It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Atheist Bow to Anthromophism?

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

This entire thread is about one persons myopic tunnel vision regarding how they view atheism with absolutely no regard towards objectivity or facts. It's the equivalent of asking a Jehovah's Witness to explain to you how a Catholic Mass works when they know nothing first hand about the Catholic Church and have never been to a Mass, wedding or funeral in a Catholic Church. Meanwhile the Catholics in the room are trying to tell the JW just how much the JW is getting wrong and the JW instead of acknowledging they are in error lashed out at the Catholics and tells them how wrong they are. Except this is more extreme because even those to disparate interpretations of Christian theology share a common base... Belief in Christ. There are more commonalities between a JW church and a Catholic Church than there are 2 atheists living down the street from one another. The entire premise here is rather banal, especially so when the OP refuses to take this as a learning exercise because it's more convenient to view atheism as a competition for their faith when Most of us could not care less about what a religious person does in his free time if it doesn't impact us negatively.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Yes, that pretty much sums up my views here as well.

It's entertaining, nonetheless. Although, it would be nice if a new argument were to arise now and then. I've never witnessed a person carry on the same tired misunderstanding for 11 pages straight and achieving no grounds on learning new information. A closed mind is a curious thing.

Regardless, I am convinced I can explain the issue in a way that Kashai can understand how their preconceived description of Atheism is an invalid one.

Honestly, it's actually a good thing they don't do the typical thing when others are in this sort of situation; which would be to run away, off to another thread to make the same claims. The longer Kashai stays here, the more of a chance we get to enlighten them.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: peter vlar


Honestly, it's actually a good thing they don't do the typical thing when others are in this sort of situation; which would be to run away, off to another thread to make the same claims. The longer Kashai stays here, the more of a chance we get to enlighten them.



That's a pretty solid point. I'm actually impressed that the OP has stuck it out this long. The typical routine is to start a "new" thread, different title same, premise right around page 4.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said

Source



American Atheists v. Shulman

How you can help

This case has the potential to undo the discrimination that has been written into our tax code. We have no doubt that this is a case that will go all the way to the Supreme Court. To help ensure that American Atheists has the resources we need to carry this case to the end, we need your help. Please consider making a tax-deductible gift to American Atheists to support our critically important legal work.


On December 12, 2012, American Atheists and two co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky demanding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stop giving preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations via the process of receiving non-profit tax-exempt status under the Internal Revue Code (IRC) procedures and definitions.


Source

[quote]
The Boulder Atheists group ... and secular humanist organizations in ... Boulder Atheists is a registered non-profit corporation in the state of ...

Source

You guys are really funny I mean that sincerely.

The Supreme court of the United States of America treats Atheism as a religion. Organization that are Atheist organization have tax exempt status in no different a way that religious organization.

Now I do not want to start an argument. These organizations actually do a lot of good and that is obvious but nonetheless it is a religion/belief.



Materialistic atheism is self-refuting

atheism self refuteby Matt Slick

Materialism is the theory that matter is the only thing that exists in the universe and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of it and its properties. This would mean that everything must operate within the bounds of physical laws, including the human brain. But this presents a problem for the materialistic atheist. A materialist atheist has no intellectual justification whatsoever to trust his own thinking because his physical brain cannot exceed the limits of physics and chemistry. Therefore, there's no reason for him to conclude that his rationality is correct since his brain is acting "mechanically." How does one chemical state that leads to another chemical state in the brain produce proper logical inference? There is no known mechanism that enables this. The human brain is indeed sophisticated, but if it is restricted to physical laws, then it will automatically respond in a predictable way based upon brain wiring and stimulus. This would mean that given the exact same circumstances, the exact same responses would always occur. This would mean that the atheist has no real freedom of will and has no reason to trust his thoughts about reality, God, himself, others, or experiences. Therefore, materialistic atheism is self-refuting because it cannot rationally defend its own position as being true. Materialistic atheism could never be known to be the right position to hold if the brain is merely reacting according to the physical requirements that govern it.

All that the materialistic atheists would have would be necessary responses based upon the neurochemical pathways in the brain that are stimulated via the senses and forced to respond based on the physical laws of the material universe.

If you are a materialistic atheist and you disagree with what I'm saying here, then I respond by saying, "That is what your brain programmed you to respond with." You see, it doesn't matter what objection you would raise. If materialistic atheism is true, then your brain is preprogrammed to respond in particular ways since you would have no free will and no way to provide a rational worldview with which you could explain experience.

