atheists answer this

Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
atheists answer this

atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.  the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible.  how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?  

 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:atheists all

Shitrock wrote:
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.

Which atheists would these be?  The imaginary ones you argue with when you're locked in the closet?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Shitrock

zarathustra wrote:

Shitrock wrote:
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.

Which atheists would these be?  The imaginary ones you argue with when you're locked in the closet?

Wonko say (in caveman grunt dialect), "laughter, gooood".


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:atheists all

Shitrock wrote:

atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.  the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible.  how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?  

As an atheist, I'd say that while we can speculate, and make inference, we cannot claim to know the limits of logical possibility and more than we can claim to know that there is or is not some kind of god. Humanity certainly does not know the limits of what is and isn't logically possible.

There are many things we have indirect, and far from conclusive, evidence about. There are many other things we can speculate about that we have no evidence for or against. Actively believing any of those things to definitely exist or definitely not exist is vanity, an assertion that the believer has some special knowledge.

God is one of those things we have no conclusive evidence for or against. We have no actual indirect evidence, either, unless you count things which were undeniably put to page by men, who may or may not have had agendas to promote.

Thus, we cannot believe in God any more than we can believe in Santa Claus or dragons. Not believing in the existence of God is atheism. However, it is not disbelieving. Disbelief is believing in the non-existence of God. This is also atheism, as all atheism requires is a lack of belief in God.

Thus, while perhaps you feel all atheists seem to operate on blind faiths, your impression is incorrect.

"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


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
I really think you need to

I really think you need to expand more on what you said Shitrock.  I've never met anyone that has the characteristics you just described.

 

What things to atheists have faith in?  What do atheists believe that lack evidence?  Who has claimed to know the limits to logical possibility?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Shitrock

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.  the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible.  how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?  

As an atheist, I'd say that while we can speculate, and make inference, we cannot claim to know the limits of logical possibility and more than we can claim to know that there is or is not some kind of god. Humanity certainly does not know the limits of what is and isn't logically possible.

There are many things we have indirect, and far from conclusive, evidence about. There are many other things we can speculate about that we have no evidence for or against. Actively believing any of those things to definitely exist or definitely not exist is vanity, an assertion that the believer has some special knowledge.

God is one of those things we have no conclusive evidence for or against. We have no actual indirect evidence, either, unless you count things which were undeniably put to page by men, who may or may not have had agendas to promote.

Thus, we cannot believe in God any more than we can believe in Santa Claus or dragons. Not believing in the existence of God is atheism. However, it is not disbelieving. Disbelief is believing in the non-existence of God. This is also atheism, as all atheism requires is a lack of belief in God.

Thus, while perhaps you feel all atheists seem to operate on blind faiths, your impression is incorrect.

how can the lack of belief in a god be anything but a disbelief that god exists?  you are splitting hairs.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Shitrock

zarathustra wrote:

Shitrock wrote:
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.

Which atheists would these be?  The imaginary ones you argue with when you're locked in the closet?

do you not argue against god based on the limits of logical possibility?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:how can the

Shitrock wrote:

how can the lack of belief in a god be anything but a disbelief that god exists?  you are splitting hairs.

Perhaps you could give a definition of that god in question.  I don't believe in giant, radioactive, garden gnomes with a drinking problem only because they are well defined. Your god is a vague concept which really doesn't mean anything more than a Shakespearean metaphor.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:how can the

Shitrock wrote:

how can the lack of belief in a god be anything but a disbelief that god exists?  you are splitting hairs.

Not at all. Disbelief in the existence of God is an assertion of knowledge, equivalent with the claim 'There is no Santa Claus'.

Lack of belief is an admission of ignorance, equivalent to 'I have no idea what socks I will wear on June 12th, 2012'.

Disbelief is an investiture of certitude, an active, positive claim that can, and usually will, be defended. Attempts to prove that claim wrong are resisted, just as attempts to prove god-belief wrong are resisted. It is the position that you already know the answer.

