An Open Audio Letter to Richard Dawkins

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
toto974's picture
@ GabrielSerafin

@ GabrielSerafin

Eternal doesn't mean outside of time, it just mean an infinite (or endless) duration of time.

GabrielSerafin's picture
Sapporo Said:The Big Bang is

Sapporo Said:
“The Big Bang is the earliest known event in the universe. That does not mean that it was the first event, nor does it mean that the universe had a beginning, unless you arbitrarily define the universe as "beginning" from that point.”

The mind of man has been able to calculate the age of the universe at around 13.8 billion years based on measurements of the expansion rate of the universe. So yes, the universe had a beginning. In order for something to have a beginning it must exist inside of time. Prior to the calculations of Lemaitre and the evidence observed by Hubble, the belief was that the universe was eternal. Thus the foundation of modern astronomy is the Primordial Atom—aka The Big Bang. TIME is the measurement of change, and the science behind the Big Bang asserts that Time and Matter came into existence together; thus the Cause that began Time is outside of time itself—it is eternal. Eternal, meaning, not having a beginning.

After all, in nothing existed 999 zillion trillion billion eons ago, nothing could possibly exist today, being that it is impossible for nothingness to produce anything. Yet here you are.

So if you believe in science then you agree that Matter and time are 13.8 billion years old. The very fact that you exist is proof of that there has to be an eternal Cause in order for existence itself to exist. You say you don’t believe in miracles, yet your very existence is a miracle in itself, being that miracles are super-natural— meaning outside/above the laws of nature— and we know that the laws of nature themselves had a beginning, as they exist in the context of time and matter, which came to be with the Big Bang.

The good news is that your existence has a purpose. The bad news is that eternal separation from God are as real as the nose on your face. And we don’t want that.

Sheldon's picture
"The mind of man has been

"The mind of man has been able to calculate the age of the universe at around 13.8 billion years based on measurements of the expansion rate of the universe. So yes, the universe had a beginning. "

Not at all, and Sapporo just told you this is an arbitrary assumption you are making. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that the universe didn't exist, indeed has not always existed, in some different form prior to the big bang?

You are making sweeping unevidenced assumptions that science does not support. Besides you're being very disingenuous as your own superstition was founded on a creation myth in the bible that bears no factual resemblance to anything science has discovered about the origins of the universe, our planet, and the origins of species and human life. Your beliefs have to ignore what your own religion originally claimed, and now you're even pretending that the scientific facts that have completely refuted the creation myth in Genesis somehow supports your beliefs in the existence of that deity.

"The good news is that your existence has a purpose. The bad news is that eternal separation from God are as real as the nose on your face. And we don’t want that."

More unevidenced claims, I have cautioned you that as an atheist I do not care to be preached at, please desist and stick to proper debate. Your deity has no more evidence to support it than cupid, the Roman diety of love. Address that fact please, and desist from preaching sermons.

Cognostic's picture
@GabrielSerafin: "After

@GabrielSerafin: "After all, in nothing existed 999 zillion trillion billion eons ago, nothing could possibly exist today, being that it is impossible for nothingness to produce anything."

Where did you get the idea that nothing could exist. To "exist" means there is something there, even if you are calling that something "nothing." Lawrence Krauss has effectively pointed out, we have no example of nothing anywhere in the universe. All we once thought of as nothing is actually something. When we observe nothing, we get quantum fluctuations and particles pop into and out of existence from nothing. It's a fact that "nothing" as we know it, is highly unstable. "NO ONE CAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TIME OR SPACE BEYOND PLANCK TIME WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE A TOTAL MORON." Your god of the Gaps bullshit is moronic. You do not get to assert a first cause. Even if you do assert a first cause, how do you rule out a natural cause? How do you rule out all the other creator gods? How do you rule out blue universe creating bunnies? Frankly, you are just demonstrating an amazing degree of IGNORANCE.

arakish's picture
@ Grape Paraffin

@ Grape Paraffin

You certainly ain't got any kind of clue about cosmology. I'll tell you how the universe started. I was visiting Tin-Man on Taco Tuesday at some point in the ancient past some 14 billion years ago. Then I had this severe attack of gas … and BOOM! … there it was. Been expanding ever since.

