atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.
What exactly is the obvious?
That the idea of a God was invented by man and doesn't correspond to reality.
So how do you explain the causation of the universe? And the intelligent design of physics and systems like evolution
Why do I need to?
What about physics is "intelligent"? What about the process of evolution is "intelligent"? Why would those things, even were they to be intelligent (whatever that means) be evidence for a supreme benevolent omnipotent deity-figure, which is what most people mean when they say "God"?
There is no giant undetectable unicorn floating around the moon in lunosynchronous orbit.
There is no God.
It is the exact same type of statement. There is no reason, logically or evidence-based, to think that either of those things exist. Therefore, I state, with confidence, that they don't.
I find it amusing that some people get ridiculously pedantic when saying that atheists can't possibly exist because they haven't examined every corner of everything, and yet fail to be that pedantic about the meaning of every word in the sentence they just uttered, and indeed the very idea of words and their link to meanings.
It's not pedantic. It's logic.
One cannot prove a universal negative claim. It's not possible.
So why would people who are trying to be logical make a universal negative claim and then argue that it is true?
It doesn't make sense. If we're being rational and logical we wouldn't make illogical or irrational claims. And claiming to have proved a universal negative true IS an irrational and illogical claim.
I can state with great surety that there is no unicorn in Doc's living room.
Because I stole it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There is no giant undetectable unicorn floating around the moon in lunosynchronous orbit.
There is no God.
.
You bullshitter, just because one thing doesn't exist doesn't mean another thing doesn't exist.
Explain how they are different.
You simply can't disprove something's existence by saying something else doesn't exist. Christ.
Hey, ho. Let's back up, shall we? I don't want to go too fast for ya.
I wasn't saying "tennis balls are yellow, therefore golf balls are yellow." That wouldn't follow. I was saying the very same reasoning that leads us to state, with confidence, that there is no invisible unicorn around the moon is the reasoning behind saying there is no God.
Both, if they were to exist, would be by definition undetectable and their interferences impossible to measure, quantify, explain, or define.
Both have no evidence for their existence, at all.
Both are constructed in such a way as to never be able to be disproven ("You just can't see the unicorn, but he's there" or "You just can't see, feel, hear, or in any way logically detect God, but he's there").
There is no giant undetectable unicorn floating around the moon in lunosynchronous orbit.
There is no God.
.
You bullshitter, just because one thing doesn't exist doesn't mean another thing doesn't exist.
Explain how they are different.
You simply can't disprove something's existence by saying something else doesn't exist. Christ.
A.) You used the phrase "intelligent design" in an argument. That's an automatic fail.
B.) He's using one as an analogy for the other to show that they are both rational arguments. I mean, can you disprove an undetectable unicorn? Of course not, but you accept that it isn't there.
Why should the existence of an omnibenevolent god necessarily mean I would believe in him? He won't zap me with lightening because he's omnibenevolent.
Even if it was somewhat proven without the smallest bit of doubt that God exists, I think there are a lot of people who still couldn't care less. Not everyone needs a god in their life.
Quoting myself because I think this is a valid avenue of debate to explore.
The question has always been whether or not God exists. Yet I think the question of whether or not people would worship him (if it was proven that he exists) is worth exploring as well.
Hey, ho. Let's back up, shall we? I don't want to go too fast for ya.
I wasn't saying "tennis balls are yellow, therefore golf balls are yellow." That wouldn't follow. I was saying the very same reasoning that leads us to state, with confidence, that there is no invisible unicorn around the moon is the reasoning behind saying there is no God.
Both, if they were to exist, would be by definition undetectable and their interferences impossible to measure, quantify, explain, or define.
Both have no evidence for their existence, at all.
Both are constructed in such a way as to never be able to be disproven ("You just can't see the unicorn, but he's there" or "You just can't see, feel, hear, or in any way logically detect God, but he's there").
Is it becoming clear why I said what I said?
No. Because you're comparing a particular negative "There are no invisible unicorns in this particular area" with a universal negative "there is no God, anywhere, ever".
And those two claims are different.
If, however, you claimed that there is no unicorn in this bowl and no God in this bowl you would be making similar claims.
