religion

[Myweponsg00d]

You misunderstand my basic logic. Nothing can be "too random". It either is random, or it is not. There's no logical fallacy there.

 

If there is no God or creative force, the creation of the universe must have been completely self-initiated, with no outside influence of any kind, and thus, random. Not "too random", not "a bit random", not "realistically random", just random. Since random does not exist in our universe (I've asked you to prove me wrong in this regard which you've failed to do) it stands to reason that the universe could not have been created randomly - therefore some kind of rudimentary causality or creative force is required.

 

I want to know why you lump God and "creative force" together in your logic...I don't want to get creative force entangled with God. What I'm denying is the claims that people believe there to be some type of intelligent being who created the universe. I am not going to start talking about all other theories that involve the universe coming from somewhere else.

 

Why do you choose to think evolution was unguided, if, in your own words, there is no evidence in either direction?

 

I don't claim that evolution IS unguided. My stance is that we shouldn't claim anything for which we have no evidence. We have no evidence that evolution was guided, therefore we shouldn't think it was guided. Pick up a paper on evolution, you won't see anyone say "This is a process that definitely wasn't assisted by God." That would be a ludicrous thing for a scientist to claim, because theres no evidence for either side.

 

Then how, I wonder, did you learn about evolution? I assume you were taught, or educated yourself in some way. The reason I don't quote these arguments is because, like I've said, it takes a book length dissertation to properly do so.

 

My understanding of evolution has come largely from biology classes, lectures, and various educational documentaries and programs. I mean, if you count textbooks maybe I've gotten some knowledge from "books". I've also read "Of Pandas and People" which is basically the creationist version of a textbook. I was referring to "books" meaning the common type of book, typically written by one author.

 

 

Because nothing on earth is unguided. We have literally never witnessed anything on our planet without a creator or causality. I think it's an illogical assumption to assume that unguided creation (despite no evidence to prove such) is more logical then what we see in our day to day lives.

 

Nobody is assuming it is definitely unguided. We are saying we shouldn't assume anything about its nature that we don't have evidence for.

 

Absolutely - I personally am incredulous that you're attempting to argue something can come from nothing.

 

I am not attempting to argue this. I am not making any claims about where the universe came from. I am rejecting a claim that an intelligent being created us. Nothing more.

 

The logical assumption, given no evidence, is to assume something has a creator (as per what we see in our lives) rather then an evidence-less straying from the norm.

 

Okay, so if we want to stick with "the norm", "the norm" is to answer questions about the physical world with the use of science. We do it for literally everything else concerning the physical world except for things in the "origin" category. If you'd want to follow "the norm" you wouldn't answer this question with philosophy, faith, or anything of the like.

 

Both these quotes seem to demonstrate you share the belief (with many other atheists) that theism is a character flaw.

 

It is not a character flaw, but it is definitely not pure logic. Just because someone is illogical doesn't mean anything about whether or not I see this person as a worthy human being. Many creationists, such as my parents, have outright told me that they just don't care if they are right or wrong about where stuff came from. They just want to believe what they want to believe. They acknowledge that this might not be a rational or logical thing to do, fine. And I don't harass them about having illogical beliefs or anything like that when I get to see them. They don't claim to be right, and they don't think the issue is worthwhile enough to talk about.

 

My beef is with people who assert the "God hypothesis" as something that they have a reason for believing, or if they want me to believe it too.

 

How is it, I wonder, that so many scientists, with decades of experience and multiple university degrees can believe in God? Are they somehow not real scientists?

I hate repeatedly pointing out logical fallacies but this is an argument from authority. "Some scientists believe X, therefore it's gotta have merit right?" Not necessarily. You should see some of the pre-journal papers that get passed around for peer review. Individuals with great credentials are capable of putting out some strange stuff.

 

Also I mean there really is a lot of social pressure to be a theist.

 

Are atheists somehow more intelligent then theists? Do you, for example, consider yourself more intelligent then the president, for example?

 

Well for starters my view on "intelligence" is sure a lot more complicated than that. But secondly, no, one view on any issue has nothing related to natural giftedness in any area.

 

Now, I might say that my views about the cosmos are perhaps more correct, adanced, or respectable. I also might say that I have a better understanding of the scientific process. None of this makes me a better person, as I'm sure he has a deeper understanding than me of how other things work.

 

The only thing I will say is that I do think it is incredibly...odd..for people to have claims about things that they haven't really mastered. Do average people have claims about the nuclear processes that take place in the Sun? Do average people have claims about what the social norms in 5th century Asia mean? Do average people claim to know how to build the parts for a computer? No. Yet for some reason, when it comes to the origins of the universe, everybody feels like they are qualified to come on in and make a judgment about what happened.

 

Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule?

 

First of all, you mean exponential (or logarithmic) not linear.

 

Secondly, it is not "predictable" but rather "able to be simulated/approximated".

 

Thirdly, we are able to model radioactive decay somewhat reliably because what we model with the logarithmic function is the decay of a substance, not the decay of a single atom. If you have a large number of things that all have the random chance of decaying, a large number of them will decay and then the number will be cut in half after a certain time. Think of it like...if I had 100 TVs on a wall, each of them has a random chance of shutting off with each passing second. Certain properties of the atoms will tell you how quickly their random clock "ticks". Basically, how many random events occur per second.

 

This "loss of randomness" also happens with light. Nobody would ever think that a photon demonstrates quantum behavior, since when we shine lasers at things, the light follows a predictable path. But, it only appears to do this because of the sheer number of photons that are travelling together, each with a quantum path.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

??

 

Read the rest of the article.

[obfuscator]

 

This argument is as fallacious as an ad hominem attack, as the USSR was not a society rooted in atheism, but a society rooted in communism atheism was a one of many characteristics of some communist leaders. It's but a reminder of the failing of communism. Your argument is equivalent to(Reductio Ad Absurdum) to saying that the USSR is a potent example of how a society with ice is far worse than a warmer one. Clearly we wouldn't acknowledge this statement as logical, so we must reject your statement as well. It's not only totally irrelevant, but it is also, from a logical standpoint, meaningless.

 

Atheism is inherent and necessary to communism. Saying atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by Stalin is ridiculous - as the death camps, the outlawing of religious teaching, the destruction of churches and the killing of religious all serve to show.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I want to know why you lump God and "creative force" together in your logic...I don't want to get creative force entangled with God. What I'm denying is the claims that people believe there to be some type of intelligent being who created the universe. I am not going to start talking about all other theories that involve the universe coming from somewhere else.

 

Because God fulfills the role of the creative force.

 

 

I don't claim that evolution IS unguided. My stance is that we shouldn't claim anything for which we have no evidence. We have no evidence that evolution was guided, therefore we shouldn't think it was guided. Pick up a paper on evolution, you won't see anyone say "This is a process that definitely wasn't assisted by God." That would be a ludicrous thing for a scientist to claim, because theres no evidence for either side.

 

Of course, but that doesn't stop us from hypothesizing on which of many possible scenarios is the more likely one given the same amount of evidence.

 

My understanding of evolution has come largely from biology classes, lectures, and various educational documentaries and programs. I mean, if you count textbooks maybe I've gotten some knowledge from "books". I've also read "Of Pandas and People" which is basically the creationist version of a textbook. I was referring to "books" meaning the common type of book, typically written by one author.

