The Case for Atheism

[Bad Writer]

God's divine providence placed all the animals in the ark into a year long cryogenic slumber, duh.

[AnaMejiaP]

@pineapplebunnybounce
I'll change that immediately and I opened up that new thread.

[Ryantology]

If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake?

Bad sources, poor research, some combination of the two.

[Angrboda]

You forgot that the whole ark would have become a hive of disease very quickly; bacteria and viruses would still be present on and around the animals (and that's assuming that microbes don't count as necessary passengers aboard the ark to begin with) and with so many animals from across the globe locked up in a confined space, all of them would be dealing with illnesses they'd have no immunity to, extremely quickly. None of this would be helped, of course, by the fact that flies and mosquitoes tend to breed, and I'd like to see how Noah intended to stop that from happening.

And how would parasites work? Would he have had to purposefully infect one of only two examples of a species with them to preserve the parasites? What about all those horrible flies and wasps that use other insect larvae as incubators for their own? Wouldn't that be an intolerable level of competition when there's only one breeding pair apiece?

So, Noah lets loose the eagles, and the first thing one of them does is swoop down and kill one of the rabbits. Well shit, that's one extinction event within the first minute. How does one account for the incredible vulnerability of an ecosystem where every species in it is critically endangered?

Noah walks carelessly through the ark and bam, one of the snails is gone. It only takes one fuck up, and you've practically committed genocide; these guys were on the boat for a year? How many accidental deaths could that be?

Were the animals that don't have year long lifespans breeding on the ark? How did the place cope with a sudden influx of mayflies? Can't let them out into the rain, after all!

And so on.

[Tonus]

I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

I took for granted that there was a god for many years, and sought to find a logical premise that would confirm that belief. After decades of trying, I realized that I could not find one. That is my logical premise for not believing in one.

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism doesn't need a case since theism has never ever even provided one tiny shred of any extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claim whatsoever, at all.

[Single910]

Here is the single most important, indisputable fact in this argument.

You are completely unable to show me any physical evidence of your god.

Argument over.

What exactly do you mean by physical evidence?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As you may have noticed Drew, atheists are too lazy to defend their ontological naturalism so they play word games about the meaning of atheism.

[Esquilax]

As you may have noticed Drew, atheists are too lazy to defend their ontological naturalism so they play word games about the meaning of atheism.

As opposed to you, who hides your lack of any kind of argument behind smugness and an unearned sense of accomplishment?

[Jackalope]

As you may have noticed Drew, atheists are too lazy to defend their ontological naturalism so they play word games about the meaning of atheism.

You do realize that Drew hasn't been here for seven months, yes?