Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

 

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.


maulmachine4.png

Corporeal Drops:2xHoly elixers

Bandos Drops: Bcp(soloed) 5x hilts 8x tassets

Armadyl Drops:Armadyl Hilt(trio)

Zamorak Drops: 2xZamorakian spear 3x Steam battlestaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.....


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.


maulmachine4.png

Corporeal Drops:2xHoly elixers

Bandos Drops: Bcp(soloed) 5x hilts 8x tassets

Armadyl Drops:Armadyl Hilt(trio)

Zamorak Drops: 2xZamorakian spear 3x Steam battlestaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Why is it abuse? This is all just such crap. I hate it. I hate the "respect" that theistic views about the origins of the universe demand. If you thought that the chemical formula for water was H3O and a scientist explains to you that the scientifically accepted formula is H2O, would you be like "Its MY explanation, stop abusing me! H3O makes sense to me!"?

 

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

 

Is there a difference between the two when we are figuring things out about the physical world? Name something that we accept about the physical world that isn't based on physical evidence.

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).

 

It could also make sense if telekinetic fairies existed inside matter and caused gravitational attraction. That makes sense. But theres no reason for anyone to believe that it is true.

 

Also many things about the physical world DON'T "make sense". Does it make sense that an object gets shorter the faster it moves? Does it make sense that subatomic particles don't follow normal trajectories but instead follow probabilistic wave functions? No. Neither of these important scientific facts would have ever been discovered if we used "common sense" to explain the world. What you think makes sense has no bearing on reality.

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 might want to re-examine your use of terminology. An agnostic thinks that the question of God is completely unanswerable. Not just unanswerable at the moment, but that it could never be answerable. An atheist is anyone who says anything except for "I believe a god (or gods) exists"

 

Also you again miss the point, in saying that I can't know if "I am right". I have nothing to be right about. This is an issue of burden of proof. When an idea is suggested by somebody, the person who supports this idea has the burden of proving that the idea is acceptable. I'm not proposing anything. All I'm saying is that I have no reason to accept your idea.

 

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.

 

I have looked at it completely objectively. You have provided your arguments, I have responded and I have pointed out where they break down. If you think that my counterarguments are flawed, then point out the flaws and defend your argument.

 

The only subjective thing I may have said is that I doubt you have any real reason to believe in a god. I guess you may have some proof that you still haven't shared with anyone, but I have found that it is best to assume that any theist has made some type of logical error. The only reason I say this is just because I have been debating creationists for so long and I have heard all of the flawed arguments before. It has been a very long time since I have heard any pro-God arguments that I never heard before.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Why is it abuse?

I don't know, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking stuff like:

This is all just such crap. I hate it. I hate the "respect" that theistic views about the origins of the universe demand.

is abusive.

 

Its abuse because you keep telling me my views are stupid, full of crap, incorrect, etc. over and over again.

 

Its also abuse because you frequently contradict yourself, and refuse to budge an inch on your views. Remember a few pages back where we had that discussion on mutations? Two or three pages before that you were acting as if there were no such thing as a "mutation," and that anyone who believed mutations happened must have thought that "the only reason people look different is cause some kind of carcinogen interfered in our reproduction?? :blink:", followed by "Go back to high school and pay attention in Biology class"


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Listen, if you are questioning me as well, I find your statements thoroughly contemptible. You're thoroughly offensive to those who share a contrary belief, going as far as to infer that atheism causes people to become genocidal. And now you're pretending that you're knowledgeable on a subject which you aren't. If you take philosophy 101(if you happen to go to Columbia one of my relatives is the professor) then you would know that atheism isn't a belief system. It's a lack of belief towards god. That isn't a belief system, it's unorganized, unstructured, and there is a well classified and known set of requirements that something must meet to be classified as a belief. Your statements are formed out of sheer ignorance, and you've yet to pose a response towards me.