Do you still think I'm wrong? Well, you have to say that. You are programmed to respond that way.


Source

I love that one.


Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

That is not true you specifically asked a member in this thread to prove Zeus existed.

Why are you calling me insane?

I am not stating that God exists or not. I am stating that based upon how nature appears to operate. God could very well exist, given the understanding that nothing we really understand well about nature is about nature is Random.

This presents that all of nature is not random and God exists and this is a very rational argument.

For me it is irrational to claim that a negative can be proven. Therefore atheist really have nothing to support there of the position with exception of the idea that they cannot observe God. Which is irrelevant in that Nature does not seem random based upon what we understand of Nature.

Any thoughts?






edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

That is not true you specifically asked a member in this thread to prove Zeus existed.



It was a joke.

I knew it was a joke.

And, I think you know it was a joke --- you're grasping at straws.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Atheism is not a religion.

But, in the prison system it was given the same rights and status as religion - - - allowing equal rights to non-believers to meet up.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I have been guilty of getting upset in this forum as well and felt it was appropriate to mention it at the time. But I doubt seriously Wolf147 is anything but a Gentlemen I would probably enjoy a game of Chess with him.

As far as any conclusion that I think otherwise...we are all perfect strangers outside of what can be interpreted by our comments.

Which in general is not enough to judge.




The Religious/Atheist conflict is one of the most fascinating clashes ever. Part of the reason for this, is because of the tremendous intensity with which both sides hold their beliefs [or lack their of], and the fact that the stakes are so high. The most interesting part of the conflict is that most people are not willing to discuss it, perhaps because their opinions are based more on intuition then on logic. So enjoy our collection of atheist jokes because nothing eases tension more then exhilarated, gut-busting, side-splitting, jokes.

A religious women upon waking up each morning would open her front door stand on the porch and scream, “Praise the lord.” This infuriated her atheist neighbor who would always make sure to counter back, “there is no Lord.” One morning the atheist neighbor overheard his neighbor praying for food, thinking it would be funny, he went and bought her all sorts of groceries and left them on her porch. The next morning the lady screamed, “praise the Lord, who gave me this food.” The neighbor laughing so hard he could barely get the words out screamed “it wasn’t the Lord, it was me.” The lady without missing a beat screamed “praise the Lord for not only giving me food but making the atheist pay for it!!“


Source
edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147


For me it is irrational to claim that a negative can be proven. Therefore atheist really have nothing to support there of the position with exception of the idea that they cannot observe God. Which is irrelevant in that Nature does not seem random based upon what we understand of Nature.

Any thoughts?







its absolutely irrational to think one can prove a negative. It's the antithesis of the scientific method. Stating that a god or gods COULD exist because you believe that the universe isn't random based on theoretical mathematics is not the same as proving the existence of a god or gods. The onus lies with those who wish to prove the existence of supernatural entities to do so as in science you do not and can not prove a negative. Nature may not seem random but that doesn't prove that it is not random. Where in Chaos Theory are predictions made supporting a god or gods? It makes none.


A chaotic system is one that has well understood dynamics, but that also has strong dependence on its initial conditions. For example, if you roll a stone down a rocky hill, there’s no mystery behind why is rolls or how it bounces off of things in its path (well established dynamics). Given enough time, coffee, information, and slide rulers, any physicist would be able to calculate how each impact will affect the course of the tumbling stone. But there’s the problem: no one can have access to all the information, there’s a diminishing return for putting more time into calculations, and slide rulers haven’t really been in production since the late 70’s.

So, when the stone hits another object on it’s ill-fated roll down the hill, there’s always some error with respect to how/where it hits. That small error means that the next time it hits the ground there’s even more error, then even more, … This effect; initially small errors turning into huge errors eventually, is called “the butterfly effect“. Pretty soon there’s nothing that can meaningfully be said about the stone. A world stone-chucking expert would have no more to say than “it’ll end up at the bottom of the hill”.

Chaotic systems have known dynamics (we understand the physics), but have a strong dependence on initial conditions. So, rolling a stone down a hill is chaotic because changing the initial position of the stone can have dramatic consequences for where it lands, and how it gets there. If you roll two stones side by side they could end up in very different places.


