14 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyI'm pretty sure Bugs Bunny is based on a real person or collection of persons. I'm also sure it's a cartoon character which is drawn by human beings we have evidence of this in terms of the artists themselves their sketches and a knowledge that drawn things are not real.
Again, we also have evidence that the Bible was written by men, and the depictions of God were also created by men. Both Bugs Bunny and God have human creators, for both their stories and depictions. How do we know Bugs isn't based on a real person?
A book claiming the existence of a god may indeed be completely fabricated, but there is no evidence that the claim is false any more that someone claiming that a space alien visited them in their bedroom can be proven to be false.
Originally posted by divegeesterHave you met that human creator? Have you seen the sketches? What makes you so sure that is the only bugs bunny?
There is a human creator of the bugs bunny cartoon, evidences of sketches, artists of the drawings. No non-belief is required.
Are you suggesting that my belief in a god does not require "concrete evidence" in order for you to believe? What would you constitute as "concrete" in that scenario? Does my personal evidence for me that there is a god, fall into what you would classify as "concrete" and if not why not?
I just don't think it is as easy as you suggest to divide things into 'concrete evidence available' and 'no concrete evidence available'.
I am atheist because I consider the evidence against the existence of anything reasonably called 'God' to be just as concrete as the evidence against bugs bunny. I think you are wrong to suggest there is a fundamental difference between your abugsbunnyism and my atheism.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis bugs bunny argument is ridiculous and you know it if you are truthfull. Have you conducted every experiment that every scientist has ever made? How do you know one or some or all of them are lying. How do you know that nuclear power exists and is not just massive steam engines disguised as nuclear power stations? You know it the same way I know that bugs bunny isn't God. You're a smart guy, try treating people with a little respect, see where it gets you.
Have you met that human creator? Have you seen the sketches? What makes you so sure that is the only bugs bunny?
[b]Are you suggesting that my belief in a god does not require "concrete evidence" in order for you to believe? What would you constitute as "concrete" in that scenario? Does my personal evidence for me that there is a god, fall into what y ...[text shortened]... re wrong to suggest there is a fundamental difference between your abugsbunnyism and my atheism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by divegeesterNo. We really don't "know that [this argument] is ridiculous".
This bugs bunny argument is ridiculous and you know it if you are truthfull. Have you conducted every experiment that every scientist has ever made? How do you know one or some or all of them are lying. How do you know that nuclear power exists and is not just massive steam engines disguised as nuclear power stations? You know it the same way I know tha ...[text shortened]... isn't God. You're a smart guy, try treating people with a little respect, see where it gets you.
It's exactly the same argument as the Flying Spaghetti Monster [FSM] was meant to
highlight.
We can trace in history people making up the Christian religion, just like any and every other
religion. Just as we can trace in history people making up Buggs Bunny and the FSM.
The arguments against either existing are JUST AS STRONG.
Just because people have been indoctrinated for thousands of years to believe that belief in god/s
is perfectly reasonable and that belief in similarly unfounded beings is unreasonable doesn't
mean that gods have a special exemption from the rules of evidence and proof.
..............
I 'could' explain how we DO actually know that nuclear power works as advertised, but that would
be a massive topic that is irrelevant to the point. Suffice it to say we do have very strong evidence
that nuclear technology is real and works.
Just ask the Japanese.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI could explain how I know bugs bunny is a cartoon but it would be a massive topic that is irrelevant to the point. Suffice to say "we" do have strong evidence that bugs bunny is a cartoon character.
I 'could' explain how we DO actually know that nuclear power works as advertised, but that would be a massive topic that is irrelevant to the point. Suffice it to say we do have very strong evidence that nuclear technology is real and works.
Originally posted by divegeesterNo, it is not ridiculous. You just haven't thought it through. Because you prejudged it ridiculous you failed to address it reasonably.
This bugs bunny argument is ridiculous and you know it if you are truthfull.
What do you even mean when you say Bugs Bunny doesn't exist? The cartoon clearly does exist. So what is it that doesn't exist that you have concrete evidence of its non existence for? Are you claiming that there are no bunnies? Are you claiming that there is no bunny named 'Bugs'? Are you claiming that there is no real life bunny that looks exactly like the cartoon depiction? What if there is a bunny named Bugs that looks very similar to the one in the cartoon but has a slightly different accent? Would that count or not? Are you a hyper literalist when it comes to cartoons but not with regards to Genesis?
