Now, I’ve eaten croc. I prefer rat. You can put sauces on rat and hide the gamey flavor. Croc tastes like crock. I don’t care what you do to it. Hamburger, stewed, filet… it all tastes like croc. Not a fan. I’ve heard GPs are tasty. Perhaps some day.
I happen to enjoy fungus of all kinds. Buttons, flats, cups, Swiss Brown, Portabella, Enoki, and a lot more.
Guys, as much as I love hearing about these barbaristic cuisines.
Haven’t we shifted from the topic just a tad? 
1 Like
It’s code. You just don’t understand it yet as you have not officially been sworn in to the atheist double top secret level 42 society. With that said. Yeah, we should probably not be using the code in a public forum. Someone might try to figure it out.
My six year old granddaughter figured it out, Cog.
1 Like
Kids these days are so creative.
1 Like
Nope. There are no gods and I am an atheist.
Do gods exist? The truthful answer is: Without all the full knowledge of the universe I cannot say they don’t is a fact.
How many things do we claim are fact that fall under that banner and no one challenges it? Donald Duck doesn’t exist, fairies don’t exist, leprechauns don’t exist, an alien moving so fast no one could see it was the murderer.
As a species we accept that, if the likelihood of something being true is so infinitesimally small that it is unworthy of consideration, we can freely declare that “something” as false.
Based on the total lack of proof or evidence of gods over thousands of years the likelihood of gods being true so infinitesimally small that they are unworthy of consideration therefore I claim my right, as a member of the human species and based on their observed rules, to claim gods are false.
And then you run into the deists. A creator god who no longer has anything at all to do with mankind or the universe. Created everything and then went away. The deists agree with you 100% God created the world and then may as well have vanished. It used to exist and is gone now. Lack of proof and evidence is expected from the deist god. ‘Now why would you bother asserting, something which is not there, is not there?’
A total lack of proof is exactly what the deists expect. Now what do you do?
It’s always best to know which god you are talking about before making any assertions.
1 Like
Ahem. That is a falsehood. Donald Duck as a character most definitely exists. See?
Please explain what is non existent about him…also, I have met a real life DD in Annaheim…as real as he gets.
Please withdraw your remark. DD FOR PRESIDENT!!
Edit for quackery
1 Like
Lucifer, it seems, is one of those atheists that runs about making all sorts of un-falsifiable claims. In short: he is doing the same thing the theists do while blaming them for doing what they are doing.
1 Like
And he is just as real as the God things I have ever seen. And, I have seen a lot of them.
I stand corrected. Donald Duck has sustainable evidece.
Deist philosophy: The likelihood of deist philosophy being true is so infinitesimally small that it is unworthy of consideration, we can freely declare that deist philosophy is false.
Care to add another philosophy or god claim that can be similarly dismissed or is that enough?
And there is a bullshit argument if ever there was one. Infinitely small ‘STILL HAPPENS.’ You lose.
And I freely declare you are professing to claim to know shit you can not know by blindly calling deist philosophy false. We have not even explored 1% of the universe, and you think you know everything. Your claims are so fallacious as to be completely ignorant.
You are doing the same stupid shit the theists do and you don’t even see it. Drawing inane conclusions basded on bullshit. I feel sorry for you.
There is a difference between being a logical skeptic and a critical ass. I hope you discover the difference at some point, or at least stop calling yourself an atheist until you grow up. A moron with an IQ of 60 can dismiss claims. Is that all you plan on doing?
1 Like
Oh so you’re just dumb! Here’s a project for you:
Print off my comment and give it to someone who understands it and they can explain it to you and why “infinitely small still happens” has absolutely no relevance to my post whatsoever.
And here’s the thing about the profoundly dumb: Someone attacks your little world and you can’t defend it because you have nothing to defend it with so you just start ranting rubbish irrelevant to the comment as if that’s going to lead to any other conclusion than you’ve lost.
Here’s a summary again but I assume your IQ will be so low even a 5 year old would demonstrate more locgical astuteness than you.
Because unicorns were made up no one believes they exist other than those who have never been told they were made up or are so profoundly mentally disabled they are unable to comprehend the difference between reality and fantasy. The people who know they’re made up can choose to claim them false under “human rules”. Now, remove “unicorns” and add “gods” or deists.
But the whole point was this: No one gives a sh#t whether the “infinitely small still happens” they still constantly chose to ignore infinitely small possibilities and go with “False” and no one tells them they’re wrong about unicorns. (Or for the sane gods or deist theories.)
By your own definition deism is a man made concept which has no evidence in reality and making you look even more dumb, is declared will never have any proof or evidence because the god poofed into and out of existence. Perhaps the dumbest claim ever made in theism. And to be honest, to believe that you’d have to be a whacko looney tunes looser totally devoid of any shred of logic.
