• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

watsup said:
How many times do I have to tell you this? Evidence is not required on our part until the purveyors of the god beliefs first present some actuality-based evidence beyond just “personal” that can somehow be evaluated in at least a somewhat objective manner by others. Until then, their claims fall in the realm of nonsense
Click to expand...
It remains your responsibility to account for whatever evidence you think validates the certainty of your position, since from the beginning I inveighed against the certainties of theists and atheists. You have not done so.
 
watsup said:
Of course he has. The word in and of itself reeks of the watchmaker argument. What else could he possibly have in his mind besides that? Creation demands a creator, by defintion. That is the foundation of the watchmaker argument.
Click to expand...
The essence of the watchmaker argument is that God created the world's assorted structures and then withdrew. That's not even the argument made by any mainstream Judeo-Christian religions, much less that of the pagan religions that preceded those.
 
The earth is a cancer cell.

The universe is the being's immune system.
 
watsup said:
Can you show that there is a “metaphysical”? If not, then your entire argument above just poofs into space.
Click to expand...
I've already established that I don't validate what atheists deem "evidence." But I'm glad you didn't deny my assertion that atheists advocate the idea that the universe arose from the interactions of physical forces. Pass that along to devildavid, won't you?
 
watsup said:
From AI:

The watchmaker argument is a teleological argument that uses the analogy of a watch to support the existence of God. It states that the complexity of a watch implies a watchmaker, and similarly, the complexity of the universe implies a universe-maker.

View attachment 67551420
The watchmaker argument is a teleological argument that uses the analogy of a watch to support the existence of God. It states that the complexity of a watch implies a watchmaker, and similarly, the complexity of the universe implies a universe-maker.


Sorry, but words have meaning. When you speak of “creation”, then you have in your mind some sort of reasoning as to why a creator is “possible”. What other reason do you entertain for a creator other than the complexity of the universe?
Click to expand...
Where's the watch in the Finnish creation myth I cited?
 
soylentgreen said:
Your understanding of evolution is poor if you think things just happened without reason. If that were true then we would have five legged dogs or cows with wings or any weird combination. Random in the cae of evolution simply means there is no guiding intelligence or set purpose called design. it merely means that evolution follows a logical pathway that can be made into sense if we think about it.
Click to expand...
Your "logical pathway" is an overstatement given the atheists' conclusions regarding physical forces under no direction. For instance, peacocks have their individual survivability decreased by the elaborate size of their tails. Those flashy tails *may* increase a given peacock's chance to pass on its genes, but they certainly restrict the bird's chances to escape predators. I would not call that a "pathway," nor do I think it's informed by logic as such. So we're back to the question of how much "reason" informs atheist conclusions about the nature of reality.
 
soylentgreen said:
That is the purpose of evolution. To create life where ever life can fit. It is the use of the word random that is being taken to task and misinterpreted by mr O. It is not random as in anything can happen. It is random in there is no inteligence guiding it nor does it have a set goal it is aiming for.
Click to expand...
I never said I was using "random" in the sense you're using it. That's the department of ACC, with the idea that any random proposition is equivalent to that of the theists. Clearly I used "random" in the same sense as Dawkins: "not governed by design." In Classical evolution, it's just a random chance that puts the crocodile bird-- that's the one that picks parasites out of the crocodile's mouth-- in the same ecology as the crocodile. But one can fairly ask of the Classical evolutionists: "how did a bird belonging to one species, with no direct relation to the species of the crocodile, ever manage to forge a deal with the reptile, and the reptile's many descendants, to make sure the croc doesn't just eat the bird everytime the bird gives the croc his dental checkup?"
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
How many people are required to “believel ot and how old does a claim need to be in order for its entity to be an actuality in reality?
Click to expand...
Why do you automatically discredit accounts when you don't know what they're founded in?
 
devildavid said:
There is no atheist dogma. You can’t even present one legitimate dogma of atheism, as it has none.
Click to expand...
I admit that your take on atheism is an off-center one, but you have never countered the fact that modern atheists' disbelief in gods stems from the advances of modern science. Oh, except by your favorite riposte: "nuh-uh!"
 
Ouroboros said:
I agree that their religious devotion to non-religion is amusing, all right.
Click to expand...
Even more amusing (and ignorant) is your contradiction in terms.
Ouroboros said:
I admit that your take on atheism is an off-center one, but you have never countered the fact that modern atheists' disbelief in gods stems from the advances of modern science. Oh, except by your favorite riposte: "nuh-uh!"
Click to expand...
Atheists are simply not convinced there are god/s. As science advances, god/s are needed less and less as an explanation for anything, except by the willfully ignorant. And since neither or theism has provided any objective evidence for god/s, atheists remain unconvinced.
 