 

Ahh. Well I was referring to media in general, with books being my preference.

 

 

 

Nobody is assuming it is definitely unguided. We are saying we shouldn't assume anything about its nature that we don't have evidence for.

 

I am not attempting to argue this. I am not making any claims about where the universe came from. I am rejecting a claim that an intelligent being created us. Nothing more.

 

You're rejecting a claim based on zero evidence.

 

 

Okay, so if we want to stick with "the norm", "the norm" is to answer questions about the physical world with the use of science. We do it for literally everything else concerning the physical world except for things in the "origin" category. If you'd want to follow "the norm" you wouldn't answer this question with philosophy, faith, or anything of the like.

 

God is not physical (if he exists). That's why philosophy must also be considered.

 

 

 

I hate repeatedly pointing out logical fallacies but this is an argument from authority. "Some scientists believe X, therefore it's gotta have merit right?" Not necessarily. You should see some of the pre-journal papers that get passed around for peer review. Individuals with great credentials are capable of putting out some strange stuff.

 

Also I mean there really is a lot of social pressure to be a theist.

 

It would be an argument for authority if I was attempting to show it proved a god existed. I'm attempting to persuade you to be a little less aloof about the issue. Certainly I agree that because many intelligent people believe something doesn't make it true.

 

Well for starters my view on "intelligence" is sure a lot more complicated than that. But secondly, no, one view on any issue has nothing related to natural giftedness in any area.

 

Now, I might say that my views about the cosmos are perhaps more correct, adanced, or respectable. I also might say that I have a better understanding of the scientific process. None of this makes me a better person, as I'm sure he has a deeper understanding than me of how other things work.

 

The only thing I will say is that I do think it is incredibly...odd..for people to have claims about things that they haven't really mastered. Do average people have claims about the nuclear processes that take place in the Sun? Do average people have claims about what the social norms in 5th century Asia mean? Do average people claim to know how to build the parts for a computer? No. Yet for some reason, when it comes to the origins of the universe, everybody feels like they are qualified to come on in and make a judgment about what happened.

 

I won't claim (and have never done so) that I am an expert in physics or even math. However, I am an intelligent person, so I believe I can at least hypothesize and attempt to come to a logical conclusion based on what I do know.

 

 

First of all, you mean exponential (or logarithmic) not linear.

 

Secondly, it is not "predictable" but rather "able to be simulated/approximated".

 

Thirdly, we are able to model radioactive decay somewhat reliably because what we model with the logarithmic function is the decay of a substance, not the decay of a single atom. If you have a large number of things that all have the random chance of decaying, a large number of them will decay and then the number will be cut in half after a certain time. Think of it like...if I had 100 TVs on a wall, each of them has a random chance of shutting off with each passing second. Certain properties of the atoms will tell you how quickly their random clock "ticks". Basically, how many random events occur per second.

 

This "loss of randomness" also happens with light. Nobody would ever think that a photon demonstrates quantum behavior, since when we shine lasers at things, the light follows a predictable path. But, it only appears to do this because of the sheer number of photons that are travelling together, each with a quantum path.

 

Forgive me if I sound unlearned in this issue(as I've said before, science is not my area of specialty) but if radioactive decay is truly random, it stands to reason that it would be random across all radioactive atoms. "The number will be cut in half after a certain time". Is this number not standard? Does not the half life of different elements differ?

 

Same thing with light. What makes these photons follow the path that forces them to travel together?

[Myweponsg00d]

Because God fulfills the role of the creative force.

 

You still need evidence for this.

 

Of course, but that doesn't stop us from hypothesizing on which of many possible scenarios is the more likely one given the same amount of evidence.

 

If your stance is that "Hey, maybe God exists." then okay. Yeah, maybe he does. I think God could exist. The point is that theism says "I believe theres a god" and atheism says "I don't believe that claim to be true." It isn't saying that god can't or doesn't exist. It is saying that you simply are not convinced of the claim, because of a lack of evidence.

 

 

You're rejecting a claim based on zero evidence.

 

You don't need evidence to reject a claim. Making claims about the world requires that the burden of proof be put on the person making the claims. If you want to disagree with this then you are essentially just disagreeing with the way that we use science to figure things out.

 

God is not physical (if he exists). That's why philosophy must also be considered.

 

More claims. How do you know he isn't physical?

 

Also, where did God come from?

 

 

 

It would be an argument for authority if I was attempting to show it proved a god existed. I'm attempting to persuade you to be a little less aloof about the issue. Certainly I agree that because many intelligent people believe something doesn't make it true.

 

I apologize if I seem rather stubbornly convinced of my side, but I have spent most of the last 10 years debating this issue on a regular basis. Perhaps if you had met me when I still didn't figure out why every argument for God is illogical, I would be a little less firmly convinced that there aren't any strong arguments for God. It's just that I have debated tons of creationists, and I hear the exact same stuff over and over.

 

I won't claim (and have never done so) that I am an expert in physics or even math. However, I am an intelligent person, so I believe I can at least hypothesize and attempt to come to a logical conclusion based on what I do know.

 

Right well I mean...I know nothing about how to knit. I can put some ideas together and make my best guess on how to sit down with knitting materials and create a sweater. But I think it would be naive of me to think that I know better than the knitting experts. You can come to a novice conclusion about the issue, but I think most people would be modest enough to say that their best logical conclusion probably still isn't correct.

 

Forgive me if I sound unlearned in this issue(as I've said before, science is not my area of specialty) but if radioactive decay is truly random, it stands to reason that it would be random across all radioactive atoms.

 

It is, each atom's decay is still random. But an assemblance of random events loses its unpredictability once we quantify a certain number of atoms and quantify a certain length of time.

 

"The number will be cut in half after a certain time". Is this number not standard? Does not the half life of different elements differ?

 

Yeah not everything that is radioactive has the same half life. Some substances will decay entirely in a matter of seconds, some will take years, some even more. For example, Potassium 40 has a half life of 1.3 billion years, while some isotopes have half-lives in the miliseconds.

 

Same thing with light. What makes these photons follow the path that forces them to travel together?

 

They just originate in the same place. The path of any photon will be restricted by where it originates, but its exact location along this path follows a wave of probability.

 

 

Found this video for anyone wondering why atheism might be beneficial to your life.

[Zierro]

If your stance is that "Hey, maybe God exists." then okay. Yeah, maybe he does. I think God could exist. The point is that theism says "I believe theres a god" and atheism says "I don't believe that claim to be true." It isn't saying that god can't or doesn't exist. It is saying that you simply are not convinced of the claim, because of a lack of evidence.

 

If people asked you if you like sushi and you never tried it, would you say, "No, I don't like it," or "I don't know - I never tried it."? Technically both are correct, but I have no idea what would cause you to prefer saying the first over the second, since admitting ignorance would be the much less misleading option.

 

Also, this is in a much different vein than your recent arguments. Any time it would be mentioned that god is a mere possibility, you made sure to say the same for Santa or invisible men. If this was your point all along, I don't think I would have argued with you. What got me was Santa = God, which, when you think about it, is a pretty strong suggestion that "God doesn't exist".

 

Maybe he stops giving families presents when they stop believing. Or if the family tries to tell other people that Santa is real.

