally begging for me to stop and calling me a faggot because you had no comeback for the truth I was spilling about your fake coward ass. So not only do you have delusions of grandeur but you're a hypocrite.

This aint G&S hoe. Smart people actually post here. Do infinitely better next time...

 

[zombie]

I have proven hard atheism to be irrational.

You've proven you're delusional and have an inflated sense of intellect.

If you could PROVE Atheism, theism, or any -ism related to religion right or wrong you wouldn't be on the IC you'd be on a world wide book tour making millions and spending half of it on armed guards.

And please STFU about trolling. I destroyed your bitch ass for a whole 4 days straight and reduced you to literally begging for me to stop and calling me a faggot because you had no comeback for the truth I was spilling about your fake coward ass. So not only do you have delusions of grandeur but you're a hypocrite.

This aint G&S hoe. Smart people actually post here. Do infinitely better next time...

nigga all you did for those 4 days was stalk me around the board like the repressed homosexual you are. no one takes hard atheism seriously not even the other atheists. you can call me whatever you want you live in another state.

 

[zombie]

lol at smart people posting here I can count on one hand how many clearly intelligent people post here. including the people I disagree with the number is five.

 

[LUClEN]

You think correlation is causation

 

[zombie]

You think correlation is causation

actually no I don't but sometimes correlation is enough

 

[Jabu_Rule]

lol pink is not mentioned as one of those unseen colors so one again fail. fucking atheists in an attempt to smart prove themselves to be dumb one again.

Did you not watch video? Impossible colors laid the foundation for what was presented in the video. Basically, there are colors within the spectrum that we can't see even when we think we're supposed to, and there are colors that our eyes can't see regardless and we don't know what to call them but they exist within the spectrum. So basically, there could be a variation of pink that can't be seen. I'm showing you the known limitations of the human eye. This is more evidence to support the pink unicorn because by your rules, we are allowed to jump to conclusions based on unknowns. One could always be wrong about the color of the unicorn because the unicorn presented itself to Shepard as pink that that he could fulfill its laws. Still, it has always been known by wise men that the unicorn is a unknown variation of pink (call it cosmic pink).

 

[ohhhla]

TC, you have it all wrong. We're living organism while chairs, tables and etc are intelligently designed by humans themselves. Once you've point to the evidence saying that there is a Supreme Being creating all of this (Which you won't) your point is moot and laughable at best. There are two types of Atheists as well.

 

[lostsamuraisotaku2]

 

[lostsamuraisotaku2]

YOU NEGROES ARE THE TRUE HEBREW ISRAELITES OF THE BIBLE

 

[janklow]

YOU NEGROES ARE THE TRUE HEBREW ISRAELITES OF THE BIBLE

this is your warning (as far as i am concerned; won't speak for other mods) to knock it off with spamming the same post repeatedly

 

[trendsetta1030]

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.

This is because a table does not have a naturalistic origin. We can also observe a table being manufactured or look up table designs.

And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly.

Atheism, is just the disbelief or rejection of Gods or deities. It doesn't make any claims of how the universe started. This ideology is called naturalism. Atheism is as much as an ideology as the non-belief in the Easter bunny. At some point one could even argue that we're all atheists to some extent. I'm sure most people don't believe in the pagan gods.

I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.

But no one is arguing that. We understand a building must have a builder or a watch must have a watch maker because these things don't have naturalistic explanations and we can physically watch them being designed and made. Regardless, this is a poor reason to believe in a supernatural creator. Who created God then? I think that's much more difficult to answer than what events lead to the creation of the universe because God is infinitely complex. Besides, you shouldn't insert "We can't explain it right now so that must mean Gawd did it" argument at any time. This has always been wrong regarding natural phenomenon