-Removed-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.
1 edit
-Removed-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.
-Removed-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.
-Removed-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.
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeester to twiteheadTLying? No. But that doesn't mean what you say is the truth.
3. You are being offensive, do you think I'm lying when I'm saying you are being offensive?
Only twitehead knows whether he is being offensive.
You taking offense at his posts does not make him offensive.