Because when mankind was basically nomadic tribes, they had the same human qualities we do today, of questioning and curiosity. But back then the level of understanding was not broad enough to describe natural phenomae, so people just made up stuff. And that is how religion came to be, people making up shit.
@ bloopynoopy will be taking a “mini-vacation” from the forums until tomorrow. Hopefully this will help them clear their head, and they be able to follow simple instructions then.
Specifically… depends on the standard for evidence. I mentioned a “book” - (it’s “physical”) BUT the story around it is imaginary or infused with “supernatural” exaggeration. Some “believe” the story and accept this as evidence (it affects their decision making and physical life).
A Nigerian Prince scam links all sorts of “real” things… money, lawyers, fees, a promise to “repay” or “reward” you for your risk (again, a person “believes” it effects their decision making and physical life). A low level for evidence supporting the claim.
My standard for evidence is higher. Especially when it is claimed that something I will do/not do will affect my life (reward or punishment, etc).
If you tell me you ate pancakes for breakfast ,
I’d most likely take you on your “word”. It doesn’t affect my life in any way, and the claim is mundane (people eat breakfast).
Now as the claim is relevant to me - I up the standard for evidence. A used car salesmen. A mortgage or investing. A new medicine or treatment. A new friend. People earn my trust and confidence. I just don’t hand it over based on talk.
Have I misjudged or had new evidence come to my attention that countered my initial decision? You bet. I always withhold the right to change my mind based on new information.
So god ideas are everywhere. OK… so? No one has yet presented demonstrable evidence for “god”. I know I have this life. I DO not know whether there is a “master hide and seek god game going on”; or whether I’m in a simulation; or what happens when I die (from what I can tell - my brain stops …I stop).
I value this life and accept reality for what it is. I play with some mind-candy (imagination) for fun BUT to live my life via imaginary ponderings “believing it’s true” hahahaha - NOPE. I have no confidence in that approach.
Your understanding is wrong. Have you not been reading the posts or do you not understand?
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. For most of us there was no decision involved.
One is simply able to believe or one is not able to believe.
My journey to atheism took about 20 years: When I was 20, I discovered I was no longer able to believe the more fatuous catholic beliefs nor the basic tenets of Christianity . Not a decision, but a realisation.
For the next 20 years I searched for meaning and found none. At 40 I realised I no longer believed in gods and a vast array of other superstitions. There was no decision. My life would probably have been different had I been able to believe, but I was not.
What about that explanation is unclear or you do not believe?
Can you please quote a single atheist here making that claim, before I use the liar liar pants on fire retort it deserves.
It is axiomatic that something that can’t be known - isn’t known. atheism makes no claims to knowledge, it is simply the lack of belief in any deity or deities.
It might help moves things along if you had the integrity to stop misrepresenting atheism as a claim or belief.
How do you know that exactly? Only each time you’re asked you simply move on to another list of unevidenced assertions about your deity.
You mean you are, I hold no such belief, indeed you haven’t even specified which deity you’re making this unevidenced assertion about.
I’ve deleted the coloured bubbles you posted as that’s enough tight there to show you are yet again erroneously trying to imply atheism is a belief.
Again I’ve removed the gobbledeegook, to show you’re misrepresenting agnosticism as a claim about the nature of a deity, when in fact it is the belief that nothing is known or can be known, about the nature or existence of any deity.
You seem to think you can use dishonest semantics to record your false claims about atheism and agnosticism, and we will somehow suddenly be convinced.
That answers neither question, and your equation is not remotely what you had claimed and I was responding to.
3 separate unevidenced claims about a deity, any evidence going to be offered ever?
Agreed, it’s called dishonesty.
And yet you claim to know this? Oh brother…
There is no misunderstanding, you’re claims facile semantics, and you seem to think endless repetition will lend it some credence. It won’t…
Except it told us absolutely nothing about u, only that there are things we don’t know. Well duh…
Not even remotely true, it was semantics, used to repeat your previous misrepresentations of atheism as a belief or claim, and agnosticism as a claim to knowledge about a deity.
Neither position is what those words mean.
By using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. He’s spot on correct. [quote=“bloopynoopy, post:95, topic:992”]
we see that, as explored with god of the gaps, that ‘the gaps’ or the unknown best describes what a god is,
Well there you go, a god of the gaps polemic is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
Except the unknown can’t be explained, or else it would not be unknown. And an agnostic doesn’t believ anything is or can be known about a deity, so a doubly erroneous argument, that contains a known common logical fallacy.
