And what IS my attitude about it? Please cite the words I used to describe my attitude about what you are saying? And you never did answer my question about what @Whitefire13 said that was immature.
1 Like
Good-bye and God bless you.
I think @HalleluYah, you’re afraid. I think you will not answer questions because you are afraid. I think you are not as sure about the existence of your god as you would like. I think you have huge doubts. I think this scares the shit out of you. .
4 Likes
Ah, that’s a logical fallacy called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is also a false dichotomy fallacy, since you would need to demonstrate that we are limited to only two options.
I have hyperlinked two explanations of thos elogical fallacies for you, this means your arguments (very common among religious apologists) are by definition irrational arguments.
That is unevidenced, and it is contradicted by known and irrefutable scientific facts. Also the claim “god did it” doesn’t explain anything, as it clearly is an appeal to mystery or ignorance, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
That unevidenced claim explains nothing though? It asks more questions than it answers. Why did your deity take so long to produce humans if we are so important to your religious doctrine? Humans only evolved roughly 200k years ago, the universe is 13.7 billion years old?
FYI quoting unevidenced claims, and using irrational arguments won’t sway anyone here, we have heard it too many times, and understand how weak and poorly reasoned such arguments are.
That’s a question, and proofs are for logic and mathematics, so I think you mean evidence. Now what objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists or si even possible?
Well that’s not atheism, you may claim thousands of deities don’t exist, but I don’t, I only make such claims about a deity when it is sufficiently evidenced or rationally inferred, otherwise I simply withhold believe. Incidentally that is how atheism is defined, as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
It’s unevidenced superstition, and much of it is contradicted by objectively evidenced scientific facts. The creation myth for example has humans “created” in their current form, and we know this is not true, and vegetation being “created” before the sun.
Why would we assume anything was created? That is for you to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support, and the unevidenced archaic creation myths in the bible won’t do, anymore than the Legends of Hercules will be taken as sufficient evidence the claims are true.
I am dubious, but please do so.
An atheist can’t be angry with a deity, by definition, only as a hypothetical.
Those are synonymous.
2 Likes
Ok. what if I say that no one created this “Atheist Republic” Chat website, and that no one is chatting on it right now. How would reply to this statement or my belief? Would you say this what I am saying is not true, because we are communicating on the website and chatting with each other.
Or, would you say, no one created the website and no one is chatting on it right now, because it is all an illusion, not real, doesn’t exist; etc.? Or, that everything on this website and about this website has always existed, and no created it and no one is using it.
1 Like
Again you have not quoted text or post to know who and what you are responding to. However we can easily demonstrate sufficient objective evdience that websites are created, so this is a false equivalence fallacy.
You didn’t address your use of logical fallacies there either, and after I took the time to find and hyperlink explanations for you, now why is that? Is it because you don’t care that your claims and arguments were and are irrational by definition? Only your response was to offer another logical fallacy, do you not understand what this infers?
You also didn’t address this at all, again why would we continue to debate expansively about your claims if you are going to ignore thos eresponses?
Again you ignored this???
And again etc etc???
I’ve just quoted the rest as you didn’t actually respond to any of the arguments I posted? Take some time and think about what I said in response to your claims, don’t just roll on with more unevidenced claim, or ignore what was said.
4 Likes
That would be a neat trick, and a first for this forum.
1 Like
Demonstrate
verb
Clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence
Oh dear…and random capital letters alert yet again!!!
2 Likes
This is called “Begging the Question” and it is a fallacy. You are eliminating all possibilities by framing the question wrongly. The correct way to ask would be 'Why does stuff exist?" You do not get to assume a 'Who" without some sort of evidence of a possible 'Who."
You obviously have no understanding at all of what evolution is. No one ever made a claim that evolution created anything? NEVER. You do not understand evolution. Evolution is the explanation the changes in the proportions of biological types in a population over time. As such, it is a FACT.
Your ignorancee is showing.
3 Likes
The idea that “everything” has always existed is less far fetched than the idea that a man with a grey beard started the whole thing.
6 Likes
Common sense doesn’t exist.
If it did, it would be called uncommon sense.
Just because something appears obvious to you, doesn’t mean it is obvious to others, or even correct.
You throw out the word logic here, yet I am dubious that you have any learning in the subject.
The word logic is used and abused in ignorance so often.
Logic works one way and one way only, If you haven’t learned how logic works, how do you expect to use it?
We don’t need to supply an answer to this question, to disbelieve your claim that a god did it, this is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
A logical fallacy is an example of broken/flawed reasoning, this demonstrates my previous point, you don’t understand logic.
This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it . This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.
This is a strawman fallacy, most atheists don’t claim a god doesn’t exist, we simply disbelieve the claim one does.
Straw man fallacy
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
I do not believe the bible.
It’s errors start on the very first page, it claims that light came before the sun and stars, which we know due to science, that light comes from the sun and stars.
If it is the word of a perfect god, which I presume you believe, how could it make such a blatant error on the first page?
Because it is insulting to misrepresent a position, and because many of us are wearisome of having this misrepresentation shoved in our face on a daily basis.
From our (sorry, I should say ‘my’) perspective we are fighting an ocean of ignorance, and it is extremely frustrating.
We certainly can, if you stop misrepresenting us in such a dishonest fashion.
I will question the remark about maturity, as it is not us believing fairy tales, how would you define maturity?
Yet, you have already.
I don’t see why you are appealing to that which you have yet to demonstrate exists, even if your god were to exist, why would he help you here, instead of helping children with cancer?
