Not believing in something until you have good evidence for said thing is not irrational.

Atheism is not irrational.

fluttermoth wrote:Not believing in something until you have good evidence for said thing is not irrational.

Atheism is not irrational.

We all have the same data. So we have to figure out which theory of origins is supported by the data. As I pointed out before, the human experience is a subjective experience. For example, the eye doesnt acually "see" anything. It just focuses light onto the retina and sends a code to our brain, which interprets it into a visual image. We don't even see the code. But we know it exists.

Atheists have no choice but to believe these codes ultimately arose from a giant fart, floating around in outerspace.

But for such codes to exist, wouldnt it require the existence of an outside intellect, who had both knowledge of how our brains would work as well as the nature of light and matter?

Johnny Blade wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:Not believing in something until you have good evidence for said thing is not irrational.

Atheism is not irrational.

We all have the same data. So we have to figure out which theory of origins is supported by the data. As I pointed out before, the human experience is a subjective experience. For example, the eye doesnt acually "see" anything. It just focuses light onto the retina and sends a code to our brain, which interprets it into a visual image. We don't even see the code. But we know it exists.

Atheists have no choice but to believe these codes ultimately arose from a giant fart, floating around in outerspace.

But for such codes to exist, wouldnt it require the existence of an outside intellect, who had both knowledge of how our brains would work as well as the nature of light and matter?

Well, no. We figured out how light and lenses and nerve impulses work, so that didn't require a god-like intelligence or "codes" of any kind. All you're saying is that the creation of the universe required a god-like intelligence, and we're back to Creotard Square One, which is "Don't know much about history, don't know much biology, don't know much about science books, don't know much about the French I took, but I do know that God loves me, and I know when atheists agree, what a wonderful world it will be."

The sad part is, the atheists see that only knowing God loves you made you ignorant (of science), if not downright stupid.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Johnny Blade wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:Not believing in something until you have good evidence for said thing is not irrational.

Atheism is not irrational.

We all have the same data. So we have to figure out which theory of origins is supported by the data. As I pointed out before, the human experience is a subjective experience. For example, the eye doesnt acually "see" anything. It just focuses light onto the retina and sends a code to our brain, which interprets it into a visual image. We don't even see the code. But we know it exists.

Atheists have no choice but to believe these codes ultimately arose from a giant fart, floating around in outerspace.

But for such codes to exist, wouldnt it require the existence of an outside intellect, who had both knowledge of how our brains would work as well as the nature of light and matter?

Cito di Pense wrote:Well, no. We figured out how light and lenses and nerve impulses work,

Right! We are not born knowing how these things work! We hardly knew anything about light until Newton figured some things out. Good one son!

Cito di Pense wrote:..so that didn't require a god-like intelligence or "codes" of any kind.

Wrong! Everything we know about the outside world is dependent on our brains ability to properly interpret a code, sent via an electro-chemical data stream. Else we couldnt even see anything, for example. I have explained this to you many times and you said you understood it.

I think the reason why you are having trouble understanding it is because atheists never talk about it. So it might not be something you ever thought about before.

It is a mistake to think you are going to write something here that Cito will not understand, Johnny.

Just trying to help a fellow atheist avoid a mistake.

Everything we know about the outside world is dependent on our brains ability to properly interpret a code, sent via an electro-chemical data stream.

Fixed. I removed the superfluous gawddidit.

Really Johnny, you would benefit enormously by a quick elementary course in apologetics and theology. Others have made all these arguments before, and far more lucidly. They all still fail miserably.

You could follow that with a quick introduction to philosophy, so you might understand why none of the former is the latter.

I suspect that's asking a bit much though.

Johnny Blade wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:..so that didn't require a god-like intelligence or "codes" of any kind.

Wrong! Everything we know about the outside world is dependent on our brains ability to properly interpret a code, sent via an electro-chemical data stream.

All sorts of species have gone extinct through no fault of their own. Do you think the dinosaurs would have survived had they gotten a better take on this "code" you're raving about? All I'm saying is that properly perceiving the outside world is necessary, but it is not always sufficient. I think you understand this, and it keeps you up nights.

