Typical Conversation of Theist and Atheist

Text inspired by recent Atheist Experience Blog posting by Kazim otherwise known as Russell Glasser of the Atheist Community of Austin.

You guys ROCK!

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• xtranormal
• atheism
• theism
• conversation
• AE
• blog

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic Any more rehashed old creation arguments you want me to debunk?

We just had the watchmaker argument and a veiled finely tuned universe argument. You really need to get some new stuff, because this is sad.

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic You give meaning and value to the symbols on the cards. Just because you like what you see doesn't mean automatically that those cards were placed in that order SPECIFICALLY for you, or specifically to beat you.

To think that is extremely arrogant and extremely sollipsistic.

Everything we know of could've been produced naturally and there's no reason to think it didn't just because the odds are so astronomical.

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic Who gives meaning to the symbols on those cards? Humans do.

Imagine a deck of blank cards. They can fall in any order whatsoever. Wouldn't mean a thing to you. Imagine a deck with random Chinese symbols on it you don't understand. You can easily calculate the odds of those cards falling in the same order ten times in a row. You can imagine the largest number ever and say it's so improbable that it couldn't have happened and I say: look around. It did. It's a fact it did.

[ShaundalynChic]

@viridismonasteriense -- Your opponent gets dealt ten royal flushes in a row and I bet even you can figure out the dealer is rigging it.

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic OMG You're just going to repeat that stupid argument again??? Fuck, you're one piece of work just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretend you don't hear the counterarguments.

"No, the logic doesn't work in reverse."

Oh, no, of course not. Because that would make you look real stupid.

I'm done with you. Just because you get a Royal Flush during a game of poker doesn't mean the game MUST be rigged, because the odds are so slim. It happened. Get over it.

[ShaundalynChic]

"instantly found a watch at your feet, you would have no idea what it is"

They don't have to know what it is to realize it doesn't look like something created from random events. That it looks like something that has a purpose. If they have very much intelligence, they can figure that out, even never having seen one before.

[ShaundalynChic]

"So if something doesn't look designed, it isn't?"

No, the logic doesn't work in reverse. A designer can make his design copy something in nature or random events. Playing cards on the floor. You come back to your dorm room. Now if they are laid out in exactly the bridge hands you won the bridge tournament last month, you know a roommate or bridge partner was probably there. If they are randomly scattered, maybe the wind blew them, or but maybe an intelligence did it for some unknown reason.

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic And if you were someone living in a cave for the entirety of his life and step out into the sun for the first time and instantly found a watch at your feet, you would have no idea what it is. For all you know they could be growing on trees. If you even knew what trees were. You only recognise manmade design because you are familiar with manmade design.

Basically your argument is, if something looks designed it must be designed. So if something doesn't look designed, it isn't?

[ShaundalynChic]

@viridismonasteriense-- You don't have to know the exact purpose of an object to distinguish that some objects are obviously made by intelligence and others aren't. There may be many things that are indeterminate, e.g. manmade paving stones look a lot like rocks. But even someone who has no knowledge of watches, who is first presented with a Swiss watch, will recognize that as manmade, not something from nature or happenstance. Some things bear the characteristics of intelligence.

[viridismonasteriense]

@ShaundalynChic "Obviously functional" I can use the watch to hammer in a nail. It's a hammer!

If it stops telling time it can function as a piece of art, a bracelet, a symbol....and it even can be disassembled so that every facet of it can be used for different things. Design might imply purpose, but does not mean specify which.

The rest your argument implies is stupid: You find a football in the field and it's round; the world's round, therefore you conclude the Earth is also inflatable?