Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Iti oj]

It's atheists who came up with an make the argument

Which atheist and where?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't like the word "atheist" myself.

It seems to acknowledge the very thing we are denying. In my case it is so self evident that there is no god, that using a name for it looks a bit silly. It would be like calling you an a-fairist on account of you not believing in the existence of fairies, presumably.

Ciao

- viole

I thought Penguin nicely laid out the options for someone's position.

The existence of the thing itself is a binary matter.

Our position on the existence of the thing can be one of three states:

- I assert that the thing exists
- I assert that the thing does not exist, or
- I make no assertions about the existence or non-existence of the thing.

Just for clarification, would you characterize your position as "I assert that the thing does not exist?" Or "I make no assertions about the existence or non-existence of the thing."

 

[1137]

What one?

That the universe is likely without gods.

So, you are an a-fairist, after all. Or are you agnostic about the existence of invisible fairies in your garden?

Ciao

- viole

I am indeed an a-fariest, I believe that there are no fairies in the universe. I'm also agnosticism in that I can't know whether there are or not with absolute certainty, which is exactly why it's a belief. Thank you for the good example in support of my point

And plenty of atheists have told you that their position is "I don't know." I don't find "no gods" less likely than "gods." I have no rational reason to conclude either, so I don't. Why do you ignore atheists who hold this position? That's a rhetorical question.

Yup, this is exactly my point. Atheism pretends agnosticism does not exist and is itself the "I don't know" position. Quite dishonest, as agnosticism is it's own thing quite separate from atheism.

Which atheist and where?

Matt Dillahunty - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just for clarification, would you characterize your position as "I assert that the thing does not exist?" Or "I make no assertions about the existence or non-existence of the thing."

Depends on the god.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I'm only speaking for myself here, but I say I'm an atheist so you understand my position is that you don't know anything about God. Whereas the position of an agnostic may be they accept that they don't know but you or someone else might.

For example say, someone claims "God is all powerful" an agnostic might respond the truth of this claim is unknown. An atheist would likely say they have no reason to accept anything that person claims about God. Being an agnostic I see as a passive position. An atheist ends up being in active opposition to all claims about God.

If a person claims God exists, my position is they don't know what they are talking about.
If a person claims God doesn't exist, my position remains the same. They don't know what they are talking about.

And understand I've no problem with someone proving otherwise. I'm happy to allow someone to prove they know what they are talking about wrt God, it just hasn't happen yet.

 

[Magic Man]

I really tire of “scientific frivolity.” Ok, so polar bears did not come from rocks. Good. Then do me a favor and go to Ancestry.com and trace back their lineage. After all, evolution says we all came from some primordial soup. They also claim some way some how DNA formed. Without any intelligent designer, too, mind you. Something about proteins and amino acids, too, I guess?

So somewhere “back there” a polar bear was not a polar bear was it? If we follow the family tree back hundreds of millions of years or further was did his great, great grand pappy look like? Was he a clam or a mouse? Was he a water beetle or a fire fly? And before that was he carbon or rocks or primordial soup? That is your contention whether you will admit to it or not.

IOW, your entertaining us by pointing out my naiveté is really just another way to skirt the salient point.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the salient point. Could you maybe make it clearer? All I see is some leading questions based on a complete (and intentional) misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

People often mistake a choice between 2 alternatives as each having a 50% probability.
They mistakenly assume it's like a coin filp.
This is not always so.

oookay, so the 'what' explanation is back above 50% again,-- do I hear 60%?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

No, I'd be waiting for you to prove you know anything about polar bears or rocks for that matter in order to justify your claim about atheists.

 

[McBell]

If you do not know then this is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a leaning towards no gods, whereas theism leans towards gods, with strong forms existing of both. So do you think that it is more or less likely that the universe has gods than that it is godless?

I have no interest in playing pigeon chess with your Humpty Dumpty definitions..

I am atheist because I have no belief concerning god.
I do not believe god exists.
NOR do I believe god does not exist.
I do not know.

 

[Revoltingest]

oookay, so the 'what' explanation is back above 50% again,-- do I hear 60%?

Here's the thing about probability.....
If you don't know what the probability is, then you can't say what the probability is.

