GrƷƷd said:I don't wanna get in this debate or anything and am kind in the middle in this argument, but I found this funny.
Yeah I also noticed that it was flawed when it said "the belief" since Atheism is not a belief.Cann!bal said:That image is making a straw man argument, by misrepresentation of an atheists beliefs in an attempt to downgrade atheism in general. Atheism is solely the rejection of a god, nothing more. It does not imply you believe in big bang, evolution nor does it even imply you can't believe in superstitious concepts, such as the magic, afterlife and souls. For example; Buddhists do not believe in god, therefore, are atheists, however, some believe there is an afterlife.
Cann!bal said:That image is making a straw man argument, by misrepresentation of an atheists beliefs in an attempt to downgrade atheism in general. Atheism is solely the rejection of a god, nothing more. It does not imply you believe in big bang, evolution nor does it even imply you can't believe in superstitious concepts, such as the magic, afterlife and souls. For example; Buddhists do not believe in god, therefore, are atheists, however, some believe there is an afterlife.
Quattro said:How can there logically not be a primary creator? Show me how my logic is wrong. It is not an argument from ignorance because there is a logical chain that is followed.
Quattro said:Same goes for believing in God. just because I believe in God doesnt mean I have to believe hes omniscient omnipotent or in Jesus or anything else lol.
GrƷƷd said:Yeah I also noticed that it was flawed when it said "the belief" since Atheism is not a belief.
Leader said:Well, you would have to clarify in which "God" you believe.
Cann!bal said:I have! It's an argument from ignorance and a cop out, you're simply in denial of my aforementioned logic.
Quattro said:God, the creator of the universe eternal and outside the 'system'. Closest defined God would be Arsitotle's God
Quattro said:how is it an argument from ignorance explain.
Everyone one of your responses to this thread as follows:
I provide a logical explanation
you claim its some sort of fallacy without explaining why you claim it.
This is the worst debate ive ever been in. If you dont feel like you need to explain any decision or explanation you give I may as well not waste my time because you are acting in ignorance.
Cann!bal said:I have explained why it is an argument from ignorance several times!
"How do you know that there must be a primary creator? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance."
I have explained why they are fallacies.
YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!
Quattro said:Lol if you think that is an argument against God, then I have you are committing an argument from ignorance as well LOL!
How do you know there must be NO GOD? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.
YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!
On a more serious note;
You have a creator, your creator has a creator, your creator's creator has a creator. We follow this chain all the way down to THE FIRST EVER CREATOR. THAT CREATOR WHO IS FIRST MUST CREATE WITHOUT BEING CREATED. If you are saying that is logically incorrect you are simply ignorant and I will be done debating with you. If any neutral person were to look at our arguments up until this point, and only base the correct answer based on the argument given I would have beaten you by a landslide at this point.
Leader said:You realize that if you trace back your lineage to the beginning of time, you will end up at a molecular level, with particles so small that we can't even imagine. It would not lead back to God.
Quattro said:Lol if you think that is an argument against God, then I have you are committing an argument from ignorance as well LOL!
How do you know there must be NO GOD? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.
YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!
You have a creator, your creator has a creator, your creator's creator has a creator. We follow this chain all the way down to THE FIRST EVER CREATOR. THAT CREATOR WHO IS FIRST MUST CREATE WITHOUT BEING CREATED. If you are saying that is logically incorrect you are simply ignorant and I will be done debating with you. If any neutral person were to look at our arguments up until this point, and only base the correct answer based on the argument given I would have beaten you by a landslide at this point.
Quattro said:yup. i do and whatever you want to say is the smallest particle would have been created by God. I am not claiming adam and eve created that it would be prepostorous. Evolution is a legitimate and acceptable theory. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts it as correct.
anyways I wont be entertaining points from you at this point only cannib!l. 2 against 1 isnt very fair, and I dont have much spare time to be able to hold 2 seperate arguments.
Cann!bal said:I am not committing a fallacy.
I never claimed there must be no god, I said logic chiefly favors the likeliness of there being no god. Regardless, you're the claimant, I am the rejector of your claim. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.
That's not correct, you do not understand the process of how we came to be. You're scientifically illiterate, you exhibited this earlier.
Plus, the logic you convey is that everything has a creator, not that it eventually ends it ends and there's one that's creatorless.
Quattro said:anyways I wont be entertaining points from you at this point only cannib!l. 2 against 1 isnt very fair, and I dont have much spare time to be able to hold 2 seperate arguments.
Quattro said:What have we discovered about our universe that would invalidate there being a primary creator. Also there would HAVE to be a primary creator otherwise our universe would be infinite and have no finite start point, which we know by science is not true.
Quattro said:This statement right here proves my point that you cannot read. This entire time that is exactly what I have been claiming.
I am out of this thread, I am sick of arguing with illiterate baboons. I truly believe if you went to school you wouldn't even be able to hold a 1.8 gpa in any philosophy course regardless of content.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?