Atheism is retarded...

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Ishmael, I have never even met the type of atheist you describe.

I doubt their existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?? I have met MANY.

Also, one of the titles of a post, IN THIS FORUM begins with:

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

[tbach24]

If God doesn't exsist, how can you explain boobs?

[CallMeIshmael]

You have yet to even attempt to explain how you can conclude:

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you certain? Was that a mistake? Did you mean to say:

[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]?

Do you not see why you are wrong to conclude that?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If God doesn't exsist, how can you explain boobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of at least two girls I've dated that I have concluded were only willing to date me as the result of divine intervention [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[fluxrad]

It is odd to me that you would say:

It seems nearly impossible for me to believe that X could have happened by itself. Therefore, I must conclude, logically, that it was probably done by an invisible man in the sky.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
It is odd to me that you would say:

It seems nearly impossible for me to believe that X could have happened by itself. Therefore, I must conclude, logically, that it was probably done by an invisible man in the sky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point... but, there is a subtle difference to what I'm saying:

Im not saying something "seems nearly impossible", Im saying that, from the information I have there are certain things that I deem impossible to have occured without some external force.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to even attempt to explain how you can conclude:

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you certain? Was that a mistake? Did you mean to say:

[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]?

Do you not see why you are wrong to conclude that?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a semantic debate that most atheists get very tired of very quickly. It is the teapot orbiting mars conversation revamped for 2+2. When an atheist, any atheist, says "God does not exist" we are saying it in the same context as "Pink unicorns do not exist" or "There is not a teapot orbiting Mars."

Not one of the three preceeding statements can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, Hume essentially proved that nothing can be proved or disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt. I cannot prove to you that I exist. I cannot prove to you that I am not a robot or that we are not all characters in another entity's dream, and we will cease to exist as soon as that entity wakes up.

However, there are certain ground rules that we as a society have agreed upon, one of which is that an absence of proof, while not being proof of absence, indicates a high likelihood of absense. And in order to not get bogged down in conversations like these, we have nominally agreed that (for the purposes of progress) a high likelihood of absence translates to absence.

That is to say, I do not argue with my boss at work about whether or not a hurricane will kill everyone here in Colorado tommorrow even though there is most certainly some minute likelihood it will happen. For the purposes of productivity, we agree that a hurricane will not kill everyone in Colorado tommorrow. And we do not argue about whether or not we are being semantically accurate...because that will take away from time I could be using to get the monitoring software up, or use to build another web server.

Again, I should ask that you stop trying to bog us down in semantics (however, I would suspect that this has been your agenda from the get-go). When I say "There is no God" I say it in the exact same context as "There is not a teapot orbiting Mars." There is certainly some statistical probability that I am wrong, but for all intents and purposes that statistical probability is so minute as to have no bearing in general conversation.

This of course begs the qustion, since you're so up in arms about atheists making positive statements. What ever do you say when someone asks you if there's any milk in the fridge, or if you've run out of mayonnaise?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Im not saying something "seems nearly impossible", Im saying that, from the information I have there are certain things that I deem impossible to have occured without some external force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've piqued my interest.

What, exactly, did you see that is impossible sans God?

[CallMeIshmael]

Again, I see your point, but there is a HUGE difference between the God example, and the teapot example.


Some people (and I will not accuse anyone of this in particular) who are strong atheists tend to make comments towards theists, such as:

"How can you believe that? There's no proof!"

While, at the same time, they are basing their beliefs (and they HAVE to be called beliefs, because they have them, as they are strong atheists) on incomplete information as well.


Basically, both groups are making the same mistake. But, one tends to point out the others mistake FAR more than the other.

Thus,

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I should ask that you stop trying to bog us down in semantics (however, I would suspect that this has been your agenda from the get-go)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is incorrect. It was more a matter of hypocrisy than semantics (though, the hypocrisy stems from the semantics)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
You've piqued my interest.

What, exactly, did you see that is impossible sans God?

[/ QUOTE ]

How much do you know about current theories for the origin of life?

For example, are you familiar with:

Miller-Urey exp, RNA selection and protobionts?


Im playing right now, and to give this type of post the time it deserves, I need to not be playing, and have an idea of where you are in biological knowledge.