Theleman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:02 pm
Shouldn't atheist prove that God doesn't exist before being qualified as a true atheist?
If one had to prove the non existence of everything they do not belive exists, there wouldn't be any time left for anything else.
Harbal...are you one of those obstinate atheists that requires comparing fairies, goblins, santa etc etc etc...to the concept that there is an intelligent being being the backbone of reality?
thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:41 am
Everything has a purpose a function, just because you don't know what that purpose is, does not mean that there is no purpose.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:33 am
Harbal...are you one of those obstinate atheists that requires comparing fairies, goblins, santa etc etc etc...to the concept that there is an intelligent being being the backbone of reality?
People have tried to convince me of the existence of God, ghosts, the Soul, Loch Ness Monster, various far fetched conspiracy theories, etc..... If I find these things implausible to the point of considering them extremely unlikely why should I feel any requirement to come up with proof of their non existence? Even if it were possible to find proof the "believers" wouldn't accept it, that's the nature of self delusion, it's not open to persuasion.
Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:56 pmself delusion
That's the biggest delusion of all, the delusion that there is a self that can be deluded.
You should be more worried about self contradiction.
If there is no "self" then he can't contradict himself, that is the advantage of denying that the self exists. If no-one exists, then no-one can be contradicted, or no-one can't contradict himself.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:33 am
Harbal...are you one of those obstinate atheists that requires comparing fairies, goblins, santa etc etc etc...to the concept that there is an intelligent being being the backbone of reality?
Well, after giving it a second thought...yes, it is exactly the same.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:48 pm
You should be more worried about self contradiction.
Speaking is mostly spontaneous, so is thinking, there is no one here making speaking or thinking happen, no more than there is someone here making breathing happen or your heartbeat happen.
The contradiction is when a thought says I am speaking, thinking, doing. That I is added on to what's already happening including the adding on of the I
Every thought thinking creature has this same I ... I am this, I am that , I am the other....it's all the same I breathing the same air.
It's a divine contradiction. One playing the many is a neat trickless trick.
thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:41 am
Everything has a purpose a function, just because you don't know what that purpose is, does not mean that there is no purpose.
I think the problem is that the type of 'purposes' natural selection creates are just denoted as such for conversational convenience. In reality, biological adaption does not 'intend' or assign purposes to anything, because it's not a conscious being that assigns or reasons. It filters out the mechanisms that are coincidentally the best option for the survival of that species.
You could explain why we have lungs and teeth, and I'm sure most would call it a purpose, but it wouldn't be the same concept of 'purpose' talked about when referring to something man-made.
thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:41 am
Everything has a purpose a function, just because you don't know what that purpose is, does not mean that there is no purpose.
I think the problem is that the type of 'purposes' natural selection creates are just denoted as such for conversational convenience. In reality, biological adaption does not 'intend' or assign purposes to anything, because it's not a conscious being that assigns or reasons. It filters out the mechanisms that are coincidentally the best option for the survival of that species.
You could explain why we have lungs and teeth, and I'm sure most would call it a purpose, but it wouldn't be the same concept of 'purpose' talked about when referring to something man-made.
There are several uses of the word "purpose", one of those is whatever the organ is used for, another is to focus on a goal to strive for. In evolution it is the former, evolution has no long term goal, only the immediate goal of surviving and reproducing.
thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:41 am
Everything has a purpose a function, just because you don't know what that purpose is, does not mean that there is no purpose.
I think the problem is that the type of 'purposes' natural selection creates are just denoted as such for conversational convenience. In reality, biological adaption does not 'intend' or assign purposes to anything, because it's not a conscious being that assigns or reasons. It filters out the mechanisms that are coincidentally the best option for the survival of that species.
You could explain why we have lungs and teeth, and I'm sure most would call it a purpose, but it wouldn't be the same concept of 'purpose' talked about when referring to something man-made.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:33 am
Harbal...are you one of those obstinate atheists that requires comparing fairies, goblins, santa etc etc etc...to the concept that there is an intelligent being being the backbone of reality?
Well, after giving it a second thought...yes, it is exactly the same.
lol. Do u real eyes how stupid u r at this point in emit?
attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:33 am
Harbal...are you one of those obstinate atheists that requires comparing fairies, goblins, santa etc etc etc...to the concept that there is an intelligent being being the backbone of reality?
Well, after giving it a second thought...yes, it is exactly the same.
lol. Do u real eyes how stupid u r at this point in emit?
No, I don't. It can't be any worst than an adult believing in Santa, right?