Go back to college and study up in cosmology.

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ Grape Paraffin

@ Grape Paraffin

Another point. TIME does NOT exist. Time is a simple concept constructed by us humans. We invented this concept to provide us with a framework for better understanding. Ultimately Time does not exist. Think Critically about it.

The good news is that your existence has a purpose. The bad news is that eternal separation from God are as real as the nose on your face. And we don’t want that.

And you have this completely and utterly WRONG! There is no purpose for existence other than it does exist.

Eternal separation from your three deities known as the Illusory Sky Faerie, Bewitched Lich Virgin, and Conjured Comical Spook?

Please provide objective hard empirical evidence than any one of your three deities exist.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

Otherwise, The Eleven Razors: (especially mine)

  1. Sagan’s Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. ♥ ⇒ Arakish’s Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE. Or, if there is no evidence for “it,” then “it” does not exist.
  4. Xenoview’s Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Randomhero1982’s Razor: If it's not evidenced, it's bollocks.
  6. Cognostic’s Razor: Any dweeb can make an assertion.
  7. LogicFTW’s Razor: You MUST first prove your religion/claim is not a con.
  8. CyberLN’s Razor: A nice vinaigrette dressing must be served with any word salad.
  9. Nyarlathotep’s Razor: Homines quod muta (People is dumb).
  10. Philip K Dick’s Razor: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
  11. Tin-Man’s Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
  • Cognostic’s Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
"Belief in God’s existence is

"Belief in God’s existence is a rational ascent that reason demands,"

No it isn't, not until you offer some evidence for the claim.

"The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the cause behind the Big Bang is a rational source. "

No it isn't, again you would need to evidence this bare claim. You've also used a logical fallacy called "begging the question". You are arguing for a cause, and have made an assumption about what you're arguing for in that argument, by assuming the Big Bang required a cause.

"Without logic order is impossible."

Firstly logic is a human creation, that we use to better validate beliefs we hold about reality, is has no causal effect beyond the reason it was designed for, which is to better help us understand reality. It is simply a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, some of which you are breaking in that post, by using known logical fallacies.

"harmony and order is not accidental "

Another unevidenced claim, this is pretty typical fare from apologists I must say.

"The problem with atheism is that it is a futile psychological attempt to disprove reason,"

Not even close, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. So this is a demonstrably absurd claim, perhaps you meant to say atheists, but even that would be an asinine and unevidenced generalisation.

" thus it renders otherwise smart people into unwise human beings."

So you are claiming you are unwise to disbelieve all the thousands of other deities humans have created then? Perhaps you could explain how you irrational facile soundbites for **A** deity get you any closer to the one you believe is real? As the only thing that is unwise is to believe any claim without sufficient objective evidence, and you have so far demonstrated none.

" In reality, atheism is a psychological condition"

No it isn't, every human baby ever born is born an atheist. You really need to Google the definition of atheism as your proselytising rant against atheism is woefully wrong.

" it’s (atheism) certainly not a rational conclusion, no matter how much one attempts to ascertain it. "

Oh really? Could please explain how disbelief in a deity involves either logical fallacies, or does not adhere to the principles of logic? Only you seem to be making yet another unevidenced claim.

"A mental block if you will; in theological terms, a darkening of the intellect."

You're safe enough, as nothing you've posted here suggests you have an intellect to darken. Do you really think trolling atheists like this is a compelling argument for the validity of your superstitious religious beliefs? You have demonstrated not one shred of objective evidence for your belief, you haven't even tried to evidence it at all, just attacked those who don't share your belief with puerile and thinly disguised ad hominem.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Gabriel

@ Gabriel

The problem with atheism is that it is a futile psychological attempt to disprove reason, thus it renders otherwise smart people into unwise human beings. There’s a huge difference between being smart and being wise. In reality, atheism is a psychological condition— it’s certainly not a rational conclusion, no matter how much one attempts to ascertain it. A mental block if you will; in theological terms, a darkening of the intellect.

What an utter utter, utter, utter, load of self serving unevidenced bollocks. You really have a problem.

dogalmighty's picture
The problem with atheism is

The problem with atheism is that it is a futile psychological attempt to disprove reason, thus it renders otherwise smart people into unwise human beings.

