Can someone please explain to me...

Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Can someone please explain to me...

Can someone please give me a list of every single reason that they don't believe in a god/ gods. I want to understand atheist arguments against theism and having them all on one page would be great. I know this could be a rather long list, so please condense each of your points into a sentence or two. Multiple users are welcome to post.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Reason

Reason itself

Commonsense

Empirical evidence

A healthy amount of skepticism, about any claim of any kind, means I automatically don't believe anything that doesn't meet the above criteria

 


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Why do you think that

Why do you think that empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that a god/ gods don't exist? Because you think that science makes miracles impossible?

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Why do you

Kuraishel wrote:

Why do you think that empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that a god/ gods don't exist? Because you think that science makes miracles impossible?

Science is just the way of explaining the natural world around us, with the greatest degree of accuracy possible

Science doesn't make miracles impossible

I don't believe in miracles, for the same reasons you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster

 


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
"Science doesn't makes

"Science doesn't makes miracles impossible"

Exactly my point, it is therefore possible to believe in science and be theistic. So therefore science does not lead us to the conclusion that no god exists (correct me if I'm wrong.)

BTW, slightly irrelevant- was pastafarianism started as a protest or a genuine religion? I'm not sure....

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
pastafarianism

It was started as a parody and to show the absurdness of Intelligent design, because if you want to say a supernatural god entity created the universe, then why not include this absurd idea of the flying spaghetti monster.

However my reasons for my atheism

Logic, reason, the lack of evidence to show that any religious god, deity etc, etc, etc, exists.

Not to say that a god like being cannot exist....but the descriptions give to us by religion and others from the theistic community has such a low percentage for existence that it is practically impossible. However no evidence of any god has ever been shown to exist at all, not one little itty bitty evidence outside of faith and delusion has ever been presented to me, as such I do not believe in the existence of any god/deity/supernatural (which to me is meaningless term to being with).


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The first and primary reason

The first and primary reason I do not believe in God, in the passive sense of lack of belief, is obvious. There is no evidence. Here it is important to distinguish between two senses of atheism.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The argumentum ad ignoratium or the argument from ignorance, is surely the most oft-abused and most poorly understood fallacy in the whole of debate, which is most odd, considering it is extremely simple.

The fallacy is double edged:

X is true because it has not been proved false

X is false because it has not been proved true

 

The misuse of the argument from ignorance is indicated heavily when one argues regarding atheism. Many people do not understand that atheism is inherently dichotomous, meaning there are two schools of thought. The first is mutually compatible with agnosticism, hence called agnostic or weak atheism. The position:

-There is no evidence for God. This absence of evidence does not mean that God does not exists. However, it does mean that there is no reason to suppose God exists, and the default position is simply to not believe it is true (versus to believe it is not true) It is an admission of not knowing, but retaining that there is no reason to suppose the existence of the entity in question (God). This is different from agnosticism, however, since the latter is an epistemological position which argues that knowledge on the matter is impossible.

This is different from the strong atheist position:

-God does not exist. I am quite certain of this. I can disprove God. And many strong atheists have indeed formulated arguments against God.

So, beyond the simple "there is no evidence" position of weak atheism, it is possible to construct arguments against God, which is what strong atheism was. For a long time, I was very preoccupied with this. Stripped to its bare essentials, but supported by a lengthy thesis, the list of arguments I put together looks like this:

1. Supervenience (the necessity of certain beings and properties to generate higher-order beings and properties and the associated relationship, such as that, for example, atoms can exist without human society, but not human society without atoms). The conclusion which I still retain, to this day, is that such principles necessarily eviscerate the concept of a conscious, intelligent being with control over the physical world yet without constituting a physical being itself).

2. Monism (The concept in philosophy of mind and neuroscience that the mind, the source of a conscious, intelligent being, does not have a component of a non-physical ontology, so eviscerating the assertion that such a being could be intelligent)

3. Ex Nihilo (the coherency of the theistic suggestion that an eternally existing being is ontologically separate from the physical universe, such that because it was the entity that created the universe in the first place). My eventual resolution was that the theistic assertion pertaining to the creation of a separate ontology of physical beings and things, of which this being is not of the same substance with, is an impossible contradiction, and is an assertion that requires the propagation of ex nihilo creation by God, which is impossible. I also used this suggestion to propagate the idea within ontology that existence of some form, bare-order properties of being, are uncaused.

4. Infinity (the coherency or lack thereof of suggesting the actual infinite nature of this being while at the same time maintaining that it was an entity and being unto itself, with providence and control, hence ontologically discrete from other discrete beings such as the physical universe) (the conclusion which I still retain in this matter is that there is an internal contradiction between the two)

5. Bare-order property (the question of what substance or property describes a discrete conscious being and agent if it is asserted that such a being has no physical body, and what bundles of properties constituted this being). I eventually resolved that no description was being given, and that the theistic assertion was not giving any ontological properties describing precisely of what this entity is comprised, hence the theistic school of thought is overly vague regarding the assertion that some "intelligent agent" exists, and this is not acceptable in proper philosophical discourse. During this process, I also argued for the philosophical school called Reism, which I still hold to.

6. Universe of discourse (The necessity of descriptors of property of an ontology, ie, that the theistic assertion regarding "supernaturalism" was/is untenable because it is ruled from a universe of discourse, and is defined solely by virtue of negation to the physical. If I can prove this (and I did) it strengthens the idea of #5. My resolution is that I still hold to this today.

7. Causality (The coherency of arguing that God is an immutable, unchanging being with the suggestion that it is a conscious agent with a mind with thoughts that acts upon whims and has causal powers over the physical universe). I worked on this one for quite some time. I eventually argued there was an internal contradiction present in the doctrine.

8. Termination (Self-refuting arguments that rely on special pleading fallacies to bolster the thesis that existence of God is valid by the assignation of ad hoc special characteristics that refute the premise of the argument that establishes them. The Cosmological Argument is especially guilty). My current stand on this is that there is an internal contradiction present in arguments that operate in a similar fashion.

Of course, the strong atheist arguments I put together are merely for my own philosophical amusement. For practical purposes, such raciocintation is overkill. It's enough to simply fall back on weak atheism and point out the lack of evidence. As far as I recall, the primary reason I started putting together the aforementioned arguments was because I was bored, although it was a while ago (I started writing the first ones at 16) so I don't really remember. It doesn't really matter anyway.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:So therefore

Kuraishel wrote:

So therefore science does not lead us to the conclusion that no god exists

Depends which god you're talking about specifically, although science hasn't conclusively proved that thor the Nordic god of thunder doesn't exist, there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for why thunder happens, that doesn't involve a supernatural god getting angry and slamming his hammer in Valhalla

Science doesn't disprove negatives

Ie science cannot disprove that an invisible supernatural teapot isn't spinning round your head, this is where commonsense, and reason kick in

 

 

 


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
I was never a theist, and

I was never a theist, and after reading the new and old testaments, I still cant find any good evidence for a god.  Remember by default everyone is an atheist, know one is born with theism per-programed into their brains.


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for those

Thank you for those arguments, they were most enlightening. Would anyone else like to present additional arguments against the existence of god/ gods? I am already familiar with Antony Flew's argument that those who claim that something exists should have to provide the evidence, not the other way around. I am more interested in the arguments from the "strong atheistic" position, that go out and enthusiastically attack the idea of the existence of a god or gods.

P.S. deludedgod may I suggest that you read Antony Flew's latest book? He recently converted from atheism to deism, because he thought that the evidence pointed to the existence of a higher power (I am sure you will have heard of his conversion already.) His book is called "There Is A God" and it outlines the evidence he saw for the existence of a deity. If you like intellectual exercises, you will read this.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:P.S. deludedgod may I

Quote:

P.S. deludedgod may I suggest that you read Antony Flew's latest book?

Yes, but his principle argument is more design/teleological in nature. His assertion regarding the origin of life and the associated arguments are simply not tenable, and his principle argument does rest (badly) on abiogenesis. I have run into similar arguments, one of which I refuted here, if you read my response to the OP. As you can tell, it is not philosophy which is my profession, but biology. Which is interesting, since Flew's argument was biological in nature, yet he is not a professional biologist, whilst mine is philosophical in nature, and I am not a professional philosopher. Anyway, this is the link:

Probability that life arose by random chance.

At any rate, I should not be insulting Flew, since he did not write the book of which you speak. The book was written by Christian apologists under his name. It would be impossible for the book to be written by Flew. It has far too many scientific errors with respect to understanding of biological evolution. It would be impossible for Flew to make such errors since he has written extensively on the matter of biological evolution and is well versed in it.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote: I am more

Kuraishel wrote:

 I am more interested in the arguments from the "strong atheistic" position, that go out and enthusiastically attack the idea of the existence of a god or gods.

By default if I don't have any evidence for something, i assume it doesn't exist.


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
As a matter of fact, large

As a matter of fact, large parts of the book were written by Flew, from his perspective. Roy Abraham Varghese wrote other parts. Anyway, I would still appreciate more anti-theistic arguments (if any.)

(edit: this is a response to deludedgod's comment.)

Now this is a response to thinktank. So as to avoid double posting, I will put forward three arguments which I think are the basis of Christian apologetics.

The argument from design.

The cosmological argument.

The argument from morality.

I am sure you are already familiar with all three arguments, can you please point out the flaws? I consider these evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Can someone

Kuraishel wrote:
Can someone please give me a list of every single reason that they don't believe in a god/ gods.

It's really just no reason to believe for me. Evidence would be a reason for me to believe. I'm on the "probably no supernatural" side of the fence, if that helps.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
I see. Let me just ask: if

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:As a matter

Kuraishel wrote:

As a matter of fact, large parts of the book were written by Flew, from his perspective. Roy Abraham Varghese wrote other parts. Anyway, I would still appreciate more anti-theistic arguments (if any.)

(edit: this is a response to deludedgod's comment.)

Now this is a response to thinktank. So as to avoid double posting, I will put forward three arguments which I think are the basis of Christian apologetics.

The argument from design.

The cosmological argument.

The argument from morality.

I am sure you are already familiar with all three arguments, can you please point out the flaws? I consider these evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

The argument from design has been destroyed by theists and atheists, at the Dover trail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The cosmological argument- what would this be

The argument from morality isn't a scientific argument


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Do all of my argument need

Do all of my argument need to be scientific? I wasn't aware that was one of the forum rules. Sorry.

The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things that exist.  It states that there must be a final uncaused-cause of all things.  This uncaused-cause is asserted to be God.
 

The Cosmological Argument takes several forms, but is basically represented below.

Cosmological Argument
  1. Things exist.
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion.  He stated that implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused.
 

 

This explanation of the cosmological argument is unashamedly copied from http://www.carm.org/apologetics/cosmological.htm If you need more explanation about it, I suggest that you use Google or Wikipedia.

 

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Sure if he came out and said

Kuraishel wrote:

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

Sure if he came out and said "here I am, god.  And I am going to produce a miracle to prove it".  He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again.  or Removes every gun from the face of the earth.  or replaces the ozone layer.  or makes Jurassic park real.


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
I am not just arguing from

I am not just arguing from the Christian perspective here, but also from the theistic point of view in general.

Because only some religions believe in an omni-present, all loving God, it is possible to believe in a god who isn't all loving and omnipresent, but who created the world. This is the deist position. Therefore the argument against the idea of a god because of pain and suffering doesn't apply to all theism.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now this is a response

Quote:
Now this is a response to thinktank. So as to avoid double posting, I will put forward three arguments which I think are the basis of Christian apologetics.
  They are all easy targets. The first was refuted in great detail in the link I gave you, but in terms of biology alone, it can be refuted multiple times without much effort. The same is true in astronomy, cosmology and other associated fields. Although the argument is usually associated with biology. But the notion of "appears designed" is nonsense to the point of being irritating chauvanism on part of the way that we create complex structures. As a biologist, I can testify that it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of the problem which Darwin, Huxley, Wallace and Kettlewell solved in a single stroke. Such was the coherent simplicity and elegance of their theory that jigsaw pieces fell into places immediately, and those that did not were worked out by future generations of molecular geneticists, proteomicists, ecologists and evolutionary developmental biologists.We shall start with the most basic principles by which we need to understand evolution. Firstly, life as a system is immensely complex, intricate and beautiful, and none are in a better position to testify this than those who study it (as I). It is tempting to attribute this complex intricacy to design, to a loving creator who assembles and fashions the parts like a watchmaker a la Paley. It is thusly tempting to compare the intricacy of life to the intricacy of systems that we humans assemble, such as watches, or perhaps (in today’s world) complex electronics. However, not only are these anologies false, but the argument which underlies them phenomenally bad. That we know that such devices as I have listed are designed is for an obvious reason, namely- we designed them, does not allow us to conclude that biological systems must undergo the same criterion, because biological systems by definition have a very special set of attributes which allows them to generate complex intricacies from simple origins. In other words, when examining an object, our question should not depend on the criterion of the complexity of the object in question, perhaps measured by the primitive notion of how many “parts” it has or how they fit together, but rather, can it come about through natural process? With our devices, the answer is no. But for biological engines, the answer is yes. This is where the insurmountable problems solved by the 19th century Victorian naturalists aboard the Beagle in a single stroke, comes into play. Being that we have the intrinsic oddity of comparing biological engines to our own devices, it logically follows, being that we were the designers of the objects in question to which we are comparing biological engines, that we set up this false dichotomy whereby if the object in question was not designed, than the only alternative by which it may have come about is chance. By chance we simply mean a process of randomness which simply appears to have no governing law, whose system dynamics are simply chaotic and random, and that the complex structures of biology in question could have coalesced through such a process is absurd, hence we are left with the alternative of design. Yet this alternative is, I would say, equally phenomenally bad as an explanation, because of the argumentum ad ignoratium it pose. The concomitant vapid idea is that complexity is somehow a measure of a meaningless quality upon which we can judge whether or not "design" occured. In reality, complex and non-random natural processes have just as much capacity to create such structures. The geneticist James Watson stated it plainly: "Evolution is smarter than you are". The fact that we are creatures which design structures based on a concomitant approach of planning gives us the rather chauvanstic view that all things must come into being in this manner lest they be solely the product of chance. This is sheer idiocy.      Only the third one has any meaningful connection with the notion of the "Christian God". As Voltaire pointed out, it is a complete non sequitur to draw a line from notions such as design and cosmology to lead to the Christian God. At best it could only support concomitant propositions with the deistic God. But Lewis's argument is a non sequitur at best. Especially considering it is obscelent in a modern scientific era where biology, psychology, even mathematics, economics, and neuroscience, are combining to give a crisp and cogent account of the "moral sense". I spent a long time attacking the notion of the Cosmological Argument wholly from a physics standpoint (invoking such things as the Lindeian Boundary Condition and the Hawking-Hartele model) but then I realized that this was unnecessary. Even a mere acceptance of the premises leads to a sort of doublethink.

The argument is simple of course. All things need a cause, infinite regress is impossible, a first cause is necessary. Seems pretty solid at first blush, but in reality the situation is anything but simple, and genuine understanding of the validity or lack thereof requires a great deal of knowledge in Newtonian mechanics, field equations, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, cosmology and physical causality. The issue is anything but simple, indeed, we find the argument relies on a slew of intuitive understandings of physics that date back to issues with Zeno, which cannot be trusted, and certainly cannot be trusted to provide us with proof of God.    To understand this whole argument, we really need to first understand the notion of causality. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. It is postulated that the observation of cause leads to an infinite regress, and this is paradoxical, hence the God solution being postulated, the primum movens. I shall come to the paradox of infinite regress in a moment, but first I want to point out that the Cosmological Argument and its many variants invariably set up a very, very insurmountable paradox in and of themselves. Therefore, to say it is coherent is only in the sense of “which paradox is less insurmountable” which is hardly a measure of coherency at all Those who have read Joseph Heller’s famous novel will know of what we call in logic a Catch-22. The idea behind it has been understood for quite some time, simply put: C=>(A^B) (A =>~B) (B =>~A) This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur. In Joseph Heller’s book, the Catch-22 was that to leave the air force, you had to be insane and you had to request to leave. But if you are genuinely insane, there is no way you can request to leave, conversely, if you request to leave, there is no way you can be genuinely insane. So, you are stuck. It’s also known as a no-win situation. We have a similar situation here. There are two necessary preconditions that make God a necessary and coherent postulate that the Cosmological Argument may work.   A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of) B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time  The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22. If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.   The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’    Since this is philosophical raciocintation, I have a more scientific critique on hand. Be assured that I did not conjure it up ex ignorantium. I am trained in physics and cosmology.   

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote: I am more

Kuraishel wrote:

 I am more interested in the arguments from the "strong atheistic" position, that go out and enthusiastically attack the idea of the existence of a god or gods.

This is different, significantly different from not believing

Attempts to introduce sharia law, in my country

Genetic research, opposed and successfully restricted, by the religious community

9/11, the assassination of doctors at abortion clinics

The list is virtually endless

This is wrong, now I could try to oppose every, mad ridiculous idiotic scheme that religious fanatics come up with, because there ancient texts instruct them to do these things

Or I could fight the cause, of the madness

I choose to actively fight the cause,

I have no problem with anybody believing anything they want, up to the point where it becomes organized, and adversely affects my life, and the lives of others in my community


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:I see. Let

Kuraishel wrote:

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

Please define what a miracle is, and explain how we could know that it is a supernatural event versus simply an unlikely natural event.

Simply by asking 'if you were to witness a miracle' presumes that we would already know it is a miracle. If we already know it's a miracle why would we call it anything else? I'm not being antagonistic, I am simply curious.

Here's my answer to 'what would make me believe in God': I don't know, but surely an omniscient God would know what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe, AND an omnipotent God would have the power to present this evidence to me, AND an omnibenevolent God would want to present this evidence to me. Since I've not seen convincing evidence, I conclude that such a God cannot exist.

But even better, I have a more concrete example for you. I would accept theistic belief if I was provided, out of thin air, with a book, addressed to me by name, which details things from my past experience which only I could know, and which predicts specific things which will happen in my upcoming life which never fail to come true. It doesn't have to be a complete life history, just a book full of my life's events. And having it appear before me out of thin air would pretty much seal the deal.

There, now this hypothetical God knows what would convince me, and I think it's a pretty reasonable request, since he allegedly did something similar for Muhammed. It wouldn't even require omniscience or omnipotence, only enough knowledge to know what's on the internet and incomplete but accurate predictions of the future, and enough power to materialize a book out of thin air. If such a god exists and cares whether I believe in him or not, then surely he could create this book.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
response

I will present one more argument for the existence of God, but because I started this thread in order to hear your arguments against the existence of God, I will not spend much more time on my own arguments or refuting refutations for that matter.

If God exists, then he is defined as that of which no higher can be thought. This definition is accepted by both atheists and theists. If I may use a little analogy myself here, every ladder has to have the top rung. Because we have just defined God as "the top rung" the logical conclusion is that God exists.

By all means, refute this argument and present me with your own ones. I want to get more people presenting me with their points of view.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
That argument is called the

That argument is called the argument from degree. It is completey meaningless. It's simply a bland assertion, the notion that there is some sort of necessary of "universal degree measure" against which all things are compared. The argument is literally a non sequitur the way the phrase is used in humour, no better than saying:

P: All ladders have a top rung

C: Therefore, God exists.

The claim is completely meaningless and utterly inarticulable. It's also impossible to maintain because to fill such a requsite would entail that such a being be the maxima of certain properties that it does not have but against which we do employ different judgements of degree, such as with physical properties. If it did not have such properties, it could be referred to as the supposed maxima in any sense. We judge different things relative to other things in context-relative judgments and situations. The leap from this notion to a universal degree indicator is complete gibberish.We use relative comparisons in context relative judgement senses. If a ship was the size of an island, it would be extremely large relative to other ships. If a planet was the size of an island, it would be extremely small relative to other planets. The notion of a universal maxima for properties against which we judge degree makes no sense because judgements of degree are context relative. To propogate the argument would require you hold two contradictory notions simultaneously. You'd have to assert that this being constitutes the maxima for all context-relative judgements, which would be meaningless as you'd basically have infinity contradictory notions. But if you tried to argue that it still constituted a maxima of degree without trying to argue that it is the perfect measure for all context-relative judgements (such as the largest ship, the smallest plane, the best athlete, the worst eyesight, etc ad infinitum) then you'd be undermining your own premise that a universal measure of all things is necessary, let alone coherent, because you are admitting that measurements of degree of any kind are context-relative judgements. For this reason, the "argument from degree" for God is meaningless.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:If God

Kuraishel wrote:
If God exists, then he is defined as that of which no higher can be thought.

So, God is just a thought? I can easily think of a human that is greater than all other humans. For instance, this human I'm thinking of is 30 feet tall, has an IQ of 10,000, can run 600 mph, can fly, can hold his breath underwater for 300 years, etc.

Does that mean that this human exists? Just because I can think of him?

Now, certainly the *thought* of this human exists, first in my mind, and now in your mind. But that's just a thought, not an actual human. Are you saying that God is just one of these thoughts? Because actually.... I would completely agree. That is exactly what God is.


 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Why do you

Kuraishel wrote:
Why do you think that empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that a god/ gods don't exist?

Scientific thought really deals in probability. It's improbable that there is a supernatural world. Gods would be of the improbable supernatural world, as would many other immaterial things like unicorns, leprechans, or the number foozwazzle.

Kuraishel wrote:
Because you think that science makes miracles impossible?

No, because the natural order of things continues. A miracle would be an interruption of that natural order. New evidence of the world working differently would change that, but that's not exactly a guaranteed eventuality.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:I see. Let

Kuraishel wrote:

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

There's nothing antagonistic about the question. If I were to witness a miracle (that being an interruption of the natural order), I would think a new explanation incorporating what I had just witnessed was in order. The repeatablility of the miracle would be required, however, as I'm pretty sure I could be fooled equally by a really good magic trick.

That wouldn't immediately jump to a god, though, no. Just because something I thought was supernatural might actually happen, that just means the one supernatural thing happens, it doesn't open the door for a world of fantasy creatures.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:If God

Kuraishel wrote:

If God exists, then he is defined as that of which no higher can be thought.

This is just sort of a statement with a built-in conclusion that doesn't follow. "If Zeus exists, then he is defined as that of which no higher can be thought."

It's not really an argument for Zeus. In fact, it's not really an argument. You don't follow it up. Let's try something else.

Besides, if God is the highest thing, then is God some unit of measurement? I'm sure that's not where you're going with that, it's just that it's confusing as a statement.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:The argument

Kuraishel wrote:

The argument from design.

The cosmological argument.

The argument from morality.

I am sure you are already familiar with all three arguments, can you please point out the flaws? I consider these evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

Considering an argument "evidence" isn't really a good start for seperating fact from fiction. The argument from design is a presupposition at best, the cosmological argument is weak at several levels (most notably the convenient definition of God), and the argument from morality assumes a fundamental human anarchy that has never existed.

They're kind of weak arguments, and they're not really evidence. Evidence would really make the difference in my beliefs (it always has).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Why we don't believe in gods

Can you please give me a list of why you don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, faeries, unicorns, etc? If you can provide the details of why you don't "believe" in these entities, cross out the aforementioned names, replace them with "god" and you will have the answer to your question.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Can someone

Kuraishel wrote:

Can someone please give me a list of every single reason that they don't believe in a god/ gods.

Because there is no empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates that any god exists.

I also do not actively believe in the nonexistence of god/gods, because there is no empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates that gods do not exist.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:I also do not

BMcD wrote:

I also do not actively believe in the nonexistence of god/gods, because there is no empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates that gods do not exist.

Do you also refrain from actively believing in the nonexistence of flying walruses?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Because only

Kuraishel wrote:

Because only some religions believe in an omni-present, all loving God, it is possible to believe in a god who isn't all loving and omnipresent, but who created the world. This is the deist position. Therefore the argument against the idea of a god because of pain and suffering doesn't apply to all theism.

 

So why believe in a god that created the world/universe and just went on his merry way, not giving two shits about what happens to us? That's really just a step removed from atheism. We believe there is no god controlling anything. You believe there is a god not controlling anything.

The reason I don't believe in God is because of the very contradiction you speak of. If God did create the world/universe, and wanted to be worshipped by us, why is he allowing humanity to be so fractured in its religious beliefs and practices - to the point of outright contradiction? I'm not just talking about the differences between Christian and non-Christian faiths, I'm talking about huge differences of opinion and practice amongst just the Christian faiths. If you've got one Christian faith saying gay people are evil sinners (Catholics, for example) and one faith saying that gay people are fine (Presbyterians are in this camp for the most part, I think), one of those faiths is wrong. There's no inbetween. God must have an opinion on the matter, if he exists. So why doesn't he make it clear? I could go on, but I'm trying to keep my answer short per your request.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:BMcD

HisWillness wrote:

BMcD wrote:

I also do not actively believe in the nonexistence of god/gods, because there is no empirical evidence that conclusively demonstrates that gods do not exist.

Do you also refrain from actively believing in the nonexistence of flying walruses?

Indeed I do, Will. I believe that I exist. Everything else might be bullshit. I interact with the world I perceive around me, but make no assumptions or assertions that my perceptions might not be wrong.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Cosmological

Kuraishel wrote:

Cosmological Argument
  1. Things exist.
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Or the flying spaghetti monster, or pink invisible unicorns, or à la or a combination of them all, that which has not been caused does not exist

What started this universe is unknown, at the present time, one can fill this unknown with any number of magical creatures, and come up with any number of magical stories as to why they started the universe

Personally I just call it what it is, unknown

To do otherwise, doom's you to a life of ignorance, ie it's not unknown, magical dwarfs made the universe, so there's no need, to investigate the cause

This is also true, of all the unknowns in this universe

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Indeed I do,

BMcD wrote:
Indeed I do, Will. I believe that I exist. Everything else might be bullshit. I interact with the world I perceive around me, but make no assumptions or assertions that my perceptions might not be wrong.

I guess you mean philisophically, right? I mean, for practical purposes, you don't walk around saying, "will this car key actually open my car?" and then pass out in shock when it actually does.

I can see having an open mind to weird claims like, let's say, in 2012 the world will revert to Super Mario Brothers, and we'll all have to survive by collecting coins and throwing turtle shells. But to consider them all simultaneously as equally likely is a bit daunting. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of that really, but probability-wise, you figger there are magical creatures?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Reasons for my disbelief

Kuraishel wrote:

Can someone please give me a list of every single reason that they don't believe in a god/ gods. I want to understand atheist arguments against theism and having them all on one page would be great. I know this could be a rather long list, so please condense each of your points into a sentence or two. Multiple users are welcome to post.

Many have already been covered but they include empirical evidence, common sense, skepticism, the reading and study of the Bible and Christianity. As an ex-Christian I determined that Christianity and other religions are based primarily on myths and legends. I grew to question every bit of it as well as all religions. Now I do not accept god beliefs at all as they are as silly as belief in Santa.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
thinktank wrote:Kuraishel

thinktank wrote:

Kuraishel wrote:

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

Sure if he came out and said "here I am, god.  And I am going to produce a miracle to prove it".  He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again.  or Removes every gun from the face of the earth.  or replaces the ozone layer.  or makes Jurassic park real.

I wouldn't as one man's miracle is another's technology. Even your example of all the guns being removed could be explained by a yet to be discovered advanced alien civilization. That may appear to be god like but it still would have a direct cause of an intelligent being using technology. The point being it wouldn't fit our understanding but that doesn't mean necessarily it is a god being that performed the action.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


albedo_00
albedo_00's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Kuraishel wrote:Can someone

Kuraishel wrote:

Can someone please give me a list of every single reason that they don't believe in a god/ gods. I want to understand atheist arguments against theism and having them all on one page would be great. I know this could be a rather long list, so please condense each of your points into a sentence or two. Multiple users are welcome to post.

Well, let's see here, reason, common sense, skepticism,  the lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), and the swiss cheese nature -smelly and full of holes- of all philosophical arguments I've ever heard of for it. All of which have been elaborated by many here so I don't see the point to deepening further on them.

That's just on one hand, on the other, the ever growing evidence that suggest god is more an evolutionary tool, byproduct or psychological coping mechanism than anything else. Also, we have the other scientifical findings that are slowly but surely chipping away at every supernatural notion, leaving god less and less places to cover: neuro-psychological experiments that recreate out-of-body experiences, visions and so on; on the field of genetics, the findings on the god gene; on psychology and sociology, the effects of peer pressure and suggestion on the adoption of a belief and the occurrences of "miracle" healings; the many prayer experiments which proves that particular pleading for divine intervention useless, and so on.

And then, there's the more personal reasons I don't believe, which mostly can be summed up to one thing: pragmatism. I have no use for a god(s) belief nor for faith. To me this things are completely pointless and downright wasteful and harmful. The only use I could derive from them is perhaps amusement, or entertainment, and my dog, my books and plastiline modeling give me that and much more.

This might stretch the OP request, but another argument for me not believing lies in that same line of pragmatism but under a social point of view: if we were to make a comparison between the benefits and the harms caused by the god belief in todays society, it would be painfully obvious the god belief as it stands today (of which religion is but an exponent) is detrimental to society and runs counter to our interest of survival as a species.

Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.


Kuraishel
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ok, thanks.

Right, now I assume that you have covered everything that you mean to (although by all means add more comments if you wish) I will make a bullet point list of everything you have said and attempt to respond to it over the next couple of months. I don't intend to cover each point in a day, it will take some time debating and dare I say it, probably refining my own opinions.

Sorry I haven't posted a while, my non-forum life came a-calling.

By the way, I don't think your arguments about the existence of faeries, etc have any relevance to my arguments. I am not claiming that the world was caused by Santa Claus, and the cosmological argument has nothing to do with unicorns, spaghetti monsters or any other sort of nonsense. There is a great deal more evidence for the existence of a Creator than there is for the existence of these creatures. As I have said, I will present this evidence in other threads. I will also mention this site to a theistic biologist friend of mine. He should raise some sparks in here.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Right, now I assume

Quote:
Right, now I assume that you have covered everything that you mean to

As if that's possible.

Quote:
There is a great deal more evidence for the existence of a Creator than there is for the existence of these creatures.

There's not and if I gave you the phrase..." there's a great deal more zero than zero", it probably wouldn't mean much would it ?

Quote:
As I have said, I will present this evidence in other threads.

What are the odds that this will be something "new" and that hasn't already been refuted to death somewhere else on this site ?

I'm just kidding.  Theistic evidence presentation never gets old...it's like "magic" every time.  

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I'm jumping in abit

Sorry I'm jumping in abit late here. I've tried to answer the orignal three arguments in a easy to understand way. I copied these from another project I'm working on, so they might not precisly adress the questions, but should give an idea.

 

1.     Argument from fine tuning/Improbability

Premises: The earth is just right for life. A bit more that way, it would too cold. A bit, more that way, too hot. It has just the right kind of atmosphere,  nice solar system with a asteroid belt that protects us from errant meteors that could hit the earth, etc. Or just look at us. See how complex the eye is. That couldn’t have just happened.

