No, its called the Expansion or Great Expansion.
5 Likes
That sounds more like what happens when you gain weight due to overeating.
4 Likes
Hardly a respectful opener either, but weâve all been reading the posts so know what is meant here. This is hardly the first time apologists turn up here and disrespect atheists and atheism then get mortally offended when they are blunt in return about theism and religion.
1 Like
Sure. What about the Big Crunch/Big Bang?
We have no reason to discount the idea that the universe expands and contracts. And no reason to believe that the universe is not eternal.
And, if youâre happy to admit to a Big Bang, which by all scientific endeavours, points to the idea that it behaves according to the principles of Physics, what role does Todd play in it?
âPlants produce sugars through the process of Photosynthesis in which chlorophyll uses sunlight to produce energy for the plant using carbon dioxide and water producing glucose and oxygenâ
So, please. Having studied the chemistry and organic chemistry in Uni, I have no reason to doubt the âaxiomsâ in this statement. This is well documented âfactâ. There is very little âdoubtâ as to these statements.
Are you really so silly? You would discount the âcertaintyâ of these kinds of statements, before you discounted the idea that Noah, for example, saved the world by packing two of EVERY animal onto and arch during a great flood which killed EVERY other being on the planet. Good sir ⌠FUCK THE BIBLE.
Itâs bullshit. And I have a feeling you are a sheep who took Pascalâs wager out of a fear of Hell, like all those other blind and scared followers. Prove me wrong.
4 Likes
Itâs proper suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. As such, it doesnât have to be a âpositionâ, other than said suspicion.
Hereâs a clue for you. In order to be suspicious of an assertion, one does not have to treat the contrary assertion as true. Which is one of the elementary lessons dispensed in Willard Van Ormand Quineâs seminal textbook Methods of Logic.
Why do I find myself experiencing deep suspicion of this assertion of yours?
Try the one I gave above - suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. A definition that is based upon the relevant observable data. Though Iâve noticed in my 14 years of dealing with mythology fanboys, that observable data is something they avoid.
2 Likes
Still waiting to hear why an atheist would be any less able to do this than a theist, we have exactly the same tools at our disposal to subject claims to critical scrutiny after all, but without the obvious bias of religious faith.
The same way anyone lese does Iâd imagine, I can see only one reason youâd come here and single atheist out with this classic example of a no true Scotsman fallacy, and that is your own bias, theists have a long history of intolerance towards those who donât share their belief, and dare to say so.
In any other discourse your assertion would be received with uncontrollable laughter of course, only with theistic belief would anyone dare to suggest with a straight face, not only that they donât need to evidence it, but insist others disprove it before they even try, or even define accurately what it is they believe is lurking unseen and undetected, and this rationale is as good an example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as one could imagine.
Well there you go, until some concept of deity is presented with evidence, then one cannot examine what has not been presented. The intellectual and rational absurdity of imagining one starts with belief until someone disproves that belief is almost as risible as the idea that not knowing is not a sound basis for continuing to withhold that belief, or that agnosticism and atheism are in any way incompatible.
This then is the fundamental difference between @Sherlock-Holmes rationale and mine, I do not base belief on mysteries and not knowing, and I have the intellectual integrity to admit when I donât know the answer.
To do otherwise is pure ego driven, imagine the first humans to fill the gaps in our knowledge resorting to the only tool they had, the impressive human imagination and the vapidity of superstition, then declaring that this vast universe that science is only now starting to scratch the surface of, must all be for me surely. When the truth is that we are a very newly arrived species of evolved great apes, one among many. Please tell us again how the creation myth in Genesis is not at all incompatible with science.
How can one believe what one does not know of or understand?The fact remains that I have never been presented with any rational argument or objective evidence for any deity, if thatâs not good enough for people who choose to be emotionally invested in the bias of religious faith, then they are going to have to come to terms with that fact. I submit god claims without favour or bias to the same scrutiny I submit all other claims, which is the definition of an open mind, and I cannot rationally do otherwise, if a deity exists and wants me to know, then itâs taking itâs own sweet time, and if it canât let me know it exists unequivocally then to paraphrase Epicurus, âwhy call it godâ. why indeed?
