Where is the evidence for Atheism?

Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Where is the evidence for Atheism?

*poke, poke.. oh look I still exist, I haven't been discommunicated by lord pissant “Deluded God” who injects new rules to the forums and declare himself “Thy petty e-peen Lord”, Bleeeat!

They Deluded God commands:

I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.

Thanks Deludedgod I rather listen to the scientific community who favors other more plausible hypothesis.


 

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?


 

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
False dichotomy. A third

False dichotomy. A third option is: "I don't know."

Personally, I see no evidence for a god or gods created universe. Nothing that I do understand about our universe requires the existence of a god or gods to have happened. I don't understand what folks like Dr. Hawking are talking about when they discuss the early universe. I can't argue for or against any position about the absolute beginning, for that matter I can't even argue that there was a beginning or not.

I am therefore an agnostic atheist who doesn't have the first clue how all this got started.

Your argument from ignorance is trumped by a argument about ignorance. =^_^=

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm with Jill, this is a

I'm with Jill, this is a false dichotomy.

 

We don't have to assume anything about before the big bang.  All the evidence points to an event of that nature.  We can spend time to figure out the exact nature of that event and the universe that was spawned from it, but seeing as we can't (yet) know what came before we're allowed to say "we don't know".  Speculation and assumptions about what came before are irrelevant as you could come up with anything you want.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Llama I think this idol

Llama

   I think this idol worship thing, this kind of thinking is destructive. In religious language, the devil is in your ear.  Jesus called Peter Satan .... and so I shout at you, in different words .... "Why are you fighting what you and we are ....as all is one,  as all is the thingy .... ???

  What possible good is this false division you worship ?     Makes no sense to me. 

                                                           ???

 


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
The scientific community

The scientific community includes deludedgod, dimwit.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I bring to thee a

Quote:

I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.

You're still here, aren't you? So perhaps you ought to cease this nonsense about me "banishing you". I did no such thing. The threat was idle. I was just seeing if it would wake you up. Speaking of which, you still haven't returned to the thread in question (which is now 6 weeks old) in which I point out for the 17th time that what I have written is drawn solely from mainstream Cosmology and demonstrate this. If you wish to review that thread, it is somewhere in the month-old backlog. Let me see if I understand the situation correctly: A mathematically illiterate (and barely literate in English) incompetent presumes to instruct a man trained in mathematics, physics and cosmology on the finer points of these particular disiplines. This is beyond absurd. Please return to the thread in question if you wish to vindicate yourself and remove the impression you have generated of yourself. I don't think I need to tell you what this impression is.

"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


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:We don't know

Llama wrote:

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Check out Lee Smolin's 'Smolin Solution', which is an elegant Big Bang alternative encompassing Big Bang to a degree.

 

Far more sensible than an imaginary firend will ever prove to be.

 

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:*poke, poke.. oh

Llama wrote:

*poke, poke.. oh look I still exist, I haven't been discommunicated by lord pissant “Deluded God” who injects new rules to the forums and declare himself “Thy petty e-peen Lord”, Bleeeat!

They Deluded God commands:

I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.

Thanks Deludedgod I rather listen to the scientific community who favors other more plausible hypothesis.


 

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?


 

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Whining about people here WONT make any case for the magical being you claim is real.

Prove to  me Allah isn't real.

Prove to me Yahwey isn't real.

Prove to me Vishnu isn't real.

Prove to me Thor isn't real.

Prove to me there is not an giant invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter.

Atheists don't have to disprove magical fictional claims anymore than you would have to disprove Harry Potter flying around on a broomstick.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It never occures to the

It never occures to the theist that their gap argument is no different a gap when it comes to the |"BB|". It never occurs to you that a "what" not a "who" is how the "BB" happened. What would be so horrible if the origin of the universe was a natural uncognitive process, like a grass seed germinating? Do you think pollen and flowers have brains? Do you think every sperm and egg that produces any kind of life is magically manipulated by a puppetteer in the sky?

You think your deity is the gap? No, others would say their diety is the gap. And even new age people claim that the "gap" is the universe being one giant brain, which is just as stupid and silly a claim as any ancient myth. You might as well claim Micky Mouse started the Universe.

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a giant super brain in as being the cause.

Your idea that a super dad started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at immortality.

You think we are picking on you? No, we think all magical claims are absurd. Vampires, Ouiji boards, Big Foot, |Thor, pantheism, Allah, ghosts knocking up girls, flesh surviving rigor mortis are all in the same catigory as any comic book magical claim.

The only difference between a comic book and a holy book is that one is mistaken as truth when both are fiction, and that applies to any and all magical religious claims from polytheism to modern monotheism to new age crap.

So unless you have some emperical model to demonstrate, you are in the same boat as any other superstition lover by any other label.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Damn Brian37 is always right

Damn Brian37 is always right by me   , except one time , long ago , 

.... as he and others said, I wasn't god , as he , as you !          

Yeah, that god of abe is our ancient curse to shake off, as so we evolve ....  as we do, as we will forever .....  till our demise .... as is written in all eternity ..... "and that's the way it was" , Walter Cronkite    

 EARTH people !  Defining god !  How painful it is, as pleasure is just yet a tease 

                       The supreme devil of earth, is the god of Abraham


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Is there any

Llama wrote:
Is there any evidence to material origin?

Yes. There isn't an "immaterial". So ...

Llama wrote:
I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?

Where is the evidence for a created universe at all? For all we know, the universe wasn't created.
 

Llama wrote:
We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Uh-huh. Wow, never heard this convoluted misunderstanding before. Okay, look. First, no one has to assume creation if there's no evidence for it. But since the only kind of evidence is physical, why would anyone consider an explanation with "immaterial" in it reasonable?

It's not faith, it's a reasonable appreciation for probability.

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  Llama, why not just

Wow.  Llama, why not just stay away?  You're not worth your amusement factor here.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Vermilion
Vermilion's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:To the point at

Llama wrote:

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?
 

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

All we have ever seen is natural, so that makes this the default conclusion. If we lived in a world void of anything then you could say there was no evidence on either side. However, we live in a world full of natural processes happening around us all the time. This lends some weight toward a natural beginning.

Of course, we all realize that the beginning of it all is really out of the scope of reality for everyone. However, if you look at the basic idea of it... You can believe as richard dawkins said, that we started on the gradual slope up mount improbable, or you can believe that POOF, God sparked his own existence and created it all. Really when you think of it, it all started somewhere, but you theists claim that right behind that somewhere is another something that is more advanced than anything we have ever known. I think the question here is "where is the evidence for this something we have never known?"

No one has ever confirmed the existence of a Deity. However, we can all think of several Gods that are no longer worshiped because the idea of them is foolish. We can all think of several supernatural claims that have proven to be false including psychics, prophets, alien sightings, witches, sorcerors, etc. Why do these facts not pile up in your mind and make you terribly skeptical to any claim that is supernatural or theistic? It's like a prostitute trying to tell you she's still a virgin, when she's already fucked us all quite a few times before... Please, start wearing your skeptical hat and critically consider all the supernatural claims of history before we all get AIDS!


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:*poke, poke.. oh

Llama wrote:

*poke, poke.. oh look I still exist, I haven't been discommunicated by lord pissant “Deluded God” who injects new rules to the forums and declare himself “Thy petty e-peen Lord”, Bleeeat!

They Deluded God commands:

I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.

Thanks Deludedgod I rather listen to the scientific community who favors other more plausible hypothesis.


 

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?


 

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Actually, atheism is supported by evidence; specifically, the lack of direct evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural entity. With no way to prove or disprove the existence of Lugh, Morrigan, etc, there is as much reason to believe in them, Zeus, Thor, Pele, or Great Cthulu as there is to believe in the deities of the 'major religions'. So then you are left with: Does a deity exist? If so, which? All with no evidence to support any position, which leaves us with only one empirical result: We don't know.

And if you don't know, that's not belief. And if you don't believe (which, for the quadrillionth time, is NOT the same thing as saying 'I believe there's no God'), then you're an atheist. You want to prove it's wrong to be an atheist, prove the supernatural exists. If you cannot prove this, then you have no grounds to rail against those of us who take an 'undecided' position.

"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
And to add, what if some

And to add, what if some supernatural thingy does exist, NOW WHAT , go into worship mode, and how so ????  .... Get on our knees, or whatever ???? 

Religion is fucking lame, as the gods they adore are lame , fuck all that .... 

If some creator thingy cared, we wouldn't be in this god fuck mess we are .....

NOTHING out there cares , that has ever said a word to me .... nor you, nor anyone.

We are on our own .... not a single word of a creator has ever been spoken from the sky above  ..... never has and will never be ..... there are no tricks, no secrets. 

     And if the Aliens play tricks on you, laugh  .....


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:And to

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

And to add, what if some supernatural thingy does exist, NOW WHAT , go into worship mode, and how so ????  .... Get on our knees, or whatever ???? 

Religion is fucking lame, as the gods they adore are lame , fuck all that .... 

If some creator thingy cared, we wouldn't be in this god fuck mess we are .....

NOTHING out there cares , that has ever said a word to me .... nor you, nor anyone.

We are on our own .... not a single word of a creator has ever been spoken from the sky above  ..... never has and will never be ..... there are no tricks, no secrets. 

     And if the Aliens play tricks on you, laugh  .....

Hey! I care! I care whether or not you worship me! 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 do worship you BMcD, as

I do worship you BMcD, as you are god as I ,  BMcD  ..... as all is ONE !  

You are divine , and you know it !  Pass it on ,  the "good word" !!!!


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote: To the point

Llama wrote:
 

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?
 

 

Llama,

You make a few assumptions based on what you may or may not have heard a few atheists say. For you to state that, 'the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe', shows your assumptions and indeed your misunderstandings as well.

First, it isn't the "only" alternative, as JillSwift and others have pointed out to you.

Secondly, your phrase "thing to believe is" makes the assumption, in light of your reference to Atheism, that Atheists believe. Real Atheists don't believe. We have knowledge and thought (and of course a lot of other things too), but no belief. Oh, an Atheist may from time to time use the word belief or believe, but generally that's in our reference of Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. OR it refers to an intention which has nothing to do with religion, gods, saviours and the like. As examples: "I believe I'll go make us some tea.", "I believe I can make it to the top of the next hill".

Lastly, your use of, "naturally created", makes me wince. It's acceptable to some I suppose, but I personally begin to wonder whenever I hear a believer use that phrase. It nearly implies that nature isn't a "natural occurence". Guess it's the "created" part that makes me skeptical about the intended use of the phrase.

So in my mind, the last half of your sentence should be more correctly phrased as follows:

....then one alternative thing to think is that nature occurs. or

....then one alternative viewpoint would be that the Universe and nature occur.

 

As a side note to the many Atheists posting to this thread; thank you for all these excellent responses. They are of great value to me as I continue to learn from each of you.

 


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHAHAHA evidence for lack

HAHAHAHAHA evidence for lack of belief? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll repeat many things that

I'll repeat many things that have been posted, but I will express them differently.

Llama wrote:
Is there any evidence to material origin?


There is no evidence of a begining of the universe. However, the big bang (which is what you are referring to) is simply a transformation of something that has always existed.

Quote:
to not believe in god created universe then


What is 'god' and where is the evidence for it?


Quote:
the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe.


True, the big bang was induced by nature as there is no evidence of supernature.


Quote:
Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?


The evidence is obvious; just look around you. Everything you perceive is natural.

 

Quote:
We don't know

 

Excellant admission.

 

Quote:
... what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation

 

Immaterial does not exist by definition, therefore there is no choice.

 

Quote:
so it's a leap of faith

 

You've obviously taken this braindead gait. You are a follower of ignorant followers of irrational beliefs.

 

Quote:
you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one.

 

The universe is physical. It is its own evidence, axiomatic.

 

Quote:
This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Atheism is a lack of belief of the common definition of the god-thing.

 

So no, I don't have any faith in my lack of belief.

I KNOW I lack a belief. 


 

 

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:  Is there any

Llama wrote:

 

 Is there any evidence to material origin?

Is there any other? All of the religious dogma and explanations have a god make it all. The Sumerians say it was An and Ki. You claim it's based on an ancient volcano and thunder god. Neither the Sumerian story nor the Bible has actual physical proof only assertions and claims by unknown ancient writers.

Llama wrote:

I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief.

There you go.

Llama wrote:

This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe.

No, how about I have no idea since there is no proof. Science has explained origins to the BB. No one has explained anything from before that event.

Llama wrote:

Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?

Your standing on it.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


Atheologian
Posts: 6
Joined: 2008-07-14
User is offlineOffline
I wrote this in a response

I wrote this in a response on another message board, but most of it fits here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
For me, the existence of a God would be entertained by that profound and supremely religious (as well as philosophical) question posed by Leibnitz:

"Why is there anything at all rather than nothing?"


That is a good question. Postulating the existence of a creator god does not get rid of the question, though, for wouldn't that god be something as well? It's still a good question, though.

One assumption implicit in the question is that nothingness is a more natural state than somethingness. We don't know this to be the case. Our best scientific knowledge does tell us that there was a transition event (the Big Bang) from an unknown, and possibly unknowable, state to our universe. Was that pre-Big Bang state nothingness? Well, it was probably as close to the idea of nothingness as we can get. So the question becomes "What caused the transition from the state of nothingness to our universe?"

It is true that science cannot answer that question now, and it may never be able to answer it. We can, however, come up with scenarios that provide and explanation, are compatible with known science and do not invoke the supernatural. Victor Stenger has done just that. Here is a short summary of his ideas, and here is a long, detailed explanation from a published journal. (I'll have to admit, the mathematics in the journal article are far beyond my comprehension.) The reason his article appears in a philosophy journal and not a a physics journal is that the scenario he presents is not testable by any known means, and is not meant to represent what actually happened. All he is doing is presenting a plausible, naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to exist. And if there is at least one plausible, naturalistic explanation, why invoke the supernatural?

I'll freely admit that I have a bias toward natural solutions over  the supernatural. But I don't think the bias is unfounded. Everything else that we have sought to explain has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:False dichotomy. A

 

Quote:
False dichotomy. A third option is: "I don't know."


 

Personally, I see no evidence for a god or gods created universe. Nothing that I do understand about our universe requires the existence of a god or gods to have happened. I don't understand what folks like Dr. Hawking are talking about when they discuss the early universe. I can't argue for or against any position about the absolute beginning, for that matter I can't even argue that there was a beginning or not.

I am therefore an agnostic atheist who doesn't have the first clue how all this got started.

Your argument from ignorance is trumped by a argument about ignorance. =^_^=

Wrong you have failed to prove why it's a false dichotomy.. just saying the words is not proof you are right. “I don't know” is not a third option because it's not an option only an admitance of ignorance on the subject at hand. There are many things in the universe that are “yes”, “no” or “on”, “off” and etc. Let me give you an example of your error...

There is either “yes you'll be alive tomorrow” or “no you're dead tomorrow”, can you think of a third possible alternative? The correct answer is “I don't know” but I don't know is not a third option. My point is either the Universe had a material origin or an immaterial origin. Any thing that is not matter is immaterial.

You say you see no evidence for a God but you also see no evidence for natural origin but you're going to take a leap of faith into Atheism. Atheism is the faith of choice for you.

Quote:
I'm with Jill, this is a false dichotomy.