You are confused. That seems an irrational statement within itself. You see, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, due to lack of evidence. Huh. Without theist assertion of a god, atheism wouldn't even exist...with evidence of a god, atheism would not exist. Bring some. Instead of attacking people, because you can not prove your belief, find some evidence, and make atheism go poof. Now how can showing that a belief without evidence, be, unreasonable? It can't. Actually as fact, and using reason, it is not logical to believe something on faith...that is illogical. So it is you, being a theist, that fails at reason.

dogalmighty's picture
Now put up (objective

Now put up (objective evidence) or, shut up.

arakish's picture
@ Gabriel Serafin (sounds

@ Gabriel Serafin (sounds like grape paraffin LMAO)

My ultimate question is: "Why in the fuck are you posting this bullshit here instead of emailing it to Richard Dawkins?"

Can't get much thicker.

rmfr

LostLocke's picture
Hmmmm, am I getting a whiff

Hmmmm, am I getting a whiff of an unwashed sock?
It's so hard to tell these days.

Cognostic's picture
@LostLockeL It's Mushroom

@LostLockeL It's Mushroom Madness. It's what happens to mushrooms when they venture outside the dank, darkened, moist, candle lit pews and into the light of day. Direct sunlight causes them to melt and give off that horrible odor. If they can not get back to the pews in time, and their feast of darkness and bullshit, they may fade away completely. That's why we have so many drive by mushroom attacks. The mushroom people can not be out in the light of day for long.

GabrielSerafin's picture
Sheldon said:

Sheldon said:
Time exists only because the physical universe exists, and did not exist prior to the big bang.

Yes. This is exactly correct. This alone is logical evidence that the Cause of time and the physical universe is not physical or in time—in other words, the Cause is eternal (outside of time), and spiritual (non-physical). But don’t let the word spiritual confuse you; you must understand it from a theological definition.

Sheldon said:

The universe could also have existed prior to the big bang in a different state than we know see.

Yes, not only is this true, but it was necessary for the universe to exist prior to the Big Bang but NOT as a physical reality, but in a non-physical reality the same way that an invention exists in the mind of an inventor as an ideabefore he wraps his idea in physical matter.

Thus be introduced to the reality of what a spirit is. A “spirit” does not have a size, or a weight or a color, nor does it have parts or occupy space. We speak of a spirit in terms of its faculties, namely the power to produce ideas. Ideas are the most powerful realities that exist; it is the idea that can split the atom; the atom does not know itself to split itself.

Being that you were made in the “image and likeness of God”, this simply means that you have an intellect and a will; and you employ these faculties every day. For example, the time you made yourself a sandwich, you first had the idea of a sandwich before you willed it into existence when you actually made yourself the sandwich. The sandwich existed in your mind before it was a physical reality; likewise, everything in your room first existed as an idea in the minds of those who created them, before they were actually made and sold in stores for you to buy. If you are an artist, your idea exists in your mind before you will it into existence on a canvas; the driving force is purpose, order and design permeated with logic.

But the rationality behind the universe is not a man-made concept. The rationality behind the universe is real. Thus Greek philosophers grasped what they called Logos—that is, the rationality-or Logic that permeates nature and the cosmos itself. Thus in the New Testament the gospel of John begins with the reality of the Logos (In English translated as “The Word”). There we read:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and Word Was God . . . and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” -John 1:1-2

GOD is the rationality behind the Cosmos, which is only comprehensible through logic. Thus only human beings become astronomers and physicists who decipher the universe through the logical language of mathematics. Your existence is more incredible than you have imagined. Everything is made up of comprehensible systems that are governed by laws; even you are made up of systems governed by laws. What you don’t want to do is put yourself in a psychological box of atheism, as it shuts down the search for the truth, in exchange for a psychological lashing against religion..

Sheldon said:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? The more you dodge this question the more I must infer the answer is none.

The evidence is found in the realm of logic, thus there are a number of logical equations that verify the necessity of a higher eternal infinite Cause better described as The Supreme Being. Simply look up and study the Argument of Contingency.

A rational universe is necessary for us to make logic out of it, thus the way the mind of man grasps the comprehensibility of the cosmos is by first defining the observable order as systems and laws.

