Atheism vs. God's Existence

[Pat Mustard]

The words of a true fantasist, a person who far prefers to live in the inside of his head rather than the real world.

Steve, the only reason that you want to remove science from any possibility of having an answer to the god question is because (subconsciously at least) you've realised that the more we find out scientifically the more remote the possibility of god becomes.

That is hardly the case. The more we find out about how the universe and living systems work, the more it seems purposefully designed.

Hey, it's Junk Status, back from another sabbatical. Yor fake degree have more fake exams?

Oh, and regarding your baseless assertion [citation needed]. You'll be seeing that a lot if you do ever get to uni.

[Pat Mustard]

AAA should change his name to Mr. Equivocate.

Nah, Junk Status is still the best name for him.

[robvalue]

So...

It's an appeal to an authority who thinks you are wrong, but whose words can be taken out of context to make it sound like they agree with you?

This is why "seems like" is not science. There is no lookey-likey theory.

This is also the problem with trying to do science when you already have irrational conclusions in place that you must make add up, even when doing so is impossible. You end up with dishonest equivocation like this.

[Ben Davis]

[Cyberman]

That's just an assertion. Maybe they appear designed the way a person genuinely getting chopped in half appears to be chopped in half. Why do we have to assume biological systems are counter-intuitive?

Human bodies getting cut in half don't "appear" to be getting cut in half. They fucking well are getting cut in half.

Learn to English, asshat.

On the other hand, bodies that only appear to be cut in half may not necessarily be getting cut in half, as in stage magicians. However, they're only pretending and everyone knows that.

[Mister Agenda]

Of course there are books and books written addressing these objections, but at least they are not demanding 'empirical, verifiable, or falsifiable evidence' left and right, equating God with leprechauns, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, or other dopey arguments from incredulity.

The point of the comparisons is not to make an argument from incredulity, it's to challenge theists to use arguments that could not be also used in favor of those other supposed entities; or to help them realize that the arguments they're using could be used in favor of any imaginary creature.

Chief of these is argument from 'you can't prove God isn't real.'

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, it seems that way to people who already believe that it was. Not so much to those that don't.

Yeah, it depends on your perspective, but biologists agree that it was designed. The question is was it designed by random mutation and natural selection, an intelligent designer, or some third alternative? The first one is becoming less reasonable as we begin to learn about the complex regulatory mechanisms and interplay between the different enzymes.

If you're claiming that biologists think the first one is 'becoming less reasonable', you're either astonishingly misinformed, bonkers, or outright lying. If you're just trying to make it sound like biologists think that, you're dishonest.

And by the way, Steve, that last sentence of AAA's is an example of an argument from incredulity.

[EuphoricAtheist]

God does not exist because I badly wish he won't bother my gay buttfucking habits.

Just relax and say GOD DOES NOT EXIST out loud and just let those iron age beliefs BTFO my mind.

The indoctrination of belief in God is then gone away.....until random points of the day....when I'm in trouble....when I yell at this imaginary spaghetti monster for letting all the innocent children in africa starve....when I think about my evil deeds.....until my deathbed....until this shit can get out my intuition and suppress the fuck out thiss fuckckkkk man?

Why does the idea of God keep bothering me?! I need to start meditation or something

[Mister Agenda]

Well Richard Dawkins thinks it was designed, just by an undirected process of mutation and natural selection. What do you think then? Are living systems not designed? Do you just object to the word design, because that's what Dawkins uses. I think I've heard Shermer say this as well. Is natural selection not ultimately a designing force?

Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism wins on account of being real.

/thread