 

We don't have to assume anything about before the big bang.  All the evidence points to an event of that nature.  We can spend time to figure out the exact nature of that event and the universe that was spawned from it, but seeing as we can't (yet) know what came before we're allowed to say "we don't know".  Speculation and assumptions about what came before are irrelevant as you could come up with anything you want.

That's fair enough but how is that evidence for Atheism? I can rationally conclude you chose Atheism for other reasons rather then evidence of it being real.

Quote:
I think this idol worship thing, this kind of thinking is destructive. In religious language, the devil is in your ear.  Jesus called Peter Satan .... and so I shout at you, in different words .... "Why are you fighting what you and we are ....as all is one,  as all is the thingy .... ???

  What possible good is this false division you worship ?     Makes no sense to me. 

                                                           ???

This thread I started is not about a discussion of theology.

Quote:
The scientific community includes deludedgod, dimwit.

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?

Quote:
You're still here, aren't you? So perhaps you ought to cease this nonsense about me "banishing you". I did no such thing. The threat was idle. I was just seeing if it would wake you up. Speaking of which, you still haven't returned to the thread in question (which is now 6 weeks old) in which I point out for the 17th time that what I have written is drawn solely from mainstream Cosmology and demonstrate this. If you wish to review that thread, it is somewhere in the month-old backlog. Let me see if I understand the situation correctly: A mathematically illiterate (and barely literate in English) incompetent presumes to instruct a man trained in mathematics, physics and cosmology on the finer points of these particular disiplines. This is beyond absurd. Please return to the thread in question if you wish to vindicate yourself and remove the impression you have generated of yourself. I don't think I need to tell you what this impression is.

It doesn't matter how much you like the vaccum hypothesis it's still a HYPOTHESIS, what the hell do you want from me? Why should I take the vaccum hypothesis any more seriously then the membrane hypothesis which by the way is probably the more likely one since string theory at the moment is the leading contender to a unifying theory. I want to move on.

Quote:
Check out Lee Smolin's 'Smolin Solution', which is an elegant Big Bang alternative encompassing Big Bang to a degree.

 

Far more sensible than an imaginary firend will ever prove to be.

eh another hypothesis and that's going to be your evidence for your atheism?

Quote:
Whining about people here WONT make any case for the magical being you claim is real.

Prove to  me Allah isn't real.

Prove to me Yahwey isn't real.

Prove to me Vishnu isn't real.

Prove to me Thor isn't real.

Prove to me there is not an giant invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter.

Atheists don't have to disprove magical fictional claims anymore than you would have to disprove Harry Potter flying around on a broomstick.

This thread I started was not a theological discussion. Atheism makes a positive claim of an accidental universe or as I call it material origins. Prove this claim for me please, if all you're going to do is point to more hypothesis then all I have to say to you is you have FAITH atheism is real because the evidence is lacking.

Bleeeat!


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
where is the evidence for

where is the evidence for atheism? let's see here....

theism requires supernatural belief. atheism is the opposite. nature has been proven, mystical powers have not. that gives much more credibility to atheism.

i don't know why you can't grasp this simple concept the first time around but i will repeat what many people have told you: if there has never been any proof for the supernatural, atheism doesn't require evidence. you need to prove there is a god, otherwise there is not.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote: Wrong you have

Llama wrote:
 

Wrong you have failed to prove why it's a false dichotomy.. just saying the words is not proof you are right. “I don't know” is not a third option because it's not an option only an admitance of ignorance on the subject at hand. There are many things in the universe that are “yes”, “no” or “on”, “off” and etc. Let me give you an example of your error...

There is either “yes you'll be alive tomorrow” or “no you're dead tomorrow”, can you think of a third possible alternative? The correct answer is “I don't know” but I don't know is not a third option. My point is either the Universe had a material origin or an immaterial origin. Any thing that is not matter is immaterial.

You say you see no evidence for a God but you also see no evidence for natural origin but you're going to take a leap of faith into Atheism. Atheism is the faith of choice for you.

