Atheism is born from ignorance...the argument from ignorance...the "evidence causes something to become true" argument...these foolish atheists...there is no point in debating with an atheist at the end of the debate the atheist admits they can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence indicates...these fools when will they learn...
37 comments
Evidence doesn't make things true. It's a way to DEMONSTRATE, to verify, that something is true(which always is). There is no point in debating, of course, because you're not debating.
This has got to be a poe.
Look at the wording "they only care about what the current evidence indicates". I don't think fundies could paraphrase scientific thinking wothout atleast butchering a few key words and creating a strawman or two.
By the way, if you disprove evidence, why do you bother to ask it for everything else?, why do you profit from computers or cars, for example?, why do you have so many books on Christianity or life?
Those with the evidence are not the ignorant ones, VO.
I DO care what the truth is, that's why I care about the evidence. Only the stupid don't care about the evidence.
Schroedinger's evidence? A thing is both true and untrue at the same time until someone observes it or its effects?
Wow, that's some deep thinking, there.
If you listen to your atheist opponent at the *beginning* of the debate, VO, you would understand that your basic premise is considered bullshit. Any further exposition is mere embellishment. Dress up the bullshit, and you just have pretty bullshit.
Facts don't change...but the understanding of facts always changes, given new evidence...science is a living, growing, changing, *learning* thing.
Religions like yours, based on dead scripture, are irrelevant to life or the living.
Jesus advised his disciples to refrain from calling others fools...
But the term 'fuckwit' is not in the bible. Fuckwit.
And what is "truth"?
When an atheist can't provide evidence, they have the sense to say, "I don't know."
When someone with religion can't provide evidence, they say it's divine.
Has anyone anyone on FSTDT or any other board or chat wherereligion is the ttopic or lack of religions is the topic ever had a real debate with a real fun day .
I have found that all debates with them eventually (and usually quite quicky) devolve into one of several arguments:
1) Faith is not subject to investigation, so nothing you say about this evidence or that evidence has any bearing at all on my beliefs.
2) You are not religious so you have no standing to discuss religion.
3) Sure, that other guy's faith is silly, but I know my faith is true because I have the Spirit inside me and unless you have the Spirit in side you, you will never understand what I KNOW to be true.
4) Darwin == Hitler == Stalin == atheists now STFU YUO!!!!
let me post this first and see later how many of the other 26 comments here said exactly the same thing before i said it.argument from ignorance . but atheists don't say that. instead we say that we have no reason to believe absent positive proof. and, some atheists (like me) have a positive belief that the christian god, as separate from some god, isn't true because of the incoherence of christianity.
You got it backwards; religion is sticking to ancient rites and ceremonies, atheism is born out of the study of them and finding them to be smoke and mirrors. There is no supernatural forces creating weather and famine and plagues and wars; it's nature and man.
No point in debating with an atheist? I think that's a pretty broad statement. I have plenty to contribute to a decent conversation, but you unwillingness to even give an atheist credit before speaking to him or her is pretty close minded. I probably wouldn't want to debate you because you sound unready to hear anything that might ripple your fragil bubble. Or maybe, after years of being told what to do, think and act, that you are incapable of having an adult conversation.
Caring about the current evidence is called learning. You should try it sometime.
Because you wouldn't make your statement look like it was hit by an IED.
they can careless about
Careless is sloppy. What you need to do is separate them into the two words, 'care' and 'less'. This is important.
They CAN care less indicates that they are able to care even less then at the present. I believe your message was thatt they could NOT care less. That they are, in effect, at the very outer limits of their caring abilities.
I think you're gonna need a tutor.
"The 'evidence causes something to become true' argument"
This is the third fucking one in a row. Oh my god, I think I'm on the verge of a schafenfruede orgasm.
Ohhhh yeah, fallacy, baby, FALLACY!!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
