god or nut
the existence of religion=theists believe there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and atheists believe there isnt, while the agnostic accepts he dosnt know, and that they ofc dont know either
For this analogy to work, you would have to assume that both sides have equally good reasons to believe whether the shell has a nut inside, or that they both have good reasons for believing what they believe, but in reality, there is only evidence supporting one side (atheism) while the other side has only 'faith' (theism).
The biggest problem I have with this analogy is that it's biased. Nutshells are made to have nuts in them. Even though we can't see it, we can claim that there is a nut within the shell, and most of the time, we will be correct.
A better analogy of Theism would be the Russell's Teapot analogy;
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
The basis for theism is not that it can be proved, it is that it cannot be reasonably disproved.
how do you know there is a nut, inside a nutshell
The idea that god is real being as unquestionable as a nut being within a nutshell that is only grown around a nut to protect said nut is irrational. Not to mention that the idea of religion emerged during a time that we understood very little about the universe and decided that we needed an explanation. We live now in an age of science, where more and more things can be explained, yet some still choose to remain ignorant. Christians in particular are very fond of quoting the bible, but always seem to forget that it was written by men, and justifies horrible things like rape, slavery, and treating women like cattle, which Christians always 'conveniently' forget.
We know significantly more about the universe than we did 2000 years ago. Enough to say that the chances of there being a god are just slightly above impossible. All the evidence points away from god, and you cannot logically justify the existence a divine creator.
there can not exist physical evidence for what isnt real.
so its resonable to that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell? and therfore unresonable to believe there is not a nut inside it?
you can not logically justify the true existence of the nut inside the unbrekable nutshell
I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make, because it seems like you're being very unclear. Are you saying that you believe in god or are you an atheist?
Because this is how I see it.
A theist could look at the shell, and say "there is no nut in that shell, and many people agree with me. This book says that there is no nut inside. And because no one can open the shell, I can never be proved wrong, therefor I am right.
An atheist could say, "I cannot open the shell and see the nut inside, but I can shake the shell and hear rattling inside, I can X-ray the shell and see what looks like a nut, I can weigh and measure it. I can reasonably say that there is indeed a nut inside the shell."
i accept i dont know that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and neither does anyone else, how could they, therfore it would be illogical and therfore unresonable to believe there is a nut inside it, and to believe that its an empty unbrekable nutshell
a theist is the guy who believes there is a nut, inside the unbrekable nutshell
the atheist would believe there is not a nut inside it
you are actually highlighting why atheism is theism with your example of a theist, a believer to the contrary, that there is no nut inside the nutshell
and again you have flipped the script with atheism to
the atheist, believes the nutshell is empty
Also, atheism is not theism. That is not an argument, it is a logical fallacy. The two terms are opposite. You cannot be both.
Perhaps you didn't read my first argument. The analogy of the nut and the shell is severely flawed. In my last argument, I showed you HOW it was flawed. I am an atheist, and I believe the shell has a nut inside.
Atheist: "There is a nut inside that nutshell"
Theist: "There is a magical being inside that nutshell that created all things and is both omniscient and omnipotent"
One is far more believable than the other.
You cannot build a good argument on flawed logic. Do you understand?
what you dont get is that, its not true, believing either side means nothing.. you cant actually know it..
you are saying, its resonable to believe that god is inside the nutshell, while saying it makes more sense not to believe in god, notice
atheism is theism to the contrary, to believe that there is not a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell
if you believe there is a nut inside the nutshell, you have the positive position on the imaginary assertion, and you are a theist, believing in god, yes, the nut is your god
belief is theism
whatever you believe, is inside the nutshell, or nut, is as true as any other claim about what is inside it, as long as its true that no one knows
you can not believe in the nut, without flawed logic, you understand? there is no logic in fantasy
All evidence would support the fact that there is a nut in the shell. All evidence supports that there is not a god.
And yet you cannot disprove the nut, you cannot disprove a god.
Refer again to the Russell's Teapot analogy.
Atheism is believing what can be observed and measured. You can examine a nutshell and determine there to be a nut inside.
Theism is the belief that just because something cannot be disproved, it must exist. For example, if I said "I can fly, but only when no one is watching me." It is both impossible and illogical, but it cannot be disproved. This is why the analogy does not work.
I advise you, in the future, completely read someone's argument before responding. Repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it more valid, it is wasting time.