What we call “GOD”, is necessary for the universe to exist, rationality and existence itself is contingent on a rational eternal existence; just as music, literature and art are contingent on man for them to exist.

Purpose, design and order are the fingerprints of rationality. You don’t need to find a label “Made in China” to determine if something you find on a beach is man-made. Nor do you need to observe or personally know the maker of the thing you found in order for you to be convinced that it was made by a rational mind.

Reason can detect the purpose, design and order through observation and logical deduction; thus archaeology, biology, astronomy, etc. study the observable purpose, design and order of the things they study, in order to grasp the truth.

Sheldon's picture
"Sheldon said:

"Sheldon said:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? The more you dodge this question the more I must infer the answer is none.

The evidence is found in the realm of logic, thus there are a number of logical equations that verify the necessity of a higher eternal infinite Cause better described as The Supreme Being. Simply look up and study the Argument of Contingency."

I asked YOU to demonstrate OBJECTIVE evidence for any deity. I am not researching this for you, and the argument from contingency is woeful woo woo, littered with assumptions and logical fallacies. An argument by definition is not objective evidence.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

"Reason can detect the purpose, design and order through observation and logical deduction; thus archaeology, biology, astronomy, etc. study the observable purpose, design and order of the things they study, in order to grasp the truth."

That's a lie, nothing in science evidences the existence of anything supernatural or any deity.

Kataclismic's picture
The concept that your story

The concept that your story has no more relevance to facts than The Rainbow Serpent does is evidence of its irrationality.

Grinseed's picture
"...the Cause of time and the

"...the Cause of time and the physical universe is not physical or in time—in other words, the Cause is eternal (outside of time), and spiritual."
How do you know this?
How do you know anything at all about conditions before the initial expansion?
Reveal your credentials as a qualified cosmologist or/at least physicist, because I think you are just making shit up to satisfy your own opinion and belief.

I have read that the cosmologist Krauss views the concept of 'nothing' as impossible, as did my year 12 science teacher fifty years ago. Krauss suggests that something, under some set of influences, before the expansion is more likely than there being 'nothing" - time or matter.

Time might have "turned off" and then instantaneously "turned on" again.
Maybe it was only the direction of time that changed in that instant and whatever fundamental forces and physics existed were completely different to what we understand now.
And I confess I made all of that up. Just like you are doing with your god fantasy.

The absolute positive truth is no-one knows and so you're simply laying claim for everything before the big bang being the property of your personal god.
Shades of Marvin the Martian, "I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Isn't that nice?"
You claim this incomprehensible phenomenon of cosmology in the name of Your God, isn't that nice? I remember Lemaitre warned a pope not to insist on too close a connection between his mathematical model and scripture. Mathematical models are subject to changes and scriptures are meant to be impervious to them.

Krauss has more logic and reason in his simple assumptions for claiming something might have existed before the big bang than your wish-fulfilment for a sentient, immaterial, timeless, rational mind bringing forth, ex nihilo, the entire universe in an instant.
You simply do not know. Your are just trying to define the map of a territory no-one has ever surveyed.

If you were correct, why does Genesis depict the instantaneous creation, of each in turn, light, earth, firmament, sky, sun, moon, animals, plants, stars and then people, twice even?
Why is there not a Bronze Age depiction of an explosive beginning resembling the big bang, if it is really the genesis of our existence?
You might have had more to go with if the bible opened with 'In the beginning there was a god almighty explosion.'

May I suggest you try the opposite proselytising approach of encouraging ignorant folk to worry and do something about the End of the Days?
But then again, the bible already points out that only your god himself knows when that will be and that we should ignore all the doomsayers, who haven't yet been right once. Very helpful sometimes, the bible.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear, petunias time again

Oh dear, petunias time again ...

Belief in God’s existence is a rational ascent that reason demands

No it isn't. Magic Man has never ever been anything other than a substitute for genuine knowledge. Humans once thought a magic supernatural entity was required to produce lightning, then Benjamin Franklin decided to fly a kite in a thunderstorm, and established that lightning is nothing more than static electricity writ large. The physical sciences are replete with examples of magic entities being supplanted by testable natural processes. I suggest you learn about them.

much like logic forces you right now to believe that the source behind this line of text you are reading right now has a rational source;

Wrong. This has nothing to do with propositional logic in its purest form (oh, how supernaturalists love to use the word "logic" where it doesn't apply), and instead, has much to do with observational data to the effect that posts on this forum are the product of human beings. Other human beings, of course, providing us with a large quantity of observational data supporting the postulate that they exist.

