I can't rationalize atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2014, 06:14 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
I think I just figured you out.

Your being an idiot is necessarily why you accept ontological and cosmological arguments, flawed though they are. You're too dumb to realize that the arguments themselves are also stupid.

(this does follow pretty trivially from the premises you provide)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
12-04-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 04:54 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I would much rather not believe in a god, but there are a few things that I cannot escape.

1. The ontological argument, which shifts the burden of proof onto atheists
2. The cosmological argument
3. The fact that I'm a pathetic piece of shit. Who am I to question the really smart people who believe?
4. The idea that materialism is self refuting/argument from solipsism

[Image: 105217.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
12-04-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
Considering I've had several pints of strong beer (thank fuck for predictive text), this might be bullshit.

But... Why does it fucking matter? If there's an invisible.e fella in the sky he can go fuxk himself. I'm here for one thing and one thing only, to have a good time... If that pisses him off, then he can go fuck himself cuz I'm rockin' out.

Live forever, or die trying,

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
12-04-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
I've honestly never seen any logic behind the ontological argument. It just doesn't follow for me that just because something is imaginable it must exist. That sounds pretty stupid to me actually.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like evenheathen's post
12-04-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
[Image: 97337fde2b0741740d2004ef0fa9906f4f220891...ed0fa5.jpg]

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Crulax's post
12-04-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 05:04 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 05:00 PM)natachan Wrote:  1) no, sweety, it doesn't. There is no link between physical reality and thought. You say there is? Provide evidence.
2) The existence of the universe is evidence for nothing but the universe. "I don't know" doesn't mean God did it.
3) I've written a long piece on sin. Search if you want. Short version: being a normal human does not count as a crime.
4) Explain. This looks like word salad to me.

1. No no. The ontological argument proves that if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, a maximally great being MUST exist. So, nonbeliever must now prove that a maximally great being cannot exist.
2. Everything that exists has a cause. Do you disagree with that statement
3. I am lower than a normal person
4. http://carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

*sigh*

The ontological argument is that if I can imagine a perfect being it must exist since an absolutely perfect being in existence would be more perfect than an imaginary being. This assumes there is a link between thought and reality. There is no evidence to suggest there is. You are stating there is. Prove it.

2) I'm just a research assistant. You need a scientist for this. Fortunately we have one that has debunked this argument in the boxing ring.

Even if I grant your assumption, which I don't, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD? You have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to this.

3) I don't know you, so I can't speak to this. I will only say that justice is equal payment and there is NO crime for which equal payment is eternal pain and torment.

4) Read it. Nonsense and word salad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like natachan's post
12-04-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 08:32 PM)natachan Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 05:04 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  1. No no. The ontological argument proves that if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, a maximally great being MUST exist. So, nonbeliever must now prove that a maximally great being cannot exist.
2. Everything that exists has a cause. Do you disagree with that statement
3. I am lower than a normal person
4. http://carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

*sigh*

The ontological argument is that if I can imagine a perfect being it must exist since an absolutely perfect being in existence would be more perfect than an imaginary being. This assumes there is a link between thought and reality. There is no evidence to suggest there is. You are stating there is. Prove it.

2) I'm just a research assistant. You need a scientist for this. Fortunately we have one that has debunked this argument in the boxing ring.

Even if I grant your assumption, which I don't, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD? You have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to this.

3) I don't know you, so I can't speak to this. I will only say that justice is equal payment and there is NO crime for which equal payment is eternal pain and torment.

4) Read it. Nonsense and word salad.

Now that my head is a bit clearer, and I can actually see the keyboard.

The ontological argument is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. It proves absolutely nothing but your own imagination.

I can imagine Utopia, but tat doesn't mean Utopia exists, or is even a practical possibility.

What exactly do people mean when they talk about this "perfection"? What do they use to measure it against other than our own imperfection?

What exactly makes us imperfect compared to God (assuming we're talking about the Biblical god)? Many aspects of human nature that we consider to be truly "evil", God is guilty of too... More so in fact considering that God annihilated the entirety of human civilization, save for a few people on a boat.

What it boils down to is that God doesn't eat, drink, shit, piss or fuck... Which somehow makes him more perfect than us.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 08:50 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 08:32 PM)natachan Wrote:  *sigh*

The ontological argument is that if I can imagine a perfect being it must exist since an absolutely perfect being in existence would be more perfect than an imaginary being. This assumes there is a link between thought and reality. There is no evidence to suggest there is. You are stating there is. Prove it.

2) I'm just a research assistant. You need a scientist for this. Fortunately we have one that has debunked this argument in the boxing ring.

Even if I grant your assumption, which I don't, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD? You have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to this.

3) I don't know you, so I can't speak to this. I will only say that justice is equal payment and there is NO crime for which equal payment is eternal pain and torment.

4) Read it. Nonsense and word salad.

Now that my head is a bit clearer, and I can actually see the keyboard.

The ontological argument is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. It proves absolutely nothing but your own imagination.

I can imagine Utopia, but tat doesn't mean Utopia exists, or is even a practical possibility.

What exactly do people mean when they talk about this "perfection"? What do they use to measure it against other than our own imperfection?

What exactly makes us imperfect compared to God (assuming we're talking about the Biblical god)? Many aspects of human nature that we consider to be truly "evil", God is guilty of too... More so in fact considering that God annihilated the entirety of human civilization, save for a few people on a boat.

What it boils down to is that God doesn't eat, drink, shit, piss or fuck... Which somehow makes him more perfect than us.

You're talking about the god of the bible, which I will agree is far from perfect.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 06:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think I just figured you out.

Your being an idiot is necessarily why you accept ontological and cosmological arguments, flawed though they are. You're too dumb to realize that the arguments themselves are also stupid.

(this does follow pretty trivially from the premises you provide)

Why yes, I am retarded. Good observation. This is part of why I can't be an atheist. I don't know much of anything.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2014, 08:57 PM
RE: I can't rationalize atheism
(12-04-2014 08:32 PM)natachan Wrote:  
(12-04-2014 05:04 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  1. No no. The ontological argument proves that if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, a maximally great being MUST exist. So, nonbeliever must now prove that a maximally great being cannot exist.
2. Everything that exists has a cause. Do you disagree with that statement
3. I am lower than a normal person
4. http://carm.org/materialistic-atheism-self-refuting

*sigh*

The ontological argument is that if I can imagine a perfect being it must exist since an absolutely perfect being in existence would be more perfect than an imaginary being. This assumes there is a link between thought and reality. There is no evidence to suggest there is. You are stating there is. Prove it.

2) I'm just a research assistant. You need a scientist for this. Fortunately we have one that has debunked this argument in the boxing ring.

Even if I grant your assumption, which I don't, WHY DO YOU ASSUME THE FIRST CAUSE IS GOD? You have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to this.

3) I don't know you, so I can't speak to this. I will only say that justice is equal payment and there is NO crime for which equal payment is eternal pain and torment.

4) Read it. Nonsense and word salad.

The ontological argument proves that a maximally great being must exist.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: