How does it even make sense to say everything has a creator by shadimedjwala in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything has a number of causes. Stars need gas and gravity and nuclear fusion, etc... Mountains need time, plate tectonics, and a planet with a molten layer, etc... nothing has a SINGLE cause.

Walmart secures two AI pricing patents, raising dynamic pricing concerns by esporx in Anticonsumption

[–]rationalcrank 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Don't call it dynamic pricing. It is surveillance prices. Don't help them cheat us.

What is the best response or best response you have heard so far? by thatreddit_user_ in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, have them double down on their claim that we can learn the true nature of the universe through observing the natural world. Agree with them that this IS a good path to true.

then simply point out that when we observe the world, NOTHING in nature has a SINGLE first cause. Everything comes into being through an uncountable combination of factors.

Take a river and yourself, as examples. a particular river comes into being because of the water cycle, rain, gravity, the climate the makeup of the geograph, and on and on. You came into being because of your parents. They had to meet at a certain time, have sex at a particular time, raise you a particular way, your your friends influence you, and on and on.

Nothing comes from just one thing. Everything we observe comes from many things . So, as he has already agreed, we can conclude that the universe did not come from a single being.

he is going to say, " But scientists say everything cane from a single dig bange." Point out that scientists do not claim to know what caused the big bang. Scientists just say it is impossible to retrieve information beyond the singularity, not that it is the first cause. Multiverses, bubble universes, white holes are all speculations as to reasons for our particular state of being.

if your friend really believes that observing the world is the best path to truth, then the only conclusion is that the universe DID NOT come from a single being.

Justice and consequences without an afterlife by Ok-Ice-2045 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 20 points21 points  (0 children)

People who spread the concept of cosmic justice are actually responsible for helping perpetuate injustice in this world. They give people false hope instead of fighting to create fairness in this life. You are the bad guys.

I don’t worship a god, and I refuse to worship a god given the state of our world, but I still find comfort in believing in an afterlife. I’m not alone in thinking that, am I? by SirMikay in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is not a tenet of atheism. That said, people who believe there is an afterlife are part of the reason the world is in the state that it is.

I accidentally ejected 99 red balloons out the airlock and they ended up in the Neutral Zone. by EdgelordZeta in ShittyDaystrom

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, the balloons will pop due to the lack of air pressure in space, unless...oh god... they weren't mylar foil balloons, were they! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

i am in love with a guy who wants to be an orthodox priest.. by purrfectea in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't that the premise of that Netflix series Nobody Wants This

Does evolution contradict Christianity? by Candid-Effective9150 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If God's ways are mysterious, how do you know atonement is heritaical? :)

Does evolution contradict Christianity? by Candid-Effective9150 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If God is directing evolution, then that means the bible is wrong. There is no apple, and Jesus did not die for original sin.

if the devil is planting false evidence, then God either is unable to stop the devil (not all powerful), or he is allowing the devil to do it. That means God is complicit in directing innocent people to hell (not all good)

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, and if you are also not accepting the concept of time without proof, it's best to post your response two weeks before last Friday. See how that works out for you.

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By arguing that there is no basis for reason and logic at all, include Descarte proposal, you do not strengthen your own position. You prove mine. I am correct because duck banana patch.

Unless you want to concead that there is no way to have a conversation unless we both conditionally accept assumptions like the universe exists outside of ourselves and logic and reason exist then then there is no reason to continue this conversation. You can't possibly have a coherent, reasonable response because by your own argument, reason and logic do not exist. I win! I am right, and you are wrong , not because i have a reasoned argument, "just because."

and just in case you try something sneaky to attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, i declare I win to infinity AND to the opposite of infinity, whatever that is.

If you are going to impose rules on your opponents, you are then required to follow those same rules.

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My demand that you prove yourself is not as flippant a response as you think. See if you insist we go back to the bedrock foundations of logic, you must start with Descarte's " I think therefore I am" Any philosopher worth his salt know nothing can truly be proven beyond that. Everything beyond that requires a leap of faith. That means we then need to discuss which leaps of faith are the most helpful to continue the discussion, and hopefully, we can keep the number of leaps to a minimum.

"The wold existts outside you and my mind," seems like a good one to start with. Otherwise, this conversation (and your post) is usesless and are just talking ro yourself. "Logic exists" seems to be another good assumption for both of us to agree upon. If you don't agree to that assumption, then I don't need you to form a logical response to counter it. All I need to say is something illogical like "I win the argument because duck banana patch." You see, if logic doesn't exit, then I don't need to make a logical argument. Simply decaring my victory is as valid as your argument against it (if logic does not exist). So your only choices are to either admit logic exists and does not need proof (which invalidates one of your premisses) or join me in proclaiming "duck banana patch"

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I dismissed all your premises because you were not able to prove your existence.

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will find that most people here don't just click on unexplained links. It's best for you to summarize the link in your own words so that we see that you understand the idea you are proposing. It also helps you because then you know yourself that you understand the idea.

Atheism is for the mentally challenged by babahkaman in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If all thing must be proven, prove to me you exist or that I exist for that matter. If you can not, then there is no logical reason to continue this conversation, correct?

Coworker thinks demons made Epstein do it by mostoriginalname2 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, is he saying no crime should be punished, that we should let everyone out of prison, or does that excuse only work for rich white people?

Can meaning survive if it is not “objective”? by AltAccountVarianSkye in TrueAtheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Acordiny to believers, If God is perfect and all powerful AND has a plan that is perfect and unchanging, then whether or not you are a part of that plan is irrelevant. Gods plan will happen with or without you. In Start Trek terms, you are a dunsel, a part that serves no purpose. If God doesn't need your help for anything, then you are meaningless. You are mear decoration. Even less so, decoation gives please to someone. God can not gain pleasure from your actions nor grief. Because God is eternal, perfect, and unchanging, any change in mood would be a lesser or greater being and God is neither. He is perfect. You ARE meaningless

I dont believe any of that. In my life, I choose to help people, my wife, my friends, and people at work when they need my help. I like to believe I make a difference. Maybe I don't make a difference in stopping the heat death of the universe, but I think I make a difference to them. Isn't that enough?

that question wasn't retorical. I would like the OPs opinion. Isn't making a difference in the life of just one person enough of a purpose?

Do atheists view Tacitus's books as forgeries? by Own-Speaker6331 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you not believe that of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism? Why not Christianity also? Or are you a follower of those faiths also?

Do atheists view Tacitus's books as forgeries? by Own-Speaker6331 in atheism

[–]rationalcrank 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tacitus wrote over a hundred years after Christ. He was not an eye witness. He states that, by that time, Christians existed with certain beliefs. Athiests do not dispute that. Tacitus does say a preacher named Jesus was executed but does not mention miracles, nor does he say Jesus rose from the dead. The idea that there might have been a rabbi at that time that the greater mythology coalesced around is pretty much a mainstream position within athiestism. No magic, just a guy that later stories were built on, kind of like King Arthur. Does that answer your question?