While the universe may not be completely random, there are always a multitude of variables involved and everything depends on the initial conditions in place. That doesn't change the fact that there is no accurate way to predict everything in the universe. Orbital mechanics? Sure, there are constants there and with the correct calculations, one can accurately predict the orbital mechanics of a given system for millennia to come but there are also a multitude of variables that will throw off those calculations. Just ask the dinosaurs.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

The Dinosaurs were not destroyed by a random variable, conditions existed that made it possible.



To begin with, we have to be careful what we mean by "random." Clearly pi is not "random" in the strict sense, because individual digits are certainly not random but mathematically fixed. Perhaps a better and easier question is whether pi is "normal base 10," which means that each digit, 0 through 9, appears, in the limit, precisely one tenth of the time; every two-digit string appears, in the limit, precisely one one-hundredth of the time; and similarly for every other finite-length string. One can also ask whether pi is "normal base 2," which means that each binary digit (0 or 1) appears half of the time; each two-digit string appears one fourth of the time, etc.




Source



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
So Wolf147 in reality the situation is that you could spend a million dollars on Attorneys. And take a case to the Best Judges in the United States (amongst is a person who grew up in Section 8 housing/apartments, in other words a slum) that Atheism is not a religion and you would loose.

Any thoughts?
edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I summarized your quotes to make this post less messy.


originally posted by: Kashai
'Prison ruling states atheism is a religion'


I'm afraid no one appointed a Wisconsin court as the arbiter of the meaning of English words. Courts are well known for making absurd conclusions on any spectrum. Not only that, but separate court cases come to opposing conclusions, so if I were to grab a random court case where the verdict was the opposite of your cases, by your logic I would be correct as well.

~ A California court ruled that atheism is not a religion

~ Schools do not have to teach non-religious world views [like Atheism] and should let students know Britain is "in the main Christian", the Government has said. (this one just happened, so by your logic, now atheism is considered non-religious)

If you were to present your argument by, say, using a dictionary (you know, the thing that actually defines things), you would find that your court cases make no sense.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."

Almost nothing in that sentence is factual. "Atheism is a school of thought" - no, there is no universal teachings in Atheism. "Atheism takes a position on religion" - no, atheism says nothing about religion. "Atheism is a code of ethics" - no, atheism says nothing about ethics at all, because it doesn't apply a universal belief system.

Atheism (according to the Dictionary): A disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheism (according to Encyclopædia Britannica): "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

Atheism (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy): An 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.

Atheism (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books): Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods

Atheism (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.): "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God"

Dictionary's and Encyclopedias are what define things, not laws. Laws don't globally define of anything.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You actually are unwilling to admit that your position is based upon Intuition?

The result of what your Mechanical brain is capable of.

Though statistically not different that a guess.

Presenting that you are engaged in a belief system based upon current humans development? Where in fact humans have gone beyond ideas that seemed relevant. And developed perspectives such as Atheism when most people thought the Earth was Flat?

Any thoughts?
edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
That is not true you specifically asked a member in this thread to prove Zeus existed.


Yes, you've already pointed that out before, and I already responded by saying "I was being satirical". Perhaps you should read more closely. You have already claimed to 'know more about psychology' than me, I would expect someone of your great stature to be able to comprehend such a comment.


originally posted by: Kashai
Why are you calling me insane?


I didn't call you insane. I asked "Are you insane?" because of your response which showed your complete lack of perception to the to the responses you've been receiving.


originally posted by: Kashai
I am not stating that God exists or not. I am stating that based upon how nature appears to operate. God could very well exist, given the understanding that nothing we really understand well about nature is about nature is Random.


And we all continue to wonder why you're arguing this position, when so many of the atheists that have responded to you have completely agreed that there very well could be a god! Again, if you were capable of reading, you would have seen that even I have told you this, a number of times.

The issue you are having is that you can't leave your preconceived, and inaccurate, description of what you thought "Atheism" really meant.


originally posted by: Kashai
This presents that all of nature is not random and God exists and this is a very rational argument.


... You just stated, one sentence ago, that you "[are] not stating that God exists or not". And you wonder why I asked about your sanity?


originally posted by: Kashai
For me it is irrational to claim that a negative can be proven.


