Agreeing with religious people

256 posts / 0 new
Last post
chimp3's picture
Freeslave keeps saying

Freeslave keeps saying goodbye but can not bear to leave.

Drewcgs11's picture
Just so we come to a

Just so we come to a conclusion here, so you guys are saying that something coming from nothing and something always existing having the trait of needing absolutely nothing to exist or to be created is not a commonality? please put aside which theory is right or wrong and which one is possible or impossible simply speaking hypothetical.

chimp3's picture
Have you been paying

Have you been paying attention ?

Drewcgs11's picture
I have noted that yall have

I have noted that yall have went around actually
answering what the topic was about but instead point out the impossibility of god.

Deforres's picture
I suppose the air of

I suppose the air of professionalism goes out the window now..... "Y'all"....... How am I suppose to take that seriously. No offence.

the_believer's picture
To the linguistician, [y'all]

To the linguistician, [y'all] is actually something of a prize of a word in the English language today, as it serves as the only remaining live one-worded second-person plural pronoun therein. Moreover, few users exercise consistent "professionalism."

Drewcgs11's picture
Wow YALL some real live geeks

Wow YALL some real live geeks lmao no street smarts at all!

Drewcgs11's picture
see this is my point exactly

see this is my point exactly instead of answering the question you go around it at really focus on things that are not important like monkey 3 asked have i been paying attention? Also the fact that i said the word YALL smh were is the wisdom in you guys intellect

Drewcgs11's picture
im not really triping off

im not really triping off this site im just feeling it out seeing were people heads are at and seeing if athiest are as open minded as they say they are with solid logic and solid points not blindly but the answer is no so far. If i hear a solid theory or a good perspective anywhere i will consider it.I do not rule out concepts with out actually giving it thought.but this is were i dont hold anybody creditable for anything but were i can gain or consider new ideas.

Drewcgs11's picture
Its simple Reeves if

Its simple Reeves if something can come from nothing and if something can always exist then both concepts would need absolutely nothing to be created or exist as a commonality. the people who have replied say they disagree and nobody actually explained why thats not true and have went around explaining how thats not true, but pointed out out which one is right or wrong and which one is possible or impossible. i want somebody to explain why that is not a commonality

Nyarlathotep's picture
"i want somebody to explain

"i want somebody to explain why that is not a commonality"

So what even if it is a commonality. The world is full of commonalities. The dog next door has commonality with a block of wood. They might weight the same, and be the same color. Might even have a similar shape. But they aren't the same thing so who cares?

the_believer's picture
Well, the problem is probably

Well, the problem is probably that you have confused them. "If something can come from nothing and if something can always exist then both concepts would need absolutely nothing to be created or exist as a commonality" is a hybridized syllogism, so to present an argument, you need to separate the propositions. Let's say I wanted to make a post about cows. I might post the following:

I. If all cows eat grass, then some cows are purple.
II. All cows eat grass.
III. Therefore, by I and II, some cows are purple.

Do you see? First, you set up a condition that only uses one "if." That's called the 'syllogism,' and the part right after the 'if' is the 'antecedent,' while the last part of the syllogism is the 'consequent.' Next, you state some evidence that fulfills that condition (the antecedent) word-for-word. That means that the second line should match the antecedent of the first line like it does in the example. Finally, you draw the conclusion that you stated in the original condition. The conclusion should also match the syllogism's consequent (last half) word-for-word. This entire method is used in 'propositional calulus.' Though the example I gave is a type of 'categorical calculus,' both are often presented in the same way in debates. This makes things clear and easy to understand, and it lets people argue using the same terms.

Since you used a hybridized syllogism, it's difficult to answer your question well without asking for clarification, so I would guess that the previous posters just ignored it, looked at your account, saw that you had filed as 'a non-atheist,' and tried to convert you in some roundabout way.

I would like this post to cease to be active soon, however, so I'll do my best here. I think that these are the syllogisms you are trying to analyze:

I. If a Thing is made from nothing, then it exists forever.
II. If a Thing exists forever, then it is made from nothing.
IV. Therefore, by I and II, a thing is made from nothing if and only if it exists forever.

Actually, I'm nearly certain that you meant nothing like that. First, what do you mean by 'concepts,' exactly?; Are we talking about two different ideas, objects, or beings? Second, what exactly do you mean by 'commonality' here?

