[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, 01:43 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 10:20 AM)carusmm Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 09:50 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well fuck, looks like we got another Deepak Chopra wannabe on our hands; and a solipsist to boot. Somebody wheeling out their Intro to Philosophy guns after staying at a Holiday Inn Express. Bring the smelling salts, I may just pass out from anticipation... Rolleyes

Quite obviously, I am not explaining myself correctly.

The understament of the fucking year there mate.

But can one adequately explain gobly gook?

[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, 07:12 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(08-06-2016 11:21 PM)aserwin Wrote:  You're right. The "god" that Christians generally prescribe DOESN'T exist. But, that doesn't prove (nor is that evidence) that there isn't a first cause. It also doesn't prove that the first cause wasn't sentient. Atheists tend to point out semantic problems in stead of actually arguing the issue.
We don't have to prove anything, that burden is not on us. We have no obligation or even requirement to disprove the existence of an entity asserted with ZERO demonstrable evidence.

Atheists don't point out semantic problems except when it's pertinent to the conversation. We can simply point out that you have zero bloody evidence, that belief is ONLY justified as true after and not before a demonstration of that belief as factual, drop the mic and you have already lost.

The conversation, as far as it needs to actually go, starts and stops with the fact your claims are demonstrably unsupported and indistinguishable from made up nonsense. You have no evidence, and your position is not the most likely by default, so it can be discarded as the bald faced assertion it is.


We don't have to prove a things nonexistence, you have to prove it's existence. And you have all failed spectacularly.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-06-2016, 07:21 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(09-06-2016 11:37 PM)aserwin Wrote:  what I am asking is IF we ALL come to a consensus about the ACTUAL beginning (keeping in mind that many believe the big bang was NOT the actual beginning), can we just agree to call that god?

No, why the hell would we do that? We have no more reason to call it "god" than we do " the Garfunklefild of Crasindrax" or "toaster". I'm not going to give your pet ignorance any kind of false and undeserving legitimacy by calling it god for no damn reason other than "why not?".

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-06-2016, 07:29 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
There is absolutely no reason why a first cause cannot be an "immovable mover", but it produces more questions than answers and therefore it is unlikely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 07:30 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:29 PM)carusmm Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason why a first cause cannot be an "immovable mover", but it produces more questions than answers and therefore it is unlikely.

Starting to sound like the uncreated creator dude.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat

Are my Chakras on straight?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 07:31 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:29 PM)carusmm Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason why a first cause cannot be an "immovable mover", but it produces more questions than answers and therefore it is unlikely.

Sure there is, your inability to come up with compelling arguments against such nonsense does not mean they don't exist. Your personal incredulity is not a argument.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-06-2016, 07:32 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:29 PM)carusmm Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason why a first cause cannot be an "immovable mover", but it produces more questions than answers and therefore it is unlikely.

There is absolutely no reason for a first cause. .... fucking fool.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 07:45 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 07:29 PM)carusmm Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason why a first cause cannot be an "immovable mover", but it produces more questions than answers and therefore it is unlikely.

There is absolutely no reason for a first cause. .... fucking fool.

Logic dictates that there must be a first cause, unfortunately logic is not everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:45 PM)carusmm Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 07:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason for a first cause. .... fucking fool.

Logic dictates that there must be a first cause, unfortunately logic is not everything.

It states no such thing. I'll also point out that the "rules" governing the universe (cause and effect, logic for example) exist because of the universe and thus can't predate the universe making them fucking super duper irrelevant in any conversation concerning a "first cause". I look forward to your non-sequitur word salad response.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
10-06-2016, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 08:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 07:45 PM)carusmm Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 07:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There is absolutely no reason for a first cause. .... fucking fool.

Logic dictates that there must be a first cause, unfortunately logic is not everything.

From what I've seen you're a little fucking boy trying to play with men. ... oh, and you do not know dick about logic. .... idiot

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: