![Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T6nYc0.jpg){kind=link}
that atheism is the default and requires no indoctrination.
for me it certainly is.
And you believe that without any outside influences, a person would just default to the assumption that the entire universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
without any outside influences a person wouldn't have a clear understanding of the term "universe"
What's the likelihood of that anyways?
people don't understand very large and small numbers. Besides, the universe exists, and without it existing we wouldn't exist and conversely wouldn't ask any stupid questions about it. So it must exist with 100% certainty, when someone asks stupid questions about it. Besides, look up what a bolzman brain is, if you want to talk about probability on the astronomical scale.
discussions with atheists
Okay. I have two points to make.
- The likelihood, that the stories about one of the iterations of the jew-god are true is so small, that it can be discarded
- If some kind of god exists, he acts as if he doesn't, so the reasonable way to behave is to assume, that he either doesn't exist or doesn't care what we do.
Cool. Well, I just finished eating my oatmeal creme pie cookie which I assume materialized out of nothing, since I don't have any evidence to the contrary (and therefore it's the rational default). I'm really tired of these evasive and stupid answers so have a good one.
And now you're resorting to logical fallacies. See strategem 28: http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
What did sweet little jesus say about modesty and vanity, and which one of the two lets you end up in hell?
That's literally your argument though. It's pointless to continue carrying on because when you're not spiraling off into unrelated topics you're evading the questions, mischaracterizing the points, and being pedantic. So I assume at this point it's probably some form of dishonesty, though I initially provided the benefit of the doubt.
(post is archived)