 

It's quite amazing seeing an atheist be so open-minded about Santa Claus. By the way, you pretty much evaded my whole point with the four-sided triangle thing. I have proven that you do hold absolute knowledge over certain issues - that it is possible (and reasonable) to be sure of some things. Why doesn't Santa apply here? Why can we not be certain about whether a flying man in red is going around the world giving us presents or if it's just our family and friends?

 

Furthermore, why did you personally pick Santa Claus as an example? Probably because he's only technically "possible" - possible in the most-outlandish-you-can-possibly-think-of sense. If I saw more practical and fair comparisons (like extraterrestrials [a strange concept lacking evidence but yet isn't to the point where "ridiculous" is always the first word that comes to mind), then you'd be much more convincing. But no, it's always conveniently straight to the most ridiculous. Time and time again, atheists reveal themselves to be just as religious-minded as the ones they are ridiculing. Just ask a few honest questions here and there and you'll see the belief "there is no god" hinted very subtly but surely.

[Myweponsg00d]

If your stance is that "Hey, maybe God exists." then okay. Yeah, maybe he does. I think God could exist. The point is that theism says "I believe theres a god" and atheism says "I don't believe that claim to be true." It isn't saying that god can't or doesn't exist. It is saying that you simply are not convinced of the claim, because of a lack of evidence.

 

If people asked you if you like sushi and you never tried it, would you say, "No, I don't like it," or "I don't know - I never tried it."? Technically both are correct, but I have no idea what would cause you to prefer saying the first over the second, since admitting ignorance would be the much less misleading option.

 

Also, this is in a much different vein than your recent arguments. Any time it would be mentioned that god is a mere possibility, you made sure to say the same for Santa or invisible men. If this was your point all along, I don't think I would have argued with you. What got me was Santa = God, which, when you think about it, is a pretty strong suggestion that "God doesn't exist".

 

If someone asked "Do you like sushi?" and I hadn't tried it, I would say "I don't know."

 

And if someone asked me "What are the origins of the universe, before the big bang?" I would say "I don't know".

 

But if someone makes the statement "You like sushi" I would have to say "No...I don't know if I like sushi."

 

If someone says "There is a God that explains what happened before the big bang." I would have to say "No...we lack that knowledge"

 

You keep coming back to Santa and invisible men like this comparison HURTS my case. It doesn't. Why are you so certain that these things DON'T exist? My point is that all of these things (Santa, invisible men, undetectable teapots circling the moon, the flying spaghetti monster) ALL have the same ammount of evidence. If you think God is more likely to exist than Santa, then please go ahead and list the evidence that makes a stronger case for God's existence.

 

In fact I would be willing to take the statement you quoted and replace it with any of these things.

 

If your stance is that "Hey, maybe invisible men exist." then okay. Yeah, maybe they do. I think invisible men could exist. The point is that theism says "I believe theres an invisible man" and atheism says "I don't believe that claim to be true." It isn't saying that invisible men can't or don't exist. It is saying that you simply are not convinced of the claim, because of a lack of evidence.

 

 

 

It's quite amazing seeing an atheist be so open-minded about Santa Claus. By the way, you pretty much evaded my whole point with the four-sided triangle thing. I have proven that you do hold absolute knowledge over certain issues - that it is possible (and reasonable) to be sure of some things. Why doesn't Santa apply here? Why can we not be certain about whether a flying man in red is going around the world giving us presents or if it's just our family and friends?

 

I did not avoid this. I already answered a few pages back.

 

A triangle is not a physical object, it is an abstract idea. Asking "Can there be a 4 sided triangle?" is like asking "Can there be a true lie?" No. There can't, because we invented these ideas; these are not objects in the physical world. A "lie" only exists because we define it.

[Zierro]

A triangle is not a physical object, it is an abstract idea. Asking "Can there be a 4 sided triangle?" is like asking "Can there be a true lie?" No. There can't, because we invented these ideas; these are not objects in the physical world. A "lie" only exists because we define it.

 

A "god" can only exist, or not, because you define it. They are epistemological assertions no matter how you want to slice it - knowledge always ties back into subjective abstract thought.

 

How can you be 100% sure that there can't be four-sided triangles? If you want to go by, "Well maybe Santa just doesn't appear for those who don't believe" then we can also go by, "Well maybe mathematicians have just been lying to you your entire life." Both sound pretty cop-outish to me, but still technically possible (in the most ridiculous sense).

 

I must have edited my other point in after you already read the first part, so I'll repeat: Why do you choose Santa or invisible men controlling gravity instead of a more respectable less ridiculous theory that lacks evidence, such as aliens?

[Myweponsg00d]

A "lie" only exists because we define it.

 

A "god" can only exist, or not, because you define it. They are epistemological assertions no matter how you want to slice it.

 

No. I look at this object on my desk and call it a "mug". Are you saying that this object only exists because I call it a mug? Regardless of what I chose to call this mug, the item that the word represents will always exist.

 

How can you be 100% sure that there can't be four-sided triangles?

 

I already explained this to you. We define a triangle to have only three sides. Can something have only three sides but have four sides? No.

 

Do you believe that there can be a true lie?

 

If you want to go by, "Well maybe Santa just doesn't appear for those who don't believe" then we can also go by, "Well maybe mathematicians have just been lying to you your entire life."

 

How could it possibly be a lie? Its not like a bunch of mathematicians got together in a room and did years of research to discover a triangle. A triangle is just a definition. It is just a three sided object. We just CALL that a triangle. Theres nothing to lie about...its just a term that we use to refer to something.

 

Thats like saying "Maybe those tricky physicists have been lying to you about what we call "red"!" What? How can it be a lie? We just see a color, and we choose to call it red. Regardless of what word we picked to explain this color, it would still be the same...

 

Both sound pretty cop-outish to me, but still technically possible (in the most ridiculous sense).

 

No. A four-sided three-sided object is not possible. It just isn't, because of the way we define the terms "three" "four" and "side".

 

 

I must have edited my other point in after you already read the first part, so I'll repeat: Why do you choose Santa or invisible men controlling gravity instead of a more respectable less ridiculous theory that lacks evidence, such as aliens?

 

Fine then, aliens control gravity. Let's start the presses because I just answered a huge scientific question. Whats your point?

 

 

 

Furthermore, why did you personally pick Santa Claus as an example? Probably because he's only technically "possible" - possible in the most-outlandish-you-can-possibly-think-of sense. If I saw more practical and fair comparisons (like extraterrestrials [a strange concept lacking evidence but yet isn't to the point where "ridiculous" is always the first word that comes to mind), then you'd be much more convincing. But no, it's always conveniently straight to the most ridiculous. Time and time again, atheists reveal themselves to be just as religious-minded as the ones they are ridiculing. Just ask a few honest questions here and there and you'll see the belief "there is no god" hinted very subtly but surely.

 

Aliens would not be a good example because there is more evidence for alien existence than there is for invisible man existence.

 

The fact that you consider aliens more plausible than Santa or flying spaghetti monsters shows you exactly why aliens are not used as an example.

[Zierro]

Are you saying that this object only exists because I call it a mug?

 

No, more that the "mug" exists as a "mug" because we call it a "mug".

 

How could it possibly be a lie? Its not like a bunch of mathematicians got together in a room and did years of research to discover a triangle. A triangle is just a definition. It is just a three sided object. We just CALL that a triangle. Theres nothing to lie about...its just a term that we use to refer to something.

