Atheism is unreasonable

[pocaracas]

Too early?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cut the bio-babble and tell me when has the reptile-bird change ever been observed? I mean, it isn't as if there is a thousand differences between the two. Please tell me how that could have ever occured, sir.

In the fossil record, over the course of generations, several different avian dinosaurs evolved from theropods. One of them, we're not sure which, almost certainly gave rise to birds.

If you want details, we'll have to delve into "biobabble". I didn't want to offend your obvious allergy to detail by doing so in this answer, but feel free to ask, "But Parks, why do they think that those dinosaurs evolved into birds?"

Questions are good.

---

There is no standard in my eyes...all I know is we all tend to look like the "thing" that begat us. That is why all dogs tend to look like....DOGS. You take a domestic cat and a lion...there may be an obvious size difference, but they clearly look the same..because they are the same kind of animal.

What does gravity look like?

What does nuclear fission look like?

Judging by looks is not really scientific. It's a good start, but you missed the starting gun by a few centuries.

Say, have you turned your results in for peer review? What did other scientists have to say about this "looks" hypothesis?

[Esquilax]

If you want details, we'll have to delve into "biobabble". I didn't want to offend your obvious allergy to detail by doing so in this answer, but feel free to ask, "But Parks, why do they think that those dinosaurs evolved into birds?"

Questions are good.

This is exactly the problem, I think. H_M spends a lot of time asking for evidence, asking how we know this and that thing, where's the evidence, when has it been observed, yadda yadda.

It's just that when he is actually given what he asks for, he refuses to discuss it. Because that's what this "bio-babble" label is; it's not a legitimate criticism, it's a refusal to actually engage with the evidence he himself asked for. Whether it's because he's ignorant or dishonest I don't know, probably both, but "bio-babble" is in no way an actual position.

[Anomalocaris]

You guys are spening time arguing with a christian moron who appearently thinks the "majesty" of his "god" is best glorified through an avatar in the form of the golden funerary mask of a pagan inbred boy pharaoh of Egypt who lived many centuries before the first desert goat fucker in the land of Cannites ever conceived of the yahweh that supposedly begat his "lord" and "savior".


That's doesn't look good on your resumes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Straw man.

The kind of infinity that I've argued AGAINST was a quantitative sense, since we were discussing time/events in terms of amounts and duration.

Quantity of what if not time, nor space?

No, you were saying your god wasn't infinite, either in time, or in space, and that means that one of my two points is true.

Let me sit back and watch you hop from one foot to the other trying to justify dishonest argumentation.

Then have at it...

I already have done so; I continue to do so; and I always will -- even as I continually question my own premises.

and since you are my "friend"..I will be there ever step of the way to put you right back on track when you start making illogical assertions....you know, logical fallacies....stuff like that. I will be right there to say "Parkers, that is absurd, because...."

While I acknowledge your expertise in absurdity (indeed, you've raised its practice to artistic heights) I don't think you're nearly so able to recognize it as you are to perpetrate it ... kinda like that guy you work with who's the funniest guy you know -- unintentionally.

Heyy, don't thank me...that's what friends are for

I will grant you this: you are a clear warning of what happens to a cogent mind when it imbibes religion too deeply; as such, you will always remind me to apply logic and reason to my every thinking endeavor. Again ... unintentionally.

---

You guys are spening time arguing with a christian moron who appearently thinks the "majesty" of his "god" is best glorified through an avatar in the form of the golden funerary mask of a pagan inbred boy pharaoh of Egypt who lived many centuries before the first desert goat fucker in the land of Cannites ever conceived of the yahweh that supposedly begat his "lord" and "savior".


That's doesn't look good on your resumes.

Do you cite forum posts on your resume?

Feel free to read another thread, if you're above it all.

---

And that's it? Nothing else?

So a lion and cheetah don't look alike?? They aren't the same kind of animal?...and organisms don't tend to look like the same organism that begat them?

They're clearly far from identical to anyone with half-a-brain.

Would you like me to go into the large differences? Be forewarned, it involves biobabble, and we all know how much you dislike that.

---

This is exactly the problem, I think. H_M spends a lot of time asking for evidence, asking how we know this and that thing, where's the evidence, when has it been observed, yadda yadda.

It's just that when he is actually given what he asks for, he refuses to discuss it. Because that's what this "bio-babble" label is; it's not a legitimate criticism, it's a refusal to actually engage with the evidence he himself asked for. Whether it's because he's ignorant or dishonest I don't know, probably both, but "bio-babble" is in no way an actual position.

[emphasis added -- Parks]

This is exactly why I'm going to adopt that label of his, and feed it back to him when he asks a question. There's no sense letting him forget that he's afraid of knowledge.

[Lek]

I believe that the atheist position concerning God is the most logical position there is. They simply admit that they don't know.

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe that the atheist position concerning God is the most logical position there is. They simply admit that they don't know.

The position is "We do not believe", the a/gnosticism part is separate.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, that would be the agnostic position. The atheist position is "I don't believe".
Meh, f'ing F&F too quick on the draw.

[The Valkyrie]

LOL, that would be the agnostic position. The atheist position is "I don't believe".
Meh, f'ing F&F too quick on the draw.

You're saying you want him whacked?

[Lek]

LOL, that would be the agnostic position. The atheist position is "I don't believe".
Meh, f'ing F&F too quick on the draw.

I've debated atheists on this forum who say that atheism is not a belief that God doesn't exist, but rather a belief that God hasn't been proven to exist. I always thought that agnostics believe a god exists, but don't understand the nature of god.