Lack of belief is a position of uncertainty, of seeking answers. Attempts to demonstrate the validity of a claim for or against the existence of God(s) are welcomed, as any real proof would thus resolve the uncertainty. This does not mean they are accepted out of hand, or go without scrutiny. Indeed, every possible attempt to destroy such claims of proof should be employed, because real proof must be unassailable. Remember, though, that proofs for both active positions are given the same skeptical scrutiny.

"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


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
This seems to be another

This seems to be another misunderstanding of burden of proof albeit somewhat different in context. Theists make claims (e.g. god made the heavens and Earth in 6 literal days or in the hindu faith there is a 4.5 billion yr creation/destruction event) which require blind faith.

In what way is claiming there is no proof for the existence of a god unreasonable? As for the original statement no one I know claims to know the limits of probability. Life in the universe may be abundant with billions of possible extra-solar planets that are possible. The laws of probability seem to indicate that life is possible elsewhere but no one is definitely stating that there is for sure.  

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
the specific definition of

the specific definition of the god in question is entirely irrelevant.  what i am saying is that the belief that god does not exist has no more evidence to support it than the belief that god does exist.  therefore its a blind faith.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:This

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

This seems to be another misunderstanding of burden of proof albeit somewhat different in context. Theists make claims (e.g. god made the heavens and Earth in 6 literal days or in the hindu faith there is a 4.5 billion yr creation/destruction event) which require blind faith.

In what way is claiming there is no proof for the existence of a god unreasonable? As for the original statement no one I know claims to know the limits of probability. Life in the universe may be abundant with billions of possible extra-solar planets that are possible. The laws of probability seem to indicate that life is possible elsewhere but no one is definitely stating that there is for sure.  

im not saying that claiming there is no evidence is unreasonable.  i am saying that atheists believe there is no god.  but there is no hard concrete evidence of that, therefore its a faith.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:Cali_Athiest2

Shitrock wrote:

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

This seems to be another misunderstanding of burden of proof albeit somewhat different in context. Theists make claims (e.g. god made the heavens and Earth in 6 literal days or in the hindu faith there is a 4.5 billion yr creation/destruction event) which require blind faith.

In what way is claiming there is no proof for the existence of a god unreasonable? As for the original statement no one I know claims to know the limits of probability. Life in the universe may be abundant with billions of possible extra-solar planets that are possible. The laws of probability seem to indicate that life is possible elsewhere but no one is definitely stating that there is for sure.  

im not saying that claiming there is no evidence is unreasonable.  i am saying that atheists believe there is no god.  but there is no hard concrete evidence of that, therefore its a faith.

Not necessarily. You don' t need to believe there's a god to be an atheist, you only need to not believe there is one. See my earlier posts.

"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


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Shitrock

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

This seems to be another misunderstanding of burden of proof albeit somewhat different in context. Theists make claims (e.g. god made the heavens and Earth in 6 literal days or in the hindu faith there is a 4.5 billion yr creation/destruction event) which require blind faith.

In what way is claiming there is no proof for the existence of a god unreasonable? As for the original statement no one I know claims to know the limits of probability. Life in the universe may be abundant with billions of possible extra-solar planets that are possible. The laws of probability seem to indicate that life is possible elsewhere but no one is definitely stating that there is for sure.  

im not saying that claiming there is no evidence is unreasonable.  i am saying that atheists believe there is no god.  but there is no hard concrete evidence of that, therefore its a faith.

Not necessarily. You don' t need to believe there's a god to be an atheist, you only need to not believe there is one. See my earlier posts.

run that by me again...

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:run that by

Shitrock wrote:

run that by me again...

Sure. Earlier, you said, and I replied:

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

how can the lack of belief in a god be anything but a disbelief that god exists?  you are splitting hairs.

Not at all. Disbelief in the existence of God is an assertion of knowledge, equivalent with the claim 'There is no Santa Claus'.

Lack of belief is an admission of ignorance, equivalent to 'I have no idea what socks I will wear on June 12th, 2012'.

Disbelief is an investiture of certitude, an active, positive claim that can, and usually will, be defended. Attempts to prove that claim wrong are resisted, just as attempts to prove god-belief wrong are resisted. It is the position that you already know the answer.

Lack of belief is a position of uncertainty, of seeking answers. Attempts to demonstrate the validity of a claim for or against the existence of God(s) are welcomed, as any real proof would thus resolve the uncertainty. This does not mean they are accepted out of hand, or go without scrutiny. Indeed, every possible attempt to destroy such claims of proof should be employed, because real proof must be unassailable. Remember, though, that proofs for both active positions are given the same skeptical scrutiny.

And that remains the answer.

"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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:do you not

Shitrock wrote:


do you not argue against god based on the limits of logical possibility?




I argue against god based on a number of things.

There is no evidence for god.  This is not a faith-based claim as you imply.  It is a rejection of the faith-based claims of theists.

In respect to certain arguments (First Cause, Argument from Design, Moral Authority, etc.), god is not logically necessary.

And yes, certain god-concepts (such as an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god) are not logically possible.


Shitrock wrote:
how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility? 

Do you mean to say that logical deduction is an act of blind faith?  That a statement such as P ^ ¬P might be logically possible ("We shouldn't rule it out...we don't have all the evidence yet" )?

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Shitrock

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

run that by me again...

Sure. Earlier, you said, and I replied:

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

how can the lack of belief in a god be anything but a disbelief that god exists?  you are splitting hairs.

Not at all. Disbelief in the existence of God is an assertion of knowledge, equivalent with the claim 'There is no Santa Claus'.

Lack of belief is an admission of ignorance, equivalent to 'I have no idea what socks I will wear on June 12th, 2012'.

Disbelief is an investiture of certitude, an active, positive claim that can, and usually will, be defended. Attempts to prove that claim wrong are resisted, just as attempts to prove god-belief wrong are resisted. It is the position that you already know the answer.

Lack of belief is a position of uncertainty, of seeking answers. Attempts to demonstrate the validity of a claim for or against the existence of God(s) are welcomed, as any real proof would thus resolve the uncertainty. This does not mean they are accepted out of hand, or go without scrutiny. Indeed, every possible attempt to destroy such claims of proof should be employed, because real proof must be unassailable. Remember, though, that proofs for both active positions are given the same skeptical scrutiny.

And that remains the answer.

 

how does any of that make a difference?  you BELIEVE in a certain set of viewpoints.  do you not?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Shitrock

zarathustra wrote:

Shitrock wrote:


do you not argue against god based on the limits of logical possibility?




I argue against god based on a number of things.

There is no evidence for god.  This is not a faith-based claim as you imply.  It is a rejection of the faith-based claims of theists.

In respect to certain arguments (First Cause, Argument from Design, Moral Authority, etc.), god is not logically necessary.

And yes, certain god-concepts (such as an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god) are not logically possible.


Shitrock wrote:
how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility? 

Do you mean to say that logical deduction is an act of blind faith?  That a statement such as P ^ ¬P might be logically possible ("We shouldn't rule it out...we don't have all the evidence yet" )?

 

 

there is no HARD CONCRETE evidence that suggests that there is no god either.  the entire question cant even be quantified by scientific methods.  therefore the assertion that there is no god, regardless of what evidence there is or is not is a belief in something that has not or cannot be proven.  also, if there is no god then who can have the moral authority to tell me what i can and cannot do?  the majority?  then i hope for your sake that the majority of people in the world dont decide that you are right and that there is no god determining right from wrong.  cause what you will find is that people will only do what benefits them or what it is they need to survive.  and many times the easiest way to survive is to take from others instead of finding for yourself.

and that is EXACTLY what im saying.  i dont rule out the possibility that there is be no god.  why? because i dont have all of the evidence.

 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:there is no

Shitrock wrote:

there is no HARD CONCRETE evidence that suggests that there is no god either.

Noone here has asserted that "there is HARD CONCRETE evidence that suggests that there is not god".  Since you are so hung up on this, please define what you would accept as "HARD CONCRETE (throbbing, dripping...) evidence that suggests that there is no god". 

If there was evidence for god, we would be reasonable to believe in god.  As of this posting, there is no evidence of god, thus no reason to believe in it.


Shitrock wrote:

the entire question cant even be quantified by scientific methods.

Which is precisely why it's worthless to consider god.  If we can't scientifically investigate god, we might as well treat it as if it isn't there.  In contrast, science has found perfectly natural explanations for multiple phenomena which we previously attributed to god. 

As "quantified by scientific methods", the universe operates exactly as if god didn't exist.  This doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, but it renders belief in god unnecessary -- as it in no way contributes to our understanding of the universe.

Shitrock wrote:

therefore the assertion that there is no god, regardless of what evidence there is or is not is a belief in something that has not or cannot be proven. 

No such assertion has been made.  Do not make this strawman accusation again.

Shitrock wrote:

also, if there is no god then who can have the moral authority to tell me what i can and cannot do?  the majority?  then i hope for your sake that the majority of people in the world dont decide that you are right and that there is no god determining right from wrong.  cause what you will find is that people will only do what benefits them or what it is they need to survive.  and many times the easiest way to survive is to take from others instead of finding for yourself.

If you want to pursue this debate on morality, let me know.  I'll take it to a new thread so as not to cloud this one.

Shitrock wrote:
i dont rule out the possibility that there is be no god.  why? because i dont have all of the evidence.

I don't rule out that possibility either, and yet I don't believe in god.  Why?  Because I don't have any evidence.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:atheists all seem to

Quote:
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.

Things are not what they seem.

 

Quote:
the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of logic.  Logic is like math.  It's a deductive system.  We know what formulas work in the same way that we know math works.  The relevant question in any logical discourse is the accuracy of the premises.  I've never met an atheist who claims to know the truth about everything.  Christians are the only people I've ever known to make that claim.

Quote:
how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?

Relatively simply, within any closed system.  It's deduction.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
What we do have

We do have the evidence against the claims made by various religions about their gods, such as the earth, universe and life being created in 6 days. We have evidence against a world wide flood, we have evidence against the exodus from egypt (well actually there is a lack of evidence but it's all the same in the end), we have evidence against the story of the whale and living inside of it for 3 days, we have evidence against the idea of Adam and Eve, we have evidence against many of the claims made in many religious texts. With that said, if the texts are wrong, I logically follow that the god is false as well. But that's me however.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Shitrock

zarathustra wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

there is no HARD CONCRETE evidence that suggests that there is no god either.

Noone here has asserted that "there is HARD CONCRETE evidence that suggests that there is not god".  Since you are so hung up on this, please define what you would accept as "HARD CONCRETE (throbbing, dripping...) evidence that suggests that there is no god". 

If there was evidence for god, we would be reasonable to believe in god.  As of this posting, there is no evidence of god, thus no reason to believe in it.


Shitrock wrote:

the entire question cant even be quantified by scientific methods.

Which is precisely why it's worthless to consider god.  If we can't scientifically investigate god, we might as well treat it as if it isn't there.  In contrast, science has found perfectly natural explanations for multiple phenomena which we previously attributed to god. 

As "quantified by scientific methods", the universe operates exactly as if god didn't exist.  This doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, but it renders belief in god unnecessary -- as it in no way contributes to our understanding of the universe.

Shitrock wrote:

therefore the assertion that there is no god, regardless of what evidence there is or is not is a belief in something that has not or cannot be proven. 

No such assertion has been made.  Do not make this strawman accusation again.

Shitrock wrote:

also, if there is no god then who can have the moral authority to tell me what i can and cannot do?  the majority?  then i hope for your sake that the majority of people in the world dont decide that you are right and that there is no god determining right from wrong.  cause what you will find is that people will only do what benefits them or what it is they need to survive.  and many times the easiest way to survive is to take from others instead of finding for yourself.

If you want to pursue this debate on morality, let me know.  I'll take it to a new thread so as not to cloud this one.

Shitrock wrote:
i dont rule out the possibility that there is be no god.  why? because i dont have all of the evidence.

I don't rule out that possibility either, and yet I don't believe in god.  Why?  Because I don't have any evidence.

belief in god may be unnecesary for you in your life and i have absolutely no fundamental problem with this idea or anyone who has this idea.  and i would never say that you should be forced to believe otherwise.  the problem i have is the attitude that a belief in god is something that needs to be "fixed".  just because it isnt necessary for you does not mean that it is a worthless belief.  my belief in god has never once stood in the way of reaching logical, rational conclusions about everything in my life.  also, its hilarious to me the pompous assumption that humanity knows so much about how the universe works.  we havnt even gotten off our own rock yet.  how can we claim to know the mysteries of the cosmos?  how can ANYONE claim to know even the hundredth part of the scientific facts of the universe when we havnt seen but an infentisemel part of it? another funny thing.  you claim that the universe operates as if god doesnt exist.  that is a glaring assumption with no hard evidence to support it that god operates on the same physical laws that we know of.  assumptions with no hard evidence to support them are faiths.  oh and the hard evidence i would accept has to be something other than "we cant observe or investigate god."  there are many things that cannot be concretely observed or investigated.         

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
there's no concrete evidence

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:We do have

latincanuck wrote:

We do have the evidence against the claims made by various religions about their gods, such as the earth, universe and life being created in 6 days. We have evidence against a world wide flood, we have evidence against the exodus from egypt (well actually there is a lack of evidence but it's all the same in the end), we have evidence against the story of the whale and living inside of it for 3 days, we have evidence against the idea of Adam and Eve, we have evidence against many of the claims made in many religious texts. With that said, if the texts are wrong, I logically follow that the god is false as well. But that's me however.

again you assume.  you assume that a belief in god entails all those things.  you are wrong.  i dont think any of those things actually happened either.  also those texts were written by men.  men are fallible.  the texts they write are not above that.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:there's no

Gauche wrote:

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

thats a foolish thing to say and i think you know that. 

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Gauche wrote:there's

Quote:

Gauche wrote:

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

thats a foolish thing to say and i think you know that.

Why is it foolish?  Explain in detail, please.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists.

Things are not what they seem.

 

Quote:
the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of logic.  Logic is like math.  It's a deductive system.  We know what formulas work in the same way that we know math works.  The relevant question in any logical discourse is the accuracy of the premises.  I've never met an atheist who claims to know the truth about everything.  Christians are the only people I've ever known to make that claim.

Quote:
how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?

Relatively simply, within any closed system.  It's deduction.

 

you are not talking to a christian.  and as for logic being a deductive system, we can only deduce things we can observe.  we have not observed all of the universe so how can we deduce anything about it other than what we can see?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:Gauche

Shitrock wrote:

Gauche wrote:

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

thats a foolish thing to say and i think you know that. 

 

so you do have silver bullets. because since there's no evidence that werewolves don't exists we should believe that they do exist, and live our lives as if they do correct?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:

Gauche wrote:

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

thats a foolish thing to say and i think you know that.

Why is it foolish?  Explain in detail, please.

 

ok.  there IS concrete evidence that werewolves dont exist.  none have ever been seen scientifically observed.  but the question of god is outside the realm of science.  so bringing science into the debate is flawed.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:you are not talking to

Quote:
you are not talking to a christian.

Would you point me to the place where I called you a Christian?

Quote:
and as for logic being a deductive system, we can only deduce things we can observe.

Oh really?  Damn... I'm going to have to throw away my whole goddamned college education now...

Shit...

Actually, before I discard everything I've ever learned, could you tell me about the last time you observed "Ten Million"?  Not ten million things... the number ten million.  Not a representation of it on paper.... the number itself.  Have you observed it?

Quote:
we have not observed all of the universe so how can we deduce anything about it other than what we can see?

We can't.  Don't you know the difference between induction and deduction?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:there IS concrete

Quote:
there IS concrete evidence that werewolves dont exist.

No, there isn't.

Concrete means 100%.  You just said in your last post that we haven't observed the whole universe, so we can't make statements about it.  Now, you want to contradict yourself and say that just because we've never seen a werewolf, we can be certain that they don't exist.  Hate to break it to you, but you're going to hurt yourself doing this many flip flops.

Quote:
but the question of god is outside the realm of science.