No. Not at all, in fact. Faith requires belief. Ignorance is not belief. Ignorance is the admission of lacking knowledge. Belief is an assertion of knowledge. To take your own example, if "I don't know" is the correct answer, then it is, by necessity, a third option. To say it's not is to introduce an arbitrary, and artificial limit that quite obviously doesn't exist in reality. After all, I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't: I don't know. And until I do know, I'm not going to claim to know. And that is still Atheism. Whether there is or is not a God, I still don't know, so claiming I do, even if what I claim turns out to be correct, is still untrue, and I refuse to do it. Guessing correctly doesn't mean you know anything, and claiming it does would be a lie.

Quote:

That's fair enough but how is that evidence for Atheism? I can rationally conclude you chose Atheism for other reasons rather then evidence of it being real.

Because "I don't know" is still Atheism. You want evidence that it's real? I don't know. Can you prove I do know? If not, then you're left with evidence (my statement) that I don't know. So: I don't know. Atheism.

Quote:
Quote:
The scientific community includes deludedgod, dimwit.

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?

Ok: You claim DG ignores the scientific community's position. In fact, he's a part of the scientific community, and is in accordance with their majority position. Can you do better in your assertion otherwise?

Quote:


eh another hypothesis and that's going to be your evidence for your atheism?

Why shouldn't it be? There's no evidence supporting the existence of a deity. There are rational explanations that do not require the existence of a deity. The existence of the simpler (naturalist) explanations means that the case for not needing a deity is stronger than the case for needing one. So why should we believe there is one? And if we can't be convinced to believe, then we are left, once more, with Atheism.

Quote:

This thread I started was not a theological discussion. Atheism makes a positive claim of an accidental universe or as I call it material origins. Prove this claim for me please, if all you're going to do is point to more hypothesis then all I have to say to you is you have FAITH atheism is real because the evidence is lacking.

No, it doesn't. Atheism makes no positive claim whatsoever. Atheism claims only: "I do not make any positive claim for the existence of God(s)." That. Is. It. Nothing more.

Origins of the universe? We have ideas. We don't claim to know. In fact, Science doesn't claim to know anything, only to have amassed enough observation in accordance with current theories to be reasonably sure. But at the same time, if tomorrow it could be demonstrated that 1+1=3, then science would be forced to set aside everything predicated on 1+1=2 and attempt to come up with new explanations that fit the observed data, including the anomalous instances.

"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


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 This is one of the basic

 This is one of the basic theistic attacks and has never made any sense to me.

 

Theism posits a god, power, an explanation..  whatever.

 

Atheism does not.  period.  Me, myself, as an atheist, do not use evolution, the big bang, physics, or any other proof to disprove the existence of a god.  I merely point out how erroneous the arguments for a god are.  When your logic fails you, what are you left with?

 

Theist: 'I don't know how the universe came about, so it must be the eternal sky-grandfather.'

A-theist: 'Why sky-grandad, why not sky-cousin, or sky-mom, or sky-dog?  Frankly, there's no reason to believe in any, and they aren't needed to explan anything we know about.  So, I will continue believing that none have.'

 Theist: 'But.. then how do you explain the universe?'

A-theist: 'I don't, but when I can, I'll give you a call.  Why not go burn some animals to your sky-pops.'

Theist: 'Sky-Nana is going to be upset with you.'

 

Mind you, this is ~exactly~ the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns, werewolves, astral teapots, or any other mythological claptrap.  I needn't be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, that's the default position.  You, however, need to prove that leprechauns do exist.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


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

BMcD wrote:

Llama wrote:
 

Wrong you have failed to prove why it's a false dichotomy.. just saying the words is not proof you are right. “I don't know” is not a third option because it's not an option only an admitance of ignorance on the subject at hand. There are many things in the universe that are “yes”, “no” or “on”, “off” and etc. Let me give you an example of your error...

There is either “yes you'll be alive tomorrow” or “no you're dead tomorrow”, can you think of a third possible alternative? The correct answer is “I don't know” but I don't know is not a third option. My point is either the Universe had a material origin or an immaterial origin. Any thing that is not matter is immaterial.

