[split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 12:38 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Aserwin, I'll grant you a universe created by a god. Hell, it can even be your god. I'll concede that to you, even though you haven't earned it.

Why am I doing this? Simple. Because this universe creating god was itself created by Norks. What are Norks? They are beings who create universe creating deities. How do I know this? Because that's how I define Norks; they simply are beings who create universe creating deities by definition.

So now that I've concede that your god created this universe, but that it was also created and is subservient to my Norks, I have to ask; how can you prove me wrong? And can you do so without also destroying your own god in the process?


Good luck with that... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-06-2016, 12:25 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(09-06-2016 11:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 10:02 PM)aserwin Wrote:  ...
I urge you to read Peter Hume
...

Next on my reading list after I've finished with his brother, David.

You got me there. Smile I was, at the same time, suggesting that someone read some of the papers from Peter Atkins... I was typing fast on 2 different forums and failed to check myself.

Good catch! And, I want to reiterate... for Atheists and theists alike, David Hume is a great read.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 12:35 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Aserwin, maybe you are interested in deism.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god, but I think you know this already. Also, atheism is not a proper noun and doesn't require capitalization in the middle of a sentence.

Reason leading to atheism usually is: Either no evidence for a god, or every given definition of god is at conflict with current understanding of nature and physics, or the god is described as a "catch all" god of the gaps proposition. Such as, "well we don't know what created the universe so let's fill that knowledge gap with "god"". Sound familiar? without even getting to the god part, we would at least need to verify that the universe was "created".

I'd accept a god possibility if there was a reason to, but there just isn't. If you can't accept the Norks that EvolutionKills brought up then maybe you can understand why I/we can't accept your hypothesis. And if you can accept his Norks, well I'll just say I think that's a foolish thing to accept just because you can't verify that it is false.

Anyways, your fake "tell me more!" enthusiasm makes me feel like you are disingenuous.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
10-06-2016, 12:38 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Aserwin, I'll grant you a universe created by a god. Hell, it can even be your god. I'll concede that to you, even though you haven't earned it.

Why am I doing this? Simple. Because your universe creating god was itself created by Norks. What are Norks? They are beings who create universe creating deities. How do I know this? Because that's how I define Norks; they simply are beings who create universe creating deities by definition.

So now that I've concede that your god created this universe, but that it was also created and is subservient to my Norks, I have to ask; how can you prove me wrong? And can you do so without also destroying your own god in the process?


Good luck with that... Drinking Beverage

OK so you went 5th grade Dawkins. That is up to you.
Here is a question for you... in your world view, is there ANYTHING fundamental, or ANYTHING necessary?

That is, where does it stop? So, circles are 180 degrees... did someone create that? or is that fact necessary or fundamental?

Is the universe contingent or immigrant? If so, what are the necessary of fundamental things that the universe arose from?

Your statement is easily deciphered by my 9 year old daughter. But I want you to answer this... where did the universe come from? And how far back can you do before you are forced to explain a "start"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 12:43 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Aserwin, I'll grant you a universe created by a god. Hell, it can even be your god. I'll concede that to you, even though you haven't earned it.

Why am I doing this? Simple. Because your universe creating god was itself created by Norks. What are Norks? They are beings who create universe creating deities. How do I know this? Because that's how I define Norks; they simply are beings who create universe creating deities by definition.

So now that I've concede that your god created this universe, but that it was also created and is subservient to my Norks, I have to ask; how can you prove me wrong? And can you do so without also destroying your own god in the process?


Good luck with that... Drinking Beverage
OK so you went 5th grade Dawkins. That is up to you.
Here is a question for you... in your world view, is there ANYTHING fundamental, or ANYTHING necessary?


Without further qualification or demonstration, I simply do not know; and I'm okay with that.


(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  That is, where does it stop? So, circles are 180 degrees... did someone create that? or is that fact necessary or fundamental?


That's how we define a circle. So your argument is a semantic word game? How unoriginal.


(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  Is the universe contingent or immigrant? If so, what are the necessary of fundamental things that the universe arose from?


Once again, I don't know; and honest people admit this instead of pretending to know things they do not know to be facts. You might want to take a cue.


(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  Your statement is easily deciphered by my 9 year old daughter. But I want you to answer this... where did the universe come from? And how far back can you do before you are forced to explain a "start"?


So easy a 9 year old can do it, but ironically enough, you refuse to. Probably because you can't, but would rather posture than admit not knowing.

1/10 Too derivative, would not troll again.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-06-2016, 01:08 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Quote:Without further qualification or demonstration, I simply do not know; and I'm okay with that.

That is fair... but I am not satisfied with that. I want to know.

Quote:That's how we define a circle. So your argument is a semantic word game? How unoriginal.

This is not semantic, This is an example of something fundamental (in science) or necessary (in philosophy)

Quote:Once again, I don't know; and honest people admit this instead of pretending to know things they do not know to be facts. You might want to take a cue.

I get it. And I agree. I am just not willing to eliminate any possibility.

Quote:So easy a 9 year old can do it, but ironically enough, you refuse to. Probably because you can't, but would rather posture than admit not knowing.

Not sure what you are saying here... My point is that I don't know. I just refuse to eliminate any possibility. The evidence I have points to intelligence, but I don't know. I am just not ruling anything out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 02:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 02:20 AM by carusmm.)
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
David Hume addressed the issue of a first cause and considered it impossible to know. Only proofs of what we know to be true can serve us in our time of need, accordingly.
There is no proof of God, and therefore there is no point to life, except that which we make for ourselves. My family is my whole reason for existing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 02:24 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  OK so you went 5th grade Dawkins. That is up to you.

And you continue with your sleazy ad hominem. That is up to you but will gain nothing.

Quote:Here is a question for you... in your world view, is there ANYTHING fundamental, or ANYTHING necessary?

Reality exists.

Quote:That is, where does it stop? So, circles are 180 degrees... did someone create that? or is that fact necessary or fundamental?

No, a circle is 360° but that is by definition. It is a human creation.

Quote:Is the universe contingent or immigrant? If so, what are the necessary of fundamental things that the universe arose from?

Immigrant? Do you mean emergent?

Quote:Your statement is easily deciphered by my 9 year old daughter. But I want you to answer this... where did the universe come from? And how far back can you do before you are forced to explain a "start"?

More ad hominem. You are failing here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-06-2016, 02:55 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 02:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 12:38 AM)aserwin Wrote:  OK so you went 5th grade Dawkins. That is up to you.

And you continue with your sleazy ad hominem. That is up to you but will gain nothing.

Quote:Here is a question for you... in your world view, is there ANYTHING fundamental, or ANYTHING necessary?

Reality exists.

Quote:That is, where does it stop? So, circles are 180 degrees... did someone create that? or is that fact necessary or fundamental?

No, a circle is 360° but that is by definition. It is a human creation.

Quote:Is the universe contingent or immigrant? If so, what are the necessary of fundamental things that the universe arose from?

Immigrant? Do you mean emergent?

Quote:Your statement is easily deciphered by my 9 year old daughter. But I want you to answer this... where did the universe come from? And how far back can you do before you are forced to explain a "start"?

More ad hominem. You are failing here.

Yes, reality exists. But whose reality? - That is the question. You cannot flog off these people with logic. You must be prepared to get dirty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 03:12 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Why is not a question, it is an accusation. Why is the world real and not false? Why should it matter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: