Essay talk:Lol ATHEISTS are basically FLAT earthers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

False analogy[edit]

There's plenty of evidence to back up a round earth, this separates it from other "theories". What separates Christianity from all the other religions? Christopher (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

But you see... that the fact, that there are many ideas about something doesn't mean the whole idea is suddenly wrong... Rational wiki has a list of gods Christians don't believe in... so here is another list!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
AND DON'T DARE TELL me, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between an intelligent designer and a pink unicorn!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason to favour Christianity over Islam, there's plenty of reasons to favour round earthism over flat earthism. Christopher (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Look in the earth models list... there are some things more close to truth and others more distant... Flat disk is more close to reality than flat square model... Ptolemaic version is more close than flat square model...

In the same way... We see now... that Zeus is a MAN... who is subject to natural laws (reproduces, was born etc.)... So he can't be the CREATOR of natural laws... This way we can eliminate some of the dumb ideas... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Some, but not all. Christopher (talk)

No... you're missing the point... Atheists are trying to misrepresent things... In my earthism example... Someone who DOES NOT believe in earth IS NOT GOING UP against a SPECIFIC earth model...There are only 2 sides... EARTH EXISTS vs Earth does not exist!!! He needs to have an argument of why there is NO EARTH...

In the same way... Richard Dawkins is not going up against a specific claim, text or a belief... There are ONLY 2 sides... Intelligence vs NO INTELLIGENCE... And all atheists do is poke fun at some of the claims.... Atheists do not have a SINGLE argument for atheism... They are just trying to show... that if we can find flaws with theism suddenly atheism is true..--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't try and change the subject, address my question about why Islam is bullshit but Christianity isn't. Christopher (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This question ONLY becomes relevant IF YOU BELIEVE in intelligence... The question of the shape (particualr religion)... Only becomes relevant if you believe earth exists!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a valid criticism of religion and you're not answering the question. Answer it. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I WILL answer the question... But you have to UNDERSTAND... that this has NOTHING to do with atheism... Atheists have to have a logical argument of WHY THERE IS NO GOD... criticizing those who think there is one DOES NOT YIELD ANYTHING!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You, Kingdamian1, have yet to provide a logical argument as to (a) that deities exist (of any kind, one or many, masculine, feminine or other, non-interventionist in the universe, occasionally so, or constantly so - and if the latter in different parts at different times or all-pervading), and (b) that if such deity/deities exist it #has# to be the Christian one, and (c) why you have to use so many capitals in your comments.

In the New Testament it says that Jesus is God's only begotten son; and in Job God discusses things with his plurality of sons, several centuries previously. Can you explain this dichotomy? 31.49.51.55 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


You want an argument of why I think the beginning of natural laws, space, time and matter was conscious....(again 2 sides intelligence vs no intelligence) Jesus is GOD... the word is a description... it doesn't mean literal child... In job sons of God is another such description used for angels...Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what I want? I want you to stop changing the subject and answer the question. Christopher (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


You are the one who changed the subject.... ask here....... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Smug_Questions........Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm.png Your essay attempted to answer the "what about other gods" question, me asking you about other gods (in this case Allah) is not changing the subject. Answer the bloody question. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


No... THIS ISNT ABOUT the question itself... This is about absurdity of logic... Many atheists use the fact of there being many "gods" as evidence for atheism... I wasn't here to adress that particular question... But fine... I'll respond!

Allah is considered to be the same God of Abraham... The point is that Muslims think that the Bible was originally accurate and said that Jesus was merely a prophet... And that the Bible has been secretly re-written... There is NO basis for this claim!

Koran was written by a single epileptic man, who claimed to have split the moon and been carried by wings of angels... And some of the verses are almost identical to the Bible... I don't see why would someone be taking the word of a SINGLE, epileptic man who basically copied from the Bible and added his imaginations....--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're attempting to disprove Allah, it would be a lot easier to attempt to prove Christianity or I could just start talking about Sikhism or Judaism. You can't disprove every God ever conceived of.
Your argument appears (you're very hard to understand) to be a combination of circular logic and appeal to ridicule. Circular because you said "[Mohammed] just added his own imagination" this assumes that he wasn't told by Allah. Appeal to ridicule because you brought up ridiculous things you claim (with no source) are in the Qur'an and then made no attempt to disprove them. Christopher (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked me SPECIFICALLY why shouldn't we regard Allah at the same level as God... You did not ask me to present a case for Christianity!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Answer my whole comment, not just part of it. 2) I'm asking you what makes Christianity special, you haven't answered the question. Asking why Christianity is special in a way that makes it correct is asking you to make a case for Christianity. Answer the question. Christopher (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't answered the question. Christopher (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer the question[edit]

Some IP above says the Bible says that God (a) had many sons and (b) God had only one begotten son.

KD1 says that Jesus is God, and the Bible is the word of God.

So did God beget himself? Or is the Bible composed of many strands through the pattern of history/theology/literature etc?

KD1 answers #each and every question# with 'God/Jesus/the Intelligent Designer (why #should# the ID be identical to God?) is the answer' and denigrates anyone who is not immediately converted.

As Star Trek's Spock would say 'This is illogical.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't[edit]

Answered the question. Christopher (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Troll Don't give KD1 any attention.-⇂ɔsᴉᗡpuoɯɐᴉᗡ (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There are genuinely people who believe this, what makes you think he's a troll? Christopher (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
But is it worth engaging in someone who loves to capitalize random words (usually a sign of insanity) and write in disruptive essay titles to begin with? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This essay title isn't mineKingdamian1 (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To Clarify[edit]

I just want to make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that atheists not believing in God is the equivilent of someone not believing that there is, in fact, a physical entity called "Earth?" MagisterCrow (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

NOT AT ALL... Atheists use an argument which goes like this... since there are many ideas about God... Atheism seems more plausible... Rational wiki has a list of gods Christians don't believe in... As if this is somehow relevant... so I compiled my list of earth models you don't believe in..... it just shows weakness of a SPECIFIC argument..... THE ARE ONLY 2 sides INTELLIGENCE vs NO INTELLIGENCE......Kingdamian1 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You are not comparing like with like: and atheism is not 'as there are so many religions/beliefs about Deities (singular or plural, of whatever genders) I will believe in none of them' - there are also agnostics and other categories - and those who strongly adhere to one faith are atheistic towards 'the rest of the Deity-verse'.
And there are many more theories about the Earth than in your listing (it is hollow, it is a living thing, it is a hologram....)
Those involved with RW (probably) have a multitude of belief systems/views of the world/weltanshauungs - possibly including some aspects which are covered by this wiki - but are, for the most part, individuals willing to cooperate and/or accept that others' views which they personally do not hold (or even accept) have some validity for those persons. (Is 'beauty in the world' a construct of the mind - or evidence of God's presence?) Sometimes people are going to change their views, possibly partly as a result of what they read on RW.
You, Kingdamian1, however, appear to claim that because we do not instantly convert to your very limited views we are all wrong, suffer from fractal stupidity/fractal wrongness, and are wronger than wrong - which is not the case. Be more flexible - and accept others' viewpoints. 86.146.100.54 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I assume you're citing a critique made popular by Ricky Gervais that there are nearly 3000 gods that are recorded in human history, how do we choose the right one. Disregarding every other religion, the Abrahamic religions are currently 3 in number, each insisting that their interpretation of Yahweh is the correct one, and that others who do not follow it are condemned. This isn't an atheistic 'there is no god,' but a critique of religion in asking how do we know the right one and asking why we should pick yours over all the other options. This doesn't match up with your analogy because there is measurable, repeatable tests that show that the earth is a spheroid shape. We don't have a measurable, repeatable test to show that Christianity is the one true religion. MagisterCrow (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I have heard of RG - but not of the study - and 'the nature of belief in a Deity, or Deities, and which of them, or none of them' and if or whether you do how much they influence the universe (or those bits of it that we can monitor), and if he/she/it/they do, when, where and in what contexts they interact with the universe, and 'the shape of the world' are different categories.
Please provide details of equivalent verifiable tests as to the Deity/Deities?
Or are you conflating my comments with previous ones by different persons? I am arguing for a more tolerant and cooperative debate in general. Whatever people's beliefs 'making the universe a better place and not harming others maliciously' is a Good Thing. (And the captcha's comment is 'fairy tale') 86.146.100.54 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Was responding to KD's reply rather than yours. Sorry for the confusion. (And I keep seeing something else for the captcha...may need to check that) MagisterCrow (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The captcha provides a number of different answers/types of response (which is the point if you think about it) - and sometimes it is apt for the discussion (as the other IP pointed out). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In this case a non earther is going up against the very existence of the earth... In the same way, Dawkins, for example, is not going up against a specific deity but against the very notion of the existence of Intelligence.Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

They're actually right[edit]

The logical structure of these arguments are actually the same. The conclusion(which they don't highlight) is valid. That conclusion is "It is necessary to examine why I believe X and not Y."

  • For God X and not God Y, my inclination is overwhelmingly that both are characterized by the same absence of empirical evidence.
  • For a oblate spheroid earth versus a flat earth(say), the evidence is profound, well documented, and internally consistent.
    • The nature of gravity as observed with other celestial objects indicates that spherical shapes are a dominant form for sufficiently large bodies in our solar system. Compared to other planets, earth's gravity suggests a large size. The scientific principle of parsimony suggests that earth should not be an exception to the rules that govern other bodies, unless extraordinary evidence suggests otherwise.
    • We have the most benign and direct physical evidence that one could possibly ask for in the form of photographs, live video, and a variety of other measurements from space. Rejecting all the various sources(multiple governments, through multiple administrations of each, and several private industry concerns) of this evidence requires undue weight given to doubt above and beyond the bounds of traditional skepticism.
    • The observed shortest-found travel times between various locations map very nicely to a spherical(or near spherical) geometric system.

So, even though I agree with the structure of the argument and the question it successfully raises, asking that question isn't nearly as interesting as the theological equivalent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


In this case a non earther is going up against the very existence of the earth... In the same way, Dawkins, for example, is not going up against a specific deity but against the very notion of the existence of Intelligence...Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

In context, it was clear he was pretty explicitly calling out Christians in particular for their double standards of evidence. While it's true that the same logic can be applied to any number of other monotheistic religions, you've misunderstood the content of the argument. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me