 

Secondly, you mistake the purpose of discussion. Religion isn't discussed to persuade others to switch to a different side. It's discussed so that we can better understand each other and our separate viewpoints. I sure hope everyone is comfortable with their view(not belief) regarding religion. The point isn't to show someone the light, it's merely to clarify the misconceptions we hold about each other.


maulmachine4.png

Corporeal Drops:2xHoly elixers

Bandos Drops: Bcp(soloed) 5x hilts 8x tassets

Armadyl Drops:Armadyl Hilt(trio)

Zamorak Drops: 2xZamorakian spear 3x Steam battlestaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Why is it abuse?

I don't know, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking stuff like:

This is all just such crap. I hate it. I hate the "respect" that theistic views about the origins of the universe demand.

is abusive.

 

Its abuse because you keep telling me my views are stupid, full of crap, incorrect, etc. over and over again.

 

If I tell you something is full of crap, I then provide a reason as to why it is full of crap.

 

And again, answer my question. If you insisted that the chemical formula for water was H3O and I told you that it was H2O, am I abusive if I tell you that your "view" makes no sense?

 

Its also abuse because you frequently contradict yourself, and refuse to budge an inch on your views. Remember a few pages back where we had that discussion on mutations? Two or three pages before that you were acting as if there were no such thing as a "mutation," and that anyone who believed mutations happened must have thought that "the only reason people look different is cause some kind of carcinogen interfered in our reproduction?? :blink:", followed by "Go back to high school and pay attention in Biology class"

 

This is correct. The reason there are different lifeforms has nothing to do with radioactive elements or carcinogens. The problem I had with your use of the word "mutation" is that you seem to have the idea that it refers to something like how in cartoons there will be a fish with 20 eyes after it swims around in nuclear waste. This process has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution did not occur due to genetic contamination, it occurs due to random variations. We are not the offspring of millions of generations of ****ed up freak babies.

 

 

 

Secondly, you mistake the purpose of discussion. Religion isn't discussed to persuade others to switch to a different side. It's discussed so that we can better understand each other and our separate viewpoints. I sure hope everyone is comfortable with their view(not belief) regarding religion. The point isn't to show someone the light, it's merely to clarify the misconceptions we hold about each other.

 

Actually my purpose is to convince people that there is no reason to believe in a god. I'm not saying you can't be moral or practice a philosophical religion, but pretending that an intelligent creator "guy in the sky" exists is just unreasoned. I have never heard a convincing case for why people need to hold unwarranted beliefs about the physical world


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Listen, if you are questioning me as well, I find your statements thoroughly contemptible. You're thoroughly offensive to those who share a contrary belief, going as far as to infer that atheism causes people to become genocidal. And now you're pretending that you're knowledgeable on a subject which you aren't. If you take philosophy 101(if you happen to go to Columbia one of my relatives is the professor) then you would know that atheism isn't a belief system. It's a lack of belief towards god. That isn't a belief system, it's unorganized, unstructured, and there is a well classified and known set of requirements that something must meet to be classified as a belief. Your statements are formed out of sheer ignorance, and you've yet to pose a response towards me.

 

Secondly, you mistake the purpose of discussion. Religion isn't discussed to persuade others to switch to a different side. It's discussed so that we can better understand each other and our separate viewpoints. I sure hope everyone is comfortable with their view(not belief) regarding religion. The point isn't to show someone the light, it's merely to clarify the misconceptions we hold about each other.

Well, I wasn't questioning you as well, but ok.

 

I never said atheism causes people to become genocidal. What I do believe is that atheism allows people to become genocidal.

 

The reason I'm not responding to you is because I don't feel like it. I don't expect you to be convinced by my lack of argument, but I have read somewhat into the history of the soviet union and other atheist states and I have come to the belief that atheism allows people to behave immorally - as peter hitchens puts it:

Atheism is a license for ruthlessness, and it appeals to the ruthless.

 

I'm curious to see what qualifications a belief must have. As far as I'm aware, if you think something is true without being able to provide reasonable proof it is a belief rather than fact. As the existence or nonexistence of God cannot be proven, anything but agnosticism must be considered some sort of belief. I've never heard that a belief had to be inherently structured.

 

Any argument I make that atheism is responsible for criminal actions is no more fallacious(indeed, markedly less so) then the common atheist arguments that religion itself is evil and immoral.

 

 

There can be many purposes of discussion...in general I think most people, when entering into a debate, hope to persuade the opposing side that their argument is correct or at least valid. I haven't seen any attempt from anyone to clear up misconceptions on this thread.