Get me one quote from any of us that we definitively stated "God does not exist". Just one single quote. Because I can (and already have) given you at least 10 quotes of mine that show that I don't claim "there is no possible way god exists". And I can give you 50 more quotes from everyone else in here that also directly states that they don't believe in absolutism on this topic. Honestly, what is wrong with you? How are you even reading this topic and responding to people when the things you continue to claim they say, they directly tell you they don't?


originally posted by: Kashai
Therefore atheist really have nothing to support there of the position


No. Because atheists don't say this. You just think we do, and despite response after response after response after response from all the atheists here that say they don't claim "there is no possible way for god to exist", you still say we do.










posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
You actually are unwilling to admit that your position is based upon Intuition?


Intuition: a phenomenon of the mind, describes the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.

My 'position' is that we have yet to find any evidence to suggest that any form of god exists, thus, there is no reason to believe in a god until evidence is observed. I do not claim that there is absolutely no god, but rather, simply that we cannot -at the moment- prove there is one. I apply the same reasoning to other things such as Elves, Minotaurs, the Tooth Fairy, Frodo Baggins, Etc.

Please explain how the above paragraph is using Intuition alone.


originally posted by: Kashai
The result of what your Mechanical brain is capable of.


Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
Though statistically not different that a guess.


Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
Presenting that you are engaged in a belief system based upon current humans development?


I've argued against this claim several times now, would you like me to get the exact quotes proving how my position is not a 'belief system'.

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
Where in fact humans have gone beyond ideas that seemed relevant. And developed perspectives such as Atheism when most people thought the Earth was Flat?


Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.

Learn how to use reading comprehension as a tool in order for you to gather information and thus make responses that aren't totally useless and baseless.
edit on 28/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If you belief system is solely based upon intuition then it is a religion.

That is pretty much common sense.


You have claimed that Atheism is not a belief system and has nothing to do with Anthromophism. But given you simply have a feeling in your gut that it is true makes it a religion.


From Wolf147....
"Your argument has a number of false premises in it; therefore, it's invalid.

Atheism doesn't have any 'dogma' because it isn't a world view, belief system or anything like that. It is simply a position that lacks a trait. A-Theism is simply a lack of theism. You're basically calling 'bald' a hair color.

Atheists have a lack of belief in a god, so whenever an atheist speaks about the topic of gods, it is using the context in which the god(s) in discussion derives from.

Atheist have no intent on defining what 'religion is all about'. However, we do actually have the tools necessary to describe it outside of the context of Atheistic and theistic positions. If you say something is religious, when it is not, then the claim deserves to be proven incorrect. The person who proves the claim incorrect can be of whatever background, so long as they can back up their rebuttal with facts (and facts are neutral, they don't hold any position)
"

My argument cannot be invalid because Atheism is solely based upon Intuition and the result of what humans understand today. Consider humans survive another billion years years. Are you certain that at such time that Atheist due to the fact that they based there position upon a feeling in there big toe?

Is the result of Anthromophism?

Many times you have stated how superior those who exposed Atheism are compared to those who do not.


I submit that you are not different that the rest of us. And while in recent posts you argue that you could be wrong. You clearly claimed your argument supporting an absolute concerning Atheism cannot be denied.

The tools are available by observing nature.....Atheism is a philosophical equivalent to flat earth theory.





edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

As far as we understand the "Universe" in fact with regard to what we understand nothing is random (and that includes Pi)


So where is your evidence that the "Universe", is not.


Again you seem to be contradicting what in fact is valid. You claim we have no evidence of God and I am clearly stating that there is no evidence the Universe is Random.

To insist that at some point in the future we will acknowledge this. We will find evidence is actually a prediction related to future events.

The only way beyond such an implication that such is true beyond intuition, is that Atheist know what is going to happen in the future.

Any thoughts?

PS: The Denver Broncos are tied in overtime 17 to 17 in Monday night football against the Cincinnati Bengals and Denver is in Felid Goal Position.

edit on 28-12-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




As far as we understand the "Universe" in fact with regard to what we understand nothing is random (and that includes Pi)


I do not know who you are referring to as "we", but I do know that we isn't the scientific community. Until there is some scientific consensus from the scientific community stating such your statement is pretty meaningless.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147

If you belief system is solely based upon intuition then it is a religion.

That is pretty much common sense.


That is not the only requirement for a religion, but it certainly is a part of many of them.

Also, this response doesn't answer the challenge in the post it's responding to. That being: Please explain how the paragraph bellow is using intuition.

