Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
1) You did present your personal views. You just did it again.
2) Thread title does not specify hard atheism, ergo you do need to show how the general ideology is irrational in accordance to the op
3) What component fallacy did I commit? Specify or do not bother calling it out.
4) There is nothing that prevents something from being both pink and invisible as it is not necessary that all pinks be visible. Nor is it necessary that all things that are invisible be colorless. Your conclusion does not follow. Your refutation appears to be centered around an idea that everything we cannot see is colorless, but that is not reality. -
1) You did present your personal views. You just did it again.
2) Thread title does not specify hard atheism, ergo you do need to show how the general ideology is irrational in accordance to the op
3) What component fallacy did I commit? Specify or do not bother calling it out.
4) There is nothing that prevents something from being both pink and invisible as it is not necessary that all pinks be visible. Nor is it necessary that all things that are invisible be colorless. Your conclusion does not follow. Your refutation appears to be centered around an idea that everything we cannot see is colorless, but that is not reality.
1)No i did not present my personal views you don't know my personal views because you did not ask me and i was not arguing from my internal thoughts on ?
2) The thread title does not have to specify hard atheism i am not sticking to the topic but speaking on something related to it.
3) the invisible pink unicorn is a component fallacy/contradictory premise
4) calling something pink and then saying it's invisible is a component fallacy because one component of the premise cancels the other. invisible things exist but they would not be invisible if they were pink. -
1) You did present your personal views. You just did it again.
2) Thread title does not specify hard atheism, ergo you do need to show how the general ideology is irrational in accordance to the op
3) What component fallacy did I commit? Specify or do not bother calling it out.
4) There is nothing that prevents something from being both pink and invisible as it is not necessary that all pinks be visible. Nor is it necessary that all things that are invisible be colorless. Your conclusion does not follow. Your refutation appears to be centered around an idea that everything we cannot see is colorless, but that is not reality.
1)No i did not present my personal views you don't know my personal views because you did not ask me and i was not arguing from my internal thoughts on ?
2) The thread title does not have to specify hard atheism i am not sticking to the topic but speaking on something related to it.
3) the invisible pink unicorn is a component fallacy/contradictory premise
4) calling something pink and then saying it's invisible is a component fallacy because one component of the premise cancels the other. invisible things exist but they would not be invisible if they were pink.
You assume that the object cannot hold the property of invisibility and color at the same time. Ultraviolet and infrared show this is not the case. Color is a function of light and simply being invisible does not mean that it is not present or cannot be present. Furthermore, you have no experiences of invisible objects that can support that view and push the balance of evidence one way or the other. To top this all of just because an object is invisible to certain observers does not mean it is invisible to all, which renders claims of the impossibility
Also, that's not a component fallacy that's a contradictory premise, but there is nothing inherently contradictory about a color being invisible. This is evidenced by the many instances where colors invisible to the typical humans is observed by another.
What can be labeled pink based on the perceptions of one is not invalidated because it is not visible to others. Whether or not there is a direct observation or first hand knowledge of it does not change anything factually, as it is not the knowledge that makes it so but rather an objective reality.
-
How are so many people experts on what people back in the day knew and did and how primitive they were. WE as a western society can barely even get right that Egyptians/Hebrews where black African people yet they want to tell me what they did and didnt know and how they lived their daily lives, based on what?
Thats like the fallacy of Europeans saying they thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around us until they went sailing, when thousands of years before that civilizations across Africa already knew we lived on a globe that orbited the sun (research Zulu people). And as long as ancients have been observing constellations they understood the concept of a galaxy...
Its funny tho how much time bias people possess but ancients werent as hopeless as we think they were. Its imperative to understand how little of the bigger picture we actually see. The Earth erases history all the time, like the impressive 10,000 year old city off the coast of Japan, the unstudied shells of civilizations in South Africa eroded by time or entire cities buried by vocanos and/or mudslides.
My point is, we cannot say science makes religion look foolish because we really dont know ? . What i've found is science actually backs up alot of things about religion and brings up knew truths about life that our ancestors knew as second nature, things we consider "supernatural" or "godlike".
Just stop and think alot of the connections we make may be totally off base and perpetuated by the ever contradicting science we live for. The Bible is what it is leave it or take it, but its not up for interpretation and editing like science is, it means exactly what it says. -
1) You did present your personal views. You just did it again.
2) Thread title does not specify hard atheism, ergo you do need to show how the general ideology is irrational in accordance to the op
3) What component fallacy did I commit? Specify or do not bother calling it out.
4) There is nothing that prevents something from being both pink and invisible as it is not necessary that all pinks be visible. Nor is it necessary that all things that are invisible be colorless. Your conclusion does not follow. Your refutation appears to be centered around an idea that everything we cannot see is colorless, but that is not reality.
1)No i did not present my personal views you don't know my personal views because you did not ask me and i was not arguing from my internal thoughts on ?
2) The thread title does not have to specify hard atheism i am not sticking to the topic but speaking on something related to it.
3) the invisible pink unicorn is a component fallacy/contradictory premise
4) calling something pink and then saying it's invisible is a component fallacy because one component of the premise cancels the other. invisible things exist but they would not be invisible if they were pink.
You assume that the object cannot hold the property of invisibility and color at the same time. Ultraviolet and infrared show this is not the case. Color is a function of light and simply being invisible does not mean that it is not present or cannot be present. Furthermore, you have no experiences of invisible objects that can support that view and push the balance of evidence one way or the other. To top this all of just because an object is invisible to certain observers does not mean it is invisible to all, which renders claims of the impossibility
Also, that's not a component fallacy that's a contradictory premise, but there is nothing inherently contradictory about a color being invisible. This is evidenced by the many instances where colors invisible to the typical humans is observed by another.
What can be labeled pink based on the perceptions of one is not invalidated because it is not visible to others. Whether or not there is a direct observation or first hand knowledge of it does not change anything factually, as it is not the knowledge that makes it so but rather an objective reality.
a contradictory premise is a form or component fallacy. and calling something pink when it's not objectively pink simply means it's not really pink in the first place perceptions are meaning less. if you want to find the truth.
is pink ultraviolet or infrared ??? no pink exists in a band we can see. -
I find it funny that these people are defending the possibility of pink invisible unicorns. yet make fun of theists for believing in ? . what as bunch of ? hypocrites
-
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
-
No, I believe that once you answer one question it simply leaves room for other questions that you never even thought to ask until you made that one recent discovery.
That in which humans dont understand they attribute to ? .Rubato Garcia wrote: »Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object.
Just under 200 year ago the cure for migranes was to drill a hole in the person's head. Why?
TO LET THE DEMONS OUT -_-
Because of course the only logical explanation at that time was, "there must be spirits in this person's head causing more pain than usual.' Now, in 2014 that is NOT a good treatment for sever headaches.
When we're dead and gone in the year 2087 the very idea of mentioning ? to explain anything scientific (especially the creation of the Earth or Universe) will be laughable.
Do you believe that given enough time humanity will be able to solve all of the mysteries of life and the universe through science?
Sometimes you end up being dead wrong about something that you thought was a fact and start from square one.
For example scientists used to think Venus was just like Earth. they sent a probe to do measurements and the probe was crushed under the weight of the atmosphere. Turns out Venus is NOTHING like Earth at all LOL Back to the drawing board.
-
No, I believe that once you answer one question it simply leaves room for other questions that you never even thought to ask until you made that one recent discovery.
That in which humans dont understand they attribute to ? .Rubato Garcia wrote: »Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object.
Just under 200 year ago the cure for migranes was to drill a hole in the person's head. Why?
TO LET THE DEMONS OUT -_-
Because of course the only logical explanation at that time was, "there must be spirits in this person's head causing more pain than usual.' Now, in 2014 that is NOT a good treatment for sever headaches.
When we're dead and gone in the year 2087 the very idea of mentioning ? to explain anything scientific (especially the creation of the Earth or Universe) will be laughable.
Do you believe that given enough time humanity will be able to solve all of the mysteries of life and the universe through science?
Sometimes you end up being dead wrong about something that you thought was a fact and start from square one.
For example scientists used to think Venus was just like Earth. they sent a probe to do measurements and the probe was crushed under the weight of the atmosphere. Turns out Venus is NOTHING like Earth at all LOL Back to the drawing board.
The beauty about that is, they learned a hell of a lot from that failure. Within unexpected results, you can discover some new ? that nobody knew about, or solved a question that someone other then yourself asked. Because they left the data, you don't have to rely on their bias to repeat or adapt their discovery appropriately. -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
Also you seem to be missing the point completely: this entire notion of an invisible unicorn has been presented in a tongue in cheek manner so as to replicate the absurdity of believing in a deity. Even if you had a way to absolutely prove that invisible pink is not possible, which you can not from the looks of it, I would then simply do what you do and strip the entity of some of its features, so as to make it more broad and general as a concept. An invisible unicorn would not have this alleged issue regarding invisible colors and as such you would be unable to claim it does not exist with absolute certainty given your previous rational in favor of a deity.
Of course this is all ridiculous. But not when the object in question is an invisible man in the sky, right? -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
Also you seem to be missing the point completely: this entire notion of an invisible unicorn has been presented in a tongue in cheek manner so as to replicate the absurdity of believing in a deity. Even if you had a way to absolutely prove that invisible pink is not possible, which you can not from the looks of it, I would then simply do what you do and strip the entity of some of its features, so as to make it more broad and general as a concept. An invisible unicorn would not have this alleged issue regarding invisible colors and as such you would be unable to claim it does not exist with absolute certainty given your previous rational in favor of a deity.
Of course this is all ridiculous. But not when the object in question is an invisible man in the sky, right?
I know why you atheists made up the pink unicorn but it's a stupid way to try and prove a point. all the shades of pink are visible.
some where in the universe a pink unicorn might exists but it cannot be invisible and pink. pink is not even a real color but I
won't get in to that.
all you really want to do is bash Christians but this thread is not about that you pathetic idiot. it's about the irrationality or rationality or atheism and in Christianity ? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar. -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
Also you seem to be missing the point completely: this entire notion of an invisible unicorn has been presented in a tongue in cheek manner so as to replicate the absurdity of believing in a deity. Even if you had a way to absolutely prove that invisible pink is not possible, which you can not from the looks of it, I would then simply do what you do and strip the entity of some of its features, so as to make it more broad and general as a concept. An invisible unicorn would not have this alleged issue regarding invisible colors and as such you would be unable to claim it does not exist with absolute certainty given your previous rational in favor of a deity.
Of course this is all ridiculous. But not when the object in question is an invisible man in the sky, right?
I know why you atheists made up the pink unicorn but it's a stupid way to try and prove a point. all the shades of pink are visible.
some where in the universe a pink unicorn might exists but it cannot be invisible and pink. pink is not even a real color but I
won't get in to that.
all you really want to do is bash Christians but this thread is not about that you pathetic idiot. it's about the irrationality or rationality or atheism and in Christianity ? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.Impossible colors or forbidden colors are supposed colors that cannot be perceived in normal seeing of light that is a combination of various intensities of the various frequencies of visible light, but are reported to be seen in special circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_colors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IRZ0_lP4Rs -
lol pink is not mentioned as one of those unseen colors so one again fail. ? atheists in an attempt to smart prove themselves to be dumb one again.
-
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky
learn to read I said that in Christianity ? is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you ? swine. -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky
learn to read I said that in Christianity ? is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you ? swine.
You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky
learn to read I said that in Christianity ? is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you ? swine.
You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational
the teaching of Christianity do not say that ? is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because ? being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible
now you are trolling. -
I have concluded what I wanted to do in this thread. I have proven hard atheism to be irrational. my opponents have been reduced to trolling and lying and as always pathetic misrepresentation of my clear and logical position. they want to talk about Christianity because the arguments against my position are weak.
their comparison of ? to a invisible pink unicorn fails because of component fallacy.
the rest of their arguments are composed of straw men, red herrings and out right lies and misrepresentations. it is really too bad that this forum does not have an objective debate judge. because I slaughtered my opponents pages ago. -
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky
learn to read I said that in Christianity ? is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you ? swine.
You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational
the teaching of Christianity do not say that ? is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because ? being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible
now you are trolling.
