why do you not believe in God?

430 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
And if it is not dependent

And if it is not dependent upon existence, then it is not existent.

What did you say about logic?

rmfr

algebe's picture
@servantofAllah: Now for me

@servantofAllah: Now for me not believing in zeus, ra or odin etc; is because they do not make logical sense.

Jehovah the invisible sky fairy created the world in six days and put the first people in the Garden of Eden with a forbidden tree and a talking snake. Then he kicked them out. Later he decided that people had gone bad so he flooded the entire world and killed everyone except a dysfunctional family with a zoo in a boat. Their descendants went bad again, so he raped a virgin and made her pregnant so he could have his own son tortured to death to save the world.

That same sky fairy later had an angel dictate his holy book to an illiterate merchant in a cave. A few years later the merchant flew to heaven and Jerusalem on a winged horse. Male followers of Jehovah/Allah have to cut off their foreskins, but those who believe in his dead son Jesus are allowed to keep theirs.

Yes. That all makes perfect logical sense.

Bad Santa's picture
@Algebe,

@Algebe,

This is the best and shortest abstract of the bible I've ever read, LOL!
BRAVO!!

Yep, all the "facts" you pointed out are written in the holy book. Man! I'm gonna learn the whole text by heart and preach it whenever I can.

Hallelujah!!

JazzTheist's picture
I have never seen a better

I have never seen a better example of a straw man argument before.

algebe's picture
@JazzTheist: I have never

@JazzTheist: I have never seen a better example of a straw man argument before.

No. It's reductio ad absurdum, which isn't terribly difficult where the claims of theist religions are concerned.

arakish's picture
Well, here is another one for

Well, here is another one for you.

Friday 14 September 2018 @ 11:39

DancingFool

I never read the bible end to end. As a good southern baptist boy I was steeped in it for 18 years and absorbed it piecemeal. If you can read it, good on ya. The begats in Genesis drag, but the story picks up in Exodus. Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are a major snooze. Joshua and Judges are a great action tale full of genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Lots of good old fashioned rape going on too. Fortunately, none of it ever happened. Samuel, Chronicles and Kings get a bit confused and tell the same stories several times. We get into David, your basic Jewish King Arthur. Then there's Daniel, a story about greed and evil, Esther, a story about greed and evil and Ruth (love thy mother-in-law). And Job with god at his wickedest. And all the prophets complaining about Israel being passed around like a Saturday night whore by all the middle east heavy hitters. Same old song, Israel is wicked so god lets them get their butts kicked. The NT has 4 different versions of Jesus with very diverse characteristics. Mostly made up Acts. The epistles are all basically christian apologetics 101. And it finishes off within the wildest acid trip ever. I'd like to know where he gets his mushrooms. That's the bible in a nutshell. Now you know.

@ JazzTheist

Have you truly read those faerie tales of that obsolete, irrelevant, barbaric, savage, offensive, and unsubstantiated, immoral Bronze Age religious text about an imaginative Sky Faerie and Magic Lich Virgin?

Scientists/Atheists read lots of books and feel they still have a lot to learn.
Religious Absolutists barely read one book and feel they know everything.

rmfr

JazzTheist's picture
Yes I have; and it requires

Yes I have; and it requires tricky theology to connect the dots. I used to see the Bible the same way, but not anymore.

arakish's picture
@ Breezy (posing as

@ JazzTheist

And what about God's Nastiest Turd? You up for some septic tank diving? Then dive in, pick God's Nastiest Turd, start a new thread, and we shall discuss it.

rmfr

arakish's picture
JazzTheist: "Yes I have; and

JazzTheist: "Yes I have; and it requires tricky theology to connect the dots."

Specifically, bold text.

You say it takes tricky theology... So you admit you have to lie to get it to work?

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

"I have never seen a better example of a straw man argument before."

No, it is a summation of the bible from a jaundiced viewpoint. I happen to agree with it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
servantofAllah - Now,

servantofAllah - Now, antimatter and matter have opposite charges, lepton number, baryon number etc. So say for example a electron and positron(anti electron) have opposite charges so when they collide their charges cancel out.

For what it is worth: electrons and positrons have the same baryon number.

Sapporo's picture
I "only" believe in things

I "only" believe in things that have an observable effect on reality.

JazzTheist's picture
So do I. But what if I say

So do I. But what if I say that existence itself (which presumably began 13 billions years ago) can be counted as an observable effect that a necessary prime mover had on our reality?

I know you'd reject this claim because it invokes the supernatural. Which exposes the hole of your methodology: if things can be inferred through observable effects, but any answer that lies outside of known stuff is rejected by default, then how is it getting you anywhere?