But I digress, the problem of evil and suffering is a hammer I need not strike you with… yet.
Again, we need not answer this, and even if we did you have already labeled evolution as ‘evilution’ which is dishonest, as it is poisoning the well.
If you are so eager to throw out evolution, which is a fact by the way, why would we bother to explain to you what humanity knows about the Big bang and Abiogenesis?
You also don’t get to imply everything was ‘created’ without first demonstrating a creator.
We also cannot conclude the universe even had a beginning, as we do not have enough data/information.
‘We don’t know’ is the only intellectually honest answer, but again, not knowing an answer does not make your answer a god did it, any more valid. (refer to the argument from ignorance fallacy above.)
The matter that comprises humanity may have. (Stardust)
I like you are asking questions, but as you previously poisoned the well, are you ready and willing to accept answers?
Then why do you presume it does with others?
This is a contradiction.
You are being dishonest and evasive here, until you demonstrate your god exists, this is just empty rhetoric.
Please, have some self evaluation, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster and all of his noodly appendages.
Oh but you do.
One cannot be angry with something one does not believe exists.
You are also failing to address what is being said to you, yet you claim to be here for ‘mature’ conversation?
Oh dear.
Is this perhaps Sid?
The level of cognitive dissonance is certainly on par with Sid’s.
Yet, it seems you quail from the idea of having any of your assertions scrutinised, which is very telling.
How shallow is your conviction, to run from so little?
Why are you evading the previous questions put to you, again, you did not come here for rational, honest or ‘mature’ conversation, which you have blithely demonstrated multiple times here.
We are well within our rights to put our finger up at you, why should we answer anything you ask, if you aren’t going to oblige in return?
2 Likes
Oh look, the in tray is full again. Even though this individual has been given the boot, I’ll still deal with this shit, in the interests of discoursive integrity (a concept that is totally alien to the mythology fanboys that gatecrash this site) …
There wasn’t a “who” involved. Your infantile presumption that a “who” was involved, merely results in you making a spectacle of yourself before a global public audience.
Let’s go through your predictably sad little list, shall we?
Gravity acting upon an interstellar gas cloud in the past. This has been known by astrophysicists for decades.
Accretion from the protoplanetary disc around the newly forned Sun. With, according to some data available, a previous collision of that prior body with the early Earth around 4.5 billion years ago.
See the Sun above. The Sun is simply one of trillions of stars that all formed in the same manner, via gravitational condensation of interstellar gas clouds. Indeed, space based telescopes are observing the process taking place right now in other star systems.
This is an active area of research among cosmological physicists. I’ve covered a small aspect of that research in some detail in a dfferent thread, and it doesn’t involve an imaginary cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
Gravitational accretion from a protoplanetary disc around a newly formed star. Again, space based telescopes are observing this process taking place right now in other star systems.
I’ve written extensively both here and elsewhere on this topic. The diligent won’t take long to find my exposition on the subject, complete with citation of 82 peer reviewed scientific papers covering the requisite steps.
Nuclear fusion reactions in large mass stars.
Already dealt with the origin of life above. As for biodiversity, that’s the product of evolution. Over 1½ million peer reviewed scientific papers document the evidence for this.
No one asserts this. Do you have something other than strawman caricatures to offer?
Bullshit. We have the data, including direct experimental tests of evolutionary postulates, and replication of speciation events in the laboratory. Indeed, some of those experiments can be replicated in any modestly equipped high school laboratory.
No “who” involved. See above. It’s testable natural processes all the way down.
Poppycock. Your cartoon magic man is fiction.
Bullshit. It ASSERTS much, but its assertions are not merely wrong but fatuous and absurd. It has the appearance of taxa in the fossil record arse about face, not to mention that stupidity about plants appearing before the Sun appeared to power photosynthesis, an assertion so cretinous that no one with functioning neurons takes it seriously
Bollocks. Your cartoon magic man was invented by piss-stained Bronze Age nomads, who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. And who thought genetics was controlled by coloured sticks.
Your goat herder mythology doesn’t even rise to the level of competence required to be thought of as mediocre fiction.
See above. I don’t think a “who” was responsible, courtesy of the vast body of evidence contained in several million peer reviewed scientific papers, that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years. Try reading some of those papers and learn something.
1 Like
No theist I’ve “debated” has ever done so so I’d be intrigued to see you try. I mean that honestly too… it’s pretty much all I’ve ever asked of any theist, that they show me evidence to support their claim.
UK Atheist
1 Like
You’re going to be waiting a while as his account was suspended.
2 Likes
I’d like first to hear what she imagines the difference is between demonstrating a deity exists and proving it?
Demonstrate
verb
2. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
Prove
verb
- demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
There seems to be no objective difference between what she claims she can’t do, and what she claimed she can. Also I can save you some time and disappointment, as she could not do either, or demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
2 Likes
Oh! Guess I shoulda read to the end of the “discussion”?
UK Atheist
1 Like
Let me sum up her argument for the existence of god for you: The bible says so.
Are you convinced yet?
5 Likes
Obviously does not understand the word ‘Prove.’ Which requires a demonstration in the form of ‘evidence.’ (I would submit to the audience, 'No argument is sufficient to demonstrate a God. Once the argument is done, there must still be evidence.")
Indeed, this individual strikes me as being yet another who thinks it’s possible to conjure a cartoon magic man into existence using apologetic spells.
The assorted specimens that think this, really do have brains that are stuck in the 10th century.
And it was written so verily, verily it must be so… er… yeah!
UK Atheist
1 Like