Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Valerian]

The logical presumption of what is inside a closed box, is something that would fit in the box. It could be air. It could be anything as long as it can fit in the box.

Until we use further diagnostics and tests with our senses and abilities, then we can come to a better conclusion.

I'm not going to presume what others will do, but here's what I would do. I would open it.

Atheists, IMO, serve two "gods." Time and mindless chance.

They believe if you give a pile of rocks enough time it will turn into a polar bear.

They also think the probabilities of some organism can create an eyeball or a pancreas when once there was none is no big thing. Even if the chances of that occurring (without an I.D.) are one in a quintillion. They still hold strong to their theories.

Also, too many of them become easily offended if we appear to ridicule them.

Nor can they even agree how anything even occurred, since the evidence is so sketchy. I like what agnostic Dr. David Berlinski said of that. > > The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.

 

[Revoltingest]

so then you believe it was a 'what' rather than a 'who'?

"What" seems the better explanation.
But no one knows, despite some pretense to the contrary.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"What" seems the better explanation.
But no one knows, despite some pretense to the contrary.

That's your belief then

some sort of spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, can account for nature itself? creation without creativity? The laws of nature ultimately wrote themselves?

how confident would you say you are of this, 90%?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's your belief then

some sort of spontaneous naturalistic mechanism, can account for nature itself? creation without creativity? The laws of nature ultimately wrote themselves?

how confident would you say you are of this, 90%?

To speculate about something utterly unknowable isn't amenable to being quantified.
Too strong a desire to 'know' is the downfall of many, who then leap to myth as truth.

I'm comfortable being ignorant.
Whence springs reality?
I dunno.
I just live here.

 

[icehorse]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

another strawman.

 

[ArtieE]

Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

That is an agnostic. An atheist doesn't have any beliefs regarding what's in the box or if the number of items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box.

Theism is believing there are one or more gods in the box.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Great OP title--since I deal with foolish dishonest atheist posts daily.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To speculate about something utterly unknowable isn't amenable to being quantified.
Too strong a desire to 'know' is the downfall of many, who then leap to myth as truth.

I'm comfortable being ignorant.
Whence springs reality?
I dunno.
I just live here.

Fair enough, I agree, yet you certainly have enough curiosity to ponder the question, and this has led to enough conviction to make this speculation:

'what' seems the better explanation'

So humor me if you will, I am genuinely curious:

Let's say you have a billion $ to gamble. Whatever you win goes to your favorite charity, whatever you lose (or don't bet), goes to fund Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign, and he's promising to outlaw bacon

You can bet on black (who) or red(what)

you can split the billion any way you like.

how much do you put on black and how much on red?

 

[Revoltingest]

Great OP title--since I deal with foolish dishonest atheist posts daily.

And we like you too!

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough, I agree, yet you certainly have enough curiosity to ponder the question, and this has led to enough conviction to make this speculation:

Certainty?
I've made no such claim.
This is your invention.

So humor me if you will, I am genuinely curious:

Let's say you have a billion $ to gamble. Whatever you win goes to your favorite charity, whatever you lose (or don't bet), goes to fund Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign, and he's promising to outlaw bacon

You can bet on black (who) or red(what)

you can split the billion any way you like.

how much do you put on black and how much on red?

I avoid gambling....no poker, black jack, 21, & whatever other games of chance there are.
But if I had to bet, I'd pick green.
This is just to show you that the possibilities are more than just 2.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People who are "against" evolution generally cannot explain even it's most basic mechanisms or express accurately what it is. This seems to be the same case with atheism. Then again, I suppose it's largely the same people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Certainty?
I've made no such claim.
This is your invention.

"What" seems the better explanation.

I avoid gambling....no poker, black jack, 21, & whatever other games of chance there are.
But if I had to bet, I'd pick green.
This is just to show you that the possibilities are more than just 2.

