RE: What is your favourite positive argument for atheism/unbelief?
April 16, 2017 at 7:09 am
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2017 at 7:29 am by Little Rik.)
(April 15, 2017 at 2:13 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(April 14, 2017 at 9:44 am)Little Rik Wrote: I do not follow religions.
I instead follow logic.
The hell you do!
You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you in the ass.
Logical arguments are a process of creating a new statement from one or more existing statements. An argument proceeds from a set of premises to a conclusion, by means of logical implication, via a procedure called logical inference.
They follow the form:
Premise 1
P2
P3
.
.
.
Conclusion.
This is called the syllogistic form.
For the conclusion to follow logically from the premises, every premise has to be sound (they have to be demonstrably true), and the entire logical argument has to be valid (it can not be fallacious).
I have never seen anything close to that from you.
Your premises are almost always unfounded assertions based on what you want to be true. And you arguments are always fallacious.
Please, prove that you are indeed logical, and create one syllogism that will lead to one of your conclusions.
Here, I'll give you a starting point. Fill in sound premises that will lead to your conclusion:
P1
P2
P3
.
Conclusion - Too many people get fooled when they see a body and think that his-her consciousness
is dead too.
Cut the crap Simon.
Let us instead see this from wiki.
There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-1800s), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
It say.......VALID ARGUMENTS.....and other things as well.
My arguments are more than valid.
While there is no evidence that the consciousness or the I ever die there is a lot of evidence that the consciousness survive and is more free than when was stuck inside a body as also proven by thousand of NDEs experiences so I do have a valid argument and that follow a logic process.
(April 15, 2017 at 10:09 am)Brian37 Wrote:(April 15, 2017 at 9:19 am)Little Rik Wrote: Energy never die so to speak Brian.
Even science say so.
It just get recycled.
Nothing die in this universe.
There no evidence that anything die so your guessing stay a guessing.
Guessing and evidence are two different stories.
Too many people get fooled when they see a body and think that his-her consciousness
is dead too.
Don't be fooled Brian.
Isn't worth it.
No, science does not say that because atoms move on that a single atom can behave like a adult in tact brain. Yes atoms move on, no shit, that does not make ANY god real, not yours not any, science merely says atoms make up everything. But there are huge buildups required to go from a single atom to an adult brain. You are trying to confuse a single tire as having the capability of being the in tact running car. When your brain dies YOU DIE, that is it, a single atom by itself cannot retain the same function as an in tact brain.
Atoms exist, atoms get recycled, therefor Allah. Still make sense to you?
Atoms exist, atoms get recycled, therefor Yahweh. Still make sense to you?
Atoms exist, atoms get recycled, therefor Buddha's reincarnation is true. Still make sense to you?
Atoms exist, atoms get recycled, therefor the Hindu creator God Bhrama is real. Still make sense to you?
How about the least complicated explanation as to why humans claim any god/s/deities? How about humans simply project a fictional concept of immortality because they like the idea and have vivid imaginations?
None of biological life or the universe needs a magic super cognition to explain. For the same reason you know Poseidon isn't needed to explain why hurricanes happen. For the same reason you don't need Thor to explain the existence of lightening.
You are making an hell of a confusion Brian.
Atoms are not an abstract entities like the consciousness.
Atoms can not build the consciousness.
Nobody build the consciousness.
The consciousness is already there and get more or less awareness according to the individual actions or not actions.
When the body die and it goes to the dogs so to speak there is a separation between this body and the consciousness.
Nothing really to do with atoms.
If science merely says atoms make up everything then ask any scientist to give evidence that atoms make up the consciousness.
I can wait Brian but not for ever.
I will wait until the next Christmas after that you lose the bet.