Response: I did miss it. I just received a message and link of the thread. I'll respond shortly after.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning
- Thread starter Fatihah
- Start date
Response: I did miss it. I just received a message and link of the thread. I'll respond shortly after.
Response: Still trolling?
Define intelligence first.
I didn't dodge it, I said that the clean room is a pattern created by intelligence, but that does not mean that every pattern existing is createt by intelligence. It's a runaway metaphor. Saying it's evidence that every pattern is created by something intelligent means that something physical, and not omnipotent, has created absolutely every single pattern there is, and that creator in return is also created, and his creator, and his creator too.
Basically, my answer was that your yes and no question is irrelevant, because if we say that every pattern does have to be created by something intelligent you've got a runaway metaphor (and an infinite regression, now that I come to think of it).
What's your answer to that? Do you agree that your argument is a runaway metaphor and also leads to infinite regression, and therefore is a logical fallacy? If not, why? And please, back up your answers by explaining how you reason to reach your conclusions.
Edit: Ok, I now discover that my limited mastery of English is haunting my posts again. I don't mean that the argument itself is a runaway metaphor, I mean that the metaphor of patterns with known creators being applied to every single pattern is a runaway metaphor, and that the argument itself is open to overload statements. It is also refuted through the fact that it leads to infinite regression, and therefore is an obvious fallacy.
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Yet another example of a pattern that did not come from intelligence.
You have thoroughly and most successfully demonstrated it numerous times here on RF alone.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
As usual, discussion with you is pointless, because when your point is utterly annihilated, you're entirely capable of looking right at it and denying you ever said it. Here's what you said:
This is WRONG, as I have shown. Denying that you said it only compounds your error with dishonesty.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
You're quite welcome, Fati.
If you'd like some answers to the questions in your OP, you might want to consider correcting the logical fallacies in your slanted presentation.
I guess I could ask something like "Why are all Muslims too stupid to understand the beauty of atheism? Is it because the concept of atheism is too complex for them to grasp?"
Now, those two questions are just as guilty of assuming the answer as your OP was, and they also try to make it appear as though all Muslims are stupid. Just as you tried to do with your OP.
How about it? Can you answer my two questions? And remember - you must keep a civil tone.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
This is the second time I am going to point out that you are intentionally painting with a broad brush. You are trying to provoke a response from the atheistic community on this board.
Response: The ability to understand and comprehend.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
And where did your god gain the ability to understand and comprehend?
Response: You mean like the trolling you do because of the anger you feel after having your arguments utterly debunked over and over and over and over again? Yes, I can see that.
Response: I never stated that I didn't statw the statement. So as usual, a discussion with me by you is pointless, because you constantly fail in comprehending the simple english presented.
And as for your claim that you've shown something wrong, as usual, you've shown no such thing, but just simply saying that you have.
Last edited:
Response: In other words, you want answers to more irrelevant questions in an effort to distract us from the fact that you have no logical answers for the questions posed in the OP. Another example of the flawed logic presented by some atheists.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
You really can't be serious... Whenever people say the exact same thing as you, they're being irrational, but whatever you say is the accepted truth of the world that we're all denying just to **** you off... Is that about right?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Originally Posted by Fatihah
Response: I never stated it was, thus your point has no relevance.
Emphasis added. Is the problem poor reading comprehension, base lack of honesty, or inadequate eye-glasses?
Fatihah: Communicating with you is too much trouble to bother with. Bye.
Response: Doesn't answer the OP.
I.S.L.A.M617
Illuminatus
That's ok, I made a new thread especially for you to grace us with your knowledge on this topic. Please don't spend all day dodging it like you did the last one.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
This is a question that should be turned to Deep Thought, to which she will answer something to the effect of 'Banana'.
The Blind Watchmaker analogy was put forward by Dawkins quite nicely and illustrated the lack of need for a creator in order for life to take place, or 'intelligent life' as it were. in fact already in the 19th century Darwin burried the Watchmaker analogy, that the complexity of life is an indication of a creator. people who are attracted to such simple solutions, should make more effort in being more updated with 200 years of intense research into natural selection.
Last edited:
Response: And once again, you have no answers to the questions posed in the OP. So instead of having the humility to acknowledge so, you'd rather put some type of post together to keep your head afloat. Is that about right?