More importantly, you need some proof to support your ideas, which you can provide by making a thought experiment in which something is made from nothing or in which something lasts forever, and then applying accepted laws and theories of science to that object and manipulating the implications to show that the thing must also last forever/be made from nothing.

ThePragmatic's picture
Very good attempt at reaching

Very good attempt at reaching through to him, but it appears he doesn't want to listen.
He's essentially preaching: He wants others to agree and confirm. Not even constructive criticism is welcome.

Drewcgs11's picture
Nyarlathotep really ?you

Nyarlathotep really ?you have been disagreeing with me this whole time about that and now all of a sudden its a commonality and it doesn't matter enough with you childish games.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Remember I said "So what even

Remember I said "So what even i̲f̲ it is a commonality". My point was that even i̲f̲ you are right, it doesn't imply anything.

Drewcgs11's picture
No that is not what i am

No that is not what i am saying the concepts of god and the big bang. If a thing can come from nothing that does not mean it will always exist you twisted it all the way up. The way i wrote it is how i intended to be viewed i said it over 10 times in this post.commonality you know similarities something they have in common or alike.for the last and final time

1.if something can come from nothing

2.if something can always exist

3.then they would have the commonality of needing absolutely nothing to exist or be created/no creator

I cant put no easier way than that Reeves i cant believe how much of that you distorted into something that you could correct smh.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Are you ever going to address

Are you ever going to address the complaint that the big bang theory does not involve something coming from nothing? It describes something undergoing evolution laws to become something else; or are you gonna just keep on trucking?

Drewcgs11's picture
This universe has only 3

This universe has only 3 possible origins either it always existed, came from nothing, or it doesn't exist at all so if the big bang didn't come from nothing then this universe fits in the category of always existing which is the 2 theorys that i am talking about. I realize that you guys cant grasp the concept of absolutely nothing and infinite and cannot comprehend the questions or the explanations. I have already explained that the universe may not have came from nothing well that would mean it fits into the other category of always existing.if that is a commonality then that is an agreeing position with religious people the point of this thread.

Deforres's picture
" This universe has only 3

" This universe has only 3 possible origins"

THAT is some presumptuous bullshit on your part.

Drewcgs11's picture
Nyarlathotep it implies alot

Nyarlathotep it implies alot of things but you cant even comprehend the foundation of the concept.you have to crawl before you walk i have gave up on explaining what it implies a long time ago in this thread because you guy cant even get the basic of the concept like i said its like explaining evolution to a Christian.

Drewcgs11's picture
Its only 3 possible origins

Its only 3 possible origins to this universe unless there is a multiverse and would have the same 3 possible origins.

Deforres's picture
You seem to think that there

You seem to think that there is nothing else to be learned about the universe or its beginnings. You are sadly mistaken.

mykcob4's picture
Okay, we should lock down

Okay, we should lock down this thread. It's obvious that no one will convince anyone. It's petty and nonsensical. At this point, I really don't care. Andrewcgs and your surrogates can believe that god and the big bang have a lot in common. The rest of us will rely on what we know to be true. Fair enough?

Drewcgs11's picture
"You seem to think that there

"You seem to think that there is nothing else to be learned about the universe or its beginnings. You are sadly mistaken " quite the opposite and the very thing i am trying to explain/prove but i have did all i can do i i dont think i could explain it any better so its on you guys weather you take the knowledge or not

Deforres's picture
You say there is more to be

You say there is more to be learned, yet you deny the possibility of us learning of other possible origins for the universe. Hypocrisy at its finest tastes like ground up lead.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Yeah, I'm not sure which is

Yeah, I'm not sure which is more disturbing. The false dilemma "this universe has only 3 possible origins", or the hypocrisy you pointed out.

/e
also didn't he tell us there were only 2 options about 3 days ago?

Deforres's picture
Looking back, yes, as a

Looking back, yes, as a matter of fact he did.

Deforres's picture
To quote his OP: "so we got

To quote his OP: "so we got it down to 2 answers"

Vs today:

"It's only three possible origins to this universe"

mykcob4's picture
You aren't offering knowledge

You aren't offering knowledge. You are proffering bullshit and want us to blindly accept it. When we don't you start with the childish name calling.

Drewcgs11's picture
Yes i added the fact that

Yes i added the fact that there could be absolutely nothing at all and what we are experiencing isn't real so like i said im not perfect i make mistakes you guys act like it some crime to make corrections! Like i said you guys love to point out flaws that is not a wise characteristic trait

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.