Please explain why there are so many flood stories in every continent (except Antarctica because there is no permanent human inhabitation): List of flood myths - Wikipedia
Again atheism is faith based on interpretation of science even when unscientific. Case in point, population geneticists will not deny that we are not evolving, instead our genes are degenerating.
@WhoAreYou ⌠Wow, a Christian claims to know more about Atheism than an actual Atheist does. Whatâs next?
If I didnât know any better, Iâd say youâre full of crap.
Atheism is one thing only: the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deities as the legitimate definition states. Not your Christian bs version that youâre trying to peddle. We would know. Weâre AtheistsâŚand youâre not.
2 Likes
Incorrect, atheism or being an atheist is simply the answer to a question.
The question being, âdo you believe in god(s)?â
The reply from an atheist will tend to be, âIâm unconvinced by the evidence put forward to the claim that there is a god(s)â.
Likewise, Iâm an a-toothfairist, a-unicornistâŚ
The irony is you that believe in the Abrahamic god are also atheists, you are atheistic towards Oden, Thor, Zeus, Poseidon etc⌠we go one god further then you that we believe to be total and utter bollocks.
Still does not equate to a god.
I would argue, flood happen and are likely caused by naturally occurring phenomena I.e. an asteroid impact or landslide like the tsunami in alaska for example.
You want to say a mystical and invincible wizard poofed it into happening and when we say whatâs your proof, you(theists) will say I have faith in my holy book being true.
Which is more likely? The laws of nature and physics being suspended in favor of something completely unproven⌠or youâve been told a lie?!
Again, this is a fallacy in that you are using two separate interpretations of faith.
I have faith in that if I jump off a high rise building Iâll likeky splat into the sodding ground! Why? Because a little thing called Gravity!!! Itâs amazing, isnât it?!
My âfaithâ or as I would call it âprior probabilitiesâ are evidenced based.
1 Like
NO! It isnât! Atheism is a response to ONE claim. It has nothing to do with scientific theory.
2 Likes
SighâŚ.floods happen. To an uneducated group of people who spend generations in the same area (which becomes their whole world), any flood covering just their area would seem world-wide.
4 Likes
Yeah, what would really help would be to place an rampaging nuclear reactor (an entropy factory so to say) nearby to bombard those chemicals with radiation; something more or less like the sun. It is a really great way to lower the local entropy.
4 Likes
Cryptic and meaningless more like. Youâve been given the definition more than once.
Thatâs not my truth, it is simply a fact that you have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, as has every other theist and religious apologists of course. Your assertion about truth are vague and cryptic at best, and thoroughly dishonest at worst. Iâve posted the definition of truth, if you wish to debate anything you will be given short shrift if you start by dishonestly misrepresenting what words mean, words like atheism and truth for example.
Thatâs because itâs not. it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Though it can be supported by a philosopher viewpoint of course.
No it isnât, My atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science, I disbelieve the claim because there is no objective evidence to support it. However scientific facts do refute many of the superstitious claims made by religions.
Thatâs a lie, natural selection is part of the scientific theory of evolution, it is and must be supported by objective evidence.
Who cares, unevidenced myths donât represent a rational challenge to irrefutable facts, and it is an irrefutable fact that the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred. The number of people who believe something tells us nothing about the validity of the belief, this is a known fallacy in informal logic, called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
No it isnât, atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and religious faith is the strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Confidence in science is not based on religious faith, nor is it necessary for me to disbelieve in unevidenced archaic superstition.
2 Likes
For what it is worth, one of the reasons the fertile crescent was so fertile was the almost yearly (almost reliable) massive flooding.
1 Like
Standard fare from you Sheldon , take the high ground and talk down to people whose points of view may be different from yours , bloody boring I have to say .
Thereâs nothing cryptic about - Truth by definition excludes - Itâs a very simple proposition to understand and if you canât grasp it then thatâs your problem .
This is the silly game that atheists play . They ask the question that cannot be answered and then wait for the never coming answer and when it doesnât arrive they declare victory . Boring boring boring
That is exactly what youâre fucking doing. What PROOF can you give that your god exists?
