… Evidenced based faith???.. 
… Oxymoron much?..
3 Likes
Maybe it’s just because I haven’t had my morning coffee yet, but I read that last part as “pooped into existence”. IMHO it makes a more interesting story than the bible god creation myth.
That’s not evidence that’s an unevidenced claim, and evidence based faith is an hilarious oxymoron only a theist would not be embarrassed to use.
- Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy…AGAIN.
- Personal experience is not evidence, it’s unevidenced subjective opinion.
Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality. It is truly moronic to suggest the longevity of a claim lends credence to it. Why aren’t you Jewish in that case, since their god claims predate yours?
Atheism as you’ve been told exhaustively is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. The fact humans have a propensity for fantasies that make them feel better, lends no more credence to your fantasy than it did to Zeus or Apollo. Logic is counter intuitive, it takes discipline detachment and objectivity to reason in strict accordance with the principles of logic. Its success in objectively validating claims is manifest in it’s results.
Incidentally, logic predates your mythology quite considerably, so the hypocrisy of you dismissing it, after citing the longevity of your superstion as lending credence to its myths, is pretty fucking hilarious.
I wouldn’t, so I think YOU are far better placed to answer that, since you are the only one here who has abandoned logic in favour of a fairytale.
Incidentally you do know that rational means reasoning accordance with the principles of logic, only you keep including both, and that’s a tautology?
1 Like
He never will, @TheFlyingPig has been asked repeatedly, both in this thread and the one in the old forum where he repeated the claim ad nauseam, to demonstrate evidence for his claim, all we ever get is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Usually in the same post where he asserts his claim is rational.
Perhaps I take a little more of a strident approach then most atheists in that I’m happy to say I know the notion of a god is total bollocks.
Yeah, i agree there is absolutely no evidence to support such a childish worldview, but furthermore the entire concept is the most ludicrous fantasy of ill-informed and under educated fuckwits, that one could possibly imagine.
4 Likes
How do you know it’s the wrong place until it’s after the fact ?
To repeat - Quantum mechanics tells us that the only thing that exists is observations .
Truth is what stands the test of experience .
I said if atheism is logical , rational and leads to truth .
Of course any individual professing any belief may be as mad as an hatter .
Welcome to the new site, good to have you back.
1 Like
Atheism is the lack of absence of belief in any deity or deities.
NOTHING MORE
So adding attributes or adjectives beyond that definition is a dishonest misrepresentation.
Like claiming that not collecting stamps is rational, and leads to the truth.
Your biased agenda, and willingness to lie in order to point score against atheism aside, your claim is ludicrous, each and everytime you repeat it. You also shouldn’t ever use the word logical, or rational, as you clearly don’t understand what it means, and not only are you uninterested in learning, you are dishonestly using the words as soundbites to try and misrepresent your faith based and unevidenced rhetoric as logical, when it demonstrably uses known logical fallacies in an endless and tedious repetitive way.
Well there you go, atheism is not a belief, yet even after months of having this explained you continue to lie.
Atheism isn’t rational nor is it irrational, because it’s not a belief, or a claim.
An atheist’s rationale behind their lack of belief might be rational or irrational, but atheism cannot be described as rational or irrational.
3 Likes
No it isn’t, as has already been explained.
Your propensity for relentless mendacity isn’t going to sway anyone, or validate any of your BS claims, especially when anyone can Google word definitions for truth and atheism, and see that you’re lying AGAIN.
1 Like
Hello Random, glad to see you made it to the new digs here.
1 Like
A variation on the original in post 298, “Quantum mechanics tells us that nothing exists except observations .” but nonetheless utter bullshit.
In case you missed it, Pig, from my post 313.
"A bizarre statement. Quantum mechanics says nothing of the sort. Are you suggesting the universe does not exist, only the consciousness to observe it, and presumably a divine consciousness? Pre-suppositional apologetics in full flight, flapping wildly into the headwind of an obstinate reality.
There are several quantum theories extant and there are currently no absolute truths or conclusions about what comprises reality at the quantum level. The best known and more popular theories, of ‘Papa’ Heisenberg and John Wheeler, state that the collapse of the wave function can only be achieved by an “observer” to record a quantum phenomenon. But even here the observer does not have to be conscious, it can be a photographic plate.
Such observations/measurements necessarily need to be classical, which leads some to the erroneous suggestion that human consciousness is required to initiate the collapse.
And there are other current theories such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, attested by further independent research by Chris Dewdney (Birkbeck College London) that discounts the need for observers or measurements to collapse the wave.
Then there are a range of ‘collapse theories’ that suggest the wave function will collapse randomly without any observation at all, as promoted by Markus Arndt and Roger Penrose (who introduces the concept of gravitational instabilities to initiate collapse).
So my point with this short imperfect lesson is to show there is no absolute consensus about quantum science but the one thing that is generally agreed is that no conscious observer is required at all.
So, no, Flying Pig, I am not wrong, but you are mistaken and misinformed.
And all of this illustrates how your pre-suppositionalism fatally negates your ability to seek truth or to follow the data to where it objectively leads.
Besides deriding my analogy merely because you object to atheist use of certain words, you also seized on the popular quirky newspaper-selling explanation that consciousness is an absolute requirement to establish ‘reality’ and ignoring all other scientifically established theories, arrogantly front-ended that idea with your faith in an mythical deity, to erect a faulty, irrational edifice (nothing exists except observations?!) as some sort of proof of your mythical belief, using wilful ignorance as its foundation."
3 Likes
Smilingbirdfood…
Ahhh 
sailingswine can’t just sit around and “attract” a god into existence?
So are we to be bothered by any of this evidence @TheFlyingPig keeps insisting abides in the natural world?
Or is it more likely that this is just more vapid rhetoric, a placeholder until months later he feigns incredulity that we atheists have ignored the “evidence” he “presented”? How many times have we seen that lie from theists and religious apologists.
Though to be fair, any theist or religious apologist even feigning incredulity, is a progress of a sort I suppose.
1 Like
Ahh, prettypugsly,
Frankly the Flying Pig can do what he likes. I am wearied of him. Sitting and ‘attracting’ a god might not be any more effective for him than ‘rationalising’ a god in to being.
He obviously isn’t here to convert or debate with anyone or engage in any serious witnessing for his god. He’s just kicking the can for his own trolling amusement. He is just boring and a time waster now.
It remains truly puzzling how, like most theists do, he insists on one hand science is not enough and yet on the other hand makes all sorts of ignorant assumptions and half-arsed philosophical inanities about science, and in this case, quantum mechanics, to prove his super conscious god and considers this to be somehow intellectually compelling.
As I have suggested elsewhere go perform some miracles Effpee, as promised in scripture, it might be a more likely way to convince me.
You prove it each time you open your mouth~!
1 Like
Brought to you by SCIENCE …
When I go fishing, if I start hooking the big ones in rapid succession, I do not change my lure.
TheFlyingPig is doing the same thing, over and over, we get crazy at such inane posts, and we fall into his trap of responding and repeating the cycle.
Has this conversation advanced at all in the last week?
2 Likes
I’d say anything more here is just wasting time. He is either unwilling or not capable of understanding what the argument is actually about.
1 Like
Last week? He’s been touting this nonsense in the old forum for months.
I just give him the same responses each time. If he thinks that is annoying me, or takes any great time or effort then he is way dumber than I gave him credit for, and that would be some achievement.
Bottom line, I’d bet a month’s wages he is either a teenage boy or at most in his early twenties, with something of a chip on his shoulder where atheism is concerned.
I shudder to imagine he is being genuine, that is just beyond scary.
1 Like