Atheists and the Pink Elephants

[AllTruthRevealed]

Peace Be With You All. I will be back next Monday evening after 9pm to reply to the posts due to work commitments. Please wait patiently for my arrival.

 

[Surya Deva]

can you give me a example of anything that can be scientifically attributed to a creator "with credibility" ????????????????????????????????????


anything at all?

No, so both positions are both lacking in examples and neutralize one another.

 

[1137]

Why are atheists always imagining unicorns, fairies, flying teapot monsters, yet have difficulty with the reasonable and logical certainty of a Creator?

I have no issues imagining a deity existing, but the imaginings just do not hold up in reality. Even the most logical concepts of God(s), whether we are talking deism or a malevolent being, break down with the knowledge that our reality exists with no God necessary.

 

[BSM1]

The point is that unicorns don't exist, and it's pretty ridiculous to believe that they do, and that the belief in God is really not much different.

[/QUOTE]

Just as a point of clarity, unicorns are mention nine times in the Old Testament.

 

[1137]

Just as a point of clarity, unicorns are mention nine times in the Old Testament.

No way, where?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why are atheists always imagining unicorns, fairies, flying teapot monsters, yet have difficulty with the reasonable and logical certainty of a Creator?

Generally, I don't equate the different concepts of creator gods to unicorns, fairies, or flying teapots/spaghetti monsters. I think the former have been adopted by people for legitimate reasons such as trying to explain phenomena that were/are otherwise unexplained. Speaking from a strictly intuitive standpoint rather than a logical one, it makes sense that some people would try to look for supernatural explanations for such phenomena in the absence of scientific ones.

However, making the assertion that a particular deity concept is a logical certainty requires solid, undeniable evidence. That's why a lot of people don't believe in assertions of this kind and might compare them to claims that unicorns, fairies, etc. certainly exist: they haven't been shown enough evidence to suggest that either exists, so either of them would be as logical (or illogical, in this case) as the other.

 

[BSM1]

No way, where?

Deut. 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21, et al.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But is there some significance that fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus are chosen over other imaginary beings? Is this an inherent bias that has yet to be addressed? Hmm.

I think the choice is often meant to call attention to the fact that people generally disregard the existence of things for which they have no evidence. IOW, it's a subtle way of implying that the theist has a double standard when it comes to God.

 

[Falvlun]

But is there some significance that fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus are chosen over other imaginary beings? Is this an inherent bias that has yet to be addressed? Hmm.

Well, my personal pet creation is the purple sock eating monster that lives in our dryers, mostly because of the lovely ambiguousness of it: Is the monster purple or does it only dine on purple socks?

If you believe in creation then you have two alternatives

1) It came into being out of pure chance from seeming nothingness
2) God created it.

Evolution has given us a third way for complexity to come from the simple. It's not random, but neither does it require a designer. Could not this be a third option?

Peace Be With You. NO not trolls. Atheists often mistakenly lump 'imaginary things' with the Creator. I would state that when you say that 'unicorns don't exist' it ought to be based on a logical footing . How have you established that 'unicorns' do not exist?

I think you are still missing the point. The point is to make an analogy, to aid in explaining how it feels to not believe in God.

Regarding the unicorns (and all other mythical creatures), I mispoke. We don't know that they don't exist, categorically;. We just assign the probability of them existing as very very low; and for practical purposes, most people don't believe they exist. This is how many atheists approach the question of God's existence. Is it possible? Sure. About as possible as a unicorn existing. (And actually, probably less imo, since unicorns are afterall just another animal, and we know that animals exist.)

 

[Willamena]

Well, my personal pet creation is the purple sock eating monster that lives in our dryers, mostly because of the lovely ambiguousness of it: Is the monster purple or does it only dine on purple socks?

The ambiguity of the socks? lol

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the choice is often meant to call attention to the fact that people generally disregard the existence of things for which they have no evidence. IOW, it's a subtle way of implying that the theist has a double standard when it comes to God.

I don't think the perceived double standard would be much of an issue if it weren't for the fact that many people think it is perfectly fair and just for those who don't believe in their version of a god — mainly due to lack of sufficient evidence — to suffer in a hell, possibly for eternity. That is what breaks it for me.

 

[outhouse]

No, so both positions are both lacking in examples and neutralize one another.

which leaves us with faith, something we know some people try and project into reality

 

[Iti oj]

Can you give examples of something coming out of nothing and a pot, Monsa Lisa, jumbo jet or computer building itself?

The cut seen gag as seen on Family Guy!!!