The Folly of Atheism

What it is, though, Ecco...is illogic.

Try this:

There is overwhelming evidence that all the "aliens from other planets" were created by man in the image of the writers who created them. That is not conjecture. That is not circular logic.

Therefore I will state unequivocally...there are no aliens from any other planets.

Do you honestly not see the absurdity of that position?

 

You claim they are impossible.

So I am asking you...why are you claiming that?

REALLY!

 

FYI, Frank uses the word 'gods' instead of 'creators' because he knows that it gets a response. It's like a child who will create negative responses just to get any kind of attention it can.

PS, he won't specifically state it in conversation to explain his position because that doesn't gain the attention.

 

I called to your attention that I NEVER wrote the words "anything unproven could possibly exist."

IF you are saying that I am wrong in that...that I actually did write those words...produce a link to where I did.

 

I am not the subject of this thread, William.

I understand you are enthralled with me...but try not to make me the subject of each thread you come into.

 

Hmm...

I remember this exchange from page14 in the thread "My problem with atheists"

Why would you state "Primitive humans invented gods to explain things they found mysterious" if you thought it was illogical?

 

Ecco...are you an adult?

IF EVERY GOD EVER INVENTED BY HUMANS WAS PROVEN TO BE A FALSE GOD...

...THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THERE ARE NO GODS.

Why is it so difficult for you to get that?

 

Temper, Temper. Did you not see my post #193? I'll show it in big red letters with underlining to hopefully catch your eye.

My conclusion of your position was based on...

However, I'll ask again that you show the difference between:

• Until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible
• Anything unproven could possibly exist

 

I really do not care what you concluded, Ecco. Your ability to reason is suspect in my mind.

Apparently you cannot fathom something as clear-cut as:

"IF EVERY GOD EVER INVENTED BY HUMANS WAS PROVEN TO BE A FALSE GOD...

...THAT WOULD NOT MEAN THERE ARE NO GODS."

If you are going to challenge something I wrote...just use what I actually wrote rather than rewording it to suit your agenda.

As for the difference between "Until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible" and "Anything unproven could possibly exist"...

...I'd prefer to save that for when I want to discuss it. It will probably come up in due time.

Are you ever going to answer the question I asked you for the second or third time in my post #202?

 

But it would be a strong indication that there are no gods as man concieves of a god. Or to put it another way if a concept is wrong two thousand times there is a high probability it will be wrong the two thousand plus one time.

 

Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot? It was an analogy developed by Bertrand Russell (the guy in my signature line) to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic. This is what he said about it:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

I am atheist. I don't believe in religion. But I am also stubborn. The only person I kneel to is God and I don't see him on this planet.

 

Even if I were to grant that (it is not necessarily so)...

...that would not mean that gods do not exist...which is what I have been saying all along.

Right?

 

The burden of proof is on the person who makes an assertion.

If a person asserts, "A god exists"...the burden of proof for that assertion is on him/her.

If a person, on the other hand, asserts, "There are no gods",,,the burden of proof for that assertion is on him/her.

- - - Updated - - -

What does "I don't believe in religion" mean?

 

"What does "I don't believe in religion" mean?"

I don't believe in the myths, the legends the fantasies written down by scholars, philosophers and the many authors who wrote the texts.

 

Oh...I thought you might have meant that you did not "believe" that religions exist.

Okay...glad you cleared that up.

As a matter of interest, how do you determine which stories are fantasies...and which are true?

Was Richard III an effective king or not?

Was Alexander VI an effective pope or not?

Was Caligula an effective administrator or not?

 

The poster gave examples of the practical benefits to the human condition (of non-religious enterprise and endeavour). Are you able to provide the same for religion? Practical benefits only ... not 'feelings', or isolated acts of charity etc.

 

No, trusting in air travel is based on many thousands of EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED examples of safe flying. The only way in which confidence (in flying) could be comparable to religious belief is if it had only ever been discussed and written about, but never actually seen or tried.

 

One problem with your position is that the existence of gods IS the proposition.

If those who propose there is a god can't support that position, I get to say they have failed to support that position.

And, the "there are no gods" statement is really just a statement that the existence of gods has not met a reasonable burden of proof.

For example, there certainly is nothing approaching a scientific burden of proof.

 

Sorry mate but I don't think divine creatures like this could have appeared without a Master Designer behind them-

 

Lmao ok

 

I apologize that you put a lot of effort here, that much is evident and my response might not match it. I never grew up in a religious household. I did however have access to the same texts that one in seminary has and studied them. What solidified my atheism was that even as a young child, I couldn't believe the tales within the bible, qur'an, and pagan resources, they were too fantastic. Later I understood that not everyone who believes does so from a litteralist standpoint. Atheism is too simplistic to me, it doesn't say anything in terms of what an Atheist believes. For that I looked toward more specific language, as I'm a Hedonist Agnostic Atheist. Some might say I'm not Atheist but Autodeistic, which I can see since my morality is based on whether or not an action I've taken pleases me.

 

Yes it is. You are claiming that there are no gods based solely on the fact that there is evidence of fake god created by humans. That doesn't disprove the existence of a deistic god, or which is simply not yet known by mankind.

 

So if I say there are no flying, pink, talking, unicorns, I have to prove that this is true? Also, what happens when you are just merely disagreeing with someones assertion? You say that there is a God and I say there is not. Who has the burden of proof?

 

Frank, listen carefully, 'gods' only exist as a concept invented by humans. I am defining 'gods' as imaginary beings, now argue against me, and see where it gets you. What you call 'gods' are 'creators' and you are not transparent about this and I have called you out on it more than enough times such that you must realise that your argument is a switch and bait and yet, you persist with it so I am forced to question your motivation. I have to admit that I was feeling sorry for you and allowed you some latitude with your 'gods' are 'creators' nonsense but, your posts have become so boorish that I am not cutting that slack for you any longer. You don't want a casual debate except when it suits you. You want us to allow YOU to be slack with your arguments but you respond with pedantry and misuse of language in your posts. I know you can't see it but, I know that all the forums I have ever seen you post in have ended up the same way Frank and the last one you ran away from when you got called out and busted. One thing you have said that is correct is this thread isn't about you Frank, it is about a debating tactic that you employ in your posts which is classic Nordic mythical creature behaviour.

I understand that you don't like atheists, I'm fine with that because when people get to your age they find it very difficult to change with the world and expect the world to remain as they would like it. So, you don't like atheists, have you got anything more to add to the subject?