Plus, the idea that the source of this particular text, given that I've already found elementary errors therein, is "rational", is another assertion likely to be refuted wholesale once I begin my examination in earnest.

after all, you are responding to this text.

And thus far, that response has consisted of finding manifest errors in your output. Which strongly suggests that your claim to be "rational" is an unsupported assertion.

The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the cause behind the Big Bang is a rational source.

Already dealt with this drivel above. All that is required for entities and interactions to be comprehensible, is that they be reliably and repeatably mechanical. Which, at bottom, says nothing about whether a magic man was involved.

Furthermore, since I've already informed you that the magic men of various mythologies, are asserted within those mythologies to be capable of telling the laws of physics to fuck off while some magic is conducted, which as a corollary means that said laws of physics cease to be the laws of physics in such a scenario, your attempt to ascribe said laws to a capricious entity of this sort is manifestly absurd.

Again, harmony and order is not accidental

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I wrote a JavaScript modular cellular automaton some years ago. The output of which is illustrative here. Courtesy of the fact, that once it is started running, its output appears to be nothing more than a random pattern of coloured squares for many generations, then suddenly, without warning, regular patterns emerge from what is apparently a random prior generation. Then after a few generations of ordered patterns, there's another emergence of apparent randomness for another few generations, and then at some point, more ordered patterns emerge. The fun part being, that no one I've encountered to date looking at these patterns, can predict when the transition is going to occur, on the basis of visual inspection of the patterns alone.

Which has severe consequences for your above assertion.

being that the key component of the property is logic.

Wrong. The key component is reliably repeatable mechanical interactions. Those interactions don't have to make any sense whatsoever to an observer. Indeed, for much of human history, large collections of such interactions didn't make sense to human observers until the advent of modern science. Even then, it took trained minds and considerable deliberation, to place some of those interactions into a consilient framework. But at this point, it's important to distinguish in a rigorous manner, between the complete absence of intelligence in the interactions in question, which simply perform their mechanical actions, and the intelligence required to place those interactions into a useful framework of knowledge, though I'm familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists have a habit of confusing the two. In short, the operation of natural processes, and the intellectual labour required to learn about those processes, are two separate entities.

Without logic order is impossible.

Wrong. Without reliably repeatable mechanical interactions, order is impossible. Learn the difference.

The problem with atheism is that it is a futile psychological attempt to disprove reason

POPPYCOCK.

Atheism has nothing to do with psychology, it's merely the entirely proper suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. A suspicion that relies centrally upon the operation of proper rules of discourse, as understood in every properly constituted rigorous academic discipline. Central among these being:

[1] Every assertion, when presented, possesses the status "truth value unknown";

[2] Only when a proper test of said assertion is conducted, is that epistemological deficit remedied;

[3] In the absence of said proper test remedying that deficit, the assertion is safely discardable.

Do learn the applicable elementary concepts at work here.

thus it renders otherwise smart people into unwise human beings.

Bollocks. This assertion of yours is manifestly the product of your rectal passage. See the above exposition on the proper rules of discourse for why.

There’s a huge difference between being smart and being wise.

Nowhere near as huge a difference as that between being smart and being stupid.

In reality, atheism is a psychological condition

BULLSHIT. See above.

it’s certainly not a rational conclusion

And this is where, like every other mouth on a stick supernaturalist who comes here, you have it glaringly, hilariously wrong. Atheism isn't a matter of "conclusion" with respect to the general proposition of the existence of a generic god-type entity - that proposition is considered to be an unanswered question, not least because even the greatest philosophical minds humanity has produced, have failed to provide a definitive proper means of testing the requisite assertion. However, what I and others here can state with confidence, is that pre-scientific mythologies are incompetent at providing any answers thereto, and that the fatuous mythological candidates for the role can be dismissed on the grounds of absurdity, paradox and elementary error.

no matter how much one attempts to ascertain it.

