Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 10:03 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:58 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:52 AM)ohio_drg Wrote:  Facepalm

It is quite obvious you either lack the ability to comprehend what people type, or you comprehend it fully but resort to tired apologetics to attempt to slither out of a discussion.

I said "mankind still haven't seen any reptile-bird kind of transformation". That is a fact, sir.
Once again, willful ignorance or bullshitter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 10:01 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:57 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  im curious COW, do you consider a human and an orangutan to be the same ''kind'' of animal?

No. Humans aren't animals, in my (and the Bible's) view.

despite our very similar DNA? so DNA doesn't appear to be a factor to you. how do you define a ''kind'' then? just visually? that seems kinda vague. im not super familar with the bible. where does it say that we are not animals?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In my case:
I don't know.

I'm curious to see where you are going with this.

Simple. The statement "God exists" is a claim that when you say it; the average atheists will say "Prove it. Where is your evidence". They just can't wait for a chance to debunk theistic arguments, and they are more than happy to utter the words "prove it".

Well, in the same way, "God doesn't exist" is also a claim. An absolute claim to knowledge, which also opens to door up for a "Prove it. Where is your evidence".

See how that works?

It's been provided in the form of a valid and sound syllogism which stands unrefuted to this day.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:20 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Bullshit. The burden of proof is on anyone that is making a claim. You made a claim, now prove it. If you can't prove it, then you don't "know" anything. You just made an empty statement, because you certainly can't prove a damn thing.

No god ever worshiped by humans exists. We know this, because the various holy books involved make claims about these gods and their actions. These claims are demonstrably false. There was, for example, no Garden of Eden, no flood, and no resurrection, so the god of Christianity does not exist.

Deist deities are garage dragons, and do not exist by definition. Other gods may exist, but only in the same way that the Doctor may have actually visited Earth at some point. There is also some minor debate to be had on whether or not any given "god" should be treated as a sufficiently advanced alien instead, as well as the idea that the Christian god might actually exist but the Bible and all associated claims be false, but neither of these is really relevant to the main point.

In every sense that matters, we know that there is no god.

Quote:
(21-03-2016 02:50 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Mine is merely a response to an assertion that has, after 2,000 years+, still not yet met its burden of proof.

Yeah, and over 7,000+ years of human civilization, mankind still haven't seen any reptile-bird kind of transformation.

Thirty-second verse, same as the first...

Quote:That aside, what is the "burden of proof". What is the standard to be met there?

In the case of establishing the existence of an entity (such as the Christian god), evidence must be supplied which proves that events have occurred which cannot be explained without the supposed entity as the cause.

The operating principle here is parsimony: do not posit the existence of entities not in evidence. It's basically Occam's razor, more formally stated. If the explanation doesn't require something, don't put it in.

The other half of the equation is the non sequitur fallacy: if you don't have an immediate explanation for something, it isn't evidence for any specific explanation. UFOs, for example, are unknown flying objects. They are not evidence for alien visitation any more than they are evidence for wizards.

This is one of the many reasons that the theistic position has historically had such trouble showing itself to be rational. Aside from the fact that miracles don't happen, things like the resurrection of Jesus wouldn't actually prove their god's existence even if they could definitively show that it happened. It would definitely be a hell of a trick, but it wouldn't prove that the god Jesus talked about was real. Leaping from "this man came back to life" to "everything he ever said was necessarily true" is still a non sequitur.

Most debates just ask for evidence of it occurring because there isn't much point in bringing this up before that's been established. Assuming it isn't rejected out of hand, it always devolves into "well, how would you explain a guy coming back to life, then?" Which misses the point entirely.

If a man came back to life, the cause behind that would be an unknown. You cannot get from "unknown" to "a god did it" (a non sequitur). That would require the existence of an entity not in evidence (a violation of parsimony).

It is at this point that the theist, who has only vaguely been listening thus far, invariably says "but he came back to life! that is evidence!" And, frankly, once that happens there's really nothing for it but to set the whole world on fire and start again with amoebas, because anything has got to be better than this.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dogs produce dogs, people.

What dog exactly produced this dog?

[Image: 1304517600000.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
21-03-2016, 10:36 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:40 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. If there is anything contrary to that, I haven't seen it yet.

Still ignoring the actual content of the posts you reply to, I see. And actively refusing to learn what it is that the theory of evolution actually says, and how it functions.