 

And now, a definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

 

atheist - 3 dictionary results

a·the·ist   

[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

–noun

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

The very definition of atheism dictates that an atheist has come to a negative conclusion regarding the existence of "a supreme being or beings". If you truly "are not sure", then agnosticism would be a much more appropriate label.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct. The reason there are different lifeforms has nothing to do with radioactive elements or carcinogens.

Have you not learned anything?

Chemicals and radiation have EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

 

But I don't have the time nor the inclination to teach you basics in biology and evolution, especially when you refuse basic, accepted facts from the scientific community because they don't agree exactly with your "truth"


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 are you talking about? The event of a person purposely telling another person a falsehood occurred multiple times before someone decided to label it a "lie". In order for there to be a label, an idea is required first. The idea has been conceptualized because it was observed in the physical world first. Someone telling another person a falsehood would be just as "objectively true" as a god existing.

 

Not to mention, we also invented the classification of "truth" and "existent" too. This doesn't mean nothing can ever be "true" unless humans say so.

 

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.[

 

My argument was not, "If you haven't seen it, it must be not true." My point is that spaghetti doesn't even have the potential to perform such feats because it does not possess the necessary components to. The fact that a triangle is a triangle means it has no potential to be any different shape, thus an impossibility.

 

Yes. Possible

 

Yet another completely unfounded claim. I don't even think most of your arguments warrant a rebuttal, as you're not even bothering to add anything new to the table other than persistently rejecting all of my claims without good reason to. Actually, I do have a response to reciprocate your "arguments": I DISAGREE.

 

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

 

Yes, it is possible for you to be uncertain and doubt it all you want, but that doesn't mean you won't splatter into millions of pieces, every single time - at least nomologically speaking (in terms of our universe's laws instead of some parallel universe crap).

 

What word other than "great force" can describe an average sized man falling 10,000 feet (with earth's gravity included) and smacking onto the hard pavement? Hell, there's even mathematics proving this. Now you're going as far as rejecting the scientific laws of physics in order to cling onto your argument that nothing but abstract knowledge can be impossible.

 

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.

 

This is why I brought up the laws of nature needing to be changed in order for some things to be possible. It's called nomological possibility. In a different universe with different rules, we have zero idea of what to expect. However, I'm talking about the real world.

 

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

 

But we do know. We know for certain that a raisin weighs much less than 100 lbs, therefore has no potential to instantly make you 100 lbs larger. We know for certain that lungs are required in order to take a breath, just like a brain is required to have a thought. We know for certain that 1.) a normal fishing rod is not nearly long enough to reach the sun, 2.) the sun would burn up any matter even close to it, and 3.) no human is strong enough to pull that weight.

 

I handpicked some of the most basic contradictions to reality, and yet you're still desperately trying to deny basic science for the sake of leveraging your already-debunked arguments. Again, in terms of nomologically possibility, these things just cannot happen in the realm we live in. If you wish to assert that these are possible, then you must find a way to get past these things, but all you are doing is making hollow claims that they are possible.

 

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.

 

Then you have no reason to support the argument that, "If two things both have no evidence, they are equally plausible," which is the logic I've been refuting this whole time. There are more things to take into account than absences of evidence, and I've shown you multiple things that should be taken into account if you wish to make a logical deduction in contrast to Santa and a deity.

 

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?

 

No, evidence for falsehood would be us legitimately finding out that the origin of the universe was caused by something other than god, or that it has no cause, etc. (Go figure there's probably no way to find this out.) It simply comes down to there being no evidence for god, and none against, therefore it would be illogical to claim anything other than ignorance.

 

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.

 

Yeah... and now look at yours. You seem to be very content on believing all of your assertions, even after I pointed out multiple ways how they break down. It all boils down to you having a false sense of reality and believing the magical Santa Claus and breathing skeletons fossils are possible. This is the typical crap I see from atheists who love to slither away from the fact that some of their assertions can be just as illogical as a theist's.

 

The very definition of atheism dictates that an atheist has come to a negative conclusion regarding the existence of "a supreme being or beings". If you truly "are not sure", then agnosticism would be a much more appropriate label.