 

Uhh, how can someone decide to appear or not appear in front of certain people depending on whether they believe in him or not? Seriously, how can you think that the concept of Santa Claus is even possible?

 

I did not avoid this. I already answered a few pages back.

 

You said you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty. I refuted your claim by showing you an idea that you rejected with 100% certainty. You then went off on irrelevant tangent about the difference between physical and abstract claims (even though the point was aimed at any claim/idea/concept) so I pointed out how you were avoiding the point, and you just avoided that too.

 

Aliens would not be a good example because there is more evidence for alien existence than there is for invisible man existence.

 

Really? I'd like to see evidence for aliens then.

[Myweponsg00d]

Are you saying that this object only exists because I call it a mug?

 

No, more that the "mug" exists as a "mug" because we call it a "mug".

 

...

 

Is there an object sitting on my desk that has a handle and is about 4 inches tall?

 

Well it depends on how we define all of those words, but the object is there no matter what we call it.

How could it possibly be a lie? Its not like a bunch of mathematicians got together in a room and did years of research to discover a triangle. A triangle is just a definition. It is just a three sided object. We just CALL that a triangle. Theres nothing to lie about...its just a term that we use to refer to something.

 

Uhh, how can someone decide to appear or not appear depending on whether they believe in him or not? Seriously, how can you think that the concept of Santa Claus is even possible?

 

How can an invisible man in the sky create the universe?

 

If we knew of a mechanism for how Santa could fly around the Earth in a night, then the idea wouldn't seem unlikely at all. Anything that we don't understand or don't have an explanation for will always seem baffling.

 

I did not avoid this. I already answered a few pages back.

 

You said you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty. I refuted your claim by showing you an idea that you rejected with 100% certainty. Then I pointed out how you were avoiding the point, and you just avoided that too.

 

I didn't say that any IDEA is possible. My point is that the existence of a thing in the physical world cannot be determined to be impossible. Once you start adding labels and linguistic descriptors to these things, you aren't talking about the existence of a physical thing, you're classifying it into abstract categories.

[Zierro]

...

 

Is there an object sitting on my desk that has a handle and is about 4 inches tall?

 

Well it depends on how we define all of those words, but the object is there no matter what we call it.

 

Human definition dictates what constitutes as "physical", "object", "there". There's no cutting our humanity and subjectivity out of our claims. All knowledge eventually boils down to abstract ideas.

 

How can an invisible man in the sky create the universe?

 

If we knew of a mechanism for how Santa could fly around the Earth in a night, then the idea wouldn't seem unlikely at all. Anything that we don't understand or don't have an explanation for will always seem baffling.

 

Even if there was a scientific explanation for flying around the Earth in one night, that still wouldn't explain all the mysterious receipts and a handful of other enigmas. I still stand behind my claim that Santa is nothing but a fictitious child's tale and I have evidence for this claim.

 

I didn't say that any IDEA is possible.

 

Then what exactly does, "I don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty" mean?

 

My point is that the existence of a thing in the physical world cannot be determined to be impossible.

 

A wooden four-sided triangle cannot be determined to be impossible?

[Myweponsg00d]

...

 

Is there an object sitting on my desk that has a handle and is about 4 inches tall?

 

Well it depends on how we define all of those words, but the object is there no matter what we call it.

 

Human definition dictates what constitutes as "physical", "object", "there". There's no cutting our humanity and subjectivity out of our claims. All knowledge eventually boils down to "abstract ideas".

 

Language doesn't change anything about what is actually occuring in the physical world.

 

How can an invisible man in the sky create the universe?

 

If we knew of a mechanism for how Santa could fly around the Earth in a night, then the idea wouldn't seem unlikely at all. Anything that we don't understand or don't have an explanation for will always seem baffling.

 

Even if there was a scientific explanation for flying around the Earth in one night, that still wouldn't explain all the mysterious receipts and a handful of other enigmas. I still stand behind my claim that Santa is nothing but a fictitious child's tale and I have evidence for this claim.

 

The flying around the world thing was just an example. If we had explanations for all of that other stuff then it also wouldn't be mysterious.

 

I didn't say that any IDEA is possible.

 

Then what exactly does, "I don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty" mean when I ask if you fully reject the concept of Santa Claus?

 

If that is exactly what I said, then what I mean is that I don't fully reject the existence of an object or possibility of physical event. It is just a lot more convenient to say "idea" than to say "physical existence or nonexistence or probability of a physical event".

 

My point is that the existence of a thing in the physical world cannot be determined to be impossible.

 

A wooden four-sided triangle?

 

First of all, no three dimensional object is a triangle.

 

But, anyway, no. It still doesn't exist. You are taking something and abstracting it by calling it a triangle. If we had a wooden object that had 4 sides to it, we would never use the word "triangle" to describe it. If we knew that something had 4 sides, how could it make any sense to say that it only has 3 sides?

 

But really it isn't even possible for a true triangle to exist in our space, let alone a four sided one.

 

What is the point of all of this anyway? How does any of what you are trying to discuss help creationism? Every time I debate a creationist, I feel like I end up discussing what my definition of the word "is" is.

[Zierro]

Language doesn't change anything about what is actually occuring in the physical world.

 

That was never my point. My point is that a lie's existence is just as "physical" as a god's existence. Did Billy tell you he was paying you back? Yes. Did he? No. He lied. The same action would still physically happen no matter what we decided to call a "lie".

 

So, physical, abstract, whatever, it is still an epistemological claim about knowledge and truth.

 

The flying around the world thing was just an example. If we had explanations for all of that other stuff then it also wouldn't be mysterious.

 

Obviously, since one of the prerequisites for being "mysterious" is to not have an explanation. But the big thing is that there are no such explanations. Santa Claus is just a fun absurd concept.

 

But really it isn't even possible for a true triangle to exist in our space, let alone a four sided one.

 

The whole point of the four-sided triangle is just to show that impossibility is possible.

 

And I wholeheartedly agree with you - it is not possible for a triangle to have four sides, just like it's not possible for spaghetti to be sentient and fly, or a jolly fat stranger in red being the one who gives you presents every year via flying reindeer and chimney (WHEN THERE ARE RECEIPTS DIRECTLY SAYING OTHERWISE).

 

Aliens would not be a good example because there is more evidence for alien existence than there is for invisible man existence.

 

I'd like to see the evidence for this claim.

 

What is the point of all of this anyway? How does any of what you are trying to discuss help creationism? Every time I debate a creationist, I feel like I end up discussing what my definition of the word "is" is.

 

When did I ever say I was a creationist? My argument is just that equating God to Santa isn't very logical, but you keep finding entertaining ways to defend an appeal to ridicule.

[Myweponsg00d]

Language doesn't change anything about what is actually occuring in the physical world.

 

That was never my point. My point is that a lie's existence is just as "physical" as a god's existence. Did Billy tell you he was paying you back? Yes. Did he? No. He lied. The same action would still physically happen no matter what we decided to call a "lie".

 

So, physical, abstract, whatever, it is still an epistemological claim about knowledge and truth.

 

So then whats the point? A true lie would never exist because we wouldn't call it true and a lie at the same time.

 

The flying around the world thing was just an example. If we had explanations for all of that other stuff then it also wouldn't be mysterious.

