[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

What I'm not trying to suggest, is that atheists, like all people, are not a monolithic group who act and react exactly the same.

If God unquestionably demonstrated his existence tomorrow, I have no doubt many atheists would react as you guessed and many would become theists.

Just like I have no doubt that if it was unquestionably demonstrated God did not exist tomorrow, many theists would deny it, and many theists would become atheists or agnostics.

Shrinking down the philosophy of a decentralized lack of faith (ie, atheism) based upon how you think they'd react is so pointless an exercise I'm amazed you thought you could derive such concrete conclusions from it.

I see the end game of all this however. To portray atheists as more illogical and superstitious than theists.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

Did I say that a person was forced to believe in either? Why can't a person just decide to believe in nothing at all?Danm_999

No, I'm trying to understand why you brought up the zombie apocolypse at all.

I am fairly certain that arguing about religion in the first place is a pointless exercise.

Why... not...?

Should I post in one of the other many exciting threads? Would that be more worthy of my time?

GTA3_Darkel

Would you prefer another one of the many exciting posts on these forums such as, um. Hm, oh well.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Which, again, isn't necessarily a fallacy. Logic takes place in your head and every conclusion you have ever made or ever will make will come from your head; not from evidence or anything else. Using a hypothetical scenario to clarify a real-world issue isn't necessarily a fallacy unless the hypothetical situation has no bearing on the real situation at hand (e.g. saying that a chipmunk driving would be absurd therefore you can't say God exists is a fallacy).

Theokhoth

The hypothetical isn't used as evidence for a conclusion; it's used for logic behind a conclusion.

Sorry, but dismissing it as wrong when it isn't necessarily so doesn't make this wrong.

This.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

Wait, you're not trying to suggest that atheists are not faith-based, are you?Danm_999

What I'm not trying to suggest, is that atheists, like all people, are not a monolithic group who act and react exactly the same.

If God unquestionably demonstrated his existence tomorrow, I have no doubt many atheists would react as you guessed and many would become theists.

Just like I have no doubt that if it was unquestionably demonstrated God did not exist tomorrow, many theists would deny it, and many theists would become atheists or agnostics.

Shrinking down the philosophy of a decentralized lack of faith (ie, atheism) based upon how you think they'd react is so pointless an exercise I'm amazed you thought you could derive such concrete conclusions from it.

I see the end game of all this however. To portray atheists as more illogical and superstitious than theists.

Did I say that a person was forced to believe in either? Why can't a person just decide to believe in nothing at all?Turtlecream

No, I'm trying to understand why you brought up the zombie apocolypse at all.

I am fairly certain that arguing about religion in the first place is a pointless exercise.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]Regardless of whether or not you like him or hate him, you have to admire his intelligence. [...]foxhound_fox

Pretty sure he's been the person with the most popular cable channel for several years, not you.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]It would require more then something that could easily be explained in a much more rational way to get people to believe in an incredibly illogical being?! Imagine that... Not to mention the fact that their are hundred upon hundred of possible gods, even if you got everyone to believe in a deity, who is to say it would be the correct one/ones? rockguy92

I saw Zeus at Starbucks yesterday. He's not looking good.

Regardless of whether or not you like him or hate him, you have to admire his intelligence. Bill O'Reilly openly confronts the most controversial of topics five days a week for roughly 40 minutes each day, and the most you can find him getting "owned" is little more than a few minutes on YouTube.

That's politics, I suppose.

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]gratz OT on going on my list of people who's posts i wont read anymore because i know it wont matter.JustPlainLucas

That there is the definition of the word, "Judgmental."

You used your hypotheticals to demonstrate why atheists are hypocritical and faith-based though.Danm_999

Wait, you're not trying to suggest that atheists are not faith-based, are you?

I'm sorry, you lost me here. Why does one have to believe in either?Danmn_999

Did I say that a person was forced to believe in either? Why can't a person just decide to believe in nothing at all?

[QUOTE="Turtlecream"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Really, you shouldn't set up a hypothetical, assume how people will react, and then condemn them for it as though it's evidence. That's a pretty basic logical fallacy, the strawman.Danm_999

Except that the strawman fallacy completely depends on something that can be proven or disproven, or tangible, at least.

It cannot be a strawman because such hypothetical scenarios cannot be used as evidence in the first place. Atheists state that there is a lack of empirical evidence when such empirical evidence is impossible: that is why believers revolve around faith.

The point is that it seems far more logical to simply believe in some form of intelligent design, if not a God, than to hope for a zombie apocalypse.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok, here's what I'll take as proof. Please show me something in nature that is irreducibly complex. Something whose psrts have no function, except when they are all working together. Something that must have a designer. That would be good proof for God.

foxhound_fox

Yes.