Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Maximilian]

I am not an atheist, but you are making to strong a demand for the criteria of non-belief to be an atheist. I can easily turn the tables that theists make evidentiary assumptions and the stance adopted that God exists, and an evidentiary burden being assumed, As long as this burden is not satisfied just how can anyone deem their position to be rational?

.Based on your line of reasoning the only viable choice is agnosticism.

And yet it is because of multiple independent pieces of concrete evidence that billions upon billions of neurotypical men and women all across the world have come to the natural conclusion that Almighty God exists.

 

[Road Warrior]

Atheist say "We don't know yet, let's try to find out". Some theists say "I give up, it was magic". Of course there are theists that do not stop at "God did it".

Yes, some atheists say that. I’d venture to say most of them. All I’m saying is that the majority of those on this forum don’t.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not to mention that it's a disputed quotation lacking any actual evidence that Epicurus actually wrote it: Epicurus - Wikiquote

Note the irony of someone who constantly demands hard evidence of everything using a disputed quote which lacks evidence of being real as his signature.

Note the irony of someone who constantly uses projective Straw Man logical fallacies complaining about someone's signature...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And yet it is because of multiple independent pieces of concrete evidence that billions upon billions of neurotypical men and women all across the world have come to the natural conclusion that Almighty God exists.

Argument From Popularity Logical Fallacy.

Billions upon billions of people do not, in fact, believe in the same god.

At best, you have approximately 20% who, more or less, think that a reasonably similar god is the correct god.

By your dubious argumentative style, that means 80% of the world disagrees-- therefore?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, some atheists say that. I’d venture to say most of them. All I’m saying is that the majority of those on this forum don’t.

Sadly, you appear incapable of counting to a sufficiently high value, to make that sort of determination: majority.

I would further presume that the meaning of the word "majority" also escapes your attention, instead, you substitute "agrees with you".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Only according to the Atheists. The Theists will say it came from God. The rest of us are just wondering WTF did it come from?

I dare you to name even ONE actual atheist in RF, who claims "something from nothing"....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

substance is NOT 'self'.....motivating

Something Greater set the universe (one word) into motion

Argument from Incredulity Logical Fallacy: you don't know, therefore "god".

Gotcha.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is an argumentum ad assertio fallacy.

Try again.

Quote Mining Logical Fallacy-- take my entire quote into context, next time.

Nice Straw Man you have built there -- so it's easy for you to "knock down"?

Okay. A wee bit disingenuous of you as well... but that's modus operandi, right?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Right because parents never allow their children to be slaughtered in gruesome wars where they mercilessly slaughter the children of other parents . . . oh . . . wait . . .

Try again.

Shifting The Goal Posts Logical Fallacy.

And 100% ignoring my POINT:

A PARENT WHO DOES CARE FOR THEIR CHILD IS 100% MORE MORAL THAN YOUR GOD.

Period.

I DO NOT CARE ABOUT IMMORAL PARENTS. Humans are fallible.

GODS SHOULD NOT BE. But. YOUR GOD IS SO FALLIBLE, THAT IT IS EVIL.

... you cannot whitewash this away: you worship an evil concept of 'god'

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And when atheist after atheist after atheist confirms for me that they do in fact have ASD? Exactly how is that me "labeling" them?

Citation needed: Your overly biased, and quite evil "study" does not qualify as evidence.

But that's your modus operandi, isn't it? Why tell the truth, when an ever-increasing pile of false-hoods is "better"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

Try again.

No, my point is 100% accurate-- NONE of your, ahem, "prophecies" qualify as actual predictions. Not a single one.

YOU made the claim that these were accurate predictions-- YOU have to prove that they are.

YOU have failed the burden of proof. AGAIN.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Like when Tyson told us there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals?

Or how about when he conflated the Observer Effect with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

In many cases Tyson's audience "gets" steaming piles of bull **** served with a rich baritone voice. That so many people regard him as an authority is a good indication America's sliding down hill when it comes to science literacy.

Wow.... such seething hate! Calm down, there bub. You're apt to burst a blood vessel or something.

We GET it-- Dr Tyson destroys your "arguments" in "support" of your god. And you hate when that happens.

As for your ... ahem... "links"? .... REDIT? Seriously? That's a sh---hole of petulance and corruption. NOTHING coming from there is trustworthy... dismissed unwatched (mainly because I don't want a virus infection...)

 

[paarsurrey]

And when atheist after atheist after atheist confirms for me that they do in fact have ASD? Exactly how is that me "labeling" them?

I never knew as to what is ASD. I googled and find a write up Atheism and autism - Conservapedia , which confirms one's point of view.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never knew as to what is ASD. I googled and find a write up Atheism and autism - Conservapedia , which confirms one's point of view.
Regards

Oh, it's in Conservapedia. I guess that settles it!

 

[paarsurrey]

Oh, it's in Conservapedia. I guess that settles it!

I like Wikipedia and never knew that a cold war had erupted between Wikipedia and Conservadedia and Uncyclopedia etc. After writing my post #594 I searched further and found out:
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia
and then amusing anecdote articles @ https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Canada.
I never knew that we are in an era of Pedia Wars. Well I am not a party to this war. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If this is true, why don’t all kinds of things come from nothingness? Just why aren't dinosaurs, for example, suddenly appearing and devouring everyone in sight? Why aren't we terrified of elephants suddenly popping into being and crushing us as they rained down on us from the skies? If nothing can in fact yield anything exactly why would it discriminate?

This is because "nothingness" (true nothingness, not the concept) exists outside the subject. Without a subject, the objective reality dissolves into undefined infinity: no thing. A thing--something--arises from this when a subject's discriminating senses pull in data that is fitted into relationships and thus defined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like Wikipedia and never knew that a cold war had erupted between Wikipedia and Conservadedia and Uncyclopedia etc. After writing my post #594 I searched further and found out:
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia
and then amusing anecdote articles @ https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Canada.
I never knew that we are in an era of Pedia Wars. Well I am not a party to this war. Right, please?

Regards

I love Uncyclopedia. It is not of much use in a debate, but it is highly entertaining. Sadly it is probably more accurate than Conservapedia.

Who cannot see the Flag of Canada and smile:

 

[paarsurrey]

I love Uncyclopedia. It is not of much use in a debate, but it is highly entertaining. Sadly it is probably more accurate than Conservapedia.

Who cannot see the Flag of Canada and smile:

Well I didn't notice that change in the Canadian flag at Uncylopedia. Since Uncylopedia has to provide disinformation so it is worthy of it. At least we have a source of amusement with disinformation, not bad though!
Regards

 

[Road Warrior]

Note the irony of someone who constantly uses projective Straw Man logical fallacies complaining about someone's signature...

LOL. You and Trump have a lot in common, but just because you keep repeating the same false statement over and over again doesn’t make it true. Are you denying you stated that discussion of anything outside the Natural Universe was irrational and insensible? Do I need to quote it a 5th time?

 

[Road Warrior]

Sadly, you appear incapable of counting to a sufficiently high value.....

Then you should save your self from even more frustration in your life and simply put me on ignore.