 

Obviously, since one of the prerequisites for being "mysterious" is to not have an explanation. But the big thing is that there are no such explanations. Santa Claus is just a fun absurd concept.

 

Intelligent creation is the same thing. Its just a fun story that has no evidence or explanation.

But really it isn't even possible for a true triangle to exist in our space, let alone a four sided one.

 

The whole point of the four-sided triangle is just to show that impossibility is possible.

 

And I wholeheartedly agree with you - it is not possible for a triangle to have four sides, just like it's not possible for spaghetti to be sentient and fly,

 

How do you KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE?

 

or a jolly fat stranger in red being the one who gives you presents every year via flying reindeer and chimney (WHEN THERE ARE RECEIPTS DIRECTLY SAYING OTHERWISE).

 

Again, these don't disprove Santa. These just prove that if Santa exists, he didn't come to those people on those years. Or he decided that they weren't worthy of presents. Or maybe he forgot. It doesn't prove that this man is nonexistent.

 

Aliens would not be a good example because there is more evidence for alien existence than there is for invisible man existence.

 

I'd like to see the evidence for this claim.

 

http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/articles/evidence-of-ancient-aliens

 

I'm no expert in the field of extra terrestrial existence but there are many historians who think that aliens may have meddled in human history.

 

Also, the existence of aliens would not need to violate any of our current understandings of the laws of physics, biology, etc. This makes them instantly more probable than something that would violate our expectations of what could occur in reality.

 

For example, imagine we want to investigate the question: "Is there life on this part of the ocean floor?" Imagine person A makes a guess that there are deep sea fish down there, and person B makes a guess that there are zombies down there. Person A's guess is more probable because it doesn't go against anything we have observed elsewhere, even though we might not have ever seen this particular part of the ocean floor.

What is the point of all of this anyway? How does any of what you are trying to discuss help creationism? Every time I debate a creationist, I feel like I end up discussing what my definition of the word "is" is.

 

When did I ever say I was a creationist? My argument is just that equating God to Santa isn't very logical, but you keep finding entertaining ways to defend an appeal to ridicule.

 

It isn't an appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridiculue would be if I said "You think some magical dude with a beard just performed a magic act and created the universe? How silly!" That is appeal to ridicule.

 

My comparison to Santa is that both beings have the same ammount of evidence for their existence. One who tries to argue for the existence of Santa has the same ammount of ammunition as someone who tries to argue for the existence of a supernatural intelligent being that created the planet, galaxy, life, universe, or whatever you choose.

[Maulmachine]

 

This argument is as fallacious as an ad hominem attack, as the USSR was not a society rooted in atheism, but a society rooted in communism atheism was a one of many characteristics of some communist leaders. It's but a reminder of the failing of communism. Your argument is equivalent to(Reductio Ad Absurdum) to saying that the USSR is a potent example of how a society with ice is far worse than a warmer one. Clearly we wouldn't acknowledge this statement as logical, so we must reject your statement as well. It's not only totally irrelevant, but it is also, from a logical standpoint, meaningless.

 

Atheism is inherent and necessary to communism. Saying atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities committed by Stalin is ridiculous - as the death camps, the outlawing of religious teaching, the destruction of churches and the killing of religious all serve to show.

 

 

You assume that Stalin committed these atrocities because he was an atheist. I think it was because of his mustache. Stalin committed those crimes, not because he was an atheist, but because he was mentally ill. Atheism is not necessary to communism at all. Orwellian distopia's consist of the idealization of a head figure, to the point where he is revered as a god. Your arguments are quite offensive to atheists, and I'd seriously reconsider your posts before posting. Your points are merely attacks. You've obviously reached your own decision, don't attack others for drawing conclusions which are different from your own.

 

You're rejecting a claim based on zero evidence.

Claims without evidence are, by definition, irrelevant. Evidence isn't needed to reject it. The onus of proof lies with the origin of the claim. This is the foundation of logic.

[Zierro]

So then whats the point? A true lie would never exist because we wouldn't call it true and a lie at the same time.

 

The point is that you're making a big difference between something physically existing and something being true in an abstract sense - when ultimately they both boil down to claims of knowledge. If you believe four-sided triangles are impossible, you are fully rejecting an idea. And rightly so, as the idea doesn't even make sense.

 

How do you KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE?

 

If your definition of "possible" is "able to occur, given that the laws of the universe were altered", then I guess sentient flying spaghetti would be possible. But in this realm, noodles cannot breathe or maneuver aerodynamically through space on their own accord. They don't even have the capacity for these things to take effect when you look at spaghetti's composition. It's like saying it's not impossible for your refrigerator to walk out your front door.

 

Again, these don't disprove Santa. These just prove that if Santa exists, he didn't come to those people on those years. Or he decided that they weren't worthy of presents. Or maybe he forgot. It doesn't prove that this man is nonexistent.

 

Then why is this true for every person every year? Like I said, every gift from "Santa" could be traced back to someone who is not him. If there is just some guy who happens to be named Santa Claus by coincidence, okay, that's very possible but there would be no point in making an analogy about that then. When you mentioned Santa, you were probably talking about the Santa Claus story (a fat guy in red from the North Pole who flies around with reindeer and gives presents to good boys and girls via chimney). Every time I point out legitimate evidence suggesting that the story is fictitious, you abandon the story but stick with there being some guy named Santa. What is the point in arguing that some guy who just happened to be named Santa [that doesn't do anything special] is as plausible as a god?

 

http://www.history.c...-ancient-aliens

 

I'm no expert in the field of extra terrestrial existence but there are many historians who think that aliens may have meddled in human history.

 

I see someone is very liberal with what they call "evidence".

 

It isn't an appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridiculue would be if I said "You think some magical dude with a beard just performed a magic act and created the universe? How silly!" That is appeal to ridicule.

 

That's one form of it, but you've committed another.

 

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

No one implied that Santa Claus existed, yet you suggest that if someone believes god or even thinks god is possible, then they should also believe Santa Claus or think he is possible. Someone can believe god and disbelieve Santa at the same time. Hell, someone can believe Santa and disbelieve god. You're just personally slapping the label of "equal" onto these entities because of one similarity, while ignoring every other difference, even when presented to you. Are you really this oblivious to the flaws behind that logic? Come on bro, debates are for learning, not defending your integrity. It's simply a bad argument. There are many other better ways of showing that god is unlikely besides just pointing your finger at works of fiction.

[obfuscator]

 

You assume that Stalin committed these atrocities because he was an atheist. I think it was because of his mustache. Stalin committed those crimes, not because he was an atheist, but because he was mentally ill. Atheism is not necessary to communism at all. Orwellian distopia's consist of the idealization of a head figure, to the point where he is revered as a god. Your arguments are quite offensive to atheists, and I'd seriously reconsider your posts before posting. Your points are merely attacks. You've obviously reached your own decision, don't attack others for drawing conclusions which are different from your own.

 

 

 

No, I assume Stalin committed these atrocities because he was a communist. As atheism is necessary to the very ideal of communism (as there can be no authority higher than the state), yes, his atheism was responsible for the atrocities he committed.

 

How is atheism not necessary to communism? I've yet to hear of a communist state that encourages religion.....

