Since atheism is a belief

Originally posted by Agerg
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.

I don't understand your post, sorry.

Originally posted by Agerg
yeah I have a tendency to do that ... I think I'm finished with it now though.

I agreed with you regarding the blatantly obvious incongruence between a loving God and him burning people for eternity.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not claiming he is, are you?

You claimed to have concrete evidence that Bugs Bunny does not exist. You do not even have a clear definition of what 'Bugs Bunny' constitutes so your claim seems flawed. Your claim was apparently made purely to show that abugsbunnyism is somehow different from atheism and that the former is a ridiculous way to give an analogy for atheism.
I disagree. It think that abugsbunnyism is a good way to explain to theists the nature of atheism and that you finding it ridiculous suggests you don't understand atheism and need to give it some more thought.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't understand your post, sorry.

Essentially I'm stating that if all I'm given is that they were authored by humans, then though there is no way for me to claim that either of Bugs Bunny or God definitely don't exist ... I have a sound basis for not finding them credible.


The last bit means I'm so confident they don't exist (without proof), someone else or something will have to come along and present evidence that will force me to reconsider.

Similarly, you aren't going to study all the works of various Bugs Bunny artists in an attempt to change your mind on the position Bugs Bunny doesn't exist - however if Bugs Bunny walked up to you and turned your left arm into an ACME sledgehammer, then perhaps this would give you reason to think about it further.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You claimed to have concrete evidence that Bugs Bunny does not exist. You do not even have a clear definition of what 'Bugs Bunny' constitutes so your claim seems flawed. Your claim was apparently made purely to show that abugsbunnyism is somehow different from atheism and that the former is a ridiculous way to give an analogy for atheism.
I disagree. It ...[text shortened]... nding it ridiculous suggests you don't understand atheism and need to give it some more thought.

Do you still stand on your claim in this silly scenario, that there may be other "bunnies named bugs" and therefore it is impossible to categorically state that "bugs bunny" does not exist?

Originally posted by Agerg
Essentially I'm stating that if all I'm given is that they were authored by humans, then though there is no way for me to claim that either of Bugs Bunny or God definitely don't exist ... I have a sound basis for not finding them credible.


The last bit means I'm so confident they don't exist (without proof), someone else or something will have to come alo ...[text shortened]... rm into an ACME sledgehammer, then perhaps this would give you reason to think about it further.

I agree with you that it is evident that the cartoon character bugs bunny doesn't exist as a real live bunny-creature and I would agree that there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that makes it evident that a god does exist. My contention is that the evident non-existence of Bugs, is not a parallel with the non-existence of a god. I would agree that the evidence supporting the the non-existence of ghosts is comparable with the non-existence of a god. Similarly should there be found to be evidence that ghosts do exist, this this does form part a theistic argument - that therefore a god exists.

Originally posted by divegeester
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.

What do you even mean by 'the cartoon character'? Clearly the cartoon does exist and contains a character named 'bugs'. Jesus is a character in the New Testament, but when we discuss the existence or non-existence of Jesus we do not immediately dismiss his possible existence on the grounds that everyone knows he is a character in the New Testament. Clearly if a man named Jesus existed but didn't speak English as he does in the New Testament then we can't immediately say 'Jesus never existed'.
Think it through.

You haven't addressed my point about nuclear power either - have you personally carried out an experiment to show that nuclear power is real?
Your point works against you. You are basically saying that your evidence that Bug Bunny doesn't exist is actually more complex than you initially claimed and not based solely on the existence of a writer and early artwork that you are personally familiar with, but rather a much greater understanding of the universe and the bunnies and cartoons in it.

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.
Again I ask you, 'real in what sense'? If I show you a cartoon that includes Jesus, will you similarly say 'it is manifestly evident that the cartoon character Jesus 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.
I see where the confusion comes in. I am not comparing your belief in God with belief in the real life bugs bunny. I am comparing my disbelief in God with your disbelief in the real life bugs bunny.
There is a difference.
And there is no disrespect intended.

Claiming it is not disrespectful is frankly a lie,
No, it is a misunderstanding on your part.

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you still stand on your claim in this silly scenario, that there may be other "bunnies named bugs" and therefore it is impossible to categorically state that "bugs bunny" does not exist?

I stand on my claim that there may have been a bunny named Bugs that the cartoon character is based on.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you even mean by 'the cartoon character'? Clearly the cartoon does exist and contains a character named 'bugs'. Jesus is a character in the New Testament, but when we discuss the existence or non-existence of Jesus we do not immediately dismiss his possible existence on the grounds that everyone knows he is a character in the New Testament. Clearl ...[text shortened]... iming it is not disrespectful is frankly a lie,
No, it is a misunderstanding on your part.[/b]

"What do mean by the cartoon character?" "Clearly there is a cartoon character called bugs"

Come on twhitehead; what do you mean by Jesus? clearly there is a character called Jesus in a book.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I stand on my claim that there may have been a bunny named Bugs that the cartoon character is based on.

Sure, a real rabbit called bugs existed and was used as the basis for the cartoon character bugs bunny. Therefore God does not exist.

Originally posted by divegeester
Sure, a real rabbit called bugs existed and was used as the basis for the cartoon character bugs bunny. Therefore God does not exist.

Now who is being offensive? You are misinterpreting what I have said because you do not have the decency to actually read what I am saying.
Calm down and stop seeing everything everyone says as an attack on your beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now who is being offensive? You are misinterpreting what I have said because you do not have the decency to actually read what I am saying.
Calm down and stop seeing everything everyone says as an attack on your beliefs.

I'm not being offensive, you are misunderstanding me; reading something that isn't there.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not being offensive, you are misunderstanding me; reading something that isn't there.

It is there. You have said or strongly implied that:
1. I have said that because bugs bunny might be based on a real bunny God doesn't exist.
2. I have compared a your beliefs with a belief in bugs bunny.
3. That I have lied.

And now you appear to want to end the conversation by being deliberately rude.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is there. You have said or strongly implied that:
1. I have said that because bugs bunny might be based on a real bunny God doesn't exist.
2. I have compared a your beliefs with a belief in bugs bunny.
3. That I have lied.

And now you appear to want to end the conversation by being deliberately rude.

1. Is not offensive; it is one of the logical outcomes from your silly premise about the potential existence of 'other bunnies named bugs' and therefore the parallel between theism and buggsyism is reasonable.
2. So you aren't comparing the non-belief in buggsyism as a parallel with atheism after all then?
3. You are being offensive, do you think I'm lying when I'm saying you are being offensive?

Originally posted by divegeester to twiteheadT
3. You are being offensive, do you think I'm lying when I'm saying you are being offensive?

Lying? No. But that doesn't mean what you say is the truth.
Only twitehead knows whether he is being offensive.
You taking offense at his posts does not make him offensive.