Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Revoltingest]

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

I haven't calculated anything.

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.

Numbers don't apply.

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?

Evolution is a larger process than random chance, which by itself would be inadequate.

How did you calculate the exact number of gods?

 

[McBell]

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

That you do not know what the words you use mean, you should really stop lying about what others say when using the words correctly.

 

[Iti oj]

That the universe is likely without gods.



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



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.



Matt Dillahunty - Wikipedia

Looks like the gumball analogy is about burden of proof and not about theism or atheism.
Also I've never heard him and no speaker speaks for me, I'm not a follower.

 

[Iti oj]

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.




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?

Wouldn't what include who ?

 

[Nakosis]

The difference, of course, being that I LOVE you. I would step in front of a car for you to trust Christ, you wouldn't give me a cold glass of water if I was drowning!

Why the heck would you do that? It's not going to prove to anyone that you know anything about God. It just proves you're willing to be a martyr for a belief you can't otherwise prove.

 

[1137]

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

FYI, I don't read all your posts.

Duh? Ever heard of gnostic vs agnostic (a)theism?

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

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.


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.

That you do not know what the words you use mean, you should really stop lying about what others say when using the words correctly.

When you get to college take a philosophy class, and try to convince the professor atheism and agnosticism are identical positions. Let me know how it goes

Looks like the gumball analogy is about burden of proof and not about theism or atheism.
Also I've never heard him and no speaker speaks for me, I'm not a follower.

Did you ever consider that this is why I've repeatedly stated the dishonesty is an attempt to avoid the burden of proof? The gumball analogy pretends that atheism=agnosticism so it can avoid defending it's position. Consider that when I was an atheist, and as far as my atheists friends go, there was always reasoning behind the atheism, there was no issue admitting we believed the universe was without gods. That exactly what atheism is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I haven't calculated anything.

'what' seems the better explanation

So what exactly was this based on, the floozy in the evening gown picked this belief for you?

Numbers don't apply.

so you would not say that you are more than 55% confident in your belief. I think you are coming around again!

Evolution is a larger process than random chance, which by itself would be inadequate.

We agree 100% on this! You can't build a house by dropping bricks randomly and hoping to build something useful

How did you calculate the exact number of gods?

There's a pretty big drop off after #1

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wouldn't what include who ?

not for our purposes, I gave him a choice of 'who' or 'what'

 

[Revoltingest]

So what exactly was this based on, the floozy in the evening gown picked this belief for you?



so you would not say that you are more than 55% confident in your belief. I think you are coming around again!



We agree 100% on this! You can't build a house by dropping bricks randomly and hoping to build something useful

How did you calculate the exact number of gods?

There's a pretty big drop off after #1

Your post is unclear.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your post is unclear.

Sorry, I fixed it.. I'm such an amateur!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Duh? Ever heard of gnostic vs agnostic (a)theism?

Sure. I don't find those terms particularly accurate, or widely used. I'd simply say I'm both agnostics and an atheist, but that's splitting hairs I suppose.

So, this being the case, what is your beef with atheists then?

 

[McBell]

When you get to college take a philosophy class, and try to convince the professor atheism and agnosticism are identical positions. Let me know how it goes

You are the only one make that claim.
Now I have to wonder if it is that you do not listen or if perhaps your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking...

Though it could be both...

That exactly what atheism is.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall....

 

[Revoltingest]

So what exactly was this based on, the floozy in the evening gown picked this belief for you?

"What" has been testable.
"Who" has not.

so you would not say that you are more than 55% confident in your belief. I think you are coming around again!

My confidence is 50% +/-50%.

We agree 100% on this! You can't build a house by dropping bricks randomly and hoping to build something useful

Don't be so quick to agree.
I'm not buying the apparent claim that evolution is a system of only random chance.
You don't mention the fitness function, population size, & time.

There's a pretty big drop off after #1

Nah.

 

[1137]

Sure. I don't find those terms particularly accurate, or widely used. I'd simply say I'm both agnostics and an atheist, but that's splitting hairs I suppose.

So, this being the case, what is your beef with atheists then?

My beef is with the argument in the op, atheism pretending that it is simply the position of uncertainty. Sure we can be uncertain either way, that's what makes leaning either way a belief, not a certain claim (outside of strong/gnostic (a)theism). The original gumball argument pretends that uncertainty about odd vs even is the atheist position, but that's uncertainty, agnosticism. The only way to properly, non fallaciously use the example is full vs empty, because atheism is nor arguing over what gods exist, but that it's unlikely any of them do.

 

[1137]

You are the only one make that claim.
Now I have to wonder if it is that you do not listen or if perhaps your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking...

Though it could be both...




Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall....

Nope, that's exactly what the original gumball and box arguments do, they purposely conflate atheism with uncertainty, in other words they pretend atheism is what we call agnosticism, and that agnosticism is not a third position of great importance. All this just to avoid supporting a position, it's quite embarrassing.

 

[Iti oj]

not for our purposes, I gave him a choice of 'who' or 'what'

Who seems like an extra presumption to me. Wouldn't occams razor suggest we pick what, as we can infer something happened.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The only way to properly, non fallaciously use the example is full vs empty, because atheism is nor arguing over what gods exist, but that it's unlikely any of them do.

So you have a beef with certain atheists who make the claim that gods don't exist or that it's unlikely that they don't exist, not with all atheists. This is fine, but applying it to "atheism," as a whole, is an inaccurate generalization.

Personally, I have no idea whether something we would call a god exists or not - hence, agnostic. However, I have no rational reason to make the positive assertion that I believe that god(s) do exist, so I don't hold such a belief - hence, atheism. I hope this clears it up for you.

 

[1137]

So you have a beef with certain atheists who make the claim that gods don't exist or that it's unlikely that they don't exist, not with all atheists. This is fine, but applying it to "atheism," as a whole, is an inaccurate generalization.

Personally, I have no idea whether something we would call a god exists or not - hence, agnostic. However, I have no rational reason to make the positive assertion that I believe that god(s) do exist, so I don't hold such a belief - hence, atheism. I hope this clears it up for you.

Kind of. My beef is with the fact that the vast majority of atheists I've talked with can't admit they believe the universe to be godless, then refuse to defend their position. Essentially they dodge any burden of proof or even rational support in a ridiculously elaborate way. I can see why to many it's not a big deal, but in an actual quest for truth it matters greatly.

 

[ArtieE]

Kind of. My beef is with the fact that the vast majority of atheists I've talked with can't admit they believe the universe to be godless, then refuse to defend their position. Essentially they dodge any burden of proof or even rational support in a ridiculously elaborate way. I can see why to many it's not a big deal, but in an actual quest for truth it matters greatly.

Theists believe one or more gods exist.
Weak atheists don't believe gods exist and don't believe gods don't exist.
Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.

The majority of atheists are weak atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Kind of. My beef is with the fact that the vast majority of atheists I've talked with can't admit they believe the universe to be godless, then refuse to defend their position. Essentially they dodge any burden of proof or even rational support in a ridiculously elaborate way. I can see why to many it's not a big deal, but in an actual quest for truth it matters greatly.

I've encountered very few of those through the last 20 years of being an adult atheist. The vast majority I've encountered in real life and online are of the rationalist/skeptical mindset, like myself. Perhaps, you are encountering atheists like this but are shut off to actually listening to what they're saying because of pre-established conclusions. You seem a bit emotional about these things and in how you interact with atheists, so, just something to consider.