Scientism - The Belief System of Atheists

Actually, the Puritans were a more strict denomination than the Church of England, so they were seeking independence to more closely follow the word of God, not to get out from under it.

 

From Ambrose Bierce:

1) One man can dig one post hole in 60 seconds.
2) Sixty men can do the work of one man in 1/60th of the time.
3) Therefore, sixty men can dig one post hole in 1 second.

 

Guess you didn’t understand the definition. And all those evidences are no evidence at all since the same has happened Not only for religion but for nationalism, tribalism, etc,etc.

keep trying.

 

That’s true, but Puritans didn’t declare independence. In fact it was the highly religious Quakers in the Continental Congress who opposed the declaration for violation of their faith. They opposes the violence to come. This goes to my point that the founders valued independence as a virtue and wrote the constitution favoring secular principles of individualism. It wasn’t founded on Christian principles.

 

Atheists do not believe in a supernatural God. They do not believe there is a god, and they don’t need to create on ....They don’t know how the earth began but they don’t believe that some invisible man in the sky went poof and everything fell into place.

 

60 men can’t dig one post whole in one second. They would be in eachothers way. How does this contradict logic?

 

As usual, your history is so much fart gas. The transistor was developed by Bell Labs starting after WWII, before the space race even got started, and was not financed by the government. Texas Instruments developed the first silicone transistor, and again, was not financed by the government. And while the government was the first purchaser of integrated circuit chips, they, too, were created by men working at technology companies without government funds, Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor.

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/history/transistor/transistor-history.php
https://anysilicon.com/history-integrated-circuit/

 

Well given the plethora of evidence perhaps you could just list a few facts that show gods exist. And no I don’t listen or pay attention to Dawkins. I figured out in tenth grade that god didn’t exist and that the whole religion thing was just a sham to control the weak minded.

just look at the evangelicals supporting Trump who has to be the most immoral and corrupt leader in modern memory.

 

Fail. Nations, tribes, etc., really did exist. By that analogy, God must also exist. I really don't understand how it can pointed out to you straight to your face that your argument is a straw man fallacy and you still don't get it. Analogies prove nothing, can prove nothing, never have proved anything. They are an ineffectual argument with no persuasive ability. Example: Sodium chloride is a chemical compound. Some other chemical compounds are sodium hydroxide, a highly destructive base, and hydrochloric acid, a highly destructive acid. Chemical compounds are therefore highly destructive and no one should consume sodium chloride.

 

sorry but if that is your example of an analogy you don’t understand what an analogy is either.

 

Logic says it works. So there must be a flaw in there somewhere.

 

guess what. Unicorns have been a mythology almost as long or perhaps longer than the Christian god.


Unicorn, mythological animal resembling a horse or a kid with a single horn on its forehead. The unicorn appeared in early Mesopotamian artworks, and it also was referred to in the ancient myths of India and China.
Unicorn | mythological creature | Britannica.com

https://www.britannica.com › topic › unicorn
Another argument for deny the analogy shot to hell.

want to try again?

 

I've posted a lengthy post before on the statements of over a dozen of our founding fathers stating that we were indeed founded on Christian principles. I suggest you go find it or look it up. But your point was that people were seeking religious freedom by coming to the US, but they weren't seeking the freedom to be atheists, so you're wrong on that score.

 

No one actually believed in the unicorn myth. They knew it was fiction even as they were telling stories about it. Try an actual argument instead of the analogy business. It's a straw man, was always a straw man, will always be a straw man.

 

none of that refutes the fact that transistors and integrated circuit chips were developed using basic research funded by the government.

 

no an analogy isn’t a strawman. And god has always been a story. There is no, repeat no evidence for the existence of a god. In fact the need for man to make up thousands of different gods proves that god is nothing more than another myth that can be adapted easily to cultural needs rather than a source of any timeless universal knowledge.

 

A

The scenario itself is not logical. Since the space needed to dig a post hole is finite and cannot be occupied by sixty men, sixty men would not be able to participate in digging the hole unless they took turns, which would then violate the one second time frame.
So the scenario doesn’t disprove logic. It’s logic that disproves the scenario.

 

I never suggested any of that. I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

 

Yes.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Those who trust that the scientific establishment would never have motive to lead them astray need look no further- I have nothing to offer them. Seek (or not) and judge (or not) for yourself.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. If I had prefaced my original comment that prompted your ire with 'I believe...', there would be no onus of anything on anyone. I didn't because I thought reasonable folks would understand I wasn't trying to convince them to accept a fact, but rather motivate inquisitive minds to look into it for themselves. I maintain that is still the more reasonable understanding. I've obviously failed to motivate you to look into it, but that isn't surprising in the least. I'm sure you have plenty of peer reviewed and officially authorized textbooks to keep you content.

Sure

I think we've hit an impasse.

 

You say you did but all I’m seeing is your typical word play. Give an example of logic contradicting itself.

 

Example: you.

Now your turn, answer my questions or admit that you fabricate all of your alleged points.

 

Name one analogy that disproves the analogous proposition. The God one doesn't count.

 

yes we were founded on Christian principles that’s why America had slaves and women were second class citizens.

 

The "scenario" as you call it is an example of logic, a premise, an argument, and a conclusion. The premise is true, yes? The argument is true, yes? So by force of logic, the conclusion must be true. The fact that it isn't points up a flaw in the logic, but where is the flaw?

There are other examples of flaws in logic, such as the index of all indices that don't contain themselves. The self-refuting statement, such as, "There are no absolutes." I am absolutely a fan of logic and it is logic that I used in my proof of the non-existence of the Western God, but even I am unwilling to say that logic is error-proof.

Let's take the transgender nonsense. One form of logic goes, "If A then B. A. Therefore B." So we can say, "If a person is born with a Y chromosome, he is a male. Bruce Jenner was born with a Y chromosome. Therefore Bruce Jenner is a male." Find the logical error.

 

kool so then we should conclude that atheists disbelieve in God's?

Why?