[Maulmachine]

 

You assume that Stalin committed these atrocities because he was an atheist. I think it was because of his mustache. Stalin committed those crimes, not because he was an atheist, but because he was mentally ill. Atheism is not necessary to communism at all. Orwellian distopia's consist of the idealization of a head figure, to the point where he is revered as a god. Your arguments are quite offensive to atheists, and I'd seriously reconsider your posts before posting. Your points are merely attacks. You've obviously reached your own decision, don't attack others for drawing conclusions which are different from your own.

 

 

 

No, I assume Stalin committed these atrocities because he was a communist. As atheism is necessary to the very ideal of communism (as there can be no authority higher than the state), yes, his atheism was responsible for the atrocities he committed.

 

How is atheism not necessary to communism? I've yet to hear of a communist state that encourages religion.....

Keep in mind however that the Greek Orthodox church continued to exist in some form during the entire reign of Soviet Communism, the Roman Catholic church enjoyed a certain degree of freedom during Czechoslovakia's communist era (now two seperate countries Czech Republic and Slovakia, with parliamentary democracies, Roman Catholics make up the largest religious group in both countries), and although it was repressed so does Buddhism in China.

 

Once again, you're illogically correlating political and economic narratives and people who share them.Stalin didn't kill people because he was a communist, he did so because he felt it was morally justified for the same reason that he felt that communism was politically justified. Atheism had no role in either of these. Stalin may have been an atheist, but that's besides the point. He was unquestionably a deeply disturbed person, and an atheist. Simply because he was an atheist doesn't mean that any of his actions are caused by his atheism any more than they were caused by his mustache. Nowhere is it written that an atheist must adhere to a specific set of guidelines which necessitate murder or communism. Atheism is a lack of religion. It's a definition of what isn't there. Belief that religion is a negative influence isn't atheism, that would be anti-theism. There is a large distinction between the two.

 

Your attack is petty and ill-founded, and I'd reconsider posting as it's quite offensive. I'm not an atheist, but I am deeply concerned with the mood of this thread. You're simply attacking others without considering a point opposite to your own. It's disconcerting, as religious discussion can be a great source of hearty debate and lead to greater understanding on both sides. But for this to progress we must first disregard and pre existing notions that the other side has an air of evil around them. What you're writing is sheerly ignorant and offensive, and I'm astounded as I used to have a great deal of respect for you.

 

 

 

 

 

Myth:

How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?

 

Response:

None, probably.

 

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments — and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism — indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?

 

No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.

 

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.

 

But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.

 

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.

 

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.

 

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened — which is utter nonsense.

 

The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion's responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.

 

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can't motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It's been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.

 

It's difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it's likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context.

[Ginger_Warrior]

How is atheism not necessary to communism? I've yet to hear of a communist state that encourages religion.....

Oh come now, this is just ignorance. You've never heard of a cult of personality? Stalin could have claimed to have invented several things he could not possibly have invented and the Soviet population wouldn't have questioned his authority to make those claims.

 

Looks strangely like how state religion is organised to me, in terms of how it inspires commitment to a 'higher power'. Just take away the holy books, replace it with state-owned mass media and you're half way there.

 

It might not be 'god', but they didn't exactly treat Stalin like an ordinary mortal did they?

[Myweponsg00d]

So then whats the point? A true lie would never exist because we wouldn't call it true and a lie at the same time.

 

The point is that you're making a big difference between something physically existing and something being true in an abstract sense - when ultimately they both boil down to claims of knowledge. If you believe four-sided triangles are impossible, you are fully rejecting an idea. And rightly so, as the idea doesn't even make sense.

 

No, these are two fundamentally different types of knowledge. It is virtually impossible to know anything about the physical world with 100% certainty. You cannot determine existence/nonexistence or causality/noncausality with 100% certainty. This is because humans did not determine things about the physical world. We just must interpret them using science, which is not capable of delivering absolute knowledge.

 

On the other side of the coin, you have abstract knowledge. I can know for 100% certainty that the word "me" is not the same word as "yellow". How can I know this? Because language is a creation of ours. We determined the rules and we can know for sure what we want things to mean.

How do you KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE?

 

If your definition of "possible" is "able to occur, given that the laws of the universe were altered", then I guess sentient flying spaghetti would be possible.

What "laws of nature" need to be altered? We don't have any absolute knowledge of how nature must behave.

 

But in this realm, noodles cannot breathe or maneuver aerodynamically through space on their own accord. They don't even have the capacity for these things to take effect when you look at spaghetti's composition. It's like saying it's not impossible for your refrigerator to walk out your front door.

 

I wouldn't say that it is impossible.

 

Again, these don't disprove Santa. These just prove that if Santa exists, he didn't come to those people on those years. Or he decided that they weren't worthy of presents. Or maybe he forgot. It doesn't prove that this man is nonexistent.

 

Then why is this true for every person every year? Like I said, every gift from "Santa" could be traced back to someone who is not him. If there is just some guy who happens to be named Santa Claus by coincidence, okay, that's very possible but there would be no point in making an analogy about that then. When you mentioned Santa, you were probably talking about the Santa Claus story (a fat guy in red from the North Pole who flies around with reindeer and gives presents to good boys and girls via chimney). Every time I point out legitimate evidence suggesting that the story is fictitious, you abandon the story but stick with there being some guy named Santa. What is the point in arguing that some guy who just happened to be named Santa [that doesn't do anything special] is as plausible as a god?

 

My suggestion is that maybe Santa Claus lives in a magical place where we cannot see him and he is only responsible for magical acts that have never been exposed to the public. He only gives gifts to people who aren't going to rat him out. Or, maybe Santa doesn't give gifts anymore. Maybe once we started to document things by having cameras and gift reciepts, he decided it was too dangerous to come around anymore. Maybe now Santa Claus just sits in his home and gives people the emotional gift of having the Christmas spirit.

http://www.history.c...-ancient-aliens

 

I'm no expert in the field of extra terrestrial existence but there are many historians who think that aliens may have meddled in human history.

 

I see someone is very liberal with what they call "evidence".

 

I don't consider the history channel to be evidence for existence, I just linked that because I think it is interesting. The part you decided to leave off is my evidence for the case of aliens.

It isn't an appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridiculue would be if I said "You think some magical dude with a beard just performed a magic act and created the universe? How silly!" That is appeal to ridicule.

 

That's one form of it, but you've committed another.

 

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.

 

"Heres a supernatural claim for which I have no evidence" is not a straw man of the God argument. It is the same thing. The only difference is that people are too brainwashed into thinking the idea of a God is somehow more acceptable. The point is that suggesting the existence of something...ANYTHING else, sounds ridiculous. Any kind of magical or supernatural being that has no evidence sounds ridiculous. Thats the point.

 

If you are so eager to find logical fallacies in arguments, how about you start with the God argument? Most cases for the existence of a God are fallacies in themself. Hell, the most common argument is an appeal to ridicule: "The world is just so beautiful! How could it have come about without a designer?"

 

No one implied that Santa Claus existed, yet you suggest that if someone believes god or even thinks god is possible, then they should also believe Santa Claus or think he is possible.

 

This is not what I am suggesting. For the 5th time. The comparison to Santa Claus is that the arguments are similar. I'm not saying that a theist should also believe every argument that has no evidence. I am saying that they would have just as much of a reason to.

Someone can believe god and disbelieve Santa at the same time. Hell, someone can believe Santa and disbelieve god. You're just personally slapping the label of "equal" onto these entities because of one similarity, while ignoring every other difference, even when presented to you.