You are yet to explain where my comment was wrong in all your deranged whining. Just because you believe gods are more real than unicorns, it neither proves me wrong nor does it make me a critical ass. Hint: You cannot be a critical ass on something that doesn’t exist be that a unicorn or a god.
So for you, back to the drawing board, but, before you do, get someone who can comprehend English to explain to you what I have said. (Or you could just strive for “dumb and dranged” again.)
Wow, are you ignorant. Infinately small literally means "IT DOES HAPPEN.’
Who told you 'No one believes unicorns exist?" Your off on another tangent… "The belief that unicorns are real and still roam the earth today is something that many modern, civilized people believe in. The definition of a unicorn an animal that dates all the way back to the dinosaur era whom closely resembles a horse and has a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. There are many people that currently believe that unicorns do exist today or have existed in the past. " Unicorns Are Real | The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs
You just make shit up and talk out your ass don’t you?
How are unicorns even remotely connected to Gods. People all over the world also believe Gods Exist. What’s your point?
Why don’t you argue honestly. You said 1. No Gods exist. Can you demonstrate this please.
You said 2. Plants do not have subjective experiences. Please demonstrate this.
3. You said Consciousness does not exist. Please demonstrate this. Stop running all over the place and cite your evidence for the claims.
Then you concede the point. It does happen.
I never claimed it was man made. Can you demonstrate it is man made? I also do not need to defend deism. You asserted no God exists. If there is no evidence for the non-existence of a deist god, how did you validate that claim? What are you using to sustain your claim? You claim it does not exist, and I am asking how do you know. Are you just making an argument from ignorance? I can’t explain the lack of evidence any other way… That is a fallacy. Please demonstrate your claim.
Unless of course you are asserting it does not exist without the evidence to demonstrate the non-existence of the thing you are asserting does not exist. You can’t even define what it is you think does not exist. How do you know something you can not define does not exist?
I am an atheist as well, so I am curious, can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support that rather sweeping assertion?
Now I am confused as this seems like a contradictory assertions to the previous one?
Theists tend not to think this is true about their chosen deity in my experience, and that assertion seems to be an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Existence is the fact or state of living or having objective reality. So if someone claims something exists, then all they need do is demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support that claim, if they cannot then I remain dubious and withhold belief, I rarely get all bent out of shape that theists view it differently, what would be the point? I do sometimes get a little irked when people preach at me, rather than debate a topic. FYI you seem to be preaching here…
What did you want to debate, and what relevance has it the thread OP? Only this seems like something that would more suit a personal blog.
2 Likes
Holy Shit! You got the right answer out of him. FINALLY Now if he just says the same thing about consciousness we are well on our way to a real discussion!
1 Like
Now please explain to him that the above statement literally means, ‘Gods Exist.’ Worthy or not worthy of consideration, you cannot assert that they do not exist, and in the same breath say, "The likelihood is infinitesimally small.’ It cognitive dissonance on your part and an outright contradiction.
Well I have a fairly middling intellect of course, but you made a sweeping assertion here:
@Cognostic pointed out that the odds against something being true don’t negate it being true, so it’s clear his observation is relevant. What’s more you seem to be using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy many religious apologists try to peddle on here, and your hubris is really starting to grate a little, since you don’t appear to be debating the topic.
That is not true, I disbelieve that unicorns are real for the same reason I disbelieve any other claim, because there is no objective evidence to support them being real. The human imagination is a vitally important first step in the methods of science don’t forget.
To what end? And again then, you’re preaching at a forum of predominantly atheists, and you seem to be implying we have not ourselves carefully considered the arguments and “evidence” made for deities. Some concepts of deities are unfalsifiable, and I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, but I also withhold belief from them all of course, as to believe some of them would involved closed minded bias, and to believe them all must inevitably violate the law of non-contradiciton.
Au contraire, and it would of course be a salient fact when someone claims, as you did, that we can make contrary claims when the likelihood of the original claim is infinitely small. Lets try an example, how likely did most scientists think it was that the continents could move, before we understood plate tectonics and continental drift? Now we might have been correct to withhold belief, and assert we didn’t know if it was possible, until the idea was properly evidenced, but to claim it was impossible based on how likely we thought it at the time, would have been wrong, no?
You do understand that @Cognostic is an atheist don’t you, and that he is not asserting to be a deist, only pointing out that your assertion no deity exists is a sweeping and unevidenced claim that you cannot support by any objective evidence or rational argument? He is right by the way.
Straw man fallacy, he believes nor has he claimed to believe any such thing.
So perhaps you could demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that no deity exists, I would find this very helpful in dealing with religious apologists in the future.
Not without using an obvious contradiction, and if they;re not worthy of consideration I wondering why he is in an atheist debate forum that deal primarily with considering arguments theists present for deities? An atheist debate forum seems an odd destination for not considering theistic arguments.
1 Like