When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

"a" is a Greek negation, "theist" requires no explanation on this site, and Merriam Webster is a culturally myopic twat. I'm just not a theist, because I find your god to be just as improbable as any claim which others have made to knowing their great but equally invisible gods. There is no "rhetoric" in that, as I'm sure has been explained to you multiple times in this thread. You just enjoy trolling as the bigoted twat!

In regards to "burden of proof", there's nothing more insulting and dodgey than you trying to make it a case of us owing you that - it isn't us who are making any grandiose and spurious claims! As for you, put up or shut up!

[robvalue]

Another note about "intelligent design":

It seems to be treated like God has to solve the issues of how we can eat, how we can breathe, etc. But these are problems he made himself. There was no requirement that we had to eat and breathe or else we died.

I've said before, people seem to flip-flop between god setting the rules and God having turned up one day and having to deal with things as they are.

If you were designing life, with unlimited power and resources, would you put in these death clauses that you then have to solve in weird ways? Or just not have death at all and make exactly the number of whatever things that you want?

Things didn't have to remotely be as they are. Would you design it so that the body has to excrete waste after eating? Why would you do that? Eating could just have been a fun activity, and you didn't die if you don't eat.

It's cock and balls all the way. The only reasons for things to be the way they are are God not being able to do any better, God not wanting to do any better, or God not being involved at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Another note about "intelligent design":

It seems to be treated like God has to solve the issues of how we can eat, how we can breathe, etc. But these are problems he made himself. There was no requirement that we had to eat and breathe or else we died.

I've said before, people seem to flip-flop between god setting the rules and God having turned up one day and having to deal with things as they are.

If you were designing life, with unlimited power and resources, would you put in these death clauses that you then have to solve in weird ways? Or just not have death at all and make exactly the number of whatever things that you want?

Things didn't have to remotely be as they are. Would you design it so that the body has to excrete waste after eating? Why would you do that? Eating could just have been a fun activity, and you didn't die if you don't eat.

It's cock and balls all the way. The only reasons for things to be the way they are are God not being able to do any better, God not wanting to do any better, or God not being involved at all.

Well, I have it on good authority that the Angels have to go to the supermarket in heaven every so often to buy toilet paper, because God just couldn't figure out a way to keep them alive unless they took regular constitutionals.

It's in the rulebook, Section 3, paragraph 9, I think -- all living beings must on occasion shit.

[robvalue]

Ah, OK. The uber God just really likes shit, so God has to work it in somewhere or he'll get canned.

[Delicate]

So you claim that God does exist and Atheists claim he doesn't. And you say that Atheists are false in their claim? So then god or gods do exist?

Well I think they are false. They think I'm false.

According to me God exists.

[Delicate]

So if all men and mortal, and Socrates is a man, it's possible that Socrates could be immortal in your atheism?

You continually miss the fact that a logical argument is only as good as the factual premises on which it is based.

If all men are immortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is immortal. Garbage in, garbage out. As long as your premises remain unproven, any argument dependant upon them is just so much nonsense.

That's asserted but not demonstrated.

For all their bravado atheists here never get off the ground with demonstrating the truth of their claims. I'd love to see that change.

[Delicate]

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

So if atheist arguments are false then God or "gods" do exist right?

Not necessarily. It could be that theist arguments are false too. I just find then to be true.

[robvalue]

How dare I tell God how to do his job? Who am I to speak!

I'm robvalue. And I'll tell him all day what a shit job he has done, and continues to do. What's he going to do about it? Do his precious feelings need protecting?

[Delicate]

So if all men and mortal, and Socrates is a man, it's possible that Socrates could be immortal in your atheism?

That's clearly not what I said. I'd suggest you reread for content rather than vapid riposte. Your summation is flawed.

You're certainly doing a great job hiding your point because even you can't make it explicit.

You haven't been able to show anything actually wrong yet. Your appeals to slogans don't excuse independent thinking.

[downbeatplumb]

By the way I am not an atheist because of evolution or cosmology I am an atheist because the idea of a god seems stupid. I have never found the idea to be anything other than people anthropomorphising abstract concepts and wish projection. Time to grow up sonny.

Please enlighten me on your vast knowledge of evolution.

Why, seriously why? I just said I was not an atheist because of evolution but because gods are a silly concept

The odds are not 50/50. Virtually no odds come out to 50/50, so it sounds it me like someone just guessing randomly.

Well actually these odds were calculated using the fact that physical laws do not work independently. If you alter one it would effect all the others. The people who like to make life seem really unlikely like to change one parameter and pretend that all the others would not change as well when actually by altering one you introduce a range of possible parameters that the others can have. When you take this into account you find that the odds of having a stable universe capable of supporting some sort of life are about 50/50 the scientists who wrote the book I mentioned were using (at the time they wrote it) up to date cosmology. Check it out for yourself the books are very entertaining and informative
  

The idea of God has not been removed from science, and in fact most of the founders of science believed that they were studying God's design.

The important part of that sentence is the founders of science bit, which pushes their existence back to a time when non-belief would get you fined imprisoned or killed. Most modern scientists have no need of the god hypothesis. 

You say the idea of God seems stupid, but it is more reasonable that the highly ordered things that we see around us were created than that they created themselves. You tell me I need to grow up, but it seems like you are the one wish projecting. Complex, irregular information cannot arrange itself no matter how much you wish it could.

Complexity can come from simplicity. Your lack of education disturbs me. Are you a product of the American education system by any chance? So backwards in so many ways.

---