The race of Adam and Eve?

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Yes, it does. As god is not necessary to explain natural phenomena, to postulate her existence violates Occam's razor. Nature is parsimonious; it does not allow for unnecessary complication. The existence of god would violate said rule, so god does not exist.

How one can prove that god did not create universe just because one can explan the cause of big bang is beyone me.

If someone explained the cause of big bang, then question arise to what cause such cause and this will continue infinitely. Hence the discover of the cause of big bang is no proof to nonexistence of god. It merely prove that big bang is not the proof of existence of God. Arguing that it is the proof of nonexistence of god is a classic case of argument from ignorance. Absence of proof does not make it the case of nonexistence.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
No, I would not feel irritated. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to their own beliefs, just as you are entitled to your beliefs. Yes belief, as you believe their is no God. It would only be arrogance to believe I was the only one who was right and that I should change everyone's thinking to match my own. That is arrogance.

No one is entitled to their own facts. You disregard the facts in an attempt to cling to your theism. A grown adult who still believes in Santa Claus is disturbed, so believing in the infinite anthropomorphic god, which is even more preposterous than Santa Claus, says...?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vapour
How one can prove that god did not create universe just because one can explan the cause of big bang is beyone me.

Clearly

Originally posted by Vapour
If someone explained the cause of big bang, then question arise to what cause such cause and this will continue infinitely. Hence the discover of the cause of big bang is no proof to nonexistence of god. It merely prove that big bang is not the proof of existence of God. Arguing that it is the proof of nonexistence of god is a classic case of argument from ignorance. Absence of proof does not make it the case of nonexistence.

You STILL don't get it, and it can't be explained any simpler, Yoji.
All phenomena can be explained naturally. To then posit that an infinite anthropomorphic deity is behind said phenomena is to add an unncessary layer of explanation, which violates Occam's razor. Therefore, said deity cannot exist.

[scoundrel]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
As for necessary, from the viewpoint that sexism must be eliminated from the language, it's totally necessary.

Newspeak, here we come...

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

You STILL don't get it, and it can't be explained any simpler, Yoji.
All phenomena can be explained naturally. To then posit that an infinite anthropomorphic deity is behind said phenomena is to add an unncessary layer of explanation, which violates Occam's razor. Therefore, said deity cannot exist.

And this cannot negate the argument that God created all these natural phenomena. Now, if you discover ultimate scientific theory which explain everything which clearly negate the existence of God, it is fine but such discovery hasn'g happen. So far, you are assuming that it will happen. A belif akin to the faith in the second coming.

Use of Occam's razor to argue for the "truth" of atheism is a false logic. It only let you pick easier/simpler/plausible hypothesis but it will not let you pick hypothesis which is true by definition. You are still trapped in the variation of "argument from ignorance". Freeing yourself from faith and biase is something you should strive for.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Vapour
Freeing yourself from faith and biase is something you should strive for.

That should be rewritten as

Freeing yourself from wishful thinking and biases is something you should strive for.

I personally don't consider faith a bad thing by definition.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But it's sexist and thus should be avoided.

Nothing "sexist" about it, the word refers to the human race - not gender- as I have already stated.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Which is still sexist; the word itself dates from a patriarchal society. Again, for that reason, it should be avoided. And "human-made" can replace "man-made" very easily.

No, the word "man" originally meant "human". The word 'human' only dates from Middle English. "Human-made" sounds ridiculous, and it is unneccesary. 'Man', meaning 'human', dates from before 'human' was even a word. 'Human' also dates from a patriachal society, by the way. Even worse, it comes from Middle French, which should negate it's value by default.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
It's not at all clumsy; much better than calling the head of a meeting a "chair". As for necessary, from the viewpoint that sexism must be eliminated from the language, it's totally necessary.

Nonsense, it's clumsy-sounding as sh*t, just like the modern covention of saying "chairperson" or "congressperson" even when the sex of the person in question is known, and is just as silly. THERE IS NO "SEXISM" ABOUT IT. IT REFERS TO SPECIES NOT GENDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE WORD. I figured a lexicographer and resident grammar-nazi could refute my position better than that - you're simply saying 'sexist' over again when I have already shown that this is not so. What's the OED say about the word 'mankind'?

I think Tony is actually a member of the League of Liberated Wymyn, and not a male at all. That bald guy is just his brother

[n2shotokai]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
A grown adult who still believes in Santa Claus is disturbed, so believing in the infinite anthropomorphic god, which is even more preposterous than Santa Claus, says...?

That is it Tony. I have warned you before. You dis the creator that is one thing, but Santa is over the line. I have my row boat out and I am headed for Japan. When I get there, it'll be just you and me and our gi, no weapons. Prepare yourself

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by scoundrel
Newspeak, here we come...

Fallacy. I said sexism must be eliminated from the language; not that words must be.
Or do you think it's acceptable to keep "n!gger" in daily use?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vapour
And this cannot negate the argument that God created all these natural phenomena.

No, she didn't. Or it begs the question, Who created god?

Originally posted by Vapour
Now, if you discover ultimate scientific theory which explain everything which clearly negate the existence of God, it is fine but such discovery hasn'g happen. So far, you are assuming that it will happen. A belif akin to the faith in the second coming.

You broken record that atheism is a religion is tiresome, Yoji, particularly when I've already referred you to the relevant web-based essays, which you clearly haven't read, as to why the concept ofthe infinite anthropomorphic deity is an impossibility.

Originally posted by Vapour
Use of Occam's razor to argue for the "truth" of atheism is a false logic. It only let you pick easier/simpler/plausible hypothesis but it will not let you pick hypothesis which is true by definition. You are still trapped in the variation of "argument from ignorance". Freeing yourself from faith and biase is something you should strive for.

This paragraph shows you don't understand Occam's Razor. As Einstein said, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". (My emphasis.) "God" unnecessarily complicates the explanation for the existence of the universe.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vapour
That should be rewritten as
Freeing yourself from wishful thinking and biases is something you should strive for.
I personally don't consider faith a bad thing by definition.

Well as I have no faith (herein defined as belief without evidence), I'm fine, then. It's the theists who are in trouble. As Richard Dawkins wrote, faith is the ultimate copout.
And remember, Yoji, prayer doesn't work, which again implies that no one is listening.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by n2shotokai
That is it Tony. I have warned you before. You dis the creator that is one thing, but Santa is over the line. I have my row boat out and I am headed for Japan. When I get there, it'll be just you and me and our gi, no weapons. Prepare yourself

What is your GI's name? Joe?

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, she didn't. Or it begs the question, Who created god?

Irrelevant question to me because I'm not theist or atheist. Ask that question to some theist who use cosmological argument for the existence of God.

You broken record that atheism is a religion is tiresome, Yoji, particularly when I've already referred you to the relevant web-based essays, which you clearly haven't read, as to why the concept ofthe infinite anthropomorphic deity is an impossibility.

This paragraph shows you don't understand Occam's Razor. As Einstein said, "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". (My emphasis.) "God" unnecessarily complicates the explanation for the existence of the universe.

If religioun require God, then atheism is not a religion but so are number of Buddist sects. On the other hand, if you define religion as something which require faith, then yes.

I have read the article you linked. It only state that God is not necessary to explain the universe which is not at all a proof for nonexistence of god. A classic case of an argument from ignorance.

In fact I did my reading of Occam's razor. Number of articles which pop up in google search specifically state that Occam's razor does not prove the nonexistence of god. Only your wishful thinking (faith?) make it appear so. As I said, faith is irrelevant to the logic.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vapour
Irrelevant question to me because I'm not theist or atheist. Ask that question to some theist who use cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The question is not irrelevant, as it is the very underpinning of the issue. Why stopat "god", and not "who made god?" "Who made the being who made god?" "Who made the being who made the being who made god?", etc, ad infinitum.
We know that no god was required for the big bang. So what purpose does it serve to postulate a being which: 1. Cannot be explained in terms of its own origin, 2. Which is unncessary for any explanation, and 3. Is logically impossible anyway?

Originally posted by Vapour
If religioun require God, then atheism is not a religion but so are number of Buddist sects. On the other hand, if you define religion as something which require faith, then yes.

Atheism requires no faith, so its inclusion here is a red herring. As to some Buddhist sects, yes, not all Buddhist sects are religions per se; only the ones that appeal to the supernatural. (In anthropology, religion is defined as an appeal to the supernatural.) Thus, those sects that have no supernatural dimension are not religions. The problem is that lay people use the word "religion" when they mean ritual. No spiritual dimension, or nothing taken on faith, means the order in question is not a religion.

Originally posted by Vapour
I have read the article you linked. It only state that God is not necessary to explain the universe which is not at all a proof for nonexistence of god. A classic case of an argument from ignorance.

Wrong again! Go back and reread it! The author highlights several illogical inconcistencies. As a self-contradictory being cannot exist, the infinite anthropomorphic god, which is a self-contradictory being, cannot exist.

Originally posted by Vapour
In fact I did my reading of Occam's razor. Number of articles which pop up in google search specifically state that Occam's razor does not prove the nonexistence of god. Only your wishful thinking (faith?) make it appear so. As I said, faith is irrelevant to the logic.

You're wrong again! Occam's Razor doesn't specifically say "god does not exist", but then I never claimed that it did. Occam's Razor is about parsimony of explanation. Viz: why add an unneeded tier of explanation (god did it) to a postulate that requires no such tier (what caused the big bang)? To add the unnecessary tier violates Occam's Razor.
Get it now?

[Vapour]

God by defnition is not created or caused. To *assume* that everything has a cause is usually an assumption used by theist to prove the existence of god from the cosmological argument which can be refuted by bringing up your argument. But what you miss is that you cannot use this to prove the nonexistence of God because the validity of argument that everything has a cause has not been proven. It is an assumption (faith).

Another thing. All of the arguments in the article was quite week or inconsistent. His essay can pass for undergraduate course but I hardly doubt it will pass post graduate standard.

List his arguments here and I can refute it for you.