Which atheist and where?It's atheists who came up with an make the argument
-
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!
Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
I thought Penguin nicely laid out the options for someone's position.
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."
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
Depends on the god.
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
Reaper of Conversation
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
Mighty Pirate
oookay, so the 'what' explanation is back above 50% again,-- do I hear 60%?
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
Resident Sourpuss
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.
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.
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?
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
Mighty Pirate
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
Do you think any gods seem likely to exist?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
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
Misanthropic Humanist
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
Resident Sourpuss
What is really sad is that it appears that you actually believe the bull **** you spout about atheism...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
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?
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
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.