Fenrir wrote:

Everything we know about the outside world is dependent on our brains ability to properly interpret a code, sent via an electro-chemical data stream.

Fixed. I removed the superfluous gawddidit.

No, you broke it. In terms of Input/output the data would be what is detected by the eye. This data is then encoded by the eye and sent to the brain. If you dont think a code can be sent via a data stream then you can call it a "code stream" if you like. But there is no debate anywhere that the eye does not send a code to the brain. In fact, it has to be code because the brain does not detect photons. If I opened up your skull, your brain wouldnt start seeing things from the top of your head.

Johnny Blade wrote:This data is then encoded by the eye and sent to the brain.

Johnny Blade wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:Not believing in something until you have good evidence for said thing is not irrational.

Atheism is not irrational.

We all have the same data. So we have to figure out which theory of origins is supported by the data. As I pointed out before, the human experience is a subjective experience. For example, the eye doesnt acually "see" anything. It just focuses light onto the retina and sends a code to our brain, which interprets it into a visual image. We don't even see the code. But we know it exists.

Atheists have no choice but to believe these codes ultimately arose from a giant fart, floating around in outerspace.

But for such codes to exist, wouldnt it require the existence of an outside intellect, who had both knowledge of how our brains would work as well as the nature of light and matter?

Atheism has nothing to say about the origins of the universe, or how eyes and brains see; it's a single issue position about belief or non-belief in a god.

I know you're very pleased with yourself about being able to say 'fart' over and over, but it makes you sound like a small boy. Are you in fact a small boy?

You are obfuscating on the definition of "code" Johnny.

Either a "code" is any interpretable data regardless of origin or a "code" is a communication system implemented by an intelligence.

Flip-flopping between the two to suit your agenda is not going to progress a discussion.

Fenrir wrote:You are obfuscating on the definition of "code" Johnny.

Either a "code" is any interpretable data regardless of origin or a "code" is a communication system implemented by an intelligence.

Flip-flopping between the two to suit your agenda is not going to progress a discussion.

Ok cool, I dont have a problem with that. Anything else?

fluttermoth wrote:
Atheism has nothing to say about the origins of the universe, or how eyes and brains see; it's a single issue position about belief or non-belief in a god.

I think the only reason you are saying that, is because your only other option is to believe we came from a giant fart. So now you are kinda forced to say "Well, we have no position origins."

You DO have a position, you just don't have the courage to talk about it.

Johnny Blade wrote:

fluttermoth wrote:
Atheism has nothing to say about the origins of the universe, or how eyes and brains see; it's a single issue position about belief or non-belief in a god.

I think the only reason you are saying that, is because your only other option is to believe we came from a giant fart. So now you are kinda forced to say "Well, we have no position origins."

You DO have a position, you just don't have the courage to talk about it.

Don't presume to know what I think, thank you, it's really very rude.

The origin of the universe has no bearing on my atheism whatsoever, it's not something I find very interesting in all honesty, I don't have any beliefs on the subject.

I notice you're still enjoying talking about farts, are you a small boy?

Johnny... please explain how a divine fart is more rational than a common or garden cosmic fart.

fluttermoth wrote:
The origin of the universe has no bearing on my atheism whatsoever, it's not something I find very interesting in all honesty, I don't have any beliefs on the subject.

I see. Is there anything else you would like to say?

romansh wrote:Johnny... please explain how a divine fart is more rational than a common or garden cosmic fart.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have actually taken a rather controversial position and am saying we did not come from any fart. I proudly disqualify myself from being a member of RatSkepts atheist fart club.

Johnny Blade wrote:I have actually taken a rather controversial position

No, you have not done so, because you haven't stated your position anywhere. Furthermore, you are in no position to do so, what with the minimal discursive skill set you put on display. Don't hide your light under a bushel, Johnny. Bring the presence of god into the conversation. Show us your great stuff, Johnny.

Johnny Blade wrote:

romansh wrote:Johnny... please explain how a divine fart is more rational than a common or garden cosmic fart.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have actually taken a rather controversial position and am saying we did not come from any fart. I proudly disqualify myself from being a member of RatSkepts atheist fart club.

So you deny divine farts that brought the cosmos into existence?