Religion/Spirituality Athiest re-write the 10 commandments

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You think cats gather in groups and discuss far away galaxies and constellations in cat language? And I'm the one who's crazy?



I'm not religious, I only claimed to believe in intelligent design, and to believe that my claim is true.



1)

I specifically stated on more than one occasion that I personally believe in intelligent design, and I claim that much to be true, now whether the intelligent design is the work of an Abrahamaic God or an alien species, I can't confirm at this point.

2) Now, if you REALLY want to take it there, I can start another thread on Intelligent Design, present my theories/proofs, and allow you the chance to disprove it. Please tell me you wanna take it there, been itching to put some intellectual work in



This is correct, when you are assert a disbelief, you claim your disbelief is true. That is 100% correct, I completely agree with this statement, logically and quantitatively

You believe in intelligent design?

What idiocy

I can't even take you seriously...cause then I'd have to start teaching you biology 101

 

[noon]

You want simple answers to complex statements that YOU are making, not me I don't know man, but with all due respect, you need to get a little more educated on logic and atheism to continue this debate, you are arguing something without fully understanding what it is you are actually arguing about, because if you did, you wouldn't need me to tell you what is obvious to any "logist", no offense. Anyway, I am going to try to put it as simple as possible:



1) "I don't believe any of the god stories" is a statement, not a claim, that's the first problem in answering your question. Some SIMPLE examples of claims are "The sky is green, distance = velocity*time, water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen", etc. You made a self-referential statement, which is equivalent to a belief.

2) Now, what I did is assume you are not claiming anything, because in reality you didn't. Of course, you are FREE to make a claim to correct my assumption, but since your sentence includes no claim, I am assuming you are claiming nothing at this point and time.

3) Now with the assumption that you have claimed nothing, that's your claim breh. Your claim is "I claim nothing", or, in reference to your statement, "I don't make any claims" in regards to the statement "I don't believe any of the god stories", or, more directly (in logic/math there is no sitting on the fence), "I don't claim anything in my statement is true", which I already proved in post #318, that making a negative statement without claiming it is true is logically equivalent to the opposite of what you are stating.

The crux of the issue is that you want to negate an argument without claiming that is true, logically that's impossible. Have you ever seen a theory stating "There is no sun" or "Objects don't fall at the same rate of acceleration regardless of size", you never will, because you can't negate something without proof. Thus proof by deduction, and consequently, proof by induction. So essentially by violating the double negation law, you are going against Boolean logic, and methods of proof used since the days of the Egyptians I can't make it any simpler than that, because you aren't making a simple statement, but I hope the way I have clearly broken down your statement shows you the error in your logic. Of course, you are free to correct me and state, "well actually, my claim is....", but frankly, forget the scientific method, the set of real elements including 0, Boolean logic, and the law of double negation, I don't think you fully understand atheism my friend. I think you need to do a little bit deeper research. To the contrary, atheism stems from logic, from the basic statement "Prove to me God exists, until you do, then I must assume I am right in the fact that He doesn't really exist". So the fact that you're an atheist and lack so much fundamental knowledge of logic is , what is an atheist if not a logician (and yes, it's logician, not logicist , but then again, I refrain from immaterial facts to an argument). You're welcome

EDIT: I should have said, "you made a self-referencial ideological statement, which is equivalent to a belief", not all self-referential statements are beliefs

More babble. Nobody needs a degree in bullshyt to be an atheist.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Belief that something's true is active, but disbelief is not.

False. Disbelieve means 'to hold not worthy of belief' or 'reject belief'. It is active.​

I don't have to have a definition for god.

This sentence makes no sense.
​

My atheism responds to other's definition.

Since you don't know all the definitions this means there may be a definition that you would agree with.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Misunderstand the burden of proof, brehs

Misunderstand the stance of who you're addressing, brehs.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What evidence is there that atheism is correct, accurate, or 'true'?

​

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

What evidence is there that atheism is correct, accurate, or 'true'?

​

I'm not even an atheist fam. I just find the scene funny and somewhat appropriate that's all

 

[NoMayo15]

False. Disbelieve means 'to hold not worthy of belief' or 'reject belief'. It is active.​

This sentence makes no sense.
​

​

Since you don't know all the definitions this means there may be a definition that you would agree with.
​

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? I don't have to have my own definition of X to disbelieve in X defined by someone else.

You're right. There may be. And once I'm presented with that, I will cease to be an atheist.

 

[blackzeus]

No, you didn't say anything about self-awareness, you said animals don't know right from wrong, implying they don't demonstrate a set of morals. That's just false. You don't know what you're talking about.

You also don't understand the logical fallacies, you just list them because you think it discredits anyone else. I've addressed your bullshyt point, but you ignore it and keep repeating that you've proved something.

Besides, you directed insults at other people before they were directed back at you. So stop being a bytch and throwing out insults if you can't take it yourself.



If that were true, you wouldn't have ignored my post addressing the flaws in your position.

...... Participation is a key factor to what we call the belief system, or what I call the God gene. Animals are true atheists, they have no set of beliefs, and animal doesn't know right from wrong unless its trained. They eat, f*ck, kill, sh*t, and sleep in no particular order, going from one day to the next without a care in the world until their belly is empty. So essentially animals aren't even watching the TV.

....Now as HUMANS, by NATURE, we're ALWAYS watching the TV. It's nothing you can do about it. You as a human are self-aware, even the most secluded tribes have belief systems. So you may not want to watch the TV, but you're aware it's on. In other words, you may agree/disagree with certain things, but you're AWARE, not consciously, but sub-consciously. It's your fate as the dominant species on this planet, it's what separates you from the rest of the mammals. That's why I call it the "God gene". You as a human can't avoid having a belief, even if that belief is to believe in nothing

^^^you're quoting parts and not my entire statement. It should have been fairly simple to infer from the second paragraph I was talking about self-awareness as a whole. Morals stem from self-awareness. If you live to eat, sh*t, f*ck, and sleep you gives 2 f*cks about anything else. You think dogs care about the environment? Animals are not self-aware breh, perhaps you think your dog has a set of morals, let's see what happens if you put a t-bone steak between him and a disabled three-legged dog, to see if he will allow the disabled dog to get first dibs on the steak Hurl all the insults you want breh, they're not changing the FACTS I stated

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? I don't have to have my own definition of X to disbelieve in X defined by someone else.

I'm a theological noncognitivist. I have no idea what YOU mean by the term 'god'. Your sentence makes no sense.​

You're right. There may be. And once I'm presented with that, I will cease to be an atheist.

You're not an atheist NOW.
​

 

[noon]

Animals are not self-aware breh, perhaps you think your dog has a set of morals, let's see what happens if you put a t-bone steak between him and a disabled three-legged dog, to see if he will allow the disabled dog to get first dibs on the steak

Let's hope no one does a simple Google search to find out you may be wrong eh?

 

[blackzeus]

You believe in intelligent design?

What idiocy

I can't even take you seriously...cause then I'd have to start teaching you biology 101

We gon' start another thread and get it crackin' on intelligent design

NONE of this defends your beliefs besides you debating the rules of the debate.

Why do you even waste your fukking time?

This thread wasn't about my beliefs, it was about the irony of atheists mimicking a set of rules emanating from a theology. That would be like Christians making their own set of rules from the Book of Satan , then I and several others stated that in actuality atheism is a religion, much to the chagrin of you pseudo -atheists, then I personally proved the illogical position of being and agnostic atheist, and then nikkaz REALLY got heated. That's pretty much the thread up until this point, not sure what relevance my beliefs have to this thread.

 

[NoMayo15]

I'm a theological noncognitivist. I have no idea what YOU mean by the term 'god'. Your sentence makes no sense.​

You're not an atheist NOW.
​

My point is it doesn't matter what I mean by it. What I reject is any specific god definition that has been given to me thus far. I don't know if I understand noncognitivism, but in another thread you made some analogy to evil. Evil is something not clearly defined, different people have different ideas of what classifies as evil. Would you say it's nonsensical to talk about evil?

And by what standard or definition do I not fit the atheist label?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

My point is it doesn't matter what I mean by it. What I reject is any specific god definition that has been given to me thus far.

If you're going to discuss something's existence/non-existence, it makes sense to define what you're discussing prior to discussing it.​

I don't know if I understand noncognitivism, but in another thread you made some analogy to evil. Evil is something not clearly defined, different people have different ideas of what classifies as evil. Would you say it's nonsensical to talk about evil?

It isn't nonsensical to talk about 'evil' because that lies within human experience.​

And by what standard or definition do I not fit the atheist label?

Merriam-Webster.​

 

[blackzeus]

More babble. Nobody needs a degree in bullshyt to be an atheist.

Yes, but you are an "atheist" without understanding the motivation for birth of atheism in ancient Greece, and the fundamental understanding of the underpinnings of what gave birth to atheism, which was logic. If I'm going to play a sport, I should probably learn the rules first

 

[blackzeus]

You're not an atheist NOW.
​

And there you have it folks, the harsh truth