Atheism is just silly.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

There is no "knowledge" in claiming something exists in which there is absolutely no evidence what so ever.


No one said it had to be knowledge. You don't have to have evidence to believe in something.



No it isn't. The logical fallacy is the one that theists use. Theists are the ones who created a mythical god, they must therefore prove the claim of its existence, or otherwise stop the ridiculous arguments.


Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false


en.wikipedia.org...


We aren't in court. What I'm saying is like this:

You: There is no God
Theist: Based on what evidence?
You: None
Theist: Then God must exist based on the absence of evidence that it doesn't

It's a silly argument either way, I wouldn't take it seriously.



Good argument.


Better rejoinder.




Sure they are, when they are substantiated with evidence.


OK? And you say that God doesn't exist, and where is your evidence?



Your logic is flawed for reasons already explained. Theists have been shown to be a little bit on the "slower" side as a whole, so I understand if you need some repeating.


My reasoning isn't flawed, it's actually a lot more honest than yours and most theists/atheists.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron


We aren't in court. What I'm saying is like this:

You: There is no God
Theist: Based on what evidence?
You: None
Theist: Then God must exist based on the absence of evidence that it doesn't

It's a silly argument either way, I wouldn't take it seriously.



Only you are forgetting the claim "There is a God" came first.
If it didn't, we wouldn't have to be arguing the nonexistence of a God, because there wouldn't be any God to think of.

We claim there is no God based on the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that there is in the first place.

You argue that there is a God based on the fact we can not disprove the existence of a completely fictional character.

I think you will see the "silly" award goes to Theists.
edit on 3-19-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I should make my own thread on this sometime.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
"Everything on the Internet is true" - Abraham Lincoln, 1772

www.snopes.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by satron

Theist: Based on what evidence?
You: None


Oh, and I would just like to add something here.

Evidence is a term used for something tangible to substantiate the fact of the existence of something.
In this case there is no 'evidence' to disprove the existence of something that has never existed, as evidence is never used to disprove, only to prove.

Likewise, there is no evidence to prove the existence of something that never existed, which is the situation we are currently in.

Therefore, the only rational thing to conclude based on the lack of evidence ever to support the claim of the existence of a omnipotent being, is that no omnipotent being (god) exists.
edit on 3-19-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Only you are forgetting the claim "There is a God" came first.


It doesn't matter, either claim has no credible evidence to support it.


If it didn't, we wouldn't have to be arguing the nonexistence of a God, because there wouldn't be any God to think of.


OK? But that's not a position of a theist/atheist. How could you have a belief in something you have no concept of?


We claim there is no God based on the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that there is in the first place.


Of course, but your claim is a belief, not knowledge.


You argue that there is a God based on the fact we can not disprove the existence of a completely fictional character.


I'm not arguing whether there is or not. How would I know?


I think you will see the "silly" award goes to Theists.
edit on 3-19-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


It's easy to see when you dwell on the other side of the tracks exclusively.
edit on 19-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Oh, and I would just like to add something here.

Evidence is a term used for something tangible to substantiate the fact of the existence of something.
In this case there is no 'evidence' to disprove the existence of something that has never existed, as evidence is never used to disprove, only to prove.

Proof the highest prime number doesn't exist




Likewise, there is no evidence to prove the existence of something that never existed, which is the situation we are currently in.


Proof isn't really required. We are talking about beliefs, not knowledge.


Therefore, the only rational thing to conclude based on the lack of evidence ever to support the claim of the existence of a omnipotent being, is that no omnipotent being (god) exists.
edit on 3-19-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


The only rational thing to do is to claim you don't know for sure.
edit on 19-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-3-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by satron
 


Lets take this outside of the god/faith bubble.

I propose that leprechauns exist.

With the logic you have proposed, i dont need to prove, or provide any evidence, for leprechauns to exist.

They too were written about in a book, so unless someone can prove they don't exists, they must exist.

Aliens, bigfoot, unicorns, faires, elves, gnomes, trolls, orcs, my imaginary friend, all of them exists, because no one can prove they dont.

Pretty silly huh?
edit on 3/19/2012 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/19/2012 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
reply to post by satron
 


Lets take this outside of the god/faith bubble.

I propose that leprechauns exist.

With the logic you have proposed, i dont need to prove, or provide any evidence, for leprechauns to exist.

They too were written about in a book, so unless someone can prove they don't exists, they must exist.

Aliens, bigfoot, unicorns, faires, elves, gnomes, trolls, orcs, my imaginary friend, all of them exists, because no one can prove they dont.

Pretty silly huh?
edit on 3/19/2012 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/19/2012 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)


You can believe it, doesn't make it factual. If you say you know something exists without proof, then that's your fault.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Paradox, think about how often you struggle in your head.

Do you believe in the devil?

Put it this way, do you believe in evil? Do you believe bad exists?

If you do then you must logically believe in its opposite, good, which we equate with God.

The really important question though is do you believe in evil?
edit on 19-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
This proves nothing at all. What's the point?

Wait wait, you are saying that science can't show the transitions of evolution? Because you weren't there you can't prove it? Ha! Hilarious! Well if science doesn't understand electricity then stop using your computer!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


Actually, the most blatant argument for evolution is the mutation of viruses. The time-frame of these mutations is accelerated, so we are able to observe the effects within months.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
Actually, the most blatant argument for evolution is the mutation of viruses. The time-frame of these mutations is accelerated, so we are able to observe the effects within months.
I also like to go with the proof that dna shows in all living things.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx


The really important question though is do you believe in evil?
edit on 19-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)


No.
Evil is a subjective opinion.

What is 'evil' to one person, might be 'good' to another person for their own reasons and understandings.

'good' and 'evil' are taught to us and are influenced by the environments we are raised in.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by rtyfx


The really important question though is do you believe in evil?
edit on 19-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)


No.
Evil is a subjective opinion.

What is 'evil' to one person, might be 'good' to another person for their own reasons and understandings.

'good' and 'evil' are taught to us and are influenced by the environments we are raised in.

Do you think murder is evil?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by rtyfx


The really important question though is do you believe in evil?
edit on 19-3-2012 by rtyfx because: (no reason given)


No.
Evil is a subjective opinion.

What is 'evil' to one person, might be 'good' to another person for their own reasons and understandings.

'good' and 'evil' are taught to us and are influenced by the environments we are raised in.

Do you think murder is evil?


You are asking my opinion, not an objective fact.

My personal opinion on that matter depends upon why the murder was committed.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


So, sometimes murder is okay with you?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rtyfx
 


Yep



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


mur·der/mərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Maybe the voice in your head is the devil.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join