 

Problem: This doesn’t seem as amazing when you realize there are billions of planets, around billions of stars. Given the astronomical numbers worked with here, it isn’t that unlikely one would have the right conditions for life to appear. In fact, the universe speaks against intelligent design. So many galaxies and dead planets, so one can have life? It resembles far more the result one would get from an event such as the Big Bang.

The earth itself does not seem so intelligently designed. 70% of it is water, not much good for us non-gilled humans. Of the remaining land, much is in-hospitable dessert or ice land.  Why would god give us one planet in the whole universe and make most of it useless?

 

It is the same if we look at the eye. Yes, it is very unlikely it just appeared. Remember to factor in  few million years though, and it’s not so unbelievable that it manage to work it’s way here. If it was intelligently designed, why do so many people need glasses, and why are eyes so sensitive and easy to injure?

 

    How can you be moral without god?

Premises: It is impossible to be moral wothout god, the bible is the ultimate source of morality.

Problem: This is very insulting to the atheist, and completely baseless. First you have to accept the bible is the source of morality. There is no reason to believe anything in it is true, and do you really want to live by a book that has this:

Killing innocent babies-Exodus 12:29

You must kill your child if they disobey you-Exodus 21:15

Beat your slave, just make sure he doesn’t die! Exodus 21:20-21

They complete destruction of peoples, including infants, women, and animals. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Giving your daughter away to her cousin in payment for his killing someone. Joshua 15:16-17

Condones child sacrifice. Judges 11:29-40

Sell your clothes to buy swords. Luke 22:36

Less than 1% of America’s prison population is atheist. Even if those numbers are somehow skewed, there are still a lot more christians than atheists in prison. Obviously, there are a lot more christians than atheists in every facet of American life, but should there be any in prison in the first place if they have the moral high ground?

The buckle of the Bible Belt has extremely high levels of teen pregnancy, violence, and illiteracy. Why if christians are so much better?

 

 

1.     Watchmaker Argument

Premises: If you were walking along and found a watch, you would note it’s complexity and conclude someone had designed it. It is the same with the natural world. Everything needs a creator.

 

Problem: Watches are designed. We know this because we can go to the watch factory and talk to the designer, and see the plans and processed for it. I’ve yet to see anyone do this with the universes’ supposed creator. Watches are non-organic things, and therefore couldn’t naturally evolve. Of course you wouldn’t think it just grew there. You might with a plant though. It is interesting to note that while this is n argument against evolution, watches evolve in their own way. The complex digital watch you found started as a simple sundial. In using this argument, the creationist must give credence to evolution.

 

This boils down to everything created needs a creator. The thing here is, who created god?

If nothing, then everything, including the world, does not need a creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

 

If something, then god is not the universe’s creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 I certainly hope he is

 

I certainly hope he is better than the "geologist" who was unfamiliar with logarithms or decay rates, the "doctor" who did not know that the phrase "biological evolution" meant "a change in gene frequencies in a population due to selective pressure", the "physicist" who did not know how to calculate Free Energy Change from entropy, or chemical equilibria from free energy, or especially that other "doctor" who couldn't tell me the difference between autocrine and panacrine signalling.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:I certainly

deludedgod wrote:
I certainly hope he is better than the "geologist" who was unfamiliar with logarithms or decay rates, [...] 

That's a sad list. Especially when those are all things you could look up on the internet and pretend to know.

I want a biologist to come on and make the case that Jesus was a dinosaur. Y'know, a fresh perspective.

And lo, when Jesus was among the Hettanites, he did proclaim, "RAAAAARRRAGHARAGHARRAAAAAAAH!"

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
the world was caused by Santa Claus,

Kuraishel wrote:

Right, now I assume that you have covered everything that you mean to...

Not really I'm sure we can come up with some more.

Kuraishel wrote:

 I am not claiming that the world was caused by Santa Claus,

 

That's too bad I really had a good argument that Santa had nothing at all to do with creation.

Kuraishel wrote:

and the cosmological argument has nothing to do with unicorns,

 I had really hoped to show that unicorns were  essentially relevant to the argument against a god.

 

Kuraishel wrote:

I will also mention this site to a theistic biologist friend of mine. He should raise some sparks in here.

Is that a contradiction in terms? Like an atheistic Catholic priest?

 

I can see where this is going. It appears analogies are not being understood.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I want a

HisWillness wrote:

I want a biologist to come on and make the case that Jesus was a dinosaur. Y'know, a fresh perspective.

And lo, when Jesus was among the Hettanites, he did proclaim, "RAAAAARRRAGHARAGHARRAAAAAAAH!"

I can easily refute that as Jesus was clearly a Neanderthal. Since they did not believe on him they all became extinct.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
I can easily refute that as Jesus was clearly a Neanderthal. Since they did not believe on him they all became extinct.

I think the most important question, and one that really hasn't been addressed by biologists:

was Jesus high in fibre?

Perhaps the dinosaurs (and, indeed neanderthals) should have had more Jesus in their diet. At least we finally have a good, solid explanation for their extinction.

Anyway, bring the biologist. I'm sure we'll all have fun, since ... I'm actually a dinosaur. I have no evidence; that's how I prove that. QED.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


lifewhispers
Posts: 104
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
thinktank wrote:Kuraishel

thinktank wrote:

Kuraishel wrote:

I see. Let me just ask: if you were to witness a miracle, would that cause you to believe in a god or would you brush it off as a strange scientific phenomenon? I don't mean to be antagonistic in any way, I am simply curious.