See above for why your assertion in this instance, fails to achieve the level of competence required to be worthy of a point of view.

A mental block if you will; in theological terms, a darkening of the intellect.

HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh please, if you think theology, the study of fabricated magic men, is anything other than a subject for pointing and laughing at, then you're the one whose intellect is "darkened" here.

Now, I'll spare myself the wasted time addressing some of your other ramblings, and instead wait and see if you can provide substance, instead of repeat parrotings of previously destroyed assertions and manifest canards.

arakish's picture
@ Grape Paraffin

@ Grape Paraffin

I see you are too damned afraid to answer my question:

Why in fucking Hell did you not email this to Richard Dawkins instead of posting your bullshit here?"

I am still waiting Drive-By.

rmfr

GabrielSerafin's picture
Sheldon said:I asked YOU to

Sheldon said:
“I asked YOU to demonstrate OBJECTIVE evidence for any deity.”

That’s like asking for objective evidence that logic is true.
Since you cannot give me objective evidence that logic is true, does this mean that logic is a myth? Far from it.

The proofs of God’s existence is found through deductive reasoning. While objective evidence pertains to things that can be observed and measured within the framework and scope of the scientific method for drawing conclusions, these conclusions are still subservient to deductive logic.

The lesson here is to realize that there are different types of methods and evidences for drawing conclusions depending on what is being investigated. For example, you cannot use the scientific method to determine such things as historical truths, being that you cannot observe or repeat the past. Likewise, one cannot use the scientific method to prove existential truths, experiential truths, moral truths, or even logical truths.

While atheism is the non-belief in God, or the outright denial of God, these conclusions are not grounded in reason, but rather in emotional reactions that are usually rooted in sentiments against religion and the moral order. Thus we never hear an atheist giving reasonable arguments against God’s existence, but you will hear lots of attacks against religion. Atheism it is a psychologically-rooted condition, and we see this psychology exhibited through typical dismissive slurs, insults and mockery against belief in God and hypersensitivity on the issue.

But evidence for God abounds, and this truth can be arrived through the use of reason. Reason is powerful; after all, it is through the use of reason than man can make sense out of the universe and put spacecrafts in orbit through the calculation of the most exact logical equation.

Thus the fact that the universe itself is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is merely obvious evidence that the Source and Cause of the Comprehensible Universe is itself a logical Source. Thus at the end of the equation, reason demands the existence of God.

This is also confirmed by science, which argues that Time and Matter came into existence with the Big Bang —meaning that the Cause is outside of Time and Matter itself. Here’s a simple short animation of the Kalam Cosmological argument, to help grasp this reality:

https://youtu.be/COJ0ED1mV7s

arakish's picture
@ Grape Paraffin

@ Grape Paraffin

Why are you still so afraid to answer this question. Fuck whatever else you may want to say. Answer this question.

I see you are too damned afraid to answer my question:

Why in fucking Hell did you not email this to Richard Dawkins instead of posting your bullshit here?"

I am still waiting Drive-By.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
@GabrielSerafin

@GabrielSerafin

That is a lot of word salad used with the intent of reversing the burden of proof. You have now become an offensive insect with your insults. How dare you imply that just because I am an atheist I am a lesser person, have severe emotional issues, or lack reasoning powers.

You are an asshole. (for being insulting)

You have not brought anything new to the table, nothing but proselytizing, failed logic, unevidenced assertions, insults, and lame arguments that have been crushed a long time ago.

Sheldon's picture
So no then, you cannot

@GabrielSerafin

So no then, you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. I don't know why theists have such a problem admitting this simple truth.

The rest is just a long list of yet more unevidenced claims, and dishonest misrepresentations of atheism. No matter how often you lie atheism remains the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. It is neither a claim not a belief.

"This is also confirmed by science, "

No it isn't, and you just claimed no objective evidence was possible for your deity, so not only are you posting a risible lie, you're also contradicting your own woo woo BS that tries to invoke logic evidences a deity.

