I prefer lettuce, tomato, bacon, and a little salt and pepper.
That sounds really good too.
2 Likes
Who said I stopped within? Just because I walk through a doorway does not imply that I freeze thereâŚThe choice of the word firmament was a deliberate attempt at ambiguity. (Hard to believe, I know) I considered ether, but our solvent-obsessed compatriot gets beside himself over certain words he thinks he knowsâŚ
Now, why, pray tell, would I stop at one measly galaxy? James Webb was my sixteenth cousin, thrice removed, btwâŚnot that it has any bearing whatsoever.
Dadman: You put on here something saying atheism is not a belief, however, we have to believe something or nothing, because knowing is for one who has all of the information. There is no such thing as proof to a mind that is limited in any way; limitations which, to a mind that cannot account for all possibilities, can only reasonably be considered infinite. Because we donât know everything, we know nothing certainly. God falls into this realm. But faith will be served to all who are deficient of all knowledge. If there is infinite knowledge, and we could take part in it, we would have to do so outside of this universe, bc it has finite features, and a finite amount or resources.
That is a false dichotomy fallacy, since we can also simply disbelieve a claim for which insufficient or no objective evidence has been demonstrated.
Thatâs gibberish sorry.
The hilarity of that hyperbolic absolute is surpassed only by the hilarious irony of the contradiction in that asinine assertion. maybe itâs just a woeful grasp of English, and you meant to say âwe know nothing with certaintyâ, though of course this would destroy many notions of theism, for example the idea that there is an omniscient deity that has communicated immutable truth.
Another unevidenced and absurd assertion, you can add invisible unicorns and magic mermaids to that absurd claim.
Vapid unevidenced and absurd platitude.
What a spectacularly meaningless claim.
Using our magic powers, and riding a magic carpet no doubt. 
Gibberish again, word salad.
Did you have a specific point you wanted to debate, because not to offend , but that is some vapid nonsense you posted there?
3 Likes
Iâm 100% certain that I exist.
4 Likes
Iâm getting from that sentence that English is not your first language. Perhaps I can explain. There is no position of belief in Atheism. Atheists believe all sorts of things. Most of us are skeptics, empiricists of a kind, rationalists, humanists, liberals, conservatives, or hold some sort of beliefs. These beliefs are NOT ATHEISM. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. Regardless of your beliefs or reasons. Atheism is taking your bag of religious garbage, putting it down, and walking away from it. It is recognizing that that bag of garbage is no longer useful. There is nothing in it that is needed to function in the world. Other beliefs take the place of the religious beliefs that have been left behind.
Well, you are wrong. First - Proof is a term used in mathematics. It specifically references the correctness of a math problem. The word you are actually looking for is âEvidence.â And there is such a thing as 'Evidence" even to a mind that is limited. While you are correct in your assertion that âNothing can be known,â this is the nature of reality and not a problem at all. Those things which we say we know or which we hold to be true are generally referenced as 'Justified true belief." We believe them to a degree that not to believe them, or to discover they were false, would be life altering. We have a very good method of determining good beliefs. Itâs called 'Science."
A mind can in fact account for all âPOSSIBILITIES.â (ha ha ha ha ha ha ⌠This guy has not been paying attention!!!) For a possibility to be a possibility it must be demonstrated. If it can not be demonstrated it is not a possibility. What you are actually saying is a mind can not account for all inane random ideas. Minds do not have to account for all stupid ideas. If you have a stupid idea, and you think it is a possibility, you must demonstrate that your stupid idea is possible. You have the burden of proof. Thatâs the way âPOSSIBILITYâ works.
God certainly falls into this realm. It is a stupid idea that no one has yet provided any good evidence for. Do you have any good evidence for the possible existence of your god thing? Which god thing do you profess exists? I would love to hear about it. What are its possible attributes, and how did you develop the special abilities to detect the undetectable? If God falls into this magical realm of the impossible to understand, how in the hell do you profess understanding? How do we acquire this same amazing capability? And, does it work for all gods or just your version of god?
Faith? Is there anything, anything at all, that I cannot believe based on faith? Is there a religion on the planet that does not require faith? I hope you have more than this. Hindus have faith, Buddhists have faith, Catholics have faith, JW have faith, Mormons have faith, Shinto have faith. Chinese traditional religions have faith, Taoists have faith, Bahi have faith, Zorastrians have faith, Jews have faith, Muslims have faith, surely you can offer something better than this slop.
This is just a bizarre utterance of ignorance and I have no idea what to make of it. Outside the universe? You profess to know there is knowledge outside the universe? How did you come to know that? Given that you began the sentence with the word âIF,â I will assume you are just daydreaming and playing with some fleeting thought that passed through the vacuum between your ears.
Thank you for playing. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
6 Likes
I exist, therefore I am?
2 Likes
I THINK I exist, therefore MAYBE I am? 
1 Like
Itâs possible I exist, therefore, I possibly am.
1 Like
I think I think, therefore I think I am?
1 Like
Wrong. Learn what the words âevidentially supported postulatesâ mean. And upon doing so, learn that when we have these, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Wrong again. All we need is sufficient information to arrive at a valid conclusion. This is a basic principle that was eluicidated formally by Willard Van Ormand Quine, in his seminal textbook Methods of Logic, back in the 1950s.
The worldâs pure mathematicians are laughing at you. Take time learning why this is the case.
Those pure mathematicians seem to have overcome your asserted âlimitationsâ âŚ
Again wrong. Those pure mathematicians are laughing at you again.
And again, those pure mathematicians are laughing at you.
No, invented cartoon magic men asserted to exist in pre-scientific mythologies, fall into the realm of fiction.
Poppycock.
Faith consists of nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. And is useless as a source of substantive knowledge as a result.
Thatâs two enormous âifâsâ that are nothing more than safely discardable blind assertion, and an unwarranted conclusion. Try harder.
1 Like
Do you mean like this?
" Spontaneous Formation Of RNA On Volcanic Glass Could Explain Lifeâs Origins"
1 Like
Nonsense, in the complete absence of knowledge I withhold belief, but keep an open mind. Why on earth would I base belief on not knowing.
That seems like gibberish, but possibility has to be demonstrated not assumed, in logic nothing is proved nor disproved because of a lack of evidence, to claim otherwise is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. If I donât know whether something is possible or not, then I can make no claims either way, and of course I withhold belief.
I think you mean with certainty, but the amount of confidence one can attach to a belief is based on how well evidenced it is, so if you cannot even demonstrate that a deity is possible, and can demonstrate no objective evidence any deity is real, then I have no reason to believe you at all. I have overwhelming objective evidence for accepted scientific theories like species evolution for example, so I am as sure that all living things evolved slowly from common ancestors as I am that the world is not flat.
All claims and beliefs fall under the purview of logic, you donât get to create a special category for beliefs you favour. It is simply a fact that humans have created thousands of deities, and without any objective evidence for them I will remain disbelieving. I need not know that something is untrue in order to disbelieve someone claiming it is true.
Religious faith cannot validate anything, it is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. So it can be used to believe just about any of the deities humans have imagined.
We donât need infinite knowledge in order to demonstrate something is objectively real or true, all we need is sufficient objective evidence, if there is none then it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief. Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and my atheism does not and need nor does it involve a contrary claim. Unless the god-claim is falsifiable and I think there is sufficient objective evidence or sound rational arguments to falsify the claim.
1. When someone demonstrates that deity is possible, then I will believe it to be so, but until then I donât.
2. When someone demonstrates sufficient objective evidence that any deity exists then I will believe the claim, but until then I do not.
1 Like