Perhaps I can illustrate.....
Suppose an X-ray makes a random change to a gene in the little egg which eventually became Mr Threepwood.
What is the probability that it will be either beneficial or harmful?
We have 2 alternatives, but they're not of equal probability.
The latter one is much more likely.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no interest in playing pigeon chess with your Humpty Dumpty definitions..

I am atheist because I have no belief concerning god.
I do not believe god exists.
NOR do I believe god does not exist.
I do not know.

I also don't trust this common focus they have upon the singular.
How did they arrive at the exact quantity of gods, ie, just one?
Why not 42?

 

[1137]

I have no interest in playing pigeon chess with your Humpty Dumpty definitions..

I am atheist because I have no belief concerning god.
I do not believe god exists.
NOR do I believe god does not exist.
I do not know.

So you're an agnostic who feels the need to call yourself an atheist for no apparent reason besides ignorance of the terms. Noted.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I really tire of “scientific frivolity.” Ok, so polar bears did not come from rocks. Good. Then do me a favor and go to Ancestry.com and trace back their lineage. After all, evolution says we all came from some primordial soup. They also claim some way some how DNA formed. Without any intelligent designer, too, mind you. Something about proteins and amino acids, too, I guess?

So somewhere “back there” a polar bear was not a polar bear was it? If we follow the family tree back hundreds of millions of years or further was did his great, great grand pappy look like? Was he a clam or a mouse? Was he a water beetle or a fire fly? And before that was he carbon or rocks or primordial soup? That is your contention whether you will admit to it or not.

IOW, your entertaining us by pointing out my naiveté is really just another way to skirt the salient point.

That's what the theory says certainly, and that there must of course be vast numbers of intermediates linking every stage between. The fossil record (science) doesn't seem to want to comply with this story though. We see highly evolved species suddenly appearing as if having no evolutionary history, and less transitional examples than we had in Darwin's day

 

[1137]

Depends on the god.

Do you think any gods seem likely to exist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yup, this is exactly my point. Atheism pretends agnosticism does not exist and is itself the "I don't know" position. Quite dishonest, as agnosticism is it's own thing quite separate from atheism.

Hint: They're not mutually exclusive. Unless you're only interested in arguing that your semantic interpretation is the only correct one. In that case, you're only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, as such debates are vapid and pointless.

 

[1137]

Hint: They're not mutually exclusive. Unless you're only interested in arguing that your semantic interpretation is the only correct one. In that case, you're only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, as such debates are vapid and pointless.

I'm so aware of this that I've explicitly stated as much. You're just a troll ain't ya

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm so aware of this that I've explicitly stated as much. You're just a troll ain't ya

So, you're aware that atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive?

FYI, I don't read all your posts.

 

[McBell]

I honestly can't believe the lengths you guys go to in order to avoid admitting you have a belief. It's so simple, and the best part is nobody but other atheists will hold it against you, because you guys are the only ones afraid of the word! While it's endlessly entertaining, like a creationist who believes they're scientific, it's really sad.

What is really sad is that it appears that you actually believe the bull **** you spout about atheism...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here's the thing about probability.....
If you don't know what the probability is, then you can't say what the probability is.

And yet you are able to calculate that 'what' has a higher probability than 'who'-

so I'm wondering how much higher you think it is, a little, a lot? you must surely feel it's >55% for you to be so confident.

Perhaps I can illustrate.....
Suppose an X-ray makes a random change to a gene in the little egg which eventually became Mr Threepwood.
What is the probability that it will be either beneficial or harmful?
We have 2 alternatives, but they're not of equal probability.
The latter one is much more likely.

Hence all the beneficial improvements needed to morph a single cell into a human, were likely not happened upon by random chance, who's side are you on now?

 

[McBell]

I'm simply interested in honesty, honest positions and honest discussion.

Your posts strongly indicate otherwise.
I mean, why else would you be constantly telling atheists what they think and believe?
You have not once stopped to listen to what you are being told.
Instead, you preach and dictate to atheists what they are to think and believe.
So Your posts actually show that the above quote from you is a lie.

Atheism dishonestly pretends it does not find "no gods" less likely than "gods," despite this being what atheism is in real philosophy of religion. What a joke.

The joke is that you have been dead wrong every step of the way in this thread and instead of learning from your mistakes, you dig in and repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Your whole argument is nothing but a lie.
A lie you cling to for dear life.
Sad that you are so afraid of the truth.