"Here’s a simple short animation of the Kalam Cosmological argument,"

I am quote familiar with the KCA thank you, and firstly it's not an argument for a deity, it is a first cause argument, that theists have hijacked and now tack an unevidenced assumption onto the end for their deity. It is woeful nonsense using multiple logical fallacies, including special pleading fallacies, and a begging the question fallacy where it makes unevidenced assumptions about the very deity it is arguing for.Anyone who had even the most basic grasp of logic would be embarrassed to use that argument.

"Since you cannot give me objective evidence that logic is true, does this mean that logic is a myth? "

Again this risible claim just shows you don't have even a basic understanding of what logic means. Logic is just a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. It's success can objectively measured, so you're talking complete nonsense.

Tin-Man's picture
@Gabriel Serafin

@Gabriel Serafin

Oh, dear-oh-dear... Where to start?... *tapping lips with index finger*... So many choices. A shame I cannot address them all. Oh, well... *shrugging shoulders*... Guess I'll just hit the highlights...

Re: "The proofs of God’s existence is found through deductive reasoning."

Phew! Thank the Ginormous Blue Bunny for the 3rd Commandment of Arakish! As it is, I damn near choked to death anyway when reading that statement... *chuckle*... Also, I imagine Sherlock Holmes is currently rolling over in his grave after hearing that profound statement from such an exceptional intellectual capacity. (Oh, and "exceptional" is not being used in the way you may be hoping.) Anyway, since you have brought that offer to the table, using your own "reasoning", I would like to propose that the proof of Santa's existence is found through deductive reasoning. After all, makes about as much sense as proving your god in the same manner.

Re: "While atheism is the non-belief in God, or the outright denial of God, these conclusions are not grounded in reason, but rather in emotional reactions that are usually rooted in sentiments against religion and the moral order. Thus we never hear an atheist giving reasonable arguments against God’s existence"

Your non-belief in Santa, or the outright denial of Santa, is not grounded in reason, but rather in emotional reactions that are usually rooted in sentiments against Christmas and the giving of gifts. Thus we never hear you giving reasonable arguments against Santa's existence.

Re: "Atheism it is a psychologically-rooted condition..."

And I am incredibly thankful for that. My only disappointment is that it is not yet rooted in the psyches of a majority of the world population. Although, I admit I sorta-kinda see YOUR point in a tiny way. I mean, obviously, YOU seem to think it is a psychologically BAD thing that people have the NERVE and AUDACITY to use their brains and critical thinking to avoid believing in ridiculous man-made fairy tales involving some type of "magical" egotistical, narcissistic, insecure, genocidal, jealous mass-murdering megalomaniac who claims to love you unconditionally, yet will not blink an eye at tossing your ass into a lake of fire where you will roast in agony for eternity just because you do not love it in return. Yeah, I suppose we atheists are just stupid like that. But, hey, what do you expect from people with such psychological disorders? Sadly, we cannot all be as smart as folks like you.

GabrielSerafin's picture
Ask nicely and I will give

Ask nicely and I will give you an answer.

arakish's picture
Grape Paraffin: "Ask nicely

Grape Paraffin: "Ask nicely and I will give you an answer."

Just one item on numerous list of methods:

Here is a list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:

  • They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ Grape Paraffin

@ Grape Paraffin

At least when I click the Disagree button, I am man enough to give the reason why I Disagree.

You on the other hand are just like all the cowardly Religious Absolutists clicking the Disagree button just like a juvenile and hiding behind the WWW. Weeny-whiney-ass (ad quotum argument for being insulting and having no spine).

Additionally, I see the only way you can get any Agrees is for you to click the Agree button yourself. Here is another item from that list:

  • They LIE by using distorted and perverted data.

Keep going. You'll hit them all eventually.

rmfr

arakish's picture
@ Hey Y'all

@ Hey Y'all

How about another meaning for the WWW? Weeny Whiney Wusses.

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
@Gabriel Seerafin Re: "Ask

@Gabriel Seerafin Re: "Ask nicely and I will give you an answer."

Ask nicely, and I will shit in a cup and mail it to you. (Hope you don't mind if it is COD, though.)

Sheldon's picture
GabrielSerafin will be

GabrielSerafin will be telling us any minute that we have ignored or rejected the evidence.

Every single time it pans out in exactly the same way. The Kalam Cosmological argument ffs, how do theists not know how woeful an argument this is? It also is not objective evidence, by definition.

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.