My 'position' is that we have yet to find any evidence to suggest that any form of god exists, thus, there is no reason to believe in a god until evidence is observed. I do not claim that there is absolutely no god, but rather, simply that we cannot -at the moment- prove there is one. I apply the same reasoning to other things such as Elves, Minotaurs, the Tooth Fairy, Frodo Baggins, Etc.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You have claimed that Atheism is not a belief system and has nothing to do with Anthromophism.


You misspelled "Proven" with the word "Claimed".


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
But given you simply have a feeling in your gut that it is true makes it a religion.


If I had a 'gut feeling', I would be making a definitive claim. However, I'm not making any difinitive claim, so... please reread this:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.



originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
My argument cannot be invalid because Atheism is solely based upon Intuition and the result of what humans understand today.


Yet none of the Atheists here are making the definitive claim that "god does not exist" or "God cannot exist". So there's no intuition involved because there is definitive claim.

so... please reread this:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Consider humans survive another billion years years. Are you certain that at such time that Atheist due to the fact that they based there position upon a feeling in there big toe?


Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Is the result of Anthromophism?


This doesn't make any sense at all...

Perhaps if you read this, you'll understand:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Many times you have stated how superior those who exposed Atheism are compared to those who do not.


Here's a direct quote of mine:

post=20195316 Ghost147: I don't know where you've gotten the idea that we think Atheists are superior to anyone else.

Next time, use quotes to back up your claims so your posts aren't baseless nonsense.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
...And while in recent posts you argue that you could be wrong.


Here is a direct quote from my FIRST comment in this thread.

Atheism doesn't have any 'dogma' because it isn't a world view, belief system or anything like that. It is simply a position that lacks a trait. A-Theism is simply a lack of theism. You're basically calling 'bald' a hair color.

Take careful look at the words "Lack of", it means, not holding a position on any particular matter.

Here is another direct quote from my FIRST comment in this thread.

Atheists have a lack of belief in a god

Here is a direct quote from my SECOND comment in this thread.

Atheism isn't an argument, it's a lack of belief.

Here is a direct quote from my comment on page 4 in this thread.

Every single person here, including those who aren't atheists, have told you that Atheism isn't a position or argument, it is simply a lack of belief.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You clearly claimed your argument supporting an absolute concerning Atheism cannot be denied.


If it is so clear, provide the quote where I stated that.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The tools are available by observing nature.....Atheism is a philosophical equivalent to flat earth theory.


Perhaps if you read this, you'll understand how that is an incorrect claim:

Again, you're not using what I actually hold as a position, but what you believe I hold as a position. Your definition of what you think I believe is not accurate. It's as if you only know how to respond in False Premises.

I'm starting to think you're a masochist, it seems you actually enjoy being pummeled to death by responses that continue to prove you wrong.
edit on 28/12/15 by Ghost147 because: too much bold



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: peter vlar

The Dinosaurs were not destroyed by a random variable, conditions existed that made it possible.



To begin with, we have to be careful what we mean by "random." Clearly pi is not "random" in the strict sense, because individual digits are certainly not random but mathematically fixed. Perhaps a better and easier question is whether pi is "normal base 10," which means that each digit, 0 through 9, appears, in the limit, precisely one tenth of the time; every two-digit string appears, in the limit, precisely one one-hundredth of the time; and similarly for every other finite-length string. One can also ask whether pi is "normal base 2," which means that each binary digit (0 or 1) appears half of the time; each two-digit string appears one fourth of the time, etc.




Source


you just refuse to concede that you haven't got the foggiest notion what you're going on about and you will argue until your last breath as you grasp harder and harder at straws. let's be honest, the entire concept of Chaos Theory on your end wasn't a part of your OP, it is a complete movement of goal posts so that you could try to catch your breath for a moment as you switched tactics. I find it incredibly interesting that you ignored my entire post and focused on a random non sequitor that I threw in to see how you would respond, so well done. Especially so in ignoring the crux of my post which directly applies to your lone wandering quote regarding the dinosaurs.

Back to the dinosaurs though... the orbital mechanics of the Earths orbit around the Sun is the predictable constant in this scenario. The impact event 66MA is the variable. The impactor could easily have been swayed by the gravity of any other solar object, the earth could have been I a slightly different position... any number of variables could have affected if, how or in what way it hit the earth. These are unquantifiable variables under Chaos Theory, which is your trump card du jour, yet you don't seem to actually understand it. I don't go around talking about hominids I haven't thoroughly studied or written about. Due diligence is your friend.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join