Do you think that god has arms, legs, nose ect?
Do theists know deep down that there no afterlife?
- Thread starter Oniw17
- Start date
One could use the same premise to say "deep down atheists know there is an after-life"
:shrug:
How else could the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world have rightfully/correctly represented us (humanity) before God?
Consider that Christ is God...Christ is the Creator...They said let us make man in our Image...also, when you consider the Incarnation-->(Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me ) and its implications for the rest of humanity according to verses like this:
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
I would say yes, God "has arms, legs, nose ect."
Well truthfully some theists do doubt that there is an afterlife, but it doesn't matter if you doubt it or not,
But you're being illogical, you acknowledge that it IS an argument from ignorance and repeatedly keep using the argument from ignorance...why is this?
The reason there's no evidence is because nothing can even be considered as evidence...any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps" to an atheists...atheists use this strategy to ensure that there cannot be any evidence of God...
Yes they do, though they won't admit it, thats why you said the reason you don't believe is because there's no evidence (an argument from ignorance)Oli said:
No...this isn't an argument at all.."oh you're just wrong, case closed, I'm an atheist" ahahaha great argument...Oli said:
Right...so how is it a strawman? The medium to measure if electromagnetism existed wasn't there all along, though electromagnetism existed all along...just as with God, karma, heaven, hell, etc...so you seem to agree...Oli said:
Yes exactly...what do you mean what effects? The fact that something is difficult to measure isn't an indication that it doesn't exist...by this logic black holes shouldn't exist, electromagnetism, zero-point energy, etc...shouldn't exist, etc...Oli said:Yeah right - we just have to build the right instruments
What effects do god/ karma/ heaven/ hell have that can be measured (or even to give an indication that they exist and we should "build the instruments"?)
Your logic is faulty, first of all the time duration doesn't matter, if it takes hundreds of years to determine whether the copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation is true that doesn't mean they were false before, simply because it took hundreds of years. The reason why nothings showing up is because its unverifiable, just like the many-worlds interpretation and the copenhagen interpretation, so again your logic is faulty...if it was measurable and nothing turned up then it would be an indication and ONLY then would your "balance of probability" apply...Oli said:
Yes, both atheism and theism isn't logical according to logic and reasoning, though atheists can't admit it (they have to preserve the atheistic faith)...theists can easily admit that they have faith atheists cannot (they want to appear rational, even though they're not)
Thanks...atheists however cannot admit that they really believe something is false until proven true (an argument from ignorance) and not that something is true with or without evidence....
Nope: it's not argument from ignorance, except yours: it's probability.
Faulty thinking: atheists are not interested in "ensuring there is no evidence for god". God is a null question.
Again you consistently fail to see the point: it's probability.
After all this time with no evidence the probability is that there's no evidence because there's no god.
It's nothing to do with "I don't believe because I can't see evidence".
Stunning twist of my reasoning.
And wrong.
Nope: Em etc existed, but hadn't been expounded as an idea.
Once it was then the evidence was located.
As opposed to god who has been put forth as a concept for how many millennia with no evidence whatsoever.
Nonsense: all of those are detectable AFTER the idea came forward.
What effects does god have so that we can start doing a proper look for him?
Wrong.
After all this time with no evidence at all in favour the balance of probability is that there's no evidence because there's nothing to create evidence.
Copenhagen and many worlds are hypotheses, which work and explain observed effects (wrong though they may turn out to be).
What observed effects are there that require god?
There is no faith involved.
The ignorance that's involved in this argument is entirely yours.
Congrats.
C'mon, everyone over the age of 3 knows it's a ridiculous fantasy. Sit yourself down in front of a mirror and say "when I die i'm going to go and live again in a place with no bad things or bad people and I'll live happily ever after.."
If you've passed puberty and think that's reality, you need a good hard slap.
dear Snake lord
i hope you are well and thank yiou for your analysis, i dont think it is quite as simpel as that.
~~~~~~~
zak
I'm to the point. However, if you'd like me to talk about the weather and ask how your day has been then fine..
So Zak, how has your day been? What's the weather been like? Hope everything's good where you are..
Now.. did you look in the mirror like requested? What's more complicated and how?
So Zak, how has your day been? What's the weather been like? Hope everything's good where you are..
Now.. did you look in the mirror like requested? What's more complicated and how?
Yes it is, its EXACTLY an argument from ignorance...go look it up and stop dodging out of it...
Oh wait, maybe you're right "its not an argument from ignorance even though it matches the exact definition of an argument from ignorance, it just isn't, case closed"
Ok then tell me what evidence would indicate that God exists, karma exists, heaven/hell exists? EXACTLYOli said:
What probablity? "Oh its been thousands of years, and even though there's no evidence that would indicate that God exists, no way to measure if God exists, since its unverifiable, we thus conclude God doesn't exist" ahaha great illogical thinking used in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...Oli said:
Using your logic since it took hundreds of years to discover that the Earth revolved around the Sun then it meant that the Earth shouldn't've revolved around the Sun ROFL...great logic
I didn't twist anything...Oli said:
Actually no, you need a lesson in history, it hadn't been until 1820 that an experiment that indicated electromagnetism may exist was put conducted...Oli said:
Also there's lots of evidence, just no evidence of God that atheists would accept, they constantly ask but deny and reject any evidence (this is because they don't want to even consider that God may exist)
Exactly, they were detectable in the future, but before they were detectable did they exist? Exactly...checkmate!!!!!!!Oli said:
What balance of probablity? "Oh well it just seems like God doesn't exist, its been thousands of years, case closed" thats not probablity, your balance of probablity can only realistically apply if the subject at hand is measurable...Oli said:
Yes there is, its 100% "belief without evidence"Oli said:
No it isn't, I suggest you look up what it is, or maybe I should for you:Oli said:
"Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not proof of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_ignorance
Argument from personal increduilty, man these atheists really enjoy illogical and irrational thinking...
Argument from incredulity perhaps - it has nothing to do with atheism, (it's a lack of belief in heavenly realms, not gods), nor does it have anything to do with irrational thinking or illogical thinking but indeed the opposite. There is a reason 3 year olds believe in Santa while 43 year olds don't..
Man theists are so damn stupid... (seriously, would you not say that deserves an infraction? If so, why do you do it in every single post you make?) [It's a personal attack - not something you should be doing in debates]
Concentrate on the argument, not the person. Thanks.
Such as?
Btw, most atheists would happily consider that a god exists if there was evidence to show that a god existed. You're wrong..
Last edited:
Its funny, what you said does absolutely nothing to show that isn't an argument from personal increduilty (an illogical, irrational argument), it rather re-confirms it...
Actually I looked it up when you first mentioned it many months ago: have you looked up "balance of probabilities"?
Exactly what qualities does he have?
Wrong again: at no time have I stated that things become true only when proven.
And that evidence would be?
Checkmate?
Arrant nonsense.
Utter bollocks.
If it's not measurable, and hasn't ever been measurable then the probability is that there's nothing TO measure.
That's what "balance of probability" means.
There is no belief. It's an absence of belief.
Quote it all you like: you're a permanently stuck record.
It doesn't apply since the balance of probability is that there is no god.
You're incapable of seeing further than your own delusions - you have a belief and cannot understand or comprehend how others can function without one, so you assign it for them and then berate them for the "belief" you've ascribed to them.
No, I'm telling you that saying "it just sounds like a fantasy" is illogical...obviously
ROFL...Yeah the balance of probablities only applies in criminal court cases, you know where someone is automatically "innocent until proven guilty" or something is "false until proven true"...ahaha what a flawed argument..
The qualities of God have already been defined thousands of times...other than God..what evidence would indicate that heaven/hell, or karma exists?Oli said:
Yes you did, you implied it "I'll only believe if there's evidence" indicating that you only believe what the evidence shows, meaning you believe evidence causes something to become true (what an idiot) and without evidence (when no evidence should be present) something is false (what a fool)...great illogical irrational thinkingOli said:
Well there's the anthropic principle, the many-minds interpretation, ID, logical deduction, etc...Oli said:
No its not nonsense...its simple your argument is "if something is untestable then its false" which is what is nonsense.."arrant nonsense"Oli said:
That doesn't make sense in reality, only in court cases (you know where you're innocent until proven guilty)..what faulty reasoning...Oli said:
So when EMF was proposed and there was no way to measure if it existed even after many hundreds of years that indicated that it didn't exist? No it didn't indicate anything...obviously
But absence of belief is a belief in itself unless its neither belief nor disbelief...Oli said:
The only thing that doesn't apply is the balance of probability...the argument from ignorance does apply and you know it, stop lying to yourself and go look it upOli said:
Wrong.
But you like to make up your own facts to argue against things don't you?
Omnipotent?
Created the universe?
What qualities?
Wow, I state something as many times as possible and you misinterpret in your own twisted way every time...
It means what I said: not that evidence makes things true.
And?
They're all hypotheses...
Where did I say that? In those words?
Either English is not your first language or you've been so duplicyous with yourself for so long that you can't take my words at face value.
Which is roughly what I said: but also, since there was no particular concept then the explanation wasn't looked for, and the question of its existence wasn't asked.
Unlike that of god.
Absence of belief is NOT HAVING a belief.
Lack of apple is not having an apple - you know, no apple involved.
FFS I've looked it up, you've quoted it....
Stop lying to yourself.
I'm done.
*************
M*W: As a christian, I fooled myself and lived in denial that there was a god for many years, but now, no. Atheism makes it very clear and reasonable that there is no higher power nor life beyond the grave.