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

[Cato]

Are you counting Stimbo?

You can put an end to all of this by presenting evidence, but we both know you can't.

[Silver]

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence.

Ditto, theist.

[Cecelia]

When Theists can't think for themselves, I find them to be extremely condescending and quick to post links to arguments other people have made because they can't make arguments for themselves.

There's no evidence for God. There's philosophical arguments for god. That's all there is. And the philosophical arguments are weak. Someone who has some personal revelation, or some other reason for believing, I can respect. But those who appeal to philosophical arguments or bad evidence and worse science... that I can't respect. Those people lack the intellect to construct their own arguments, and listen to what others have said. They appeal to expertise using experts who say what they want them to say.

Philosophically, if you believe in one god, you should believe in multiple gods. Because if there is one god, there's no reason for there to only be one god.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

When Theists can't think for themselves, I find them to be extremely condescending...

That's being more kind than "Delicate" (maybe not so much) deserves - it's really akin to a narcissistic toddler throwing a temper-tantrum when he doesn't get his way. This one demands affirmation, which she will not get here, but if she can go back to other theists she'll get to crown herself a "martyr"...

***sigh***!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I like that she brought the list of arguments, as if they were new, and as if our unwillingness to go through and re-refute old arguments would mean we possess a lack of capacity to do so. Further, it is the machine-gun tactic, like the "Gish Gallop"; you fire a giant list of things at your opponent, too much to readily digest in a forum of this sort, then declare victory when the opponent shows an unwillingness to try to swallow your drivel in a single bite, writing the necessary dissertation to show why it is bunk (or else plagiarize arguments against them that have long since been made).

Most of the errors in the arguments were, however, pointed out as question-begging, defining your God into existence by assuming certain characteristics must be true without basis to do so.

Others are mere "wowie" arguments, such as the complexity and natural numbers arguments.

"A circle's diameter is always related to its diameter by a fixed number... therefore God."

"The universe formed as it did because these forces interact at a given strength... therefore God."

"Gosh, this or that thingey is just too complex for me to grasp how it works/exists...therefore God."

You might as well say, "Blue and yellow together look like purple to our eyes... therefore God." (How else would we have tulips, I guess?)

I mean, for fuck's sake, the first argument literally boils down to "Some things exist whether we think of them or not, therefore God thinks of them to make them exist." Fuckin' really!?!

As if a rock cares if my eyes/brain ever notice what frequencies of light are absorbed or reflected from its surface, to make it "grey" colored. (And as if it's okay to presuppose that a thing must be thought of by a living intellect before it can be considered true even in the abstract, as we imagine this particular rock that no one has encountered on the surface of the moon, say, but can say for the sake of argument that it is both unnoticed and yet would be truly grey if so. And as if it's okay to suppose that this rock can only be grey in the mind of God, in order for it truly to be grey. It just spins greyly on through the universe, not noticing its lack of notice, being just a damned rock that is emitting frequencies that would be seen as truly grey if ever it was looked upon by human eyes.)

Having seen such a terrible argument, I was loath to do more than scan the rest of it, and I saw nothing that looked much better... I couldn't hit Page Down without seeing a presupposition or false conclusion. I certainly hope that's not the best your apologists can do, lady.

I just stopped randomly to try one of them... and I get the "argument from colors and flavors" and "the argument from love", both things that are reasonably well-understood from a biological point of view, and don't even constitute arguments for God at all, except in the laziest, most intellectually-devoid sense of the term: "I don't know how this works biologically, and I guess no one else does either...so, must be God".

And you have the audacity to insult us over our intelligence? That drivel wouldn't pass a freshman philosophy course. Even I can see ways to clean up some of those arguments, and they still would fail the "provides actual evidence of God" test.

Go home, Christian Apologetics, you're drunk.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, blue and yellow make green, ergo atheism.

Checkmate, theists!

[Cyberman]

Is it time for episode 2 yet?

[Joods]

Nope. The producers are cancelling the show due to a lack of interest (read: evidence) by the majority.

[drfuzzy]

---

 I CALL POO!

You can't prove your religious ideology as valid, therefore it's the naysayers who are "incompetent" - UH-HUH!

I believe I speak for other atheists in saying that we could give a fuck what you believe, so long as you don't attack young and pre-rationalistic minds with your bullshit. There is no level of dishonesty which you won't stoop to toward that end, including the most ridiculously convoluted ideas supporting "design", which is really creationism impersonating science and smashing all its rules. Your god doesn't need to resort to having his followers abusing the law by muscling their non-science into science classrooms if he's really anything at all other than the shit in your heads!

Who is it who really wants the world to believe something which is too outrageous for people outside of evangelical churches to conclude on as true through their own observations, without your badgering? A few minutes inside of any such church is all it takes to answer that question,

TROLL ASSHOLE!  

---

I'm clearly responding to a pre-rationalistic mind right now, as evidenced by your post.

The claim "there is no evidence" is not a typical one outside of theist strawmen. The claim, such as it is, that person x has not yet seen credible, compelling evidence, however, is.

Which makes atheists akin to blind people who, because they can't see, reject the existence of color.

And the credibility thing proves my point. Which claims have atheists seen that they can demonstrate are not credible?

---

I saw another one of your threads about atheists not knowing anything about religion and you only started it and bailed so I didn't respond, now I see your sticking around for this one, so...

Look up the bibliography on my site From The Deep Ocean Above.

So, what do you want to know???    Do you know where and and how many times the God(s) "love", benefit, or even like Man and where and how many times the God(s) hurt, punish, try to destroy, and the hatred that is cast upon us?   I'll guess,  maybe (love) 1 : 99 (hate and demand love & praise)   And that love is it just stated as such and or shown, the creation of us and our sentience and cognition of the surrounding don't count.  How about how much evidence is mounted up that the Sky God concept was originated from natural phenomena and evolved through the ages and in some instances plagiarized from others vs. communication from beyond? (natural) 100 : 0 from another dimension   < notice I didn't end with a period as not to be rude   

---

 

I like intelligent, stimulating discussion. Hence I'm hardly ever here.   

---

 

Could you lay out more clearly how you conclude the 1:99 ratio?  

---

 

Yes.  So can you just save yourself the torture of our ignorance and go back to your christard forums?  Are you a masochist?  After all, we're just too stupid for you to engage with without intellectual pain.  Let's change "hardly ever here" to "never here", and all be happier, you fucking moronic troll.

[Joods]

Oh FFS my comment was supposed to be sarcastic lol. Apparently it didn't come off that way and it's too late to fix it.