Black female atheists...do you exist?

[Linz]

So you're defending a form of slavery huh?

Because the fact that 2000 years ago, NO ONE was actually enslaved in any other system was possible, right?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

He is saying demonstrate an event that has happened but had no antecedent.

I can't do that because I'm not asserting that. He is.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Bullshyt. You need a logic course. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
​

Nice quote mining.

Even if its irrelevant

I didn't say it was "proof of absence"

I said you haven't supported your claim that ALL things have a cause.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No. I can't prove that because i'm not asserting that.

If YOU assert that ALL things have a cause, you must demonstrate that.

Here's my assertion: The Universe (all things) began to exist, therefore, it had a cause.

Now, refute it.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Here's my assertion: The Universe (all things) began to exist, therefore, it had a cause.

Now, refute it.​

Sure. This is easy

1. The universe appears to have "began." Sure.

2. Therefore it had a cause? Uh...we don't know that. You have to PROVE this.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1. The universe appears to have "began." Sure.

2. Therefore it had a cause? Uh...we don't know that. You have to PROVE this.

That's easy, an actual infinite temporal regress is impossible.

The Universe has not been around forever, therefore, it had a beginning.

Next?

​

 

[OliviaTwist]

No offense, but this is a classic god of the gaps argument.

Basically, you know enough to assert that god clearly doesn't exist in as much as you know about the natural world, but in the margin of misunderstood or unknown concepts, you assert thats where god resides.

Its intellectually disingenuous.

WHAT?? I had to re-read that like three times

I mean...you cool and all and you seem like a smart dude. But it's like you're always so anxious to prove how smart you are by shytting on an opinion YOU solicited by making numerous threads about this subject.

It's possible to believe in a creator but not necessarily a religion, it's called Deism. And it's not about being intellectual 100% of the time. I use my education not to be spoon fed knowledge and then regurgitate it. I use my education to come up with my own conclusions.

 

[OliviaTwist]

This is a flawed assertion.

Tendency towards disorder doesn't mean subsystems can't exhibit order.

on top of that, you don't make a distinction between open and closed systems.

This is what people get confused about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I didn't go in about open and closed systems because he didn't want a physics lesson

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

WHAT?? I had to re-read that like three times

I mean...you cool and all and you seem like a smart dude. But it's like you're always so anxious to prove how smart you are by shytting on an opinion YOU solicited by making numerous threads about this subject.

which says NOTHING about the validity of your statement...so i'll take this ad hominem on the chin and keep it moving since you feel you HAD to say this.

It's possible to believe in a creator but not necessarily a religion, it's called Deism.

Thats still religion. You're just removing the disagreeable parts and forming your own special brand. Just because you don't have a symbol or a wikipedia page on your specific stance doesn't mean its not a religious concept.

And it's not about being intellectual 100% of the time.

You might as well have stopped right here

I use my education not to be spoon fed knowledge and then regurgitate it. I use my education to come up with my own conclusions.

So if you admit to being skeptical and employing empiricism, why do you suspend those same faculties when it comes to faith arguments?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I didn't go in about open and closed systems because he didn't want a physics lesson

But its a flawed part of your theological assertions.

The very physics you claim to "understand" poked a flaw in the very thing you claim to base your faith on.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That's easy, an actual infinite temporal regress is impossible.​

Prove it.

When you make statements of objectivity, you can't just walk away and pretend you've settled the argument.

The Universe has not been around forever, therefore, it had a beginning.

Prove it.

Next?

Whats "next" is you addressing the flaws in these arguments

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Prove it.

When you make statements of objectivity, you can't just walk away and pretend you've settled the argument.​

No problem. If actual infinite temporal regresses were possible, we'd never get to 'now' since it would take an infinite amount of time to get to 'now' and we'd never experience it.

Since we currently experience a 'now', then infinite temporal regresses don't exist.

Done


​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No problem. If actual infinite temporal regresses were possible, we'd never get to 'now' since it would take an infinite amount of time to get to 'now' and we'd never experience it.​

How could you seriously say this with a straight face?

This makes no sense.

You haven't demonstrated:

1. that "temporal regresses" ARE NOT possible

2. you fail to understand what "the present is"

3. you assume that just because there was an expanse of time before the present that therefore the present doesn't exist ...


what the fukk are you talking about man?????

Since we currently experience a 'now', then infinite temporal regresses don't exist.

Done

Sounds like you need to pay attention in class because this makes sense.

Just because theres a "now" doesn't mean theres no infinite past.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

How could you seriously say this with a straight face? ​

The proof that infinite temporal regresses don't exist is the FACT that 'now' exists.

If it took an infinite amount of time to reach 'now' we'd never experience it.

Smartenup, Napoleon.


​

 

[OliviaTwist]

So if you admit to being skeptical and employing empiricism, why do you suspend those same faculties when it comes to faith arguments?

It's not necessarily skepticism; I don't go to class everyday just to not believe what I was taught. When it comes to this matter, and this matter only, I just have drawn a certain conclusion.

And it's called faith for a reason. I'm actually pretty content with not knowing everything there is to know about everything.