So if you had to bet, you would bet everything on something other than the 2 options...' at 37 to 1 odds? whatever that is you must be very sure of it!

even though you already said that you believe 'what' is the best bet?

So of course you would be obliged to put most of your money on 'what', because that's what you believe, and you are a good person who wants to give charitably and not plunge the country into a vegetarian socialist hell

The question is, why go to such lengths to conceal this?

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, right or wrong, there is an inherent bias in atheism, in always seeking to 'refute God' at the earliest opportunity, by declaring a conclusion as final and comprehensive- steady state, big crunch, classical physics, Darwinism. It presents a constant barrier to scientific progress.

How would scientific progress benefit if meteorologists start including Thor in their theories and seismologists start including Poseidon?

 

[Revoltingest]

So if you had to bet, you would bet everything on something other than the 2 options...' at 37 to 1 odds? whatever that is you must be very sure of it!

even though you already said that you believe 'what' is the best bet?

So of course you would be obliged to put most of your money on 'what', because that's what you believe, and you are a good person who wants to give charitably and not plunge the country into a vegetarian socialist hell

The question is, why go to such lengths to conceal this?

Conceal?
I didn't even know about your weird little contrived scenario.

It seems that some people need to make the simple more complex.
Fallacious arguments can hide in complexity.
The simple view.....
When you don't know something is true,
then don't believe this something is true.

 

[viole]

I'm not seeing anything in this jar.

What jar?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What jar?

Ciao

- viole

The jar containing the OP.

 

[viole]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I know there is an even number of things in that jar. And any atheist that says otherwise, does not know math. Or is not an atheist. Or both.

So, you cannot accuse me of evading the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The jar containing the OP.

Oh, so it contans an odd number of things. Namely one OP.



Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Conceal?
I didn't even know about your weird little contrived scenario.

It seems that some people need to make the simple more complex.
Fallacious arguments can hide in complexity.
The simple view.....
When you don't know something is true,
then don't believe this something is true.

you already mentioned what you really believe, that 'what' is a better explanation than 'who'.

but in the analogy you revert to being so neutral, you'd rather just stick it on green and give it all to Bernie, than put one cent on what you just described as 'the better explanation'...

which is it?

we all believe in things we can't prove, not much way around that, but why disguise those beliefs as disbeliefs? How can you ever challenge your own beliefs if you don't at least acknowledge them?

 

[viole]

Atheists, IMO, serve two "gods." Time and mindless chance.

Yes, and we pray to them. Especially mindless chance. It seems to respond to prayers with a reliability comparable to other types of prayers.

They believe if you give a pile of rocks enough time it will turn into a polar bear.

Nope. They do not. But there are some Christians who believe they do. Christians believe a lot of strange things, I guess.

They also think the probabilities of some organism can create an eyeball or a pancreas when once there was none is no big thing. Even if the chances of that occurring (without an I.D.) are one in a quintillion. They still hold strong to their theories.

Do you need an I.D. to create a pancreas? I thought you needed that if you want to buy beer but look too young.

And what do you need to design organs for the creation of immortal souls so that they share the function of urinating? A S.D.?

Also, too many of them become easily offended if we appear to ridicule them.

Count me out. I cannot possibly be offended by arguments involving polar bears coming from stones.

Nor can they even agree how anything even occurred, since the evidence is so sketchy. I like what agnostic Dr. David Berlinski said of that. > > The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.

So, God has a passion for apes. Must be, since He created humans, the very reason for creating the rest of the Universe, so that they belong to the same family.

I wonder what He thought. Maybe something in the lines of: wow, that ape design is so cool. Look at that gorilla, how beautiful it is. And those bonobos are so amazing. Maybe without hair, they would look even better. That is exactly what I was looking for as a model for the pinnacle of my creation. So let those hairless apes awe at my creative power and glory. Ok, bonobos are slightly gay, which is suboptimal, but I can correct that with a couple of laws involving stoning their hairless version.

Am I close?



Ciao

- viole