hatred for being an atheist

eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
Someone else here said we can't influence the things around us - that we can't just "think of something, and make it so". And yet, our entire life is proof of it.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to write a response and am having trouble with the board. Don't know if it's just me...

What you said veers toward dependant origination. I can say one thing in life with absolute certainty. One day, my dad (likely, dunno, don't caaaaaaaare :) ) had a thought and now I have a universe to study. Ok, so maybe chance has a bit to do with it :lol:
 
Prawn Connery

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Hey tyler: "I'll have ya!"

[video=youtube;6vgEk2PMV3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vgEk2PMV3o[/video]

You look like Abel Tasman,
You look like Barney Rubble;
You look like Mussolini -
If ya pickin' me, there'll be trouble
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
Non-belief IS a belief.
Click to expand...
Prawn Connery said:
Someone else here said we can't influence the things around us - that we can't just "think of something, and make it so". And yet, our entire life is proof of it.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Is this another baseless assertion you're fond of?

Please don't tell me you're into 'The secret'....



This is getting really boring now.

Non-belief is not a belief and its demonstrable with anyone who has never been told about god. They have no belief in god whatsoever - including a belief regarding non-belief (as fucking stupid as that even sounds). People who have no concept of god are atheists too, therefore the atheist ideology cannot by default, be a position of belief because there are situations in which there is demonstrably no belief.

You have yet provide any demonstrable evidence other than your own (incorrect) opinion about what atheism means. You've ignored countless scholarly definitions, and explanations by experts regarding what atheism is or means. I have nothing left to say, as there is no point to continuing dialogue with someone who doesn't care about rational and logical discourse.


“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?”

― Sam Harris
 
Prawn Connery

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Garbage:
[video=youtube;SI1GXKYzZvc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI1GXKYzZvc[/video]

If you want to save the world, then don't recycle (ideas).
 
Prawn Connery

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
the atheist ideology cannot by default, be a position of belief because there are situations in which there is demonstrably no belief.
Click to expand...
Then demonstrate it. Just like I asked you to demonstrate "nothing". Find me a link, a theory, a concept - anything - to back your "evidence-based" theory that there is no belief.

Show me some of your "evidence".

The example of the baby who has "no knowledge and therefore no beliefs" is a fallacy: they simply have no knowledge of a particular definition of a particular concept of "God" - yours in this case; perhaps someone else's in another case. But not everyone's. The baby may have it's own "definition" of "God" - it's mother. And who are YOU to tell that baby what it's "definition" of an omnipotent being is?

You are the same as that infant: you are basing everything you know on what knowledge you have (or don't have) at this very time and place in your existence.

Your thinking is only slightly evolved from that baby and is based purely on what you have experienced and how you perceive it. The only difference is, you've lived a little longer.

What you are saying is there is only one definition of "God" - your "accepted" definition - and no other concept is valid.

That's a little presumptuous, isn't it?
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
Then demonstrate it. Just like I asked you to demonstrate "nothing". Find me a link, a theory, a concept - anything - to back your "evidence-based" theory that there is no belief.

Show me some of your "evidence".

The example of the baby who has "no knowledge and therefore no beliefs" is a fallacy: they simply have no knowledge of a particular definition of a particular concept of "God" - yours in this case; perhaps someone else's in another case. But not everyone's. The baby may have it's own "definition" of "God" - it's mother. And who are YOU to tell that baby what it's "definition" of an omnipotent being is?
Click to expand...
You're moving the goalposts to suit your argument. It's not an honest tactic, and one I will not debate against.

Let's just redefine atheist, and redefine god, and redefine religion, and redefine omnipotence, so they fit the argument you want to make! That's the best way of winning, right? Changing the rules of the game? The universe is an apple, and atoms are apples, and moms are gods, and babies are theists. Awesome discussion. *sarcasm*

Babies do not have introspection and the ability to determine right from wrong, so your analogy is completely flawed from the get go, and omits things we know about child psychology, but that's ok! We're just moving goalposts all over the place!

I'm going to redefine the word atheist to mean anyone who has ever gone to a hospital instead of praying. Now you're an atheist, BAM.

While we're at it, if moms can be omnipotent gods, then so can I. And with my omnipotence, I am declaring myself myself the winner of this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top