Well hell, of course not…
Shhh!
Here, this might help…
No mermaids doesn’t explain love, and I don’t believe mermaids exist. So either @Sid believes mermaids are real, or something not existing and the lack of an explanation for love are meaningless.
The alternative is to abandon the irrational double negative, and evidence how and why love evidences any deity.
Not sure if you’re a Christian, but … heck. I’ll assume you are.
What are the benefits of theistic spiritualism?
Meaning: heaven awaits for those who believe in a mythical man. And hell awaits for those who don’t. Not much of a choice if you “buy in”. But certainly adds “meaning” to life. For example, heaven is a bright, white place in the clouds where angels sing. Nyce. So “meaningful”. Can’t wait.
Purpose: serve God. Blindly serve God. Blindly believe in his mythical sun and blindly convert all of the other sheep in the world. Are you as blind as I think you are. It doesn’t take the existence of a third party deity in order to give one’s own life purpose. Why can’t you find your own purpose in life? Why do you need a deity for that?
Blind pitiless indifference: ahh yes. compassion is a function of how well one believes in the mythical sun of God, born on the 25th of December, visited by the three stars of Orion - not to be confused with Mithra or Horus who share the exact same birth story.
2 Likes
What do you mean nimrods don’t exist? I happen to know… Oh! ‘Mermaids.’ Sorry, my bad. Damn… I did it again.
1 Like
Well it’s become clear @Sid doesn’t care about making rational assertions, but since others are, lets take another look at some his claims:
“Love is sufficient reason to believe a deity exists, because not believing in a deity doesn’t offer an explanation of love.”
So first and foremost this is a pretty obvious circular reasoning fallacy, as it assumes it’s conclusion in it’s premise.
It aslo seems to contain a sort of false dichotomy, since we are presented with two absolute choices, either atheism explains love, or we must believe a deity does, when there may be other choices, like not fully uderstanding how love exists, or scientific evidence explaining it through natural phenomena as two obvious exmaples, hence he is presenting a false dichotomy.
On top of both those fallacies, @Sid has claimed his belief in a deity is true beacuse the lack of that belief can’t offer a contrary explanation or evidence, this one is pretty obviously an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and he has used this from the start and throughout.
Of course we know love exists, and we know natural phenomena exist, and we have overwhelming objective evidence for human evolution. So adding an unevidenced deity, that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, clearly violates Occam’s razor. The best response he ahd to this ironically was a atrw man fallacy, where he misrepresented atheism as a claim, which of course it is not.
When people come here who don’t really want to deate, we can still learn something if we critically scutirinise their claims and arguments.
For our nelwy departed apologist who created multiple logins, (I don’t know if he/she can still read the posts?) but, one need not read any books on logic to avoid the trap of using common logical fallacies, all you need to do is get a list of them off the internet, in fact here is a master lst of fallacies in informal logic: Master List of Logical Fallacies
If you do nothing else read and understand those, and try not to use them, that way at least your arguments will be a lot less likely to be irrational.
Well, that settles it. @Sid has sufficiently inspired me.
Listen up, everybody! Confession time! From the moment I hit puberty way back when, I suddenly developed a feeling deep down inside me I could never explain. And until this very day, I have never been able to understand why I have that feeling. However, Sid has come along and offered me a solution to this problem that has plagued me all these years.
You see, ever since I was a kid, every time I see a nun with a bad habit eating a banana, I always get a compulsive primal urge to masturbate. Simply can’t help it. I have no control over it. And I have never been able to explain WHY. Thanks to Sid, though, I now have the means to solve the mystery of that stirring within my loins. So, as of today, I have decided to start believing in naked green universe-creating pixies. It’s so obvious to me now, as it is the only possible explanation available. And I urge all of you to start believing in these seductive little pixies, for believing in them will help you explain any strange feelings you might be experiencing. It’s amazing how much better I feel knowing the cause of the strange feelings I was feeling. Thank you, Sid! You are a lifesaver! 
(Edit for alone time.)
LMAO we all know that YOU have no proof at all.
The feeling is mutual. The answers that every Christian gives is total bullshit, just like your arguments. All of you fail at providing evidence and then get pissed off just like you do when atheists dismiss your side of the argument. In fact, All you’ve done here is shit in one hand and smear it all over your face with your god argument. Boo hoo, go cry more.
1 Like
It’s not my job to prove anything .
That are many things that are beyond the purview of science and answers to their reality lay somewhere else ( unless of course you deny the reality of qualities such as Love Meaning Purpose )
Atheistic Materialism is the study of the “quantitative” and is of no use whatsoever in explaining the “qualitative” which cannot perform any function within the atheistic materialistic theory .
Seems to me there are two choices - God or No God . The burden of proof lays clearly at the feet of the atheist to show how the “qualitative “ is favored by natural selection. Good luck with that .
YOU are the one who asserts that your cartoon magic man exists, therefore YOU are the one required to support this assertion. All the rest of us are required to do in the meantime, is wait for your inevitable failure in this regard, at which point your assertion is safely discardable in accordance with the rules of proper discourse.
Let’s move on to the rest of your bullshit, shall we?
Ahem, everything is beyond the purview of mythological assertion …
They don’t lie within the pages of a goat herder mythology, written by piss-stained Bronze Age incels who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.
Your bullshit on this has already been shredded. All you have to offer on these topics, is duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications.
Poppycock. The study of quantitative phenomena is the business of SCIENCE . Atheism is the business of being suspicious of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions, many of which you’ve peddled here.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Guess what, Looby Loo? A good many qualitative phenomena have a quantitative basis.
A classic example is provided by the evolution of the eye. As one progresses through each of the various stages thereof, there are both qualitative and quantitative improvements with each subsequent development.
I just provided an example busting this lie of yours. Oh, and your continued use of “atheistic materialistic theory” instead of " scientific theory" is mendacious bullshit on your part. Drop it.
Several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years. As a corollary, cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant .
I just provided an example thereof above.
You rang, mythology fanboy?
3 Likes
Can you give an example of a ‘reality’ beyond the preview of science?
1 Like
Indeed they all do but try measuring their mass, charge , momentum etc , all the things that materialism uses to construct it models .
Good luck with that .
Love will suffice . There are many many others but only one is needed to crack the egg
Sorry pal, but we all beg to differ. Atheism is simply not believing in any god/gods. You say god exists, we say we don’t believe in any of your bullshit. You have to provide evidence or actual proof for the thing you keep saying is real.
Your quantitative and/or qualitative arguments don’t mean a fucking thing in a debate about the existence of the christian god.
This horse never had a chance, did he?
What? Does anybody understand what this person is rambling on about?
I can’t say that I understand any Christian who who goes on and on about their beliefs. They always offer no evidence, so I dismiss their claim. @Sid has been bumbling on about his favorite novel and adding in his own head canon that I’ve lost interest.
Actually, No! It won’t. Demonstrate a connection between whatever you are calling love and whatever you are calling God. (Define ‘Love.’ Define the ‘God’ you are referencing. Show a connection.)
2 Likes
it is if you bring it here, otherwise no one is going to believe your unevidenced fairy tales.
No one has denied those those are emergent properties of human consciousness. They have just rejected your risible and unevidenced claim they require magic from an unevidenced sky fairly.
Wrong again, natural selection is one of the mechanisms that drives species evolution, and it is part of an established scientific theory, it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Yet again you are irrationally using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, your claims carry a burden of proof, and this is rationally true even in the absence of any alternative evidence or explanation, but human emotions can be explained by evolution.
You’re violating Occam’s razor again, by adding unevidenced deities and inexplicable magic to objective facts, like species evolution, we know the material world exists, and we know natural phenomena are possible, you have nothing to evidence any deity or anything supernatural are even possible.
Wrong again, that’s a false dichotomy fallacy. Humans have created literally thousands of deities, and if you want to peddle one here you will have to accurately define the one you are claiming is real, and demonstrate sufficient evidence to support your claim.
Your endless attempt to pretend your superstition gains credence because it can’t be disproved is still an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and remains irrational by definition.
You can’t evidence your deity, you can’t evidence design, and you can’t evidence love requiring a deity to explain it, in fact you can’t explain why you think love evidences any deity, all you have offered is a bare claim.
All you have is this ad ignorantiam fallacy, and each time you rehash it knowing it is a fallacy in informal logic, it demonstrates clearly your belief is irrational, and that you are holding an empty bag.
No it won’t, since you can’t offer a single word in explanation as to why you think an evolved human emotion like love evidences any deity. A bare unevidenced claim will never suffice in a debate, the fact you think it will says it all.
We saw through your trick at the very first, asking us to disprove something, when you have failed to offer a single word to define it, or any objective evidence it is possible for us to examine. Your “argument” remains risible nonsense, and who can fail to notice you endlessly repeat it while ignoring all challenges to it, for example not believing in mermaids or unicorns can’t evidence love, by your rationale this is evidence that mermaids and unicorns are real. You have even tried to address this, and it is pretty obvious why.
1 Like
I really don’t need to say anything else. Isn’tr this troll done?
It’s all pretty simple - If atheistic materialism cannot provide a satisfactory answer to the question of Love , and there are many many others , then the answer to its reality must lay somewhere else . The BS answer provided is nothing more than stealing Theistic values to try and account for it .
Materialism provides no answer to the question of the “qualitative” . Experience has no place in the models that materialism make of our world . A blind pitiless meaningless purposeless existence has no use or need for the “qualitative” therefore their source must lay somewhere else .
The burden of proof lays clearly at the feet of the atheist in providing proof that a blind pitiless meaningless purposeless lifeless universe has a need to produce the “qualitative”
Good luck with that
Nope, that’s still an irrational attempt to reverse the burden of proof using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We know the material universe exists, so your attempt to add unevidenced deities using inexplicable magic, simply violates Occam’s razor. You keep claiming that human emotions can’t be explained by natural phenomena like evolution, but you can’t evidence that claim either can you, so even by your own rationale your argument fails.
We know human consciousness exists, we know natural phenomena exist, and we know species evolution exists, we no longer need archaic unevidenced god of the gaps polemics for things we don’t understand, and they are are of course irrational, as has been explained.
Your claim for an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic is where the burden of proof lays, atheism is not a claim, nor need it involve any. Good luck with that, as so far trolling those who don’t share your beliefs with known logical fallacies is clearly all you have. You’re still holding an empty bag for all to see.
For example you can’t offer a single word to explain how the existence of human emotions like love remotely evidences any deity? All you can do is try to hide your unevidenced deity in the gaps. It’s clear your claims not only are unevidenced, they also have no explanatory powers whatsoever. It’s also clear that human emotions can offer a survival benefit, combined with the objective fact that all living things have evolved slowly over time, we need not add anything that is unevidenced or inexplicable, so your unevidenced superstition is of no value at all in explaining natural phenomena like human emotions.