No, and no. It rrationally appeals to ignorance, by pointing at gaps in our knowledge and making the preposterous and unevidenced assertion a god is hiding in there.
Which god by the way?
Yup. Also theology, sophistry, biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. I think it all falls under the broad umbrella of apologetics
Thought for today: " Christianity : "Possibly a good idea, if someone tried it. " (George Bernard Shaw)
He he he h e… RV Stimulation… OOPS! Did I read that wrong?
Interestingly, I actually do believe this one suggestion of bloopynoopy.
Just goes to show what happens when someone hears a single atheist’s opinion, then assigns it to all atheists.
What is interesting is @bloopynoopy seems to have streamlined the work normally required to pull off this fallacy. In a stroke of genius, they realized they don’t have to wait to hear one atheist’s opinion to then generalize to all atheists; instead they can just make up the opinion themselves, then use it to generalize all atheists.
It’s a fallacy generating machine. Push the button and out comes a custom fallacy of exactly the form you request.
Indeed, and yet they come here relentlessly in tandem, and make the same specious claims, rather than reading any of the multiple threads on here that have covered their dishonesty exhaustively.
They always leave in a huff as well, baffled that the stupid atheists won’t believe in their imaginary deity from an archaic superstition, that they can demonstrate no objective evidence for.
Has this one even told us which deity he’s claiming is real?
He waved away my request for him to demonstrate some objective evidence right at the start. Using the same old tired excuse, it will be presented later, oh and asked what do I mean by objective evidence. Is anyone really surprised he doesn’t know the definition of objective or evidence?
I asked @bloopynoopy that in post 6 of this 111 post thread, because his opening posts kept asserting religions contained useful ideas.
What do we think are the odds I’ll ever get an answer?
I asked him to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, before that, again I think the fact he’s posted 29 times in this thread already and refused to even answer, can only infer he has no objective evidence.
Sheldon. You got to learn to ask baby questions first if you are gong to engage the theists. You can’t just jump to the meat and potatoes. These folks have been weened and spoon fed on easily digestible religious pabulum. Meat and potatoes are not even food to them yet. You might as well be just toss rocks at them. Look, you take a large empty container, add one part myth, two parts gullibility, just a dash of intellect, wave the bottle of curiosity over the top of the mix but don’t allow any to spill into the mixture, and then fill to the top with bullshit. Shake it well, and tell them it was made with the glorious love of the Lord their god. They will suck it up.
When they come here, and don’t start with the best most compelling evidence for their belief, well that says something to me.
When they expend hours labouring the same fallacious arguments, or specious claims, but apologise that they don’t have time to discuss objective evidence right now. This says something to me.
Then weeks or months later, when they express amazement that atheists refuse to accept all their evidence, but refuse to explain where this evidence was offered, this says something to me.
…but the difference is not that I am an atheist and they are a theist, it’s that they want to convince me their deity is the real one, whereas I don’t care which deity is being touted, and treat all claims, including god claims, without bias.
While they rant at how biased atheists are against god, as if they have given the remotest thought to how likely it is they’ve been raised to believe in a deity that is any different to any of the others in any objective way. I shrug, with bemusement, that anyone can believe anything without a shred of objective evidence for it after thousands of years of navel gazing.
But … but… but… their eyes aren’t even open yet. They only emerged from the womb of mother church and are still naked and without defense to the world around them. Their tiny shriveled intellect is so cute as they chase their tails in circular arguments around the waste generations of apologists have left behind. If you scare them with the hard stuff they will run back into the comforting arms of mother Church and never poke their little heads out again.
This is utterly stupid. Believe in everything until it is proven not to exist then. Including Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Tooth fairy.
If we had to disprove every idea that doesnt make sense we would have made nearly zero advancements in science. Excluding that we disprove what was obviously wrong on paper.
You have it exactly backwards.
My position is that I believe only in that which has ben demonstrated to be true.
Science is about that which can be demonstrated. It is not about disproving anything nor about providing truths. There are no closed subjects in science.
Again, do some reading. Perhaps begin with:
I recommend the full article
"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
Though diverse models for the scientific method are available, there is in general a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The most conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed. "
In time you will learn that I confront stupidity with sarcasm.
It would be a waste of everyone’s time.