 

Exactly - it's amusing how fervent some will get over their supposed "lack of belief". I'd have to say though that it's pretty apparent what they actually believe when they EQUATE GOD TO SANTA CLAUS. =D>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very definition of atheism dictates that an atheist has come to a negative conclusion regarding the existence of "a supreme being or beings". If you truly "are not sure", then agnosticism would be a much more appropriate label.

 

The very definition of atheism SAYS THAT IT IS DISBELIEF. It is the disbelief of the god hypothesis. It is NOT a belief of the opposite. Someone says "Theres a god" and we say "I dont believe you" Thats it.

 

It DOES NOT SAY "A person who believes there is not a god and cannot be a god"

 

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

Have you not learned anything?

Chemicals and radiation have EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

 

But I don't have the time nor the inclination to teach you basics in biology and evolution, especially when you refuse basic, accepted facts from the scientific community because they don't agree exactly with your "truth"

 

Chemicals, yes. Everything relates to chemicals. But NOT in the sense that the DNA gets "contaminated" by something. Variation of lifeforms isn't anything like when a baby gets born with 6 toes due to the fact that his mommy lived next to the nuclear plant. This type of DNA alteration is very different from the type that occurs naturally.

 

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

 

What are you talking about? The event of a person purposely telling another person a falsehood occurred multiple times before someone decided to label it a "lie". In order for there to be a label, an idea is required first. The idea has been conceptualized because it was observed in the physical world first. Someone telling another person a falsehood would be just as "objectively true" as a god existing.

 

Not to mention, we also invented the classification of "truth" and "existent" too. This doesn't mean nothing can ever be "true" unless humans say so.

 

The part you just said, in bold, was my very point. It isn't a truth or a lie until we call it that. Until then it is nothing but sound. Determining something as a truth or a lie is a completely man made system. If we somehow managed to never think of these classifications, a statement could never be anything but a statement (basically). On the other hand, something like a baseball flying through the air has its outcome dictated by the natural world. Something being true vs. false is decided by us. Something sitting still vs. moving is "decided" by nature.

 

My argument was not, "If you haven't seen it, it must be not true." My point is that spaghetti doesn't even have the potential to perform such feats because it does not possess the necessary components to. The fact that a triangle is a triangle means it has no potential to be any different shape, thus an impossibility.

 

Again, you don't know that the spaghetti for sure cannot come to life. Maybe there IS a god and he is going to decide to randomly make it come to life, despite the fact that it is made up of all the wrong stuff. It isn't an impossibility.

 

And again, the triangle thing is an impossibility by definition. Triangles play by our rules because we invented them, and we get to decide what is and is not a triangle. It is an abstract creation of mankind. We don't get to decide how physical objects behave, because they are not a product of our minds. We didn't create the rules, so we can never know them for absolute certainty.

 

Yet another completely unfounded claim. I don't even think most of your arguments warrant a rebuttal, as you're not even bothering to add anything new to the table other than persistently rejecting all of my claims without good reason to. Actually, I do have a response to reciprocate your "arguments": I DISAGREE.

 

Fine. It is possible because we have no way of coming to any sort of absolute knowledge about the physical world around us. We can develop good enough predictions to serve for all practical purposes, but we can NEVER call something impossible. We just don't have a system that does that. Science is not a source of absolute knowledge. It is a source of knowledge that gets us as close as possible.

 

Yes, it is possible for you to be uncertain and doubt it all you want, but that doesn't mean you won't splatter into millions of pieces, every single time - at least nomologically speaking (in terms of our universe's laws instead of some parallel universe crap).

 

What word other than "great force" can describe an average sized man falling 10,000 feet (with earth's gravity included) and smacking onto the hard pavement? Hell, there's even mathematics proving this. Now you're going as far as rejecting the scientific laws of physics in order to cling onto your argument that nothing but abstract knowledge can be impossible.

