Parakeets do not exist.

Post Reply New Topic

Congrats, you actually did some work trying to disprove God's existence. Good to know you're not just the regular lazy troll.

Your beef is with at least a subset of atheists. I have never heard or read an atheist claim that the god of some religion exists but is not a true god. If you are thinking of claims that Jesus was not God, the claim here is not that Jesus was sort of a god, but not a true god. The claim is that there is no good reason to believe that Jesus had any divine attributes at all. There is no equivocation about that.


I will rephrase the point I was trying to make. YOU can go and check whether parakeets exist. You don't have to rely on other people's testimony. You can use the methods you use to check whether other things exist whose existence you accept. Can I use those same methods to check whether a god exists? If I can't, how is your argument about parakeets relevant to your complaint about militant atheists?


As you do in your first response to ChrisHitchens. But then you run into the same problem of consistently applying the same standards of proof to different claims. ChrisHitchens applied your argument against the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster against the god you believe in. If you apply the same standards to both arguments, you should accept that, based on the evidence and argument presented here up to now, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Yahweh are equally likely to exist. Unless you can show that ChrisHitchens made a factual mistake somewhere that does not apply to your argument against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You are mostly atheist. Of the thousands of gods people have believed in or still believe in, you dispute the existence of all but one of them. If you apply the same arguments against the existence of other gods also to the one you believe in, can you refute these arguments without also refuting your reasons not to believe in the other gods?

If you want to argue that disputing the existence of your god is silly because you think the same arguments would dispute the existence of parakeets, how can you avoid accepting the existence not only of your god but also all others?

In summary, can you show that you apply the same standards to checking whether parakeets exist, whether your god exists, and whether other gods exist?

Gromit, I'll reply in more detail later. I need to head out and pay for rent for my birds (my apartment changed the rules so as to ban pets).

BTW I'm using "parakeets" as a general placeholder, not specifically concerning God.

Guys, he's mocking the defense mechanism that creationists use.

Not any Creationist that I'd respect would use this. And no, it is specific to trolls, just more trolls are atheists as far as I've seen.

That's not what I'm referring to, but more of the type of "no TRUE scientist believes in a literal creation" or "no TRUE Christian watches Family Guy".




Well, perhaps it is a hallucination on my part, or sleep paralysis, perhaps a rotten potato I ate without knowing when I was 3, there MUST be a logical explanation for an experience with a non-existent entity.



To be specific, the premises are off. The Ashtoreth poles were commonly erected along with statues of one of the Ba'als. Also, even if an artifact were to specifically have the name of God along with Ashtoreth, such an artifact would most likely have been formed in the northern kingdom of Israel, since they were generally more carefree when it came to serving God, or it could be from the southern kingdom of Judah, possibly made during one of the many lapses into polytheism.



Actually, I could be more considered "monotheistic" than "mostly atheist", of which I suppose you could say the same of any Christian or religious Jew, or even Muslim. Can I refute all of them? No, I am not an authority and neither am I corporeally immoral so as to have all the time in the existence of the universe to refute every argument that may be made. You do know that one of the main properties of human language is having practically infinite combinations of words into sentences?



Because he seems most likely to me, and I'm leaving it at that.



Can I? Not right now, I've been awake for a few days and am tired. Probably wouldn't be up to anyone's standards of excellence even if I tried though.

There are not many atheists who claim "god(s) do not exist". Atheism, however, is a lack of belief in god(s). This is a pretty reasonable position to take, considering that there is zilch evidence for god(s). Same for Russell's Teacup etcetera.

Not all lacks of beliefs are reasonable, though. Parakeets, for example, have plenty of evidence.

Note that some proposed gods, like the Christian god, is logically contradictory, and we can therefore reasonably claim that this specific god does not exist.

You are confusing atheism and agnosticism.

How so? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Doesn't get any simpler than that.

I'm agnostic towards things like extraterrestrials.

I wouldn't say almost all atheists are "weak" or "agnostic" atheists. The best argument for a more robust atheism is the Principle of Parsimony. Believing that "God(s) exist" when there is no need - and even some damage to a coherent naturalistic ontology - done with the belief is intellectually superfluous. The "web of beliefs" needs more tweaking and rewiring if we add that proposition - so it is best not to add it.

One might say that the non-existance of god(s) is a working assumption.

Ohhh ok, I got you now. I kinda had a feeling this thread had some philosophical meaning in relation to your point about parakeets.

This is one of the evidence found in Australia few days ago, which actually supports the popular belief of the existence of parakeets.

What about dead parrots?...

If you can trust nothing around you, and no proof exists of anything, then the only way you could determine your surroundings would be through faith...

ain't that a kick in the haid...

Yeah, using the "flying spaghetti monster" as a justification for the position regarding the existence of God or gods seems lame, rather it seems to just follow a personal intuition and mostly the inclination of recurring to a popular notion created by someone else (not so much of being original) in response to I.D. because it looks attractive as a justification and for mocking, I tend to consider the term to be either meaningless or not enough of a justification, more like an intuitive (an not rarely emotional driven) notion.

Poor bird. Is that a model or an actual skeleton?