Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Transportation]

There's a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack", Catloaf.  One is the only rational default position in the complete absence of evidence, and the other is applying Ockham's razor.

Involuntary counter smarmy agnostic reflex edit.

There's a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack", Catloaf.  One is the only rational default position in the complete absence of evidence, and the other is attempting to prove a negative.

This statement implies rationality is superior to faith, which is only true if one first denies the absolute supremacy of God.

That the atheist accepts this (and that Catloaf is essentially correct) is the  main difference between an atheist and a nihilist.

EDIT: to clarify, the "this" the atheist accepts is that rationality is somehow intrinsically valuable.

This post confuses me, as reason is much more accurate at describing how the world works than faith is. Even a nihilist would recognize this, even if this difference has no worth or meaning.

Which would just mean an atheist values truth. Which isn't really saying much, since creationist do too (or think they do). They're just bad at it.

[Friday]

Do you think that if God existed he would have really let the Bears take over India

[Zach]

Hey guys I heard God is a bear

[Pacobird]

There's a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack", Catloaf.  One is the only rational default position in the complete absence of evidence, and the other is applying Ockham's razor.

Involuntary counter smarmy agnostic reflex edit.

There's a difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack", Catloaf.  One is the only rational default position in the complete absence of evidence, and the other is attempting to prove a negative.

This statement implies rationality is superior to faith, which is only true if one first denies the absolute supremacy of God.

That the atheist accepts this (and that Catloaf is essentially correct) is the  main difference between an atheist and a nihilist.

EDIT: to clarify, the "this" the atheist accepts is that rationality is somehow intrinsically valuable.

This post confuses me, as reason is much more accurate at describing how the world works than faith is. Even a nihilist would recognize this, even if this difference has no worth or meaning.

Which would just mean an atheist values truth. Which isn't really saying much, since creationist do too (or think they do). They're just bad at it.

So you think the answers to theological questions can be found within the physical world?

If so, where and how would we set about gathering evidence for an answer?  If not, how are you not a hammer seeing only nails?

Any discussion of the existence of God that does not begin with the statement that God is fundamentally unknowable is not worth seriously entertaining.

PS: there exist rational and internally consistent theistic belief systems

[Cyan Prime]

The burden of proof of the god of the bible falls on the Christians, not the Atheists, so Christians please present the evidence that your god exists that can't be used to prove that any other god exists.

...

...

...
That's what I thought.

[Pacobird]

The burden of proof of the god of the bible falls on the Christians, not the Atheists, so Christians please present the evidence that your god exists that can't be used to prove that any other god exists.

...

...

...
That's what I thought.

Oh no, nails everywhere!  I am not going to employ a methodology to answer a question that the methodology was not designed to answer, nor ever purported to.  You are the fat beardo at the end of SLC punk who was going to prove that God didn't exist by summoning Satan at a kegger and loudly trumpet the death of religion when he didn't show.

[Cyan Prime]

[Pacobird]

i am sorry but your strawman is a few days too late for halloween :(

[Crouton]

Duck
Billed
Platypus

[Pacobird]

Duck
Billed
Platypus

which is the inverse, yes

[Cyan Prime]

The burden of proof of the god of the bible falls on the Christians, not the Atheists, so Christians please present the evidence that your god exists that can't be used to prove that any other god exists.

...

...

...
That's what I thought.

Oh no, nails everywhere!  I am not going to employ a methodology to answer a question that the methodology was not designed to answer, nor ever purported to.  You are the fat beardo at the end of SLC punk who was going to prove that God didn't exist by summoning Satan at a kegger and loudly trumpet the death of religion when he didn't show.

Nice Ad hominem, buddy. Maybe if you had something to actually argue that your god exists you wouldn't need to resort to this. Anyway, you completely side-stepped my argument that the burden of proof is on the Christians, and not Atheists, and managed to try and get out of presenting any proof of your argument that a god exists in one swoop, but not without notice, so if you would be so kind as to address this seriously or get the fuck out, that'd be great.

[Doom]

not only using the baby's first atheist argument from CAD with a straight face, but repeating it with the actual comic as though proving a point.

why did we ever ban this kid

this is too stupid to be anything but true

holy christ

my sides

hahahahahahaahaha

dooohohohohohoh

heeehehehehehe

oh man

Coming back to try and be serious about it.

stop you're killing me

hee hee heeeeeeeeeee

[Pacobird]

The argument that God doesn't exist if you can't provide tangible evidence assumes that God is not only knowable, but fully perceivable and quantifiable by human understanding.  If you really think that then maybe you would feel better railing against the simps 2500 years ago, all grovelling before Mt. Olympus and shit.

Bonus points for assuming I believe in God just because I don't casually dismiss religion as a whole, though.  You're really striking a blow for Reason on this one.

[Cyan Prime]

If you don't know what you're calling your god how can you prove it exists? And for that matter how do you know you're going by the correct teachings? This unknowable god could be Loki for all you know, so if this god you think exists is so unknowable how do you know it's the Christian god?

[Fortinbras]

hey now what is going on on the worst forums everbrontoforumus today

oh, god.

[Pacobird]

If you don't know what you're calling your god how can you prove it exists? And for that matter how do you know you're going by the correct teachings? This unknowable god could be Loki for all you know, so if this god you think exists is so unknowable how do you know it's the Christian god?

Do you think people believe in religions solely for the satisfaction of knowing that God exists and not at all because it gives them meaning and hope in the face of certain death and oblivion y/n

to put it another way, who the fuck cares

at any rate, the original point of this is that atheism is belief as much as theism, because you are drawing conclusions about the unknowable via human understanding that is not equipped to deal with it

[Esperath]

PS: dongs

[Pacobird]

also, if you subscribe to religion A and you died and found out religion B was correct, there are in fact a great number of theists out there who would say you shouldn't be particularly bothered by this

[Smiler]

Oh hey Sora is in another thread floundering around. 

[Defenestration]

Cyan, stop gaying up this thread; I was actually enjoying reading it.