 

I think you misunderstand the way that science works. Its not like we can see something and then instantly know the truth. It is a system of predictions and likely conclusions. If you want to talk about "the laws of physics" how about this? You are walking down the road, when all of a sudden you split into a human and an anti-human (basically just two humans). Sound impossible? Sound like it defys some "law" of physics? Well, it doesn't. In fact, you can use physics to predict the chances of this happening to you. Luckily the odds are less than 10^-100, but it is still technically a possibility.

 

Stuff like that happens all of the time to subatomic particles (spontaneously splitting into a particle and anti-particle). It happens way more frequently for these particles since their mass is so tiny. As things get more massive, it is less likely for these types of things to happen. Yet still possible.

 

This is why I brought up the laws of nature needing to be changed in order for some things to be possible. It's called nomological possibility. In a different universe with different rules, we have zero idea of what to expect. However, I'm talking about the real world.

 

You seem to have some understanding of the fact that properties of our universe dictate the outcomes of events around us. Well, its not like these properties are absolute. Like, its not like there is a universal "on" or "off" position for "Can things pass through each other?". The liklihood of certain events occuring is set by constants that have a value (for example, Planck's constant, one of the most important constants for understanding the behavior of objects in our universe). The objects in our universe behave according to probability equations, not absolute equations. Some of these effects are totally, completely, absolutely negligible for daily life. However, to say that there is a ZERO percent chance of you being able to jump through your wall is a slight misnomer.

 

But we do know. We know for certain that a raisin weighs much less than 100 lbs, therefore has no potential to instantly make you 100 lbs larger. We know for certain that lungs are required in order to take a breath, just like a brain is required to have a thought. We know for certain that 1.) a normal fishing rod is not nearly long enough to reach the sun, 2.) the sun would burn up any matter even close to it, and 3.) no human is strong enough to pull that weight.

 

I handpicked some of the most basic contradictions to reality, and yet you're still desperately trying to deny basic science for the sake of leveraging your already-debunked arguments. Again, in terms of nomologically possibility, these things just cannot happen in the realm we live in. If you wish to assert that these are possible, then you must find a way to get past these things, but all you are doing is making hollow claims that they are possible.

 

"Basic" science is a complete oversimplification of the real nature of objects in our universe. If you are interested in learning more, google something about quantum physics.

 

Then you have no reason to support the argument that, "If two things both have no evidence, they are equally plausible," which is the logic I've been refuting this whole time. There are more things to take into account than absences of evidence, and I've shown you multiple things that should be taken into account if you wish to make a logical deduction in contrast to Santa and a deity.

 

What do you want to compare then? The fact that Santa does many "magical" things or that God does many "magical" things? What is there about God that is more congruent with the reality we see around us than Santa claus is? Have we ever seen an infinitely intelligent force? Have we ever seen a being create a universe? Have we seen a being that doesn't need a beginning? What is it about God that makes him MORE likely to exist than a magical guy who can fly around the world in a night? Tell me instead of just repeatedly saying that the comparison sucks. All you have done is spit out stuff about reciepts, which doesn't do anything to make it seem more unlikely that a man in a magical sled can fly around with raindeer.

 

No, evidence for falsehood would be us legitimately finding out that the origin of the universe was caused by something other than god, or that it has no cause, etc. (Go figure there's probably no way to find this out.) It simply comes down to there being no evidence for god, and none against, therefore it would be illogical to claim anything other than ignorance.

 

:mellow: Which is my entire point for why you should not be a theist. It makes more sense to be atheist.

 

Yeah... and now look at yours. You seem to be very content on believing all of your assertions, even after I pointed out multiple ways how they break down. It all boils down to you having a false sense of reality and believing the magical Santa Claus and breathing skeletons fossils are possible. This is the typical crap I see from atheists who love to slither away from the fact that some of their assertions can be just as illogical as a theist's.

Exactly - it's amusing how fervent some will get over their supposed "lack of belief". I'd have to say though that it's pretty apparent what they actually believe when they EQUATE GOD TO SANTA CLAUS. =D>

Again you still haven't shot down the comparison to Santa yet you seem to be under the impression that you have. All you do is say "But theres no photos, no reciepts...etc..." all that stuff. When I say that maybe we just don't have the story right, you just start from the beginning again and say "The Santa comparison sucks!" All your evidence shows is that if Santa exists, he must not be exactly who the stories say he is.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as there is no evidence for a god outside of any divine text(circular reasoning) or outside the mind of mankind for that matter, there also is no evidence to support a pink unicorn flying around my head.