 

Where are the differences? Present them again please. All you have told me is that if Santa exists then we must have his story wrong.

 

Conveniently, this is also how the God story operates. First God was in the sky, and so was heaven. Then we changed our minds and now hes somewhere else. Then God explained how man got put on Earth. But now we know that evolution happened, so people now just define him as "an overseer". If we can redefine the God story based on new evidence then why can't Santa's story change too?

 

Are you really this oblivious to the flaws behind that logic?

 

If you see a flaw in the logic, point it out and describe why it is flawed, instead of calling me oblivious.

Come on bro, debates are for learning, not defending your integrity. It's simply a bad argument. There are many other better ways of showing that god is unlikely besides just pointing your finger at works of fiction.

 

Works of fiction are exactly what I would call anything written about the existence of a God. It is just some random idea we made up that has no evidence for its existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

No, I assume Stalin committed these atrocities because he was a communist. As atheism is necessary to the very ideal of communism (as there can be no authority higher than the state), yes, his atheism was responsible for the atrocities he committed.

 

He also needed to be alive in order to commit those atrocities. Therefore living is responsible for awful things and maybe it's not good for a living society to exist. Perhaps we should start electing dead people.

 

P.S. I am thrilled that you chose to stop responding to me again. I see it as an admission that you cannot pass your hand-waving arguments past me.

[Zierro]

No, these are two fundamentally different types of knowledge. It is virtually impossible to know anything about the physical world with 100% certainty. You cannot determine existence/nonexistence or causality/noncausality with 100% certainty. This is because humans did not determine things about the physical world. We just must interpret them using science, which is not capable of delivering absolute knowledge.

 

On the other side of the coin, you have abstract knowledge. I can know for 100% certainty that the word "me" is not the same word as "yellow". How can I know this? Because language is a creation of ours. We determined the rules and we can know for sure what we want things to mean.

 

I never rejected that there was a difference between these two fields of knowledge. My point is that a "lie" (as in, the act of one person purposely telling another person something which is not true) could still occur without having a specific label to describe it, just as the entity "god" could exist even if we didn't have a word for him/her/it. It was in response to you claiming a "lie" can only exist because we call it such, in which the same could be said about a god then.

 

What "laws of nature" need to be altered? We don't have any absolute knowledge of how nature must behave.

 

Spaghetti does not possess the ability to be sentient, just as a triangle does not possess the ability to be four-sided. It's really just a contradiction of nature.

 

I wouldn't say that it is impossible.

 

Let me guess - simply because it's physical? Tell me, is it also not physically impossible to be damaged from a 10,000 foot drop onto cement? No, the laws of nature dictate that harm will be caused to organisms impacted by a great amount of force. Not only is it logical to say we "know" this, but it's also safe. It allows us to move on from absurd "what ifs" and not kill ourselves testing it out. It is very possible to decipher impossibilities about our physical world.

 

I'll even throw in few more examples pertaining to the realm of the physical: Is it possible for me to instantly gain 100 lbs by eating a single raisin? No, I'd probably just gain whatever the raisin weighed. Is it possible for a skeleton fossil to breathe? No, they do not have lungs or a brain required to perform the action. Is it possible to reel the sun in with a traditional fishing rod? No. Or do you actually believe these things are possible?

 

This is not what I am suggesting. For the 5th time. The comparison to Santa Claus is that the arguments are similar. I'm not saying that a theist should also believe every argument that has no evidence. I am saying that they would have just as much of a reason to.

 

"Heres a supernatural claim for which I have no evidence" is not a straw man of the God argument. It is the same thing. The only difference is that people are too brainwashed into thinking the idea of a God is somehow more acceptable. The point is that suggesting the existence of something...ANYTHING else, sounds ridiculous. Any kind of magical or supernatural being that has no evidence sounds ridiculous. Thats the point.

 

Is a three-headed rat just as plausible as a twelve-headed rat that speaks Spanish, runs his own cheese business, has twelve beautiful human celebrity wives, can throw a football over a mile, can recite the first million digits of pi, is one of the top RS PVPers of all time, and is your next door neighbor? It does not merely come down to, "Neither have evidence, therefore they are equally likely/unlikely/ridiculous/absurd/plausible". Again, do you not see the flaw in this logic? You can't just lump everything that does not have evidence together into the same boat. There are other factors to take into account, such as whether the concept violates or contradicts a more well-founded truth.

 

Where are the differences? Present them again please. All you have told me is that if Santa exists then we must have his story wrong.

 

Firstly, the most important difference is that god is not Santa Claus. See my point above.

 

Secondly, the only prerequisite for a "god" is that he is the intelligent creator of the universe. The only prerequisite for a "Santa Claus" is that his name is Santa Claus. In this case, a non-magical guy named Santa sounds much more likely than a god existing, but that's not a very strong point. I get the feeling your analogy was in reference to the strange and magical Santa Claus. That being said, if we do have Santa's story wrong (he is not the one who gives out the gifts labeled "From Santa"), we might as well scrap the idea altogether [instead of clinging onto it by going through mental gymnastics and altering every essential detail as to what the entity even is EXCEPT that the entity is still existent*]. If we have god's story wrong (he did not create the universe), we may as well scrap that idea too. The thing is, there is evidence suggesting that Santa's story is a falsehood and the presents are actually just from our parents. Can we say the same for the origin of the universe? No, there is nothing to suggest he did not do it, just as there is nothing to suggest he did; nothing more than an absence of evidence for his story, which is definitely not the case for Santa's story.

 

*In relevance to specific sects of religion, your point is valid because some of their claims and stories do have evidence against them. [Christian: Hell is in the middle of the earth. Scientist: Nothing is in the middle of the earth but molten rock. Christian: Hell is figurative.] But your argument was an attack against theism in general, even though there is zero legitimate evidence against the story of creationism.

 

If you are so eager to find logical fallacies in arguments, how about you start with the God argument? Most cases for the existence of a God are fallacies in themself. Hell, the most common argument is an appeal to ridicule: "The world is just so beautiful! How could it have come about without a designer?"

 

I do. As you can see earlier in this thread, I was arguing that violence and lenient sex is not inherent to atheism. I point out the logical fallacies I see amongst theists and atheists alike. Bad logic is bad logic no matter who you are. But for some reason, many atheists think all their assertions are exempt from critique, as they like to pull the neutrality card whilst simultaneously suggesting there is no such thing as god.

 

P.S. I am thrilled that you chose to stop responding to me again. I see it as an admission that you cannot pass your hand-waving arguments past me.

 

Because, as you have clearly demonstrated to us, you will only believe whatever makes you feel good. :rolleyes: Now seriously, there are a multitude of reasons why someone will not respond to a post. They could be busy, they could have internet troubles, they could have keyboard troubles, they could be too bored of debating, they could be too impatient to keep repeating the same disregarded arguments, they could be dead, they could have retired, etc. The argument "You are not responding. That means you must think I'm right but are too embarrassed to admit it!" is yet another logical fallacy - non-sequitur reasoning.

[obfuscator]

There are two reasons I've stopped responding.

 

Firstly, because I've been busy.

Secondly, because it's obviously a waste of my time, as CGF mentioned, you're quite comfortable with your own belief.

