Not funny, but a pretty interesting analogy.
Comment on This Post:
Take this down. This is the internet.
It is up on the Internet, BECAUSE it's the Internet.
The Internet is the epitaph of all ideals in one area. So DEAL WITH IT!
Let's misportray our opponent's position so that we can easily counter their standpoint.
Yeah, that sounds great!
I'm with you Dark. This still doesn't give any reason to believe in "mom."
It doesn't matter if mom exists or not. If there's no proof, why believe in it? That's the atheist's argument. The same can be said for a giant invisible teapot in the sky. Just because it's a possibility doesn't mean everyone walks around believing it exists.
We could be wrong like the picture represents, but there's a quadrillion times more of a chance that we're right.
That's not really the atheist's response, but the thinker's response. "If it's not true, or there's no reason to say it's true, why believe it?"
Unfortunately people can be atheists for the wrong reasons as well. Last year I had an argument with someone who claimed that god didn't exist, and I had to explain to him that he was making the same mistake as the religious, only it's a Type I versus Type II error.
If mom doesn't exist, the babies can't live. They depend on her just like we all depend on God. Good analogy and absolutely true.
How about "Mom" being Mother Nature? Sun and water and soil and stone and trees and weather to grow our crops, keep us warm and give us a roof over our heads. That's all Earth keeping us alive. Earth and us. To me, mom is Earth, not god. Things grow. Very slowly. Nothing is poofed before our eyes.
>This still doesn't give any reason to believe in "mom."
What? Yes it does. Mom is observable in this analogy.
This is like saying atheists don't believe in the universe, which is clearly observable. There is no evidence for god, but as a fetus there is evidence of an outside world such as hearing voices outside of your observable environment. In fact fetuses recognize their mother's voice. When god starts talking then atheists will believe in him. Until that happens, atheists will continue to not believe until there is evidence.
This is an uber-lame attempt to disprove proven reality O.o
It's not an attempt to disprove anything. It's another way of looking at and considering possibilities. Expand your mind.
I'm agnostic, and while this didn't change my beliefs, I did find it helped me consider the possibilities differently. Mind expanded.
I'm skeptic. I, too, found this to be very clever. It's doesn't disprove or prove anything. It just accurately pokes fun at common excuses for skepticism and opens our horizons a bit.
That's not a clever argument, it's a strawman. They're taking atheism and saying its only founding factor is lack of seeing something.
But isn't the athiest premise "prove it"? And does this not fit that mold? Yes is the answer to both.
Sorta, we'll let it go for now.
And, no. I know that extraterrestrial life exists. Have I seen it? No. However, I have evaluated the given information (probability of life generating vs probable number of planets) and found that the likelyhood of life existing outside of earth is statistically inevitable.
The image implies that atheists do not believe in god simply because they cannot see god. However, were that true, we couldn't believe in quantum physics, atomic theory, the wind, gravitation, extra-specular radiation, momentum, and so on. In other words, the image is oversimplifying the atheist position to make it sound absurd, which is known as a straw-man fallacy.
>They're taking atheism and saying its only founding factor is lack of seeing something.
It's exaggerated, but to a certain extent it is true.
If there were observable evidence for god, as there would be for "mom" in this example (which is why this is a hilariously inept analogy), such as her voice and interference from the outside world that effects the womb, then atheists would believe in god. As this is not the case, atheists do not believe in god.
Atheism is a belief bound in rationality. It is currently irrational to believe in god, thus until observable evidence for god's existence is found, atheists will continue to not believe in god. If such evidence is found, atheists will update their beliefs.
"Observing" is a much wider term than "seeing," which is where the straw-man comes in. If atheism were properly represented, the question would be, "Have you ever observed mom," and the answer would be, "Yes."
Yes, which is why it is a terrible argument that I'm not surprised came from facebook.
1 like = 1 prayer
keep scrolling = ur mom dies and u go to hell and u luv hitler.
This is a terrible analogy, see my comment above.
No correlation. These fools evolved. No god.
<3 I dont care what anyone ever says to me... Lol no im not ignorant but ive had my fair share of experiences... And ive seen some pretty convincing things. I know there is some higher being of existence.... I mean sure... A God defies most of Psychics and Logic... But theres some weird things out in that Universe we dont understand... And weird shit happening on our very own nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide planet that we dont Understand and Science hasen't been able to explain for hundreds of years... Know dont get me wrong i freaking absolutely love Science im engorged with it.... But Science cant explain some things and i have a very open mind and thats a very rare trait among human beings... Its a gift.. We have more intellect than most Homo Sapiens.. Because were always searching for knowledge... Its like a Easter Egg.. And inside is a scrap of knowledge... In fact amazingly there are LOTS of Scientists in the world with my personality. You would be amazed.. Every night i go to sleep... I always find myself thinking about things...... Especially amazing things... Like the Cosmos.
You just mindfucked me 3 ways to my brain.
And then, as the babies came out, the mom took the Atheist baby and said "You didn't believe in me" and threw him into an oven to burn for all eternity
gasp It sounds so right....
"No way bro, if there's something I can't explain, I think a magical unicorn did it."
You've obviously heard her voice. Your metaphor is invalid.
Maybe she is mute...and maybe its a machine and not a "Mom" keeping them alive. No Mom proven.
Then it would be rational for the babies to not believe in "mom."
The key word here is "rational." Just because something is rationally believed, does not mean it is necessarily true. It is believed until evidence proves it otherwise, because it is the most likely truth.
Atheists only don't believe in god because there is no evidence for god. Not because they hate god or something like that. If evidence for god is found any atheist worth their salt would change their belief since the base of the atheist belief is in rationality.
This does not mean that atheists are certain that they are 100% correct, perhaps there is a god, they just know that there is no observable proof of a god, and therefore believe that there is not one.