 

Did I mention that the pink unicorn is just as omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent as yours is?

 

What do the two have in common?

 

One is something that has been around ages, while the other I just made off the top of my head. Does this make the former anymore true(ignoring the fallacy when one answers "Yes") just because the other is more recent?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism (pay close attention to the following links and see if your definition of atheist still holds true). Anti is the same as saying "In direct opposition to"

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism <---- 1

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism <------ 2

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1223551#m_en_us1223551 <------ 3

 

belief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief <--- I like this only half as much as this next one.

http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=belief&hl=en

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1225787#m_en_us1225787

 

evidence

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/ <---- I think this one is a dissertation for someone's PH.D.

 

Again Y_Guy, you can hold all the beliefs you want on the subject matter that Atheists are genocidal, but until you have something to assert as fact keep it in your head unless you want to be lain into. What little you have delved into(probably just excerpts in a wikipedia article and a little bit from US history books) is not enough to constitute even a basic understanding of the underlaying factors behind the fall of Soviet Russia.

 

If you really wish to understand communism then read "Karl Marxs'" book on the matter(he created the term afterall). It is apparent you haven't based on what has been said so far.

 

Capitalism is in direct opposition to Communism. In other words the anti-thesis.

 

By the way, Stalin was raised catholic just as Adolf Hitler was(read Mein Kampf).

 

Do you know what the two have in common in their ideologies, besides both being raised in such a way?

 

Absolutely nothing aside from the dogmatic beliefs they used, that religions in general use, to manipulate the masses. One just happened to be Atheist and the other was Catholic(Christian). Do you see a trend here?

 

I never said atheism causes people to become genocidal. What I do believe is that atheism allows people to become genocidal. <--- watch what I do to your argument here

I never said theism causes people to become genocidal. What I do believe is that theism allows people to become genocidal.

 

Any argument I make that atheism is responsible for criminal actions is no more fallacious(indeed, markedly less so) then the common atheist arguments that religion itself is evil and immoral. <---and again.

 

Any argument I make that theism is responsible for criminal actions is no more fallacious(indeed, markedly less so) then the common theist arguments that atheism itself is evil and immoral.

 

"There can be many purposes of discussion...in general I think most people, when entering into a debate, hope to persuade the opposing side that their argument is correct or at least valid. I haven't seen any attempt from anyone to clear up misconceptions on this thread."

 

The problem here though is that you choose to cherry-pick everything.

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

Since you very clearly are a troll See_All1 this will be all you get from me.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C18&as_sdtp=on

 

Abiogenesis - relates to the origin of life.

Evolution - Relates only to the diversity of life.

 

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

Crusty, do you not understand the base definition of abstract?

 

Clearly not as here is an example.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Triangle". <---- notice what I do here to the next one.

I have an object with 3 sides, therefore I shall call it a "Square". <---- If you can't find the difference don't reply.


Quote - Revenge is such a nasty thing that only breeds more vengeful souls, but in some situations revenge does not even need to be sought out, but only bided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you not learned anything?

Chemicals and radiation have EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

 

But I don't have the time nor the inclination to teach you basics in biology and evolution, especially when you refuse basic, accepted facts from the scientific community because they don't agree exactly with your "truth"

 

Chemicals, yes. Everything relates to chemicals. But NOT in the sense that the DNA gets "contaminated" by something. Variation of lifeforms isn't anything like when a baby gets born with 6 toes due to the fact that his mommy lived next to the nuclear plant. This type of DNA alteration is very different from the type that occurs naturally.

Baby gets born with 6 toes, allows it to run faster and thus has a better probability of surviving. Baby becomes adult, has many children that all survive better. All of a sudden our species has 6 toes instead of 5.

How is that not evolution? Mutations are the basis of evolution, and mutations occur because of chemicals or radiation. Get your facts straight.

 

 

 

EDIT:

Since you very clearly are a troll See_All1 this will be all you get from me.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology&h l=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C18&as_sdtp=on

 

Abiogenesis - relates to the origin of life.