Ouroboros said:
The fact that you made a statement you could not justify then, and cannot justify now, comes as no surprise. You haven't even established a clear argument that you're attributing to various anthropologists, in contrast to two of the persons I've debated with. (Nope, not devildavid.)
Click to expand...

This debate has been over for at least three weeks now, ever since you were unable to provide even a single alternative to the mainstream of anthropologists whose claim is the nature-based, not morality-based, type of religions of primitive humans. If you want to keep up a fifth-grade playground taunt of “did not”, I suppose that it up to you. I will decide later as to whether I also want to play.
 
watsup said:
This debate has been over for at least three weeks now, ever since you were unable to provide even a single alternative to the mainstream of anthropologists whose claim is the nature-based, not morality-based, type of religions of primitive humans. If you want to keep up a fifth-grade playground taunt of “did not”, I suppose that it up to you. I will decide later as to whether I also want to play.
Click to expand...
Holy moley.

Another victory.

Wow!

You are a gem. If you were not here providing so much fun...many of us want to invent you.
 
Ouroboros said:
I never said I was using "random" in the sense you're using it. That's the department of ACC, with the idea that any random proposition is equivalent to that of the theists. Clearly I used "random" in the same sense as Dawkins: "not governed by design." In Classical evolution, it's just a random chance that puts the crocodile bird-- that's the one that picks parasites out of the crocodile's mouth-- in the same ecology as the crocodile. But one can fairly ask of the Classical evolutionists: "how did a bird belonging to one species, with no direct relation to the species of the crocodile, ever manage to forge a deal with the reptile, and the reptile's many descendants, to make sure the croc doesn't just eat the bird everytime the bird gives the croc his dental checkup?"
Click to expand...
One of the things we know about evolution is that it will fill a need. We also know that life is not always hostile to other life. That cooperation between differing species exist on many levels and with many species. That is how life works.
 
Ouroboros said:
Your "logical pathway" is an overstatement given the atheists' conclusions regarding physical forces under no direction. For instance, peacocks have their individual survivability decreased by the elaborate size of their tails. Those flashy tails *may* increase a given peacock's chance to pass on its genes, but they certainly restrict the bird's chances to escape predators. I would not call that a "pathway," nor do I think it's informed by logic as such. So we're back to the question of how much "reason" informs atheist conclusions about the nature of reality.
Click to expand...
Simply surviving a predator attack is not a pathway to genetic survival. Being more attractive to the female of the species is. The bigger the tail the more attractive. But also the less able to defend. So only the birds that have a certain size that both attract and allow evasion will survive to pass on the genetics. Its a balance that many species must do.
 
soylentgreen said:
Atheists make no assumptions. There is no evidence. There is not one good reason for a god. if there was you would have produced either.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you people think that no evidence for...or no reason for a god...

...is a proper foundation for "No gods exist."

One would think that anyone intelligent enough to sign his/her name would realize the MUCH MORE LOGICAL conclusion would be a variation of, "But I still do not know if any gods exist."

Oh, well...it takes all kinds.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure why you people think that no evidence for...or no reason for a god...

...is a proper foundation for "No gods exist."

One would think that anyone intelligent enough to sign his/her name would realize the MUCH MORE LOGICAL conclusion would be a variation of, "But I still do not know if any gods exist."

Oh, well...it takes all kinds.
Click to expand...
And once again I ask. based on what? You have no evidence of a god and by your own words admit there is no good reason to assume one exists. So on what do you base the idea that there could be one?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure why you people think that no evidence for...or no reason for a god...

...is a proper foundation for "No gods exist."

One would think that anyone intelligent enough to sign his/her name would realize the MUCH MORE LOGICAL conclusion would be a variation of, "But I still do not know if any gods exist."

Oh, well...it takes all kinds.
Click to expand...

Atheism isn’t a claim that no gods exist. It is a lack of belief in gods. That is entirely different, even if you can’t see it.
 
Ouroboros said:
I have inveighed against the crippling certainties of both theists and atheists. Where we don't know what happened, we all ought to be able to say so.
Click to expand...

Ummmm—that is what atheists say—that we don’t know what happened, prior to the Big Bang, for instance. But neither do we overlay an imaginary entity as a “reason”. If you and Frank and DrewPaul want to entertain that as a “possibility”, have at it, but we see no need to engage in fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom