Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Frank Apisa]

I thought so.



That is the logical consequence of the reasoning you provided.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your answer to the following question?



Keep in mind that whatever answer you give, the existence of Rocket Raccoon is going to be one of the things we are evaluating the likeliness of.



Do you have any evidence that the characters from the Silmarillion do not also happen to exist in reality?

It is possible there are no gods...which is the blind guess some atheists make.

It also is possible there is at least one god...which is the blind guess of theists.

Let's deal with that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That sounds like atheist-talk.

You don't need evidence of the nonexistence of things (including gods) to recognize that they don't exist. All you need is a functioning brain and a willingness not to let an agenda get in your way.

The burden is on anyone claiming that something does exist to demonstrate their claim.

The burden of proof on anyone claiming "there are no gods" is on that person.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I linked to the quote right there in the post you quoted.

You did not.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Says the person that is making a blind guess that “a Creator god is possible”.

That is not a blind guess, but apparently you are not able to comprehend that.

Now sure how to handle that.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It is possible there are no gods...which is the blind guess some atheists make.

That is also the "blind guess" that you are making.

It also is possible there is at least one god...which is the blind guess of theists.

That is also the "blind guess" that you are making.

One might also guess that it impossible that there are no gods. That is the 'blind guess' that St. Anselm made, though to his credit he at least made a pretense of presenting some kind of logic for it, unlike yourself.

One might also guess that it is impossible that there is at least one god.

Why do plead that your guesses are special cases that shouldn't be considered blind guesses? Just "because?"

The burden of proof on anyone claiming "there are no gods" is on that person.

If you were to say "The burden of proof on anyone claiming 'there are no X' is on that person" then you might have a somewhat valid (though entirely pedantic) epistemological point.

But you are unwilling to apply that logic consistently.

If X="proofs that gods are impossible" you assert that no evidence is necessary, just "a functioning brain...and a willingness not to let an agenda get in your way..."

But if X="gods" then you plead a special case that evidence for their nonexistence is suddenly necessary.

Pleading a special case when X="gods" that you don't apply when X="proofs that gods are impossible" is special pleading.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You did not.

I most certainly did.

 

[watsup]

That is not a blind guess, but apparently you are not able to comprehend that.

Now sure how to handle that.

Of course it’s a blind guess. In order to be a fact, and not a guess, then you would need to provide some evidence for your claim, but you have none. No evidence makes it a guess. You are guessing that there is potentially a god every bit as much as the religionists/theists are.

 

[renee]

The atheists' idea of evidence remains irrelevant.

The believers who believe made up stories that could not be explained remain irrelevant

 

[renee]

Who says that I am the one who decides what is imaginary? Who has decided that basically every god that has ever been claimed by humans such as Thor and Isis are imaginary? Why, it is other humans who have looked for evidence of their actuality and found none. And yet you insist on holding dear to “at least one” god without being able to find even a single bit of actual evidence that such is a reality. Rather, just like the religionists/theist/believers, you continue to support a claim of the “possibility” of a god of some sort.
Continue to blindly guess that there is the possibility of a god, but don’t expect me to buy into such imaginary total nonsense.

He just suspends logic

 

[Ouroboros]

It does assume the proper form.

Reductio ad absurdum illustrates a problem with an argument by applying that argument in a way that will lead to an absurd conclusion.

For example, if one were to assert that all people with mustaches are evil, and presented Hitler as an example of how evil people with mustaches are, that might seem reasonable to some folk because they agree that Hitler is evil and also agree that Hitler had a mustache. It would then be an appropriate application of reductio ad absurdum to point out that Martin Luther King Jr. also had a mustache, and that according to this argument, that would mean that MLK Jr. was evil as well.

Or, hypothetically, suppose someone* were to assert that if there is neither evidence demonstrating the existence of X, nor evidence demonstrating the nonexistence of X, that the existence of X is equally likely to the nonexistence of X.

Then it would be an appropriate application of reductio ad absurdum to point out that one can plug a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made out of chocolate ganache in the place of the X variable, and the logical consequence is that this person** is asserting that the existence of the 5-mile wide dodecahedron made out of chocolate ganache is equally likely to the nonexistence of a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made out of chocolate ganache.

*And by someone, I mean @Frank Apisa.
**It was @Frank Apisa. He was the one asserting that.

Your citation of a second meaningless absurdity (the evil of people with mustaches) does not make your first one any better in form.

 

[Ouroboros]

The believers who believe made up stories that could not be explained remain irrelevant

The stories can be explained in a lot of ways. They just don't require what atheists conceive to be "evidence."

 

[Ouroboros]

As is your strange obsession with and ignorance of atheism.

My characterization of atheists is borne out every time one of you makes a lousy argument. And your psychologism remains superficial. It amuses me to see you guys flounder, so if anything, I'm being amused by the obsessions of dogmatic atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

I could see if the paganization was only that a religion based its beliefs on love, kindness and good morals that are helpful for the self or other humans. But to be a "Me too" religion replete with virgin births (on the same day as another God Mithra), miracles, a resurrection should leave someone to question the authenticity of that belief system.

If I came down from some other planet and was learning the belief systems of humans and had to decide which ones were true, if any, and you told me of Christianity, it would be the least likely belief system of all that had any semblance of truth. It would tell me that 2,000 years ago people were hyper religious, believed in apparitions, believed in vengeful Gods that could alter time, mathematics and reason, claimed that a very small tribe was his favorite, that blood sacrifices of animals and humans were pleasing to him and to prove it, sacrificed himself to himself for 3 days to save us except we weren't, did miracles to impress people and cured only a few people but not everybody, I would immediately leave the planet thinking the inhabitants were still too easily persuaded by stories.

In the time of Constantine, the region was plagued by wars. He never was a Christian. He was a powerful man and told the high priests to get together and get their act together to decide on which books should stay or go, what their dogma would be and to make sure their God was an invisible being who monitored everything a human did including in the bedrooms and if they crossed Him, killed anybody, stole things that He, (God) would deal with them. Constantine knew that their God would be the Cop in the sky and alleviate his problems with a warring populace.

Constantine's conversion to Christianity also helped to bring stability and unity to the empire, which had been divided and plagued by internal conflict. By promoting a common belief system, he was able to bring people together under a shared set of values and ideals, which helped to strengthen the empire as a whole. Thus, just like it is today, the leaders indoctrinate a gullible populace (as we see with the TV anchor's montages given them by the Demoncrats) and control the populace so they can stay in power or gain power, just as the Dems used lawfare to bring down Trump.

You haven't answered my earlier question. How is Constantine supposed to have guessed that Christianity was the perfect "cop religion," since native Roman beliefs were strong enough in his lifetime that even had he wanted to convert the whole populace to Christ, he would not have been able to do so? I see nothing in his biography that indicates that he was that prescient, or that he had reason to think that Christianity was a better "cop religion" than that of the Roman solar deity.

 

[Ouroboros]

You’re doing it. You are daily endorsing the idea that there might actually be some sort of imaginary entity that would supposedly have some sort of ultimate power to just “create” this almost infinitely complex universe. How do you not understand that is a fable invented by humans and not an actuality?

Not replying on Frank's behalf, but the complexity of the universe has often been a reason for believers to believe and for agnostics to weigh their arguments. You've continued to bag on Drew Paul in his absence, but even you cannot deny that he justified his belief in part in the argument that the universe was too complex to be the result of random physical forces (unless I misunderstood his argument).

 

[Ouroboros]

More projection.

Another twenty you owe the estate of Freud.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your repetition does not make it so. Funny, that’s exactly what a religionist/theist would say, Mr Watercarrier.

Nope, still what an agnostic would say to a dogmatic atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

And yet you don’t have any, which shows that it is indeed relevant.

According to the rigid dogma of atheists.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Your citation of a second meaningless absurdity (the evil of people with mustaches) does not make your first one any better in form.

An example of a person who is not evil despite having a mustache would disprove the theory that all people with mustaches are evil.

So anyone asserting that all people with mustaches are evil must either double down by asserting that MLK Jr. was evil, assert that MLK Jr. did not have a mustache, or they must rethink their logic.

Do you really not see how that works?

 

[Ouroboros]

Projection. I have provided solid info that my claim is correct regarding the humanist-based ethics of primitive societies, but you hide behind all sorts of lame excuse not to engage in a thread devoted to that argumentation. I was trying to move beyond your normal “nuh-uh” responses, but you clealry fear doing so.

Your own idea of evidence is undercut by your original citation of a few abstracts that didn't even say what you claimed they said.

 

[Ouroboros]

Derivative.

Still correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

An example of a person who is not evil despite having a mustache would disprove the theory that all people with mustaches are evil.

So anyone asserting that all people with mustaches are evil must either double down by asserting that MLK Jr. was evil, assert that MLK Jr. did not have a mustache, or they must rethink their logic.

Do you really not see how that works?

I see that you can't start with an absurd proposition and then simply point out it's absurd. To be intellectually honest, you would have to state some proposition with some hint of logic and then prove that the proposition is absurd if taken to extremes. The attribution of existence to one or more informing deities might be undercut by a proper reduction, but you haven't come up with one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lacking morality? Says who?

Said many of the posters who responded, either directly (arguing that morality is socially programmed) or indirectly (telling lies themselves).

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I see that you can't start with an absurd proposition and then simply point out it's absurd. To be intellectually honest, you would have to state some proposition with some hint of logic and then prove that the proposition is absurd if taken to extremes.

So you are saying that @Frank Apisa's assertion that the likelihood of the existence of something being equivalent to the likelihood of its nonexistence in the absence of either evidence for its existence or evidence of its nonexistence is a proposition without any hint of logic?

I agree. That proposition did not have a hint of logic even before I took it to different extremes than the ones he had already taken it to. But then again, if Frank's argument had a hint of logic to it, I wouldn't have had to point out how ridiculous it was.

But to illustrate how that argument form works for you, I started with an argument that you would be able to recognize was ridiculous from the get go, so that you would be able to follow along.


Frank's assertion that the likelihood of the existence of something is equivalent to the likelihood of its nonexistence in the absence of either evidence for its existence or evidence for its nonexistence truly is a ridiculous argument, and if the something in question is a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache, the logical consequence of it is that the existence of a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache is equally as likely as the nonexistence of a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache.

Likewise, if the something in question of is proof that gods are impossible, it would mean that the existence of proof that gods are impossible is equally likely to the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible.

 

[Ouroboros]

I did you are imparting a special status on humans that you have yet to prove exists. Dolphin brains are bigger than ants Humans, dolphins, ants all live in groups

Again it can be seen through physical defects don't need massive time for that. Now how can lions perceive that advantage are you saying they can use reason?
But you seem to be assuming based on one paper that humans are the only animals that avoid incest this is incorrect.

Incest Avoidance | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

Im sorry if you think its to broad you seem to be using an even broader idea of religion and you have yet to refute anything I have said you have made claims but of them have actually been supported by anything other than your say so
I have demonstrated that good/bad, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable ca be communicated without language
There is literally no logical reason to assume morals require religion

(1) The special status of human brains is far more a scientific universal than your unjustified claim that ethics precede religion in humans. (2) Animals, to whom you're attributing the ability to structure societies on this alleged standard of acceptable/unacceptable, did not dominantly conceive of "incest avoidance" using your standard because they lack the ability to observe effects across generations. I say "dominantly" because your CARTA article is emphasizing primates, and we've already established that primates may have something akin to a religious impulse. (3) You are presenting your conclusion and tailoring the existing data to fit the conclusion. In contrast, I don't say categorically that I know religion preceded morality, merely that you have not proven that it did not do so.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you are saying that @Frank Apisa's assertion that the likelihood of the existence of something being equivalent to the likelihood of its nonexistence in the absence of either evidence for its existence or evidence of its nonexistence is a proposition without any hint of logic?

I agree. That proposition did not have a hint of logic even before I took it to different extremes than the ones he had already taken it to. But then again, if Frank's argument had a hint of logic to it, I wouldn't have had to point out how ridiculous it was.

But to illustrate how that argument form works for you, I started with an argument that you would be able to recognize was ridiculous from the get go, so that you would be able to follow along.


Frank's assertion that the likelihood of the existence of something is equivalent to the likelihood of its nonexistence in the absence of either evidence for its existence or evidence for its nonexistence truly is a ridiculous argument, and if the something in question is a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache, the logical consequence of it is that the existence of a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache is equally as likely as the nonexistence of a 5-mile wide dodecahedron made of chocolate ganache.

Likewise, if the something in question of is proof that gods are impossible, it would mean that the existence of proof that gods are impossible is equally likely to the nonexistence of proof that gods are impossible.

Nope, still only stating that your dodecahedron proposition is worthless and your parallelism is forced and irrelevant.