Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

Epimethean you are forgetting belief. In order for you to believe that you breath, you must believe in something that would most correctly be termed ""lungs" by humanity.

---

the argument has nothing to do with whether or not you in fact breathe.

[Anomalocaris]

Even Wordork would have known by this point to quit lest he prejudice his own chances when next to brings up "non-isotropic propogation of light" again.

Appearently Amkerman stands ready to prove that all those who breath but have no conception of lungs did not believe they were breathing when they detected a certain lack of sensation of suffocation.

[amkerman]

Rhythm can you acceptably define God and atheism for me then? I mean you would need to logically prove that your definitions are correct, which is a near impossibility, but if you'd like to give it a shot be my guest.

[LastPoet]

This guy is the king of loaded questions.

Please, do you have an honest argument?

[amkerman]

it would be impossible to believe that one breathed without a belief in something that would be correctly termed lungs. You would have absolutely no concept of the it means to breathe. You would perceive feelings, but you would have no words or ideas on which to define those feelings as "breathing" hence it would be impossible to believe that you were breathing.

If breathing is the act of taking in oxygen to your body and exhaling it, and you believe you do that, you necessarily believe that there is some mechanism which facilitates that act, which are termed "lungs". What the lungs actually are is of no importance. You might believe that "lungs" are little dwarfs living in your stomach that open your nasal passages and invite air in. The idea would still be correctly defined as a mechanism by which we breathe, which humans have termed "lungs".

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm can you acceptably define God and atheism for me then? I mean you would need to logically prove that your definitions are correct, which is a near impossibility, but if you'd like to give it a shot be my guest.

Atheism is simple, a- without theos-god. If you want a definition of god, you're the theist, that's up to you to provide burden shifter. I'm fine with "the beings described by religious traditions".

"More accurately termed" only works with lungs and breath because they can be demonstrated. You seem to be able to elaborate on any subject inserted into your argument except god. This is why you have no argument when you invoke god.

[Darwinning]

You might believe that "lungs" are little dwarfs living in your stomach that open your nasal passages and invite air in.

That is the most intelligible and rational thing you have posted here in a long, long time.

[Epimethean]

You might believe that "lungs" are little dwarfs living in your stomach that open your nasal passages and invite air in.

That is the most intelligible and rational thing you have posted here in a long, long time.

Actually, it is the most intelligible thing he has posted, period, and it does his "argument" zero good.

[Anomalocaris]

You might believe that "lungs" are little dwarfs living in your stomach that open your nasal passages and invite air in.

That is the most intelligible and rational thing you have posted here in a long, long time.

I am not sure how one totally unintelligible and irrational thing is less totally unintelligible and irrational thing.

1. He attempts to broaden the definition of lungs to "anything that might make my statement true". Thus making the use of the word "lungs" comically equivalent to "any mechansim whatsoever". Undoubtedly he meant to prepare ground for expanding this flaccidity further to "God must exist because I can define god to be whatever it takes to make that statement appear true to me".

2. Even then his statement is not demonstrateably true. There is no evidence the notion of "mechanism" is essential to abstract catagorization of perceived biological function. No conception of any mechanism is required to conceptualize a specific group of neuromuscular sensation that possess the rather pursuasive benefit of warding off the irritating feeling of suffocation. His position is so preposterous, and his powers so weak, that even given his ludicrous flaccid standards, he fails to pass.

[amkerman]

i have attempted to define "God" in it's most basic sense, consciousness as a real thing that exists apart from subjective human perception. consciousness is demonstrated in animals, science is attempting to demonstrate consciousness as being wholly unrelated to human perception through AI. really not that hard. You don't have to call it "God" if you don't want to, but humanity and the english language have labeled it as such.