But comparing a particular claim to a universal is just silly. Silly like being a unicorn thief.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
Why should the existence of an omnibenevolent god necessarily mean I would believe in him? He won't zap me with lightening because he's omnibenevolent.
Even if it was somewhat proven without the smallest bit of doubt that God exists, I think there are a lot of people who still couldn't care less. Not everyone needs a god in their life.
Quoting myself because I think this is a valid avenue of debate to explore.
The question has always been whether or not God exists. Yet I think the question of whether or not people would worship him (if it was proven that he exists) is worth exploring as well.
I wouldn't worship him because I don't agree with the idea of worship in the first place.
In the second place, if there is a God, he's a jerk, so I most definitely would not worship him or follow him or whatever.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
Is the horn an aphrodisiac?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
Iron skillet? I thought mythril.
it's because of their fay evolutionary origins. clocking a unicorn with an iron skillet is also a great way to kill it, if you feel so inclined. it's the equivalent of smacking a regular horse with a flaming sledgehammer.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
Posts
what defines it from horse saddle?
i painted a rainbow on it
You simply can't disprove something's existence by saying something else doesn't exist. Christ.
Why do I need to?
What about physics is "intelligent"? What about the process of evolution is "intelligent"? Why would those things, even were they to be intelligent (whatever that means) be evidence for a supreme benevolent omnipotent deity-figure, which is what most people mean when they say "God"?
It's not pedantic. It's logic.
One cannot prove a universal negative claim. It's not possible.
So why would people who are trying to be logical make a universal negative claim and then argue that it is true?
It doesn't make sense. If we're being rational and logical we wouldn't make illogical or irrational claims. And claiming to have proved a universal negative true IS an irrational and illogical claim.
He's not saying X, therefore Y. He's comparing them.
unicorn poo is like horse poo
Because I stole it.
What the hell is the point of that?
but it gives you +4 luck if you lick it.
You bastard! You're a unicorn thief!
Hey, ho. Let's back up, shall we? I don't want to go too fast for ya.
I wasn't saying "tennis balls are yellow, therefore golf balls are yellow." That wouldn't follow. I was saying the very same reasoning that leads us to state, with confidence, that there is no invisible unicorn around the moon is the reasoning behind saying there is no God.
Both, if they were to exist, would be by definition undetectable and their interferences impossible to measure, quantify, explain, or define.
Both have no evidence for their existence, at all.
Both are constructed in such a way as to never be able to be disproven ("You just can't see the unicorn, but he's there" or "You just can't see, feel, hear, or in any way logically detect God, but he's there").
Is it becoming clear why I said what I said?
A.) You used the phrase "intelligent design" in an argument. That's an automatic fail.
B.) He's using one as an analogy for the other to show that they are both rational arguments. I mean, can you disprove an undetectable unicorn? Of course not, but you accept that it isn't there.
Did you take his x-box too?
Quoting myself because I think this is a valid avenue of debate to explore.
The question has always been whether or not God exists. Yet I think the question of whether or not people would worship him (if it was proven that he exists) is worth exploring as well.
No. Because you're comparing a particular negative "There are no invisible unicorns in this particular area" with a universal negative "there is no God, anywhere, ever".
And those two claims are different.
If, however, you claimed that there is no unicorn in this bowl and no God in this bowl you would be making similar claims.
But comparing a particular claim to a universal is just silly. Silly like being a unicorn thief.
no, that's what the blood is for. poo is luck, blood is life. hoof shavings sprinkled on a baby wards off thieving faeries, and the meat cooks itself if you put it on an iron skillet.
Iron skillet? I thought mythril.
I wouldn't worship him because I don't agree with the idea of worship in the first place.
In the second place, if there is a God, he's a jerk, so I most definitely would not worship him or follow him or whatever.
Is the horn an aphrodisiac?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Only if it's green.
</total nerd>
it's because of their fay evolutionary origins. clocking a unicorn with an iron skillet is also a great way to kill it, if you feel so inclined. it's the equivalent of smacking a regular horse with a flaming sledgehammer.
no lie.
Way to go.