[Myweponsg00d]

No, these are two fundamentally different types of knowledge. It is virtually impossible to know anything about the physical world with 100% certainty. You cannot determine existence/nonexistence or causality/noncausality with 100% certainty. This is because humans did not determine things about the physical world. We just must interpret them using science, which is not capable of delivering absolute knowledge.

 

On the other side of the coin, you have abstract knowledge. I can know for 100% certainty that the word "me" is not the same word as "yellow". How can I know this? Because language is a creation of ours. We determined the rules and we can know for sure what we want things to mean.

 

I never rejected that there was a difference between these two fields of knowledge. My point is that a "lie" (as in, the act of one person purposely telling another person something which is not true) could still occur without having a specific label to describe it, just as the entity "god" could exist even if we didn't have a word for him/her/it. It was in response to you claiming a "lie" can only exist because we call it such, in which the same could be said about a god then.

 

Not true. If someone says "My cat is orange." this is naturally nothing more than an utterance of speech. It is not naturally true or false. It is a human distinction that makes us interpret this speech as true or false. We invented the classification of "true"

 

What "laws of nature" need to be altered? We don't have any absolute knowledge of how nature must behave.

 

Spaghetti does not possess the ability to be sentient, just as a triangle does not possess the ability to be four-sided. It's really just a contradiction of nature.

 

Again, just because you haven't seen spaghetti move doesn't mean it can't.

 

And again, a triangle is not something in nature. We define "triangle" into existence.

I wouldn't say that it is impossible.

 

Let me guess - simply because it's physical? Tell me, is it also not physically impossible to be damaged from a 10,000 foot drop onto cement?

 

Yes. Possible

 

No, the laws of nature dictate that harm will be caused to organisms impacted by a great amount of force.

 

You don't know for certain that you will be experiencing a great force.

Not only is it logical to say we "know" this, but it's also safe. It allows us to move on from absurd "what ifs" and not kill ourselves testing it out. It is very possible to decipher impossibilities about our physical world.

I'm calling something impossible if it can literally never happen. It sounds like you are calling something impossible if it has an extremely low chance of happening.

 

I'll even throw in few more examples pertaining to the realm of the physical: Is it possible for me to instantly gain 100 lbs by eating a single raisin? No, I'd probably just gain whatever the raisin weighed. Is it possible for a skeleton fossil to breathe? No, they do not have lungs or a brain required to perform the action. Is it possible to reel the sun in with a traditional fishing rod? No. Or do you actually believe these things are possible?

 

All of this could be possible. We have no way of knowing for certain.

This is not what I am suggesting. For the 5th time. The comparison to Santa Claus is that the arguments are similar. I'm not saying that a theist should also believe every argument that has no evidence. I am saying that they would have just as much of a reason to.

 

"Heres a supernatural claim for which I have no evidence" is not a straw man of the God argument. It is the same thing. The only difference is that people are too brainwashed into thinking the idea of a God is somehow more acceptable. The point is that suggesting the existence of something...ANYTHING else, sounds ridiculous. Any kind of magical or supernatural being that has no evidence sounds ridiculous. Thats the point.

 

Is a three-headed rat just as plausible as a twelve-headed rat that speaks Spanish, runs his own cheese business, has twelve beautiful human celebrity wives, can throw a football over a mile, can recite the first million digits of pi, is one of the top RS PVPers of all time, and is your next door neighbor? It does not merely come down to, "Neither have evidence, therefore they are equally likely/unlikely/ridiculous/absurd/plausible". Again, do you not see the flaw in this logic? You can't just lump everything that does not have evidence together into the same boat. There are other factors to take into account, such as whether the concept violates or contradicts a more well-founded truth.

 

I already said that a claim without evidence that would be congruent with what we expect to see in nature is more probable than one that contradicts our expectations.

 

 

Firstly, the most important difference is that god is not Santa Claus. See my point above.

 

Secondly, the only prerequisite for a "god" is that he is the intelligent creator of the universe. The only prerequisite for a "Santa Claus" is that his name is Santa Claus. In this case, a non-magical guy named Santa sounds much more likely than a god existing, but that's not a very strong point. I get the feeling your analogy was in reference to the strange and magical Santa Claus. That being said, if we do have Santa's story wrong (he is not the one who gives out the gifts labeled "From Santa"), we might as well scrap the idea altogether [instead of clinging onto it by going through mental gymnastics and altering every essential detail as to what the entity even is EXCEPT that the entity is still existent*]. If we have god's story wrong (he did not create the universe), we may as well scrap that idea too. The thing is, there is evidence suggesting that Santa's story is a falsehood and the presents are actually just from our parents. Can we say the same for the origin of the universe? No, there is nothing to suggest he did not do it, just as there is nothing to suggest he did; nothing more than an absence of evidence for his story, which is definitely not the case for Santa's story.

 

*In relevance to specific sects of religion, your point is valid because some of their claims and stories do have evidence against them. [Christian: Hell is in the middle of the earth. Scientist: Nothing is in the middle of the earth but molten rock. Christian: Hell is figurative.] But your argument was an attack against theism in general, even though there is zero legitimate evidence against the story of creationism.

 

Okay. There are trillions of things in the universe and none of them show evidence of needing an intelligent creator. Is this evidence for falsehood?

 

I do. As you can see earlier in this thread, I was arguing that violence and lenient sex is not inherent to atheism. I point out the logical fallacies I see amongst theists and atheists alike. Bad logic is bad logic no matter who you are. But for some reason, many atheists think all their assertions are exempt from critique, as they like to pull the neutrality card whilst simultaneously suggesting there is no such thing as god.

 

Again nobody is claiming that God doesn't or can't resist. The point is that we certainly have no reason to believe that he does.

 

Because, as you have clearly demonstrated to us, you will only believe whatever makes you feel good.

 

:rolleyes: Now seriously, there are a multitude of reasons why someone will not respond to a post. They could be busy, they could have internet troubles, they could have keyboard troubles, they could be too bored of debating, they could be too impatient to keep repeating the same disregarded arguments, they could be dead, they could have retired, etc. The argument "You are not responding. That means you must think I'm right but are too embarrassed to admit it!" is yet another logical fallacy - non-sequitur reasoning.

 

Look at his response. "You're comfortable with your own belief" LOL

 

This is typical crap that I get from a theist walking away from an argument. "Oh well I guess we all just have different beliefs!" Yea except you have no reason to have yours and you can't logically explain to me why you believe what you believe.

[sees_all1]

This is typical crap that I get from a theist walking away from an argument. "Oh well I guess we all just have different beliefs!" Yea except you have no reason to have yours and you can't logically explain to me why you believe what you believe.

I believe that the universe as it exists, including life as we know it, is too improbable, and there must be an explanation for its existence. I believe that God satisfies this explanation. That explanation is logical, is good enough for me, but you've rejected it and are belligerent about getting a different explanation. I'm sorry, but I don't have to waste my time to take your abuse.

[obfuscator]

See, wep, I think your problem is that you can't distinguish between logical and physical proof.

 

God can make logical sense, but you're not going to find definitive scientific proof of his existence (just as you're not going to find the same to the contrary).

 

I think you are quite comfortable with your belief(which is a belief by the way, since you cannot ever know if you are right, only agnostics can truthfully say they have no belief). You've demonstrated to me that you've no interest in actually looking at the situation objectively and therefore continuing to argue only serves to waste my time.