Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
In fact though the Himalaya is still being formed. The Indian plate is still continuing to move upward like this. The Eurasian plate above is drawn how it is situated now for clarity. (The Indian plate is not identical to the Indian landmass of course.)
(By the way, that's a piece of the Himalaya in the background of my picture.)
Of course it's still being formed, just like any other tectonic phenomena on Earth :D
The difference between saying "tectonics have been formed" and "tectonic are being formed" is just the same as saying "life has evolved" and "life evolves".
Yes wise guy, I'm aware of plate tectonics, I know how it works, well to a certain degree at least. I thought it might possibly be however that not everybody knows exactly how Mount Everest was formed and put some perspective on the timescales involved.
Myself I am amazed by the process and the awesomeness of the whole range there in northern Nepal. If you fail to be impressed you must be either dead or have never seen it.
Yes Albert, it is pretty impressive, isn't it? You know, the simplest way I've found, to teach the "awesomeness" of mountain building to children, if you have or know any, is to lay a sheet of paper flat on a smooth, level surface, place each hand on opposite sides of the paper, then slowly bring them toward each other, dragging the paper with them - the kiddos can actually watch the paper buckle and the mountains form. Just FYI.
Yes that's a nice way. But you make me feel sorry now for the theist teacher who I suppose has to throw a bucket of water over the paper and then let the kids wait in their wet pants to watch how the paper automatically buckles.
Sorry Angelo - I forgot your world was only 6,000 years old. Guess that means Everest was here 59,994,000 years before the earth was created. Your Big Guy probably needed someplace to sit, or maybe a footstool.
Are you finally getting all of the attention you came here for? Have you considered getting a real life - maybe, I don't know, move out of your mother's basement?
I just don't know what to say Kir, first you criticize my conversations with Godzilla (so I'm not even going to mention my chats with Mothra) and then you want to take away my teddy bear! What's left?!
Hey Arch (can I just call you that?),
Nah, I just took away the heroin :-)
"Sure," to the first; "Shhhh," to the second!
I'm not offering this answer for the OP, but for everyone else because he doesn't seem worth debating. I would start with something both parties can agree upon - there are 500 gods that do not exist, but people claimed they existed (see here: http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/dead-gods.html).
Now, if we start with that, we can start constructing a model of proper reasoning using Bayes' Theorem. The 500 gods sets up a good case for a low prior probability using Laplace's Law of Succession, which is (s+1)/(n+2). You can look that up on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession. That gives us a very low number.
Then, the argument just follows that from that low probability, we would need to have evidence that is uniquely explained by the god hypothesis in order to raise the probability that god exists significantly (i.e., extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). You can see my own Bayesian formaulation of that here: http://foxholeatheism.com/extraordinary-claims-really-do-require-ex.... The onus at this point is on the person trying to overcome the ridiculously low prior probability.
Again, I'm not going to argue with the OP about this. I just offer this to help others if they're looking for a very formal and defensible argument.
Cool, I'm gonna bookmark this one, :D
the hipotheses that everything came from nothing would be the most extraordinary claim of all.
a nice website presenting arguments, why its most rational to believe in God :