Quote:Why can't similarities in genetics mean common designer?

Parsimony. Assumes the existence of an entity not in evidence.

Quote:More bio-babble, I see.

If you think that "reproduction with variation" and "selection pressure" are bio-babble, I shudder to think of how badly you would do in even the simplest college course. Hell, this stuff turns up in middle school nowadays.

When tweenagers have a more powerful vocabulary than you, it may be time to start questioning your life choices.

And don't think that no one here noticed the blatant and shameless dodge of the fact that we know how eyes evolved, either.

This is pathetic.

Quote:Actually, my question is relevant to what we were discussing. We were discussing the origins of the disciples belief in the Resurrection.

No, we were discussing what evidence you have for the resurrection actually happening. Since you have none, you have attempted to make it an issue of why the disciples believed - which is entirely irrelevant, as, however trustworthy you think they are, the only thing that can establish them as credible witnesses in this case is the evidence that I have asked for.

And, from there, you've gone off on a Bigfoot tangent, because you want to play silly buggers and try to get me to say I would take the disciples' word. Unfortunately, I've seen this song and dance routine enough times in the past that it no longer holds interest. I am not interested in humoring you in an extended exercise in making as many fallacies as you possibly can.

Present your evidence or get out.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 02:50 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  It is for those that assert that god exists to prove that he does.

Bullshit. The burden of proof is on anyone that is making a claim. You made a claim, now prove it. If you can't prove it, then you don't "know" anything. You just made an empty statement, because you certainly can't prove a damn thing.

(21-03-2016 02:50 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Mine is merely a response to an assertion that has, after 2,000 years+, still not yet met its burden of proof.

Yeah, and over 7,000+ years of human civilization, mankind still haven't seen any reptile-bird kind of transformation. That aside, what is the "burden of proof". What is the standard to be met there?

You can't be circumcised because you are a complete prick.

You stated the lard exists. It's your claim. Now support it.

Mankind in over 7,000 years hasn't seen any reptile bird kind of transformation. 7,000 years, in this type of evolutionary, is a blink of an eye. You sure are thick - even for a christard.

Achieving proof is a process in which we assemble evidence, test it, refine it, and reinforce it until that body of evidence is solid enough to withstand contradictions and counterclaims. Do you have the necessary proof to this level? No, I thought not. Twat.

Even you christards can't agree amongst yourselves what the nature of your particular god is given how many christard denominations there are in the world. Even if we amalgamate the various christardologies into a single religion, there's still the other 4,199 religions in the world, each of which has at least one deity. So, funny fella, what makes you so sure that your god is the 'right god' out of the minimum 4,199 other deities that are claimed exist or even that your god exists.

You are useless - even as a chew stick.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
21-03-2016, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 10:47 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 09:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, so you still fundamentally refuse to understand the theory of evolution, despite it being explained to you time and time again? Color me not surprised.

Dogs produce dogs, people.


Tell me, does it take effort to be as fucking stupid as you are? Like, do you have to pay your pastor to monitor your internet traffic so that you don't accidentally encounter any facts? Do you spend time running head first into concrete walls? What about self administering bleach enemas? Enjoy starting into the sun for hours at a time? Or do you drop just trousers and start fucking your front lawn while your neighbors watch in horrified disbelief?

Because your astounding level of purposeful ignorance would be impressive, if it wasn't so fucking terrifying. Like 'flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of innocent civilians' sort of terrifying.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-03-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 10:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dogs produce dogs, people.


Tell me, does it take effort to be as fucking stupid as you are? Like, do you have to pay your pastor to monitor your internet traffic so that you don't accidentally encounter any facts? Do you spend time running head first into concrete walls? What about self administering bleach enemas? Enjoy starting into the sun for hours at a time? Or do you drop just trousers and start fucking your front lawn while your neighbors watch in horrified disbelief?

Because your astounding level of purposeful ignorance would be impressive, if it wasn't so fucking terrifying. Like 'flying airplanes into skyscrapers and killing thousands of innocent civilians' sort of terrifying.

Fucking epic!!

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
21-03-2016, 10:52 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 10:30 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:41 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dogs produce dogs, people.

What dog exactly produced this dog?

[Image: 1304517600000.jpg]

what the hell is that monstrosity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: