riddarhusetgal

This is an intellectual exercise and I have no vested interest in converting atheists into believers (unless there is some CPA offered involved, lol).

For the sake of clarity, please don't answer with any religious arguments that aren't grounded in the laws of logic, rationality, math or science....



Preface:
(i) I define god=man's creator, the definition given by the dictionary.
(ii) I define an atheist using common, everyday language, i.e. someone who does not believe man was created by "god" (I don't want to get wrapped up in the technical definition of atheism)


Further I state that:



·PREMISE [A]: Everything that man has observed in the natural world has a proven creator
(the scientific can proves this)

·PREMISE [B] : Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)


·PREMISE [C]: Therefore, man must have a creator.


This conclusion is based on the transitive law of math which states that if a=b and b=c then a=c.


To disprove [C] you must scientifically disprove either [A] or [b]….or [A] AND


Again above is based on the Transitive law of match and logic and Aristotle's concept of Syllogism
- transitive law -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Syllogism/transitive-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[b]
IF you cannot disprove either [A] or [b] or [A] + and still do not believe [C], by the laws of math and logic, your belief is neither rational nor logical.

If you find this curious, please direct your agreement or objections towards the premises and NOT the framework for the argument as the Transitive law of logic/math is accepted as scientific fact.

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

SuperDave2U

Religion is a system used to control the masses to further the agenda of those who "know" the gimick.

Like politics.

Trigger

First of all I am an agnostic. There is no "firm" evidence of any "Creator" but that doesn't mean one theoretically couldn't exist. Evolution though makes more sense than the conventional "Loving Creator" who sits in the clouds keeping score on his laptop like we're all a fucking PPC campaign AND there is very solid evidence of evolution all around us.

I can agree with your statement that man has a "creator" or in other words something in time created the possibility for us to exist. If this was some "old man in the sky" he really fucked up bad.

Exactly Science proves we all come from somewhere natural aka "NOT GOD" we are decendants of our Mother and Father, Grandfathers Grandmothers etc... all the way back to when life was created.

Evolution explains so much about how we got to where we are today, but it doesn't explain how life started in the first place.

How was life created on earth? I have no idea but I am willing to bet my "Eternal Soul" it had nothing to do with Jesus, Adam and Eve, or Satan.

Basically it comes down to this. I don't deny there could be a "creator" as that could be a logical theory, but to say this "creator" loves everyone etc... and embrace any kind of religion is NOT thinking logically because I can disprove a loving god with your formula simply by observation.

If "god" loved everyone equally we would all live in a utopia and there would be no sickness, pain, suffering, death etc..

We can observe this because a Parent (God) who loves their child or creation (Us) with all there heart, aka unconditional love, will do everything they can to help their child succeed and live a happy life.

Sure you can say, "Then explain why same crazy lady in the news killed her child!"

And to that I would say love is action. If you unconditionally love your child you will not let him or her suffer needlessly when you have it in your power to help him.

Therefore we can conclude that if a Mother kills her child or lets her child suffer needlessly she is either:

A Insane

or

B: Does not love her child.


So using the formula you provided

A. If we observe a loving parent they would never let their child suffer needlessly.

B. We see the world we live in and see rampant disease and tons of fucked up shit that shouldn't exist if we all had an "all powerful" LOVING parent watching over and protecting all of us because we can observe that a loving parent doesn't let her child suffer needlessly.

C. Therefore "god" or the creator must not love us.


Sure this doesn't disprove that something may have "created" us, but to believe this being loves or cares for us is completely illogical when you observe the world around us.

Basically any organized religion that teaches that this "Creator" loves or cares about us is bullshit.

And until Jesus appears to me, google slaps me across my face, tells me he is real, AND heals all the amputees of the world I will not believe.

And if he really loves me and doesn't want me to go to hell he will appear. If he doesn't appear and tells me he's real, then the obviously conclusion is he doesn't love or care about me which makes the BIBLE UNTRUE.

(But if by some chance he does appear to me, I will promptly check into the nearest mental institution)

-Trigger

assi9

word

__________________
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us.

_poto_

nice try, but your logic is flawed... kinda hard to make a logic based argument when you can't get the logic part right...

as Trigger pointed out there is no proven creator... unless you can come up with proof of one, your above statement is just a big helping of fail pie...

__________________
...

aim

Carbon?

__________________
http://cgi.4chan.org/s/src/1242695804300.gif

rockhard

The logic of religion:

tortuous

Logic doesn't mean what you think it means.

xentech

PREMISE A
Everything that man has observed in the natural world was created by a large Jellyfish named Pete
(the scientific can proves this)

PREMISE B
Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)

PREMISE C
Therefore, man must have been created by a large Jellyfish named Pete

Disprove that bitch.

larrybn

Thank you, I thought I'd have to say it

__________________

PinstripeRambo

A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.

The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.

__________________

alexb

Nice attempt OP, but any Internet conversation involving atheism will inevitably degenerate into mindless trolling and flaming.

Here's my thoughts:
-Mankind cannot perceive and understand the universe due to our inherent lack of senses and overclocked monkey brains.
-The Universe is really fucking big
-Due to how fucking big said universe is, it is likely that other intelligent life exists.
-And that's just in our 3 dimensional reality as we perceive it. What about beings that exist in 4 dimensions, ie can walk back and forth through what we perceive as time?
-The big bang has one big flaw in the whole theory - where did that speck of matter (the one that exploded into the universe) come from?

I find it incredibly narrow-minded (not to mention arrogant) to assume that we humans are the most complex, intelligent species in the entire universe. I find it reasonable to believe that some higher being is playing a really complex game of The Sims with the human race, at least just about as reasonable as believing that a whole bunch of nothing that exploded into everything, which turned into dinosaurs.

__________________

xmcp123

1. Everything that has ever happened is based on cause and effect. True 'random' does not exist.
2. Every 'cause' is a 'effect' of a previous action.

'God' is a cause, but not an effect. Therefore, cannot exist in the 'cause and effect' world.
An eternal circle seems more reasonable.

__________________

1EightT

Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't follow that god must have done it

beejeebers

So now instead of religious people having to prove things, atheists have to prove things dont' exist.

LOL

Why not just accept that everyone is different and has their own views. Instead of trying to prove that yours is the best or only way be open to the fact that not everyone rolls the same way.

1EightT

Very true. It's probably the only argument one can have where the side that does not believe is asked to prove they don't believe. That right there defies all logic and reasoning. I've yet to hear any reasonable evidence for the existence of a "god", or even a higher being for that matter.

omgyams

__________________

Trigger

Let's turn this into "Post you funny religion bashing picture" thread

Here's mine

__________________

turbolapp

And we have a winner.

It's tempting to lock the thread right here, since all the universal questions have now been answered.

Trigger

Praise the almighty Jelly Fish!








Now how many people can I convince to join m new jelly fish religion? I'll think I'll add some sort of rebill to it.

Face book here I come

__________________

Unarmed Gunman

Premise "A" is false, so your whole argument is groundless. Try again.

__________________

ChrisBa

lol.. the funny thing is this all makes about as much sense as religion

xentech

But some people roll the wrong way, which causes them to do stupid things. Encouraging stupidity goes against natural selection in my book. All this "making everything fair" bollocks is stupid, I mean we have already killed off natural selection partly with society and technology and now we are wielding the final blow with fairness and equality.

Rage9

The scary part is that some people would follow it. Hell their are crazier religions out there [scientology imho].

__________________


MadPPC.com - PPC, PHP, and other Affiliate Marketing tips. It's OK to be MAD!

Rage9

Huh, sure looks like church to me.

__________________


MadPPC.com - PPC, PHP, and other Affiliate Marketing tips. It's OK to be MAD!

Trigger

Dude scientoogist are super fucked.

But I would def become their leader if they offered

__________________

jryan21

Premise A: Scissors beats Paper

Premise B: Rock beats Scissors

Premise C: Rock beats Paper

fail.

xmcp123

QFT. They're fuckin dangerous and fuckin crazy.

__________________

Trigger

and in case you've never seen this southpark episode

Sexual Harassment Panda

Sexual Harassment Law - Clips - South Park Studios

popeye

This argument is what should shut must intelligent athiest up. I have never had an atheist explain to me where that first speck of matter came from. Possibly there are some athiest here that can enlighten me??

__________________

Trigger

Leave it up to popeye to bring us back on topic.

Trigger

In reference to your question, we don't know.

We have theories, and science is getting closer to finding out our history everyday, but to say that "god" did it is not intelligent and is the answer people who don't think for themselves will chose because it's easier.

People don't like "not knowing shit" so when they have a blanket answers to cover an incomprehensible question they take it, just like the people throughout history who used different "gods" to explain things the didn't understand or couldn't comprehend.

For example in ancient Greece many people believed the "god" Apollo made the sun rise everyday. If we were both living in that time period, I'm sure we could be having the exact same argument as to why the sun really rises in the morning. You would probably ask me to prove it wasn't Apollo and if I lived back then I couldn't, but today with our current technology and advances in science we can prove that Apollo does not make the sun rise, and we can prove what does. The same thing will happen in 2000 years or so with this whole "Hey Bill, where do you think we come?" "Well I don't know Jerry it must have been 'insert diety here'."

The problem with saying "God" did it, is that it leaves no room for questioning. When you say Apollo did it, or "god" did it you are taking out the most important thing in why we are so advanced today as a society today, and that is questioning shit and testing it until your theories are correct. That's what makes science so awesome is that it can be wrong, just like in Aff Marketing. The more you fail the closer you are to success. The more you test out a theory, the more likely you are to find an answer, and the problem with "god" is that he leaves no room to testing. (And he didn't leave any scientific evidence for his existence)

-Matt-

The existence of god is not based on logic, rationality, math, or science. End of argument; he doesn't exist.

__________________
Dropbox - Keep Your Files Backed Up & Synced Between All Your Computers & Mobile Devices For FREE!
(get an extra 256MB of free space for both of us by using my referral link )

HostGator: Quick, Reliable, and Low Cost Web Hosting - Get First Month For $0.01 w/ Coupon Code WICKEDFIRE

Rusky

Heres the next logical phase.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

snavr

If I was God I wouldn't be hiding myself in unexplainable miracles or secretly talking to select individuals. And I sure wouldn't trust some dudes back in the day to write down great insights or stories about my kid.

No, every morning I'd rise, 10 times larger and brighter than the Sun. And in a great booming voice I'd say "Greetings my children .... waaaazzzzzzzzuuuuuuuuuuuuupppp!!!!!!"

ummdav1d

but, you aren't God

riddarhusetgal

Hey,
Chill out everybody...wow, 34+ posts in like 24 hrs?



A couple of things though before the punch line.....

1. Perhaps this kind of conversation is best had among academics, people who don't have an emotional attachment to their beliefs - atheists or not - or agnostics.

2. Why the assumption that I am not an atheist???


Someone said:

A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.

The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.


IF THIS COUNTER-ARGUMENT PROVES TO BE THE CASE, MY CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG

A quick note though, would the hard core bible-waivers or card carrying atheists please stay away from this thread??

This is not link bait for the 700 Club/The Bible Channel (one extreme) or the Godless American PAC (another).

I started this thread
1) for fun and out of boredom
2) as a social experiment of sorts


What kind of social experiment you may ask? Well, I got to thinking this week about a comment a Swedish friend of mine made. Living between the southern US and Europe, I'm often struck by how scarily close the largely religious south is to the largely irreligious, hard-core atheistic North is (northern Europe I mean).....

By similar I mean that if I'm talking to an atheist in Stockholm about religion, they react the same way (example: above save Xentech's response) a Jehovah Witness would in the South if you tell them you think their beliefs are irrational and don't make much logical sense.

To tell you the truth, it's scary how similarly they react - the atheistic, "rational" Swede and the ultra religious American

Then, I got to thinking about how these emotional triggers can be used in business as well.....

But I'll get back to that later....

Anyway, most people who consider themselves atheists say they value reason and logic - if you read any studies on atheism, you will most certainly come across one of the central arguments of atheism: that they are rational, logical individuals and henceforth can't bring themselves to act irrationally - i.e. believe in the irrational or illogical.

Yet, we have people who are obviously atheists right here on this thread immediately reacting with illogical and irrational responses to the argument first presented...think about that for a second (responses like "Man was created by a jelly fish....prove that bitch", "close this thread", etc) - emotional reactions to a discussion about logic, Aristotle and the transitive law of math?? Huh?


A note of warning for all the hard core rationalists here: don't think for a second you aren't as susceptible as we all are to psychological triggers as if you are an atheist and responded above you have probably demonstrated to any social scientist who might observe this how much emotions will almost always beat logic anyday of the week (all the atheists assumed I was a religious nut out to disprove their beliefs and convert them to God-believers and immediately acted on the defensive)


Anyway, If you get bored check out the following:

1) Jon F's post about 1+ years ago on psychological and marketing - Super Affiliate Marketing Blog Affiliate Marketing With The Power Of Influence Marketing

2) The Psychological of Persuasion by Cialdini

3) Edward Bernay's book on Propaganda (an author mentioned in the thread)


Here's another one written by Perry Marshall the guy who wrote the google adwords guide on Intelligent Design:


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

riddarhusetgal

Forgot the the link - Information Theory and DNA: The Origin of Life

Once again, I'd probably choose to read something else if I am a hard-core atheist or hard core religionist as both are the type emotionally tied to beliefs.

If you are emotionally tied to beliefs FOR or AGAINST a belief in god, it's close to impossible to be able to think, speak or write rationally about it....

__________________
"If It doesn't sell, it's not creative". -David Olgivy

xmcp123

I'm agnostic, but will point out that in the absence of knowledge saying *poof* the all powerful omnipotent dude did it is not the peak of rational thought

__________________

emp

Again, the logic breaks down at number 2.

We do know of a natural process that creates coded information, it is called evolution.

Even if you argue against "macro-evolution" (as ID followers often do), we can proove this with "micro-evolution", which even creationists agree exists (like one strain of bacteria evolving an immunity against certain medications)

Obviously, coded genetic information is obtained, stored, and retrieved again.

So, even without going against anything creationists say, this logic fails.

In the end, we could argue:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) Not all codes are created by a conscious mind; there is a natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA does not have to be designed by a conscious mind.

Regards,
::emp::

__________________
Get your own Bot army!
Use promo code blindape199

That's because all programmers are also ninjas.(but not all ninjas are programmers) - LogicFlux

Blind Ape Seo

popeye

All I am stating is that there are too many unanswered questions to allow me to accept at this point that we are no different than the house plant sitting near my desk.

Religeous people rely on faith which cannot be proven by science. Atheist rely on science that is inadequte. Both are flawed and both groups need to keep an open mind.

__________________

xmcp123

Agreed. There's too many unanswered questions to accept you're not though
In the absence of actual fact, it's foolish to accept anything really.

__________________

nachoninja

__________________
Copeac Affiliate Network + Liquid Web VPS = $$$$$

xmcp123

^^rofl

__________________

Rusky

I really didn't want to get in, but Its a fun topic so I will.

Micro Evolution Happens. (we see it in plant breeding, dog breeding, and on and on)
But there's no signs of new traits. 1000s of new dog breeds and plan breeding has been utilized for thousands of year now. No new traits or species.

As for Macro Evolution. Lets say a lizard forms a wind. It would be a bad leg before it became a good wing. Chances of survival are slim. Thats like me trying to win the 100 meter race at the Olympics with a broken foot. Not in a billion years.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

tweak50

Which is exactly why macro evolution takes so long.

__________________

xmcp123

...it happens slowly, evolution in real life is not like evolution in pokemon.
I'd like to respond, but I don't know what you mean by "lizard forms a wind"

__________________

Rusky

sorry wing.

"...it happens slowly, evolution in real life is not like evolution in pokemon."
"Which is exactly why macro evolution takes so long. "

If thats what you want to believe in go ahead.

__________________
Nobody gives you a chance, you gotta take chances.

ChrisBa

here's a question.. if "man must have a creator which is god", who is gods creator?

alexb

That's unanswerable, just like "where did the origin of the big bang come from?"

__________________