Just a reminder, the Bible is the claim, not the proof.
You havenât even offered a point of view, just cryptic verbiage, as if we donât know what truth means, you can Google the word in a few seconds. So having lied, and evaded debate you now resort to Ad hominem fallacy, I shanât even feign surprise. Pretty ironic as well, as endlessly posting the same vapid cryptic semantics is what is utterly boring, all I have done is ask you to evidence your belief, and offer something approaching debate.
Of course it is cryptic, you have been asked several times what you are claiming truth excludes, and all you offer is tedious repetition? You have also been offered the dictionary definition, and the arrogance of you coming here and repetitively trying to tell others what truth means, as if they donât know is also manifest. This is a debate forum, so until you show a little respect, and offer something approaching debate then yes I am going to look down on you, as I detest people who come you to troll, or offer sententious preaching.
Oh I think not, this is a silly game alright, but you are the one playing it, with vapid cryptic posts, and dishonest evasion.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, yes or no?
Of course it can be answered, donât be absurd, you either can or cannot demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity, what a particularly silly lie. Now do you have the integrity to answer this simple yes or no question?
Another lie, I have declared nothing, and I am starting to supect you are simply trolling now.
So now itâs a silly game? Or should I say youâre whining like the religious fundie that you are.
All you have to do is prove the existence of any deity with hard evidence. Which god do you want prove? Thor? Zeus? Hekate? Allah? Your god?
Pick one and do your home work and demonstrate the admissible evidence and collect your Nobel Prize or admit defeat gracefully and walk away with some dignity.
adjective
- in accordance with fact or reality.
The only thing truth excludes is that which is not in accordance with fact or reality, it seems you havenât the integrity to answer even the most simple questions, and you clearly have no interest in debate, one wonders why you are in a debate forum?
Iâd settle for any objective evidence, hell at this point any indication he has any interest in debate at all.
Okay please tell me where did life come from? Why are we here? Whatâs the purpose of life? Please explain the human mind. Where do we get our morals from? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I donât know, and neither does anyone else.
I donât believe there is a reason, this would need to be properly evidenced, not simply assumed.
Again you would need to properly evidence that life has any overarching purpose, beyond the subjective purpose we personally attach to it as individuals.
In what sense?
They are entirely subjective, though the precursors would be in our evolved passed, as no animals could evolve to live in societal groups without an ability to recognise what the group considered acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
I donât know that nothing is even possible, so the question makes no sense to me. However theistic religion canât answer any of those question either, it has no explanatory powers, only unevidenced assumptions and appeals to mystery.
3 Likes
Again, you are assuming an Atheist knows EVERYTHING. Thatâs a very wrong assertion. We do not know. Science has not proven EVERYTHING. Religion is not the answer. It is a very poor one. Iâm sorry âI donât knowâ isnât good enough for you. Iâm sorry you drank the Kool-Aid, but you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Holy books like the Bible, the Quran, and the Bhagivad Vita are the claim that gods exist, not the proof. They are not evidence. They were written by a bunch of anonymous writers who were barely literate.
1 Like
Sheldon , If I could be so bold as to interjectâŚ
Evolution is a demonstrably proven, natural phenomena⌠Earthâs formation is likewise.
Whatever self replicating cell started life, or perhaps something else, is also very likely to be a naturally occurring phenomena.
Nothing in this world currently requires supernatural magic and neither did the formation of the planet⌠a fair assumption and the preponderance of evidence would lead one to believe the same can be said of how life as we know it begun.
All the elements that make us come from dying stars, again, no god or gods required.
Because this is where the balance between the condition of the earth and the chemicals within at precise time were conducive to form life.
From a biological view point, to be born, multiply in some cases), die and become a natural compost.
It has some good ideas and bad ideas⌠be more specific.
As Sheldon said, they have evolved with society. Morals are completely subjective.
What is North of the North Pole?
1 Like