Sure if he came out and said "here I am, god.  And I am going to produce a miracle to prove it".  He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again.  or Removes every gun from the face of the earth.  or replaces the ozone layer.  or makes Jurassic park real.

Let me point out a couple of things about your assertion, above:

There are exactly two possibilities:

1 - That a God that Created, or is Creating the Universe exists

or,

2 - That a God that Created, or is Creating the Universe does not exist.

In EITHER case, the Universe remains THE SAME.   So, you cannot logically conclude that the absence of violations of the physical laws of the Universe (miracles) supports your notion that there is no God.

Also, consider that a God that Created the Universe COULD exist and simply not care whether, or not, you believe in it.  And, any being capable of Creating the Universe would have well-thought out reasons for everything being the way it is - reasons that trump any desire for evidence of His existence on your part.

Furthermore, even if a being came to you and did as you suggest (He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again), that is still not conclusive evidence that that being is God, Creator of the Universe.  He could simply be an extremely advanced being with technology beyond our comprehension - and, a LIAR by stating that He is "God, Creator of the Universe."

I only point these things out to you so that you might reconsider your criteria for the acceptance of the existence of a God that has Created, or IS Creating the Universe.  I'm not trying to "sell" you on God - I'm only trying to get you to reconsider your notions of what would constitute evidence of such a being.

Ultimately, this implies that belief in God will ALWAYS be a simple choice, and not based on empirical evidence.  It is merely a chosen perspective and dependent on the tenability of the definition of God you are employing.  And, for ANY God to be tenable, its characteristics MUST NECESSARILY be entirely consistent with the way things really are.  After all, we ARE talking about God, Creator of the Universe, here.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe in a god

I don't believe in a god because there is absolutely no reason to believe.

All of the gods and all of the creation theories in all of the religions are equally absurd.

The arguments from design, cosmology and morality have all been given lots of time on other posts. All are flawed and don't prove anything.

"Cosmological Argument
  1. Things exist.
  2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
  3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    1. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
  4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
    2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
  6. The uncaused cause must be God."

This is not even logic!!!!

"Also, by definition, God is uncaused."

By whose definition? By the escape clause definition? Is uncaused even a word? Where did god come from?

I just need to read a small part of the bible to know that christianity is not true.

A miracle would not convince me, it has been done too many times in sci-fi, all it would show is that we don't know how the "miracle" was done. Most of the technology we use today would have seemed miraculous 100 years ago.


 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:BMcD

HisWillness wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Indeed I do, Will. I believe that I exist. Everything else might be bullshit. I interact with the world I perceive around me, but make no assumptions or assertions that my perceptions might not be wrong.

I guess you mean philisophically, right? I mean, for practical purposes, you don't walk around saying, "will this car key actually open my car?" and then pass out in shock when it actually does.

I can see having an open mind to weird claims like, let's say, in 2012 the world will revert to Super Mario Brothers, and we'll all have to survive by collecting coins and throwing turtle shells. But to consider them all simultaneously as equally likely is a bit daunting. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of that really, but probability-wise, you figger there are magical creatures?

I mean that, to take your example, while I expect the key will unlock the car, if it has appeared to do so in the past, I cannot assert knowledge that it will. I'd be surprised if it didn't work, but I can't know that such won't happen.

Do I consider the 'weird claims' all simultaneously equally likely? Of course not. I interact with the universe that I perceive. I can't interact with anything else, after all... and just like things like 'I could die in the next moment'... I could have a heart attack, I could get hit by a car, a plane could crash on me... like all of these things are possible, I acknowledge the possibility that all that I know could be wrong... but I continue to interact with the universe that I perceive, on the basis of what I perceive. To do otherwise... that way lies madness. But ultimately, I'm forced to admit: I simply don't know. Are there magical creatures? I don't expect them to be found, but in the end, I don't know.

On a side note, since you referenced the Long Count scenario... on December 21, 2012, the 'end of the world' according to the Long Count doomsdayers, a friend of mine turns 43. I have been poking at him over this, saying things like 'Oh, fine, you get done being 42, the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything... and the world ends' and '43... Number of the Bush!'. And it amuses me greatly. Smiling

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I get ya wise BMcD ,

   I get ya wise BMcD , but this a question of what ya put your bet on,  

And so I say,  this, now, is Gawed , seems most obvious to me. God is not a question for me.

Oh, the OP meant as a separate god thingy ..... but how can anything be separate ?  I won't play this silly god game .... oh but shit, so I must. So how do I place my bet ? I don't understand this god game ?  If it about the likes of God of abe , or like ideas ?  .... you must be kidding, no?  okay,  so I bet my life on   fuck no .....  nothing is separate is all of the why ....

{ man you all is fast typer thinkers, I can't keep up, I was going to be #31 post, geezz I AM slow .....        ummm , Time is messing with my head,  I must stop time   What good is it ? ..... wait , go ,  backup , up , down  , I don't get any of this shit ?  .... How does someone pray to this god thing ????   

{ that took like 10 edits , damn me ..... I AM not drunk enough ...... 

BTW , OP    Kuraishel  I AM sorry, I will try to be of more help when I can get myself GOD serious ..... but that ain't easy when you are GOD ..... hang in there , lol   from me god .....