You have no certain evidence of the contrary though. Just like your rational in favor of the deity this means there is a possibility it can be true, thusly making it the case that your absolutism against it is irrational. -
I have concluded what I wanted to do in this thread. I have proven hard atheism to be irrational. my opponents have been reduced to trolling and lying and as always pathetic misrepresentation of my clear and logical position. they want to talk about Christianity because the arguments against my position are weak.
their comparison of ? to a invisible pink unicorn fails because of component fallacy.
the rest of their arguments are composed of straw men, red herrings and out right lies and misrepresentations. it is really too bad that this forum does not have an objective debate judge. because I slaughtered my opponents pages ago.
Not really. You did not prove ? any more believable than a bird on my head. Any reference to a deity begs the question and you make an erroneous inductive assumption when you try to remedy this by saying that the universe must have a cause and that it cannot be nothingness. Attempts to try and prevent your deity from being refuted essentially led to you saying it is unknowable, which undermines your own argument and the soundness of your premises. You have little in the way of evidence to refute the strength of materialism, which strongly opposes deism. Ultimately your conclusion demands one appeal to ignorance in order to believe something is possible, which was exemplified by the equally nonsensical unicorn example but seems to have gone over your head.
-
it was. never my attempt to prove ? you ? idiot. and in any case there is no judge between us and to keep on arguing is a waste of time and worse it's boring me now
-
colors that are imperceptible can exists but they cannot be called pink pink is one specific color.
No it is not. Pink can be a variety of colors. Go to home depot and they'll hit you with a color palette full of various pinks, blues, reds and greens. There are findings indicating that certain people can see colors others can not: various shades of colors that already exist and even new colors not recognized by the average person. Then there are impossible colors which can only be seen under certain circumstances.
Many shades of visible pink. Does not include invisible varieties.
? is not a man in the sky you sick atheists liar.
You can't say that with absolute certainty as you don't have the knowledge of ? necessary to prove that
It's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky
learn to read I said that in Christianity ? is not a man in the shy. you purposely misrepresented what I said you ? swine.
You have no direct experiences to prove otherwise though, so it's possible ? is an invisible man in the sky. Your absolute rejection of Invisible man in the skyism is irrational
the teaching of Christianity do not say that ? is a man in the shy and being a Christian I do have experience. once again you lie. also experience is irreverent because ? being a man in the shy is 100% logically impossible
now you are trolling.
You have no certain evidence of the contrary though. Just like your rational in favor of the deity this means there is a possibility it can be true, thusly making it the case that your absolutism against it is irrational.
that makes no ? sense -
If you can't prove ? any more believable than other unsupported beliefs, like the boogeyman, then it is as rational to reject theism as it is to reject them. Defeats your whole semantics debate regarding the certainty one can have regarding a deity.
It was indeed a waste of time considering how you fail time and time again to give any cogent reasoning as to why one would even consider a deity possible in the first place without begging the question, appealing to authority (whose expertise undermines your argument btw), resorting to circular reasoning, ad hominem, or appeals to ignorance. All that typing to have changed nothing. -
You've proven you're delusional and have an inflated sense of intellect.I have proven hard atheism to be irrational.
If you could PROVE Atheism, theism, or any -ism related to religion right or wrong you wouldn't be on the IC you'd be on a world wide book tour making millions and spending half of it on armed guards.
And please ? about trolling. I destroyed your ? ass for a whole 4 days straight and reduced you to literally begging for me to stop and calling me a ? because you had no comeback for the truth I was spilling about your fake coward ass. So not only do you have delusions of grandeur but you're a hypocrite.
This aint G&S hoe. Smart people actually post here. Do infinitely better next time... -
You've proven you're delusional and have an inflated sense of intellect.I have proven hard atheism to be irrational.
If you could PROVE Atheism, theism, or any -ism related to religion right or wrong you wouldn't be on the IC you'd be on a world wide book tour making millions and spending half of it on armed guards.
And please ? about trolling. I destroyed your ? ass for a whole 4 days straight and reduced you to literally begging for me to stop and calling me a ? because you had no comeback for the truth I was spilling about your fake coward ass. So not only do you have delusions of grandeur but you're a hypocrite.
This aint G&S hoe. Smart people actually post here. Do infinitely better next time...
? all you did for those 4 days was stalk me around the board like the repressed homosexual you are. no one takes hard atheism seriously not even the other atheists. you can call me whatever you want you live in another state.