Let's say we investigate a crime and witnesses testify the criminal to be a fat teenager wearing a green top hat; but you dismiss that because you've never seen a fat teenager wearing a green top hat before. How is that a good methodology?

algebe's picture
@JazzTheist: counted as an

@JazzTheist: counted as an observable effect that a necessary prime mover had on our reality?

So to explain one phenomenon that we don't yet understand, you insert another phenomenon that you have no evidence or logic to support and call it a "prime mover". Where's the prime mover for that prime mover?

Your analogy about a crime committed by a fat teenager doesn't work. There can be no witnesses to the "crime" you're talking about, except possibly Jehovah's Witnesses, who aren't really reliable.

JazzTheist's picture
''Where's the prime mover for

''Where's the prime mover for that prime mover?''

How the heck is that supposed to be a logical question?

And it's not a ''phenomenon''. A phenomenon is something that happens in the natural world; and the prime mover by definition isn't part of any natural world. It is a philosophical inference.

My analogy works, because the ''witnesses'' in this case would be all of us witnessing existence itself.

LogicFTW's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist
So you answer the prime mover for the prime mover question with:

"How the heck is that supposed to be a logical question?"

Now that I repeated back what you said to you, do you yet see how...to put it nicely... BAD your counter argument is? Try joining a debate team, see how many points the judges will give for a counter argument like that. None, negative points if possible, barely above grade school playground argument level. You just know a few bigger words than your average grade schooler.

The whole point it is not a logical question, because your prime mover idea is not logical eithir! He tried to point out how ridiculous the prime mover idea is, and you basically answered to me in a very childlike manner.

"No your answer is stupid!" I can even picture you sticking your tongue out and folding your arms and sighing indignantly.

If we all witness existence itself then why do some of us not see your... god/religion idea? Maybe because that does not exist except for in the imagination of a few?

Edited by LogicFTW to remove a possible negative/unfair reference to girls.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist's picture
You are being deliberately

You are being deliberately ignorant to not understand how illogical that question is. Sometimes it's so obvious I don't need to explain. Don't you know what stating the obvious means? You, sir, are deliberately being a 12-year-old girl to not understand this.

But I digress, let me demonstrate:

A ''prime mover'', by definition, does not have a precedent. He's asking what's the precedent to something that doesn't have a precedent. That is NOT MORE LOGICAL than a square circle or a married bachelor.

Got it?

LogicFTW's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

You are being deliberately ignorant to not understand how illogical that question is.

Who is attacking who here? I am ignorant and do not understand how illogical I am? Are you going to say this is not an attack against me? It is fine, though, attack me all you want, you are just an anonymous person attacking my anonymous profile here. No harm done.

Typically when I see people resort to attacks such as this I know they have nothing of substance to their arguments. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Sometimes it's so obvious I don't need to explain. Don't you know what stating the obvious means? You, sir, are deliberately being a 12-year-old girl to not understand this.

Oh I am being a 12 year old girl now? I feel that is not only an attempt at an insult to me, but also an insult to 12 year old girls everywhere. If you looked at my profile, I am a male. Is calling me a 12 girl infer that I am lesser than because I am a 12 year old girl? Do you believe men are broadly superior to women?

But I digress,

Oh good, you are done with the insulting, and now we can go back to discussion. While your insults towards me is mildly amusing as an insight to your character, it is also boring.

A ''prime mover'', by definition, does not have a precedent. He's asking what's the precedent to something that doesn't have a precedent. That is NOT MORE LOGICAL than a square circle or a married bachelor.

Okay, you defined a prime mover to not have a precedent. That is fine. I accept your definition. Now what? Are you going to try to tie your particular god idea to it? That is fine too. Are you going to try say that proves your god? Good luck convincing me, I live over here in useful reality where I can make smart decisions for myself using the evidence and reality around me to get a reality outcome that is more desirable to me.

That is NOT MORE LOGICAL than a square circle or a married bachelor.

Did you rush that sentence? If not, and that sentence reads how you intended, poor ignorant and non understanding me needs you to enlighten me on what you mean by that.

It seems to me like you are getting increasingly upset, an understandable natural reaction when your belief/faith system comes under attack. If you are getting upset, I recommend you take a break, come back when you calm down. These are debate forums afterall, you can push back from the conversation whenever you like.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist's picture
YOU are getting upset. All I

YOU are getting upset. All I did was pointing out how illogical your objection is. Ironically, everything you feel about me is exactly what I feel about you. Projection effect, am I right? What’s more, me being upset has nothing to do with the validity of my position; insisting that would be committing the ad hominem fallacy.

And YOU called me a 12-year-old girl FIRST. How come your memory is so short?

And of course I’m not going to tie my God to the prime mover; because that would be a non sequitor. The same kind of non sequitor that atheists often make. For example: “I have a logical reason why there is a God.” “Oh yeah, the same God who drowned everyone?”

I see you’re being personally hurt by my arguments. But look at how atheists insult and shame me; and how I don’t overreact. This is something you can learn from me.

David Killens's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

"You, sir, are deliberately being a 12-year-old girl to not understand this."

And to think that in a previous post you requested that insults be kept out of any debate.

From the Marriam-Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

JazzTheist's picture
He called me a 12-year-old

He called me a 12-year-old girl FIRST. I had to fight back; otherwise he'd think that I was conceding.

What's more, he seems to have edited that particular comment to omit the insults and then accused me of insulting him in another comment. What an ultimate, ULTIMATE hypocrite and liar.

But I digress. How someone behaves has nothing to do with the validity of his position; which is why I'm still willing to debate with anyone here, after all these insults that I've received (especially from Cognostics).

Tin-Man's picture
@JazzSquid Re: "...after

@JazzSquid Re: "...after all these insults that I've received (especially from Cognostics)."

Totally not fair, dude. I'm confident I have been a much bigger asshole than Cog has so far.... *stomping foot*... *arms folded across chest*... *pouting*....

arakish's picture
JazzTheist: "He called me a

JazzTheist: "He called me a 12-year-old girl FIRST. I had to fight back; otherwise he'd think that I was conceding."

Again you lie. I went back and re-read this exchange. All he said was that you "responded in a childlike manner."

You were the one who threw out the pejorative of "girl" which Nyarlathotep mentioned in this post. As I said, one method for spotting a Religious Absolutist is that they are incapable of speaking the truth.

rmfr

JazzTheist's picture
He edited his comment and

He edited his comment and omitted the girl part. I think I should go do the same thing now to avoid future confusion.

And in addition, this shows that your way of determining truth is not valid.

arakish's picture
Do you have OBJECTIVE HARD

Do you have OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE he edited?

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

"He edited his comment and omitted the girl part. I think I should go do the same thing now to avoid future confusion."

It's too late, you are already confused.

algebe's picture
@JazzTheist: A ''prime mover'

@JazzTheist: A ''prime mover'', by definition, does not have a precedent.

That's your definition. But it explains nothing about reality. A prime mover is the initial driver of a power train. It could be a windmill, or a steam engine. But the prime mover also needs to be built and fueled by somebody or something.

Your prime mover concept is just a convenient way to dodge the difficult question. Where did your god come from? Is it turtles all the way down?

Sheldon's picture
''Where's the prime mover for

''Where's the prime mover for that prime mover?''

JazzTheist "How the heck is that supposed to be a logical question?"

Now that's pretty funny. If you claim everything needs a cause, then posit a first cause that doesn't this is the very definition of a special pleading fallacy, so that is the logic behind that question.

"the prime mover by definition isn't part of any natural world. "

I don't believe you, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your claim? Otherwise Hitchens's razor slash cut slash...

"It is a philosophical inference."

It's a fallacious assumption is what it is...

"My analogy works, because the ''witnesses'' in this case would be all of us witnessing existence itself."

That's the most vapid tautological fallacy I've seen. Can you cite one thing in existence you can demonstrate supernatural causation for? We have countless objectively evidenced explanations for natural occurring phenomena, demonstrate objective evidence for a single supernatural cause that doesn't involve logical fallacies or pure assumption?

JazzTheist's picture
'''If you claim everything

'''If you claim everything needs a cause, then posit a first cause that doesn't this is the very definition of a special pleading fallacy, so that is the logic behind that question.''

This is not special pleading; in fact it's a necessity. I'm talking about the ultimate source of existence; and since it's ultimate, it doesn't have a precedent. To deny this is equivalent to demanding to see a square circle or a married bachelor.

''I don't believe you, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your claim?''

Can Steven Hawking demonstrate any objective evidence for Hawking radiation? No. So Hawking radiation doesn't exist.

See the problem with this reasoning?

''It's a fallacious assumption is what it is...''

According to a naturalist worldview, I'm afraid so; but I'm arguing outside of a naturalist worldview.

''That's the most vapid tautological fallacy I've seen. Can you cite one thing in existence you can demonstrate supernatural causation for? We have countless objectively evidenced explanations for natural occurring phenomena, demonstrate objective evidence for a single supernatural cause that doesn't involve logical fallacies or pure assumption?''

Again, confusing how questions with why questions. I'm NOT intending to explain any unknown natural phenomenon, I'm intending to explain EVERY known and unknown natural phenomenon; which includes existence itself.

CyberLN's picture
Jazz, you wrote, “

Jazz, you wrote, “
This is not special pleading; in fact it's a necessity. I'm talking about the ultimate source of existence; and since it's ultimate, it doesn't have a precedent. To deny this is equivalent to demanding to see a square circle or a married bachelor.”

You still have not demonstrated that an ‘ultimate source of existence’ exists/ed.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.