Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

Thank you for your interest in responding to me 
Unfortunately,  I no longer share interest in responding to you 
You are ruled out as a proper candidate to receive a consult 
I won't be responding to you any more

---

Thank you for your interest in responding
Unfortunately,  I no longer share interest in responding to you 
I don't debate my scope of practice 
You're ruled out as suitable for receiving a consult

Boo Hoo!

Has anybody figured out where unrestrained mocking goes in Graham's Heirarchy?

[vulcanlogician]

[brewer]

All I see is one butt cheek.

[vulcanlogician]

All I see is one butt cheek.

You have to go back and read everything Ghetto Sheldon said to see the full ass.

[The Valkyrie]

Wait.

Peanut butter is REAL??

[no one]

This guy:
god is make believe.

Ghetto Sheldon:
We don't say schizophrenia is make believe.
 We don't say a pathological delusion or psychotic experience is make believe.  
The god delusion is no pretend
God is not make believe.  
It's no pretend
Ppl have been wired for potentials to have god beliefs since cave days
This ^^ is an upgrade concept
Science & medicine is superior to logic/philosophy

Those afflicted with schizophrenia and other mental illness don't choose to believe the delusion.

god is make believe, like dragons, unicorns, and Medusa are make believe. They are not real. Figments of minds that didn't know better.

---

The Valks:
Wait.

Peanut butter is REAL??

Only is you're pure of boob.... I mean heart, and you truly believe.

[R00tKiT]

Schizophrenia, pathological delusions and psychotic experiences are not make believe, and neither is religion, nor religious beliefs - those things exist, sure as eggs is eggs.

Not all religious experiences display symptoms of mental illness. Besides, any experience corresponds to a mental state -including the experience that you would accept to be some form of communication with the divine. 

If you don't accept by default any possible experience as evidence of the divine, ar at least some claim of prophethood, then you are begging the question.

 No evidence for any God's existence, my dear. No evidence, nor rational.

This is the evidence for God:



People like you think this came without any intention of a supreme designer, screw you, and people like you, and screw anyone who ever wrote anything defending atheism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Variations in color are demonstrably linked to heredity. This was actually the first thing we figured out about genetics - how we figured it out. Now. Old magic book offers a different theory. That the color patterns on animals are a product of the parent animal staring at different sticks.

In neither case is a supreme designer required, or present. However, you not understanding this isn't the main problem. The main problem is that you cant seem to understand what evidence is. There's nothing about a fish that makes a god evident in the same way that there's nothing about a fish that makes no-god evident. We know why color patterns on animals exist, and those facts remain regardless of whether or not some fairy is dispensing advice from on high. I think this is a failure of islam in the present. Rather than seek to explain what we know about the world - as it did when it was building, the cult insists that what we know is wrong. That's a losers bet.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Schizophrenia, pathological delusions and psychotic experiences are not make believe, and neither is religion, nor religious beliefs - those things exist, sure as eggs is eggs.

Not all religious experiences display symptoms of mental illness. Besides, any experience corresponds to a mental state -including the experience that you would accept to be some form of communication with the divine. 

If you don't accept by default any possible experience as evidence of the divine, ar at least some claim of prophethood, then you are begging the question.

 No evidence for any God's existence, my dear. No evidence, nor rational.

This is the evidence for God:



People like you think this came without any intention of a supreme designer, screw you, and people like you, and screw anyone who ever wrote anything defending atheism.

(bold mine)

Talk about begging the question. Woof.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

---

In neither case is a supreme designer required, or present.  However, you not understanding this isn't the main problem.  The main problem is that you cant seem to understand what evidence is.  There's nothing about a fish that makes a god evident in the same way that there's nothing about a fish that makes no-god evident.  We know why color patterns on animals exist, and those facts remain regardless of whether or not some fairy is dispensing advice from on high.  I think this is a failure of islam in the present.  Rather than seek to explain what we know about the world - as it did when it was building, the cult insists that what we know is wrong.  That's a losers bet.

I already mentioned the problem with this. The fact that you understand patterns is only a small part of the explanation. The appearance of design warrants a designer, period. Understanding patterns and formulating theories only means we understood some of the designer's work. You can't pretend that scientific explanations are full explanations.

---

In the context of Kalam, assuming that there was a time before a beginningless universe is begging the question and therefore an invalid objection.  Otherwise you are talking about time beginning after the beginning of time, which is fucking incoherent.  The whole point of models such as Hawking-Hartle is to show that time can be past eternal in the sense that all of time precedes the present, yet all of time is still finite. 

What a pretty strawman you have there, great job. You dishonestly omitted the bit where I said, explicitely: that I am defining a notion of time independently of the time that began at the BB, think about the word define real hard.

Hawking-Hartle's model doesn't help your case much, I suggest you find better arguments to rehabilitate your doomed position. The model clearly says, according to Hawking himself: that the universe has not existed forever. The sentence in bold is exactly the definition of beginning to exist.

Now, as to this law of thought deal, the idea that "past eternal" and "began to exist" are mutually exclusive is not itself a law of thought, it's just a bit of dogma that you have uncritically accepted because it fits with what you wish to be true.  And dogmatically is the only way you've defended it.  If it is nothing more than dogma, then it can be validly rejected without argument.

This must be the stupidest paragraph I ever read. If you rule out the laws of thought as dogma.  then I am really proud to be called dogmatic.

And suddenly the law of the excluded middle became dogma, absolutely hilarious.