Why in the world would that be true?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Shitrock

Gauche wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

Gauche wrote:

there's no concrete evidence that werewolves don't exist either. yet here you are without a single silver bullet in your house.

thats a foolish thing to say and i think you know that. 

 

so you do have silver bullets. because since there's no evidence that werewolves don't exists we should believe that they do exist, and live our lives as if they do correct?

i would never try to say how anyone else should live their life.  but this forum suggests that my faith in god needs to be "fixed".

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:ok.  there

Shitrock wrote:

ok.  there IS concrete evidence that werewolves dont exist.  none have ever been seen scientifically observed.  but the question of god is outside the realm of science.  so bringing science into the debate is flawed.

It is impossible to have concrete evidence that something does not exist.

If something does not exist there is no evidence.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:i would never try to

Quote:
i would never try to say how anyone else should live their life.  but this forum suggests that my faith in god needs to be "fixed".  and quite frankly, im offended.

Why would you be offended?   Did anyone twist your arm to make you come to this forum?  If so, let me know who it was and I'll have them flogged.  If you're so offended, go to a theist forum and have a good time.  We wish you the best.

Would you rather we lie to you and tell you that we think your beliefs are awesome?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:you

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
you are not talking to a christian.

Would you point me to the place where I called you a Christian?

Quote:
and as for logic being a deductive system, we can only deduce things we can observe.

Oh really?  Damn... I'm going to have to throw away my whole goddamned college education now...

Shit...

Actually, before I discard everything I've ever learned, could you tell me about the last time you observed "Ten Million"?  Not ten million things... the number ten million.  Not a representation of it on paper.... the number itself.  Have you observed it?

Quote:
we have not observed all of the universe so how can we deduce anything about it other than what we can see?

We can't.  Don't you know the difference between induction and deduction?

 

 

im just letting you know that not all believers are christian and therefore flaws in the human institution of christianity cannot be brought into a debate about god.  ok so deductions are conclusions following from given premises.  what im saying that that we dont know all premises in the universe because we have not observed all of the premises of the universe.  so how can we deduce anything about which we have no knowledge?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:im just letting you

Quote:
im just letting you know that not all believers are christian and therefore flaws in the human institution of christianity cannot be brought into a debate about god.

Would you point to the place where I used an argument against Christianity as an argument against god?

All I said was that Christians are the only people I know who say they know absolute truth.  That's all you should get out of it.  It was an aside.

Quote:
what im saying that that we dont know all premises in the universe because we have not observed all of the premises of the universe.

I haven't argued against this point.

Quote:
so how can we deduce anything about which we have no knowledge?

You didn't read anything I linked.  Please read it.  There's no point in me typing out an explanation that's already been typed.  It's really simple.  Go back to the post where I linked essays.  Click them.  Read them.

 

 [EDIT:  Here.  I won't even make you scroll back.  Please read these essays before you try to argue again.  Your ignorance is showing.]

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:how does any

Shitrock wrote:

how does any of that make a difference?  you BELIEVE in a certain set of viewpoints.  do you not?

Nope. I ask questions, and seek the answers. Until such time as answers can be proven, I can only continue to ask. To believe would be dishonest.

"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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:ok.  there

Shitrock wrote:

ok.  there IS concrete evidence that werewolves dont exist.  none have ever been seen scientifically observed.  but the question of god is outside the realm of science.  so bringing science into the debate is flawed.

Irony level...RISING!  Although I guess it should be silvery level.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:the specific

Shitrock wrote:

the specific definition of the god in question is entirely irrelevant.

A coherent definition of your "god" concept is absolutely essential if you want any arguments in its favor to make a lick of sense. It could not possibly be MORE relevant.

 

Shitrock wrote:
what i am saying is that the belief that god does not exist has no more evidence to support it than the belief that god does exist.

You don't get to present evidence for anything until you've established, in some coherent sense, what it is you are presenting evidence for.

Shitrock wrote:
therefore its a blind faith.

 

Is it blind faith to disbelieve in a Njdjsuwd4774bd??

No, it is not. This word is meaningless - bereft of coherency. Never mind about "evidence". Coherency MUST come first.

So what is your definition of "god"? When you've answered this, you will have earned the PRIVILEGE of then going on to provide evidence for it.


 


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Shitrock

BMcD wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

how does any of that make a difference?  you BELIEVE in a certain set of viewpoints.  do you not?

Nope. I ask questions, and seek the answers. Until such time as answers can be proven, I can only continue to ask. To believe would be dishonest.

then why do you argue against the existence of god?

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:but the question of

Quote:
but the question of god is outside the realm of science.

Which is the same as calling him "outside nature". If this is true-

1) How did you acquire this knowledge?

2) By what mechanism does "god" interact with nature?

When you answer these questions, be careful not to refute yourself by making any reference to natural means or mechanisms.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:then why do

Shitrock wrote:

then why do you argue against the existence of god?

I don't. I argue against assertions of knowledge. If you can demonstrate proof for your claims, I'd be eager to hear them. Without reliable evidence that can be demonstrated and shown to stand up to rigorous attempts to poke holes in it, all claims of knowledge are mere speculation, and such speculation should lead to inquiry, and the seeking of actual knowledge, not belief, which is claim of possession of such knowledge.

"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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
No your assuming

Shitrock wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

We do have the evidence against the claims made by various religions about their gods, such as the earth, universe and life being created in 6 days. We have evidence against a world wide flood, we have evidence against the exodus from egypt (well actually there is a lack of evidence but it's all the same in the end), we have evidence against the story of the whale and living inside of it for 3 days, we have evidence against the idea of Adam and Eve, we have evidence against many of the claims made in many religious texts. With that said, if the texts are wrong, I logically follow that the god is false as well. But that's me however.

again you assume.  you assume that a belief in god entails all those things.  you are wrong.  i dont think any of those things actually happened either.  also those texts were written by men.  men are fallible.  the texts they write are not above that.

What I stated was that we have evidence against the claims made by various religions and their gods, what god are you talking about? The christian god requires a belief in the bible as the word of god, unless now your going to claim that a true christian doesn't follow the bible or believe in the biblical texts? Which would make you incorrect but that's a different topic. I cannot prove Einsteins version of god, but there is no evidence that Einsteins god exists either, and until such said evidence comes I have no reason to believe in that god as well. There is a HUGE amount of people that believe in their god(s) because of the holy texts of their religion and that religion uses that holy texts as proof of their god and it's word, the evidence against those holy text show me that those gods are false. Now can you define YOUR god or not?  Because keeping it vague really doesn't work when trying to prove it real or true or anything else, it just means you have no clue what your talking about.


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

Shitrock wrote:

the specific definition of the god in question is entirely irrelevant.

A coherent definition of your "god" concept is absolutely essential if you want any arguments in its favor to make a lick of sense. It could not possibly be MORE relevant.

 

Shitrock wrote:
what i am saying is that the belief that god does not exist has no more evidence to support it than the belief that god does exist.

You don't get to present evidence for anything until you've established, in some coherent sense, what it is you are presenting evidence for.

Shitrock wrote:
therefore its a blind faith.

 

Is it blind faith to disbelieve in a Njdjsuwd4774bd??

No, it is not. This word is meaningless - bereft of coherency. Never mind about "evidence". Coherency MUST come first.

So what is your definition of "god"? When you've answered this, you will have earned the PRIVILEGE of then going on to provide evidence for it.

 

 

fine.  the god i believe in is a dispassionate, detached creator/observer of the human drama.  essentially we are gods science/art project.  he has no real influence on our physical lives or on the physical universe.  aside from creating it and getting the evolutionary ball rolling.  anyway, im not trying to provide evidence for god.  im merely saying that believing there is no god/not having a belief in god are faiths just as much as christianity. and that is because there is no concrete evidence to support either idea.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh, btw...

Regarding your claim that we can only deduce things we've observed...

If we've observed it, we don't need to deduce it. We have direct observation. Ergo, we can only deduce things we have not directly observed, but rather have observed evidence for.

"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


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild

Eight Foot Manchild wrote:

Quote:
but the question of god is outside the realm of science.

Which is the same as calling him "outside nature". If this is true-

1) How did you acquire this knowledge?

2) By what mechanism does "god" interact with nature?

When you answer these questions, be careful not to refute yourself by making any reference to natural means or mechanisms.

1. i wont go into why i believe in god.  i already have. 

2. he doesnt

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote: im merely

Shitrock wrote:

 im merely saying that believing there is no god/not having a belief in god are faiths just as much as christianity. and that is because there is no concrete evidence to support either idea.

You continue to conflate these. Tell me, how is it blind faith to say 'I don't know'? What component of not being sure about something is faith?

"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


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Shitrock wrote:belief in god

Shitrock wrote:

belief in god may be unnecesary for you in your life and i have absolutely no fundamental problem with this idea or anyone who has this idea.

Please do not append phrases to my statements unsolicited.  I did not say god is not necessary in my life, I said god is not necessary [full stop]. 

Shitrock wrote:
  and i would never say that you should be forced to believe otherwise.

You are very kind.

I in turn would never say you should be forced not to believe in god.  Or santa.  I would simply say that if you do, you're being irrational.

Shitrock wrote:
  the problem i have is the attitude that a belief in god is something that needs to be "fixed". 

If your belief is flawed, it should be fixed.  At least if you're concerned about the truth, that is.

Shitrock wrote:
just because it isnt necessary for you does not mean that it is a worthless belief.

No sure, shitrock.  The concept of god isn't necessary for anything.  Just because you find it necessary for you (if you do, that is), doesn't make it true.

Shitrock wrote:
   my belief in god has never once stood in the way of reaching logical, rational conclusions about everything in my life.

Therefore...god exists?

Shitrock wrote:
also, its hilarious to me the pompous assumption that humanity knows so much about how the universe works.

We know very little about the universe.  But we know immeasurably more than we did a thousand years ago.  Or even a century ago.  Or even last year.  However slight our understanding of the universe, we have no use for the concept of god.

Shitrock wrote:
   we havnt even gotten off our own rock yet. 

What year is this?  1960?

Shitrock wrote:
how can we claim to know the mysteries of the cosmos?

We don't make that claim.  Theists often do, however.

Shitrock wrote:
   how can ANYONE claim to know even the hundredth part of the scientific facts of the universe when we havnt seen but an infentisemel part of it?

Who has claimed that?  And how is belief in god in any way applicable?

Shitrock wrote:
another funny thing.  you claim that the universe operates as if god doesnt exist.  that is a glaring assumption with no hard evidence to support it that god operates on the same physical laws that we know of. 

News flash:  The universe if physical, and respects "physical laws".  If god does not operate "on the same physical laws that we know of", then we can't observe god.  So why believe in god.  (Consider:  Non-existent things don't operate "on the same physical laws that we know of", and we can't observe non-existent things.  god and non-existent things seem to have a lot in common.)

Shitrock wrote:
oh and the hard evidence i would accept has to be something other than "we cant observe or investigate god."

Okay.  Would you care to define what hard evidence you would accept that god doesn't exist?  This is my 2nd time asking you.

Shitrock wrote:
there are many things that cannot be concretely observed or investigated.

So why believe in them?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Shitrock
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-06-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
there IS concrete evidence that werewolves dont exist.

No, there isn't.

Concrete means 100%.  You just said in your last post that we haven't observed the whole universe, so we can't make statements about it.  Now, you want to contradict yourself and say that just because we've never seen a werewolf, we can be certain that they don't exist.  Hate to break it to you, but you're going to hurt yourself doing this many flip flops.

Quote:
but the question of god is outside the realm of science.

Why in the world would that be true?

 

im sorry. i didnt realize i had to spell it out for you.  there arent any werewolves on earth.  the question of god is outside science because god is not limited by the same scientific laws that humans are.  if he were he wouldnt be god.

"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
So what you have

By your description your god cannot be proven to exist or not to exist, however I personally, when it comes to gods, require some form of evidence, yours is no more proven than the tea pot idea, as such i have no reason to believe that your god is any more real than any other god that is been presented, you have no evidence for such said god, as such I have no requirement to believe in it either.