Evolution - Relates only to the diversity of life.

I appreciate you taking the time out of your very busy day to give me a broken link to a search result.

Allow me to respond, with my sources of infinite knowledge:

www.bing.com

 

/sarcasm


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you not learned anything?

Chemicals and radiation have EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

 

But I don't have the time nor the inclination to teach you basics in biology and evolution, especially when you refuse basic, accepted facts from the scientific community because they don't agree exactly with your "truth"

 

Chemicals, yes. Everything relates to chemicals. But NOT in the sense that the DNA gets "contaminated" by something. Variation of lifeforms isn't anything like when a baby gets born with 6 toes due to the fact that his mommy lived next to the nuclear plant. This type of DNA alteration is very different from the type that occurs naturally.

Baby gets born with 6 toes, allows it to run faster and thus has a better probability of surviving. Baby becomes adult, has many children that all survive better. All of a sudden our species has 6 toes instead of 5.

How is that not evolution? Mutations are the basis of evolution, and mutations occur because of chemicals or radiation. Get your facts straight.

 

 

Mutations CAN occur because of these things. Radiation is not the only source, and it is not the most common source. Well. Wait. You slipped chemicals in there. All biological things are made of chemicals, so I suppose chemicals are definitely the cause.

 

But not in the sense that "Oh wooops my lemur got exposed to some crazy chemical and now its a fox"

 

Most evolutionary changes only occurred due to random variation. DNA replication randomly varries for no real reason at all. These variations produce small, helpful changes to the organism. (they could also be harmful) I just want to get this straight because it is important that you understand that things weren't running around with no toes, then all of a sudden something got hit by a cosmic ray, and its children had 5 toes.

 

The development of beneficial traits takes a lot more time than that. For example, it might be beneficial for a short-tongued animal to develop a longer tongue. This doesn't mean that a few lucky animals developed really long tongues due to toxic exposure. The theory of evolution suggests that this process happens far more gradually. Say that some of the animal has a 5 centimeter tongue. Well, this thing can give birth to children that have something like 4.5 centimeter to 5.5 centimeter tongues. After many many years the ones with slightly longer tongues have slightly higher survival rates and these become the new standard for the species.

 

These changes happen randomly. Think of it this way: are you shorter than your parents? If you are an inch shorter, does that mean your mom stood too close to the microwave when you were in her? No. Offspring vary randomly in small ways. These small variations in a system of natural selection will eventually breed themselves into dominance.

 

 

Furthermore I would just like to add that the radiation crap doesn't even do anything to help your claim. There was plenty of radiation hitting the Earth.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible told us all we need to know about our creation so we shouldn't be wasting money on studying the myth of evolution. My pastor told our congregation of how the Bible proves GOD's existence of when he prayed to GOD and received an answer. Maybe if you guys had faith in the Lord GOD he would give his grace to you. I also know a popular argument of you guys is some non sense about dinosaurs (and you say we believe in fairy tales... LOL). The thing is, the devil put dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith in GOD because the Bible already told us that that can't be true. If we truly had faith in the Lord, then we would know that the fossils means nothing, yet some of y'all decide to display them in one of them atheist ("science") museums.

 

I also find it ironic about that Darwin fellow. He had his cute little THEORIES about natural selection and all that garbage and made a hypothesis about the bottleneck effect. What island of inbreeders did he come from? And on this island of inbreds, what is the dominant (lack of) religion? Atheism. What a shock :rolleyes:

 

inb4someone doesn't pick up on the massive sarcasm


Player since 2004. All skills 1M+ XP.

Hamtaro.png

"If it were possible to cure evils by lamentation..., then gold would be a less valuable thing than weeping." - Sophocles

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studio, no need to troll. Though it seems not every discussion in this thread has been fully civil, it looks like its somewhat going towards that route. We don't need flamebait. :/


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see you missed the inb4. It's cute that you think someone with different beliefs than you is a troll. "Tolerance" at its finest...


Player since 2004. All skills 1M+ XP.

Hamtaro.png

"If it were possible to cure evils by lamentation..., then gold would be a less valuable thing than weeping." - Sophocles

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.