1 Like
Iâm actually quite curious as to how someone who believes in a supernatural god can âdistinguish between something that is evidence for God and something that is notâ. How does the believer distinguish between actual evidence and bias-confirming non-sequiturs, hallucinations, formal and informal logical fallacies, and not be tricked by them and other cases of âI want this so badly to be evidence for my god, so I exclude all other possibilitesâ? Clearly, if @Sherlock-Holmes and his ilk have done this successfully, they should be able to explain this in no uncertain terms? And god-believers of other flavours should also be able to do the same, because they have also discovered incontrovertible evidence that their particular manifestation of a god exists and is the one true god? And they should also be able to explain how and why their god is the one, and not any of the others. But no, no such luck. Assuming this god (or some/all gods) exist, itâs as if she (or they) plays (play) hide and seek, and withhold crucial information from those not yet believing, not wanting them to believe. Which is quite a sick and childish game to play.
1 Like
Oh oh oh me me me, I know this one, they donât.
Good darts sirâŚ
Thank you, Iâll have the large panda off the top shelf please. 
2 Likes
May I suggest they donât see formal and informal fallacies, but instead formal and informal phalluses?
1 Like
Daaaaaamn (in high pitched voice)âŚ
Now Iâm confused, surely the true believers can cite some objective difference between theirs and the many thousands of deities those other heathens are fooling themselves are real?
How many times must poor devout @Sherlock-Holmes explain this to us ignorant heathens mun, you start with the belief, and then only if it is disproved do you present the evidence, this is dead simple stuff. I can tell none of us had ever read a philosophical encyclopaedia. In my defence I tried once, but put my back out lifting it, and then got an asthma attack from the dust, otherwise I might be half as smart as @Sherlock-Holmes, and then Iâd be able to understand why all the logical fallacies heâs based his arguments on are irrelevant. Itâs my own fault I remain a poor ignorant heathen. I might come with gems like âall assumptions are the same, in as much as they are assumptionsâ, you see to a dullard like me, that just seems tautologically redundant facile nonsens, it takes a philosophical genius like @Sherlock-Holmes to understand what it is saying, without actually saying anything.
1 Like
Whatâs quite funny is an apologist once accused me of using phallacies. I was horrified and intrigued in equal measure. I bet even Freud would have pissed himself at that one. Metaphorically I mean, the idea of Freud pissing himself just has tooooo mannny jokkkes.
If we want to go into the land of false dichotomies, itâs either your own fault you are not a devout god-follower (because by your own free will you refuse to believe), or the god withholds the evidence or proof from you, because she wants you not to believe. There is no middle ground or any other explanations. Nope, no way.
2 Likes
See this is what Iâm talking about, logic nâstuff, we heathens canât compete with that, and worse still god is not bound by logic, she can set it aside like anytime she wants. So even if you use logic nâstuff, youâre still wrong, cause god doesnât need it see, clever eh?
The fool hath said in his heart there is no god.
In his heart ffs, only a god could do that mun, we all know itâs a pump made of muscle. What more proof do you heathens need?
Ohh, ooh, I see! Take the word LOGIC. Transpose the first three letters to read âGOLICâ. Now, the letter L is just like the letter D, only with the curve and upper horizontal line removed, so itâs basically the same. We now have âGODICâ, which is god-logic.
Q.E.D.!
2 Likes
Anagrams are fun, arenât they? Especially when you get The Lord involved.
Oh Oh⌠I love anagrams! How about theist (shite) ?
1 Like
(Counting letters on fingers) Shite has only one t, theist has two.
Edit: There are however a few anagrams of âtheistâ that are at least not nonsensical:
She tit
The sit
Set hit
Test hi
1 Like
Uh, I did not specify a perfect or complete anagram, and frankly, (not to be confused with Ann Frank) it was the best I could do with this old brainâŚ
1 Like
Odd how in @Sherlock-Holmes world it is only the people who donât believe in a deity that lack the ability to understand the evidence for them, what a risible no true Scotsman fallacy. I could say the same for theists of course, as every single time I have asked them for objective evidence or rational arguments for a deity, they present subjective claims and irrational arguments, just as you have of course. Maybe it is theist donât know what evidence for a deity would look like, itâs a more plausible explanation, since the evidence of your posts and the other religious apologists on here, and offered on here, supports that explanation more than your unevidenced no true Scotsman fallacy.
3 Likes
This is very simple, we need some objective criteria, we canât rely on your secret magic process and subjective claim that you can recognize evidence while all the time sharing nothing of the process you use to categorize said evidence.
If you donât have any objective criteria then you have no place asking for evidence, if you do have objective criteria please share it with us so that I can then provide suitable examples of evidence.