I think it was your attempt at dismissing the bugs bunny argument that was ridiculous and not the argument itself.
Have you conducted every experiment that every scientist has ever made? How do you know one or some or all of them are lying. How do you know that nuclear power exists and is not just massive steam engines disguised as nuclear power stations? You know it the same way I know that bugs bunny isn't God.
Did anybody say bugs bunny was God? That is not the proposition in the OP. An abugsbunnyist merely believes that there is no bugs bunny. You claimed to have concrete evidence that bugs bunny doesn't exist in your first post of the thread. You said nothing about believing that bugs bunny isn't God.
You're a smart guy, try treating people with a little respect, see where it gets you.
You are a smart guy. Stop seeing insults that are not there. I have not, as far as I am aware, shown you a lack of respect in this thread.
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd God is a Biblical character. But that is not the question at hand. The question is whether bugs bunny is anything more than a cartoon character, something for which you almost certainly have no direct evidence whatsoever.
I could explain how I know bugs bunny is a cartoon but it would be a massive topic that is irrelevant to the point. Suffice to say "we" do have strong evidence that bugs bunny is a cartoon character.
Originally posted by divegeesterAll that could possibly prove is the existence of humans that venerated Bugs Bunny to such extent they created drawings and sketches. It does not prove Bugs Bunny fails to exist
There is a human creator of the bugs bunny cartoon, evidences of sketches, artists of the drawings. No non-belief is required.
Are you suggesting that my belief in a god does not require "concrete evidence" in order for you to believe? What would you constitute as "concrete" in that scenario? Does my personal evidence for me that there is a god, fall into what you would classify as "concrete" and if not why not?
15 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThen by the same rational, you accept that a book written by men who venerated a God, who others later claimed to exist, is not evidence that that god doesn't exist?
All that could possibly prove is the existence of humans that venerated Bugs Bunny to such extent they created drawings and sketches. It does not prove Bugs Bunny fails to exist
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe weakness of the comparison:
No, it is not ridiculous. You just haven't thought it through. Because you prejudged it ridiculous you failed to address it reasonably.
What do you even mean when you say Bugs Bunny doesn't exist? The cartoon clearly does exist. So what is it that doesn't exist that you have concrete evidence of its non existence for? Are you claiming that there are no b ...[text shortened]... hat are not there. I have not, as far as I am aware, shown you a lack of respect in this thread.
I have thought it through and it is ridiculous. My contention is that comparing a non belief in the existence of a real bugs bunny is not a good parallel with a non belief in God. Comparing it with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens or ghosts is a good parallel. Bringing in all these sub-options such as "bunnies named bugs" is irrelevant as the OP is talking about the cartoon character bugs bunny as you well know. You haven't addressed my point about nuclear power either - have you personally carried out an experiment to show that nuclear power is real? What about all the other millions of experiments science has carried out how do you now they are real. Because it is manifestly evident they are real, the same way it is manifestly evident that the cartoon character bugs bunny isn't real.
Disrespect:
Comparing my belief in God and saying it's the same as me believing in a real life bugs bunny is you being disrespectful to what I and billions of your fellow humans hold dear. Claiming it is not disrespectful is frankly a lie, I simply don't believe you and it is your dishonesty that disappoints me. Your bugs bunny argument is poorly thought through. If you said me that me believing in a God is the same as someone believing in aliens or ghosts, I can accept, it is not disrespectful, it is a fair comparison. You can continue to jab away of course, but I see your intent and that's why I called you on it.
15 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterI do indeed agree with that.
Then by the same rational, you accept that a book written by men who venerated a God, who others later claimed to exist, is not evidence that that god doesn't exist?
However, if gifted with further information like, oh I don't know, let's say ...
"God is all loving" AND "God will damn the unsaved to fiery hell for all eternity"
then I can certainly claim to have proof that that notion of God does not exist on account of the contradiction we would have if he did exist.
Further wrt to Bugs Bunny and your counter here, though I cannot claim to have proof they don't exist just on the basis of human authors, I am quite justified to lack both belief and intent to bring about a change in that position.
15 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergAnd I would agree with you on that.
I do indeed agree with that.
However, if gifted with further information like, oh I don't know, let's say ...
"God is all loving" AND "God will damn the unsaved to fiery hell for all eternity"
then I can certainly claim to have proof that [b]that notion of God does not exist on account of the contradiction we would have if he did exist.[/b]
**you edited your post so I only agree with one bit.