You say you see no evidence for a God but you also see no evidence for natural origin but you're going to take a leap of faith into Atheism. Atheism is the faith of choice for you.

No. Not at all, in fact. Faith requires belief. Ignorance is not belief. Ignorance is the admission of lacking knowledge. Belief is an assertion of knowledge. To take your own example, if "I don't know" is the correct answer, then it is, by necessity, a third option. To say it's not is to introduce an arbitrary, and artificial limit that quite obviously doesn't exist in reality. After all, I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't: I don't know. And until I do know, I'm not going to claim to know. And that is still Atheism. Whether there is or is not a God, I still don't know, so claiming I do, even if what I claim turns out to be correct, is still untrue, and I refuse to do it. Guessing correctly doesn't mean you know anything, and claiming it does would be a lie.

Quote:

That's fair enough but how is that evidence for Atheism? I can rationally conclude you chose Atheism for other reasons rather then evidence of it being real.

Because "I don't know" is still Atheism. You want evidence that it's real? I don't know. Can you prove I do know? If not, then you're left with evidence (my statement) that I don't know. So: I don't know. Atheism.

Quote:
Quote:
The scientific community includes deludedgod, dimwit.

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?

Ok: You claim DG ignores the scientific community's position. In fact, he's a part of the scientific community, and is in accordance with their majority position. Can you do better in your assertion otherwise?

Quote:


 

eh another hypothesis and that's going to be your evidence for your atheism?

Why shouldn't it be? There's no evidence supporting the existence of a deity. There are rational explanations that do not require the existence of a deity. The existence of the simpler (naturalist) explanations means that the case for not needing a deity is stronger than the case for needing one. So why should we believe there is one? And if we can't be convinced to believe, then we are left, once more, with Atheism.

Quote:

This thread I started was not a theological discussion. Atheism makes a positive claim of an accidental universe or as I call it material origins. Prove this claim for me please, if all you're going to do is point to more hypothesis then all I have to say to you is you have FAITH atheism is real because the evidence is lacking.

No, it doesn't. Atheism makes no positive claim whatsoever. Atheism claims only: "I do not make any positive claim for the existence of God(s)." That. Is. It. Nothing more.

Origins of the universe? We have ideas. We don't claim to know. In fact, Science doesn't claim to know anything, only to have amassed enough observation in accordance with current theories to be reasonably sure. But at the same time, if tomorrow it could be demonstrated that 1+1=3, then science would be forced to set aside everything predicated on 1+1=2 and attempt to come up with new explanations that fit the observed data, including the anomalous instances.

 

Hey, Llama or Pulp or ____ (fill in your own third option),

It would appear BMcD came to kick ass and chew gum... 

looks like he was all out of gum.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Quote:The

Llama wrote:
Quote:
The scientific community includes deludedgod, dimwit.

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?

Hey hypocrite you called deludedgod a piss ant and you ignored the point, deludedgod is very much a part of the scientific community.


You have YET to demonstrate that you are even capable of doing simple arithmetic.

Who turned your computer on for you?

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:*poke, poke.. oh

Llama wrote:

*poke, poke.. oh look


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:It doesn't

Llama wrote:

It doesn't matter how much you like the vaccum hypothesis it's still a HYPOTHESIS, what the hell do you want from me? Why should I take the vaccum hypothesis any more seriously then the membrane hypothesis which by the way is probably the more likely one since string theory at the moment is the leading contender to a unifying theory. I want to move on.

String theory is absolutely not the leading contender. It has made exactly zero currently-testable predictions. String theory started as a simple explanation for quantum mechanics, and has turned into a quagmire of unresolved problems. To top it off, there isn't even a single "string theory;" there are multiple string theories.

ST is merely the best-funded contender. It currently has no more ontological status than vacuum theory, or the relative state formulation, or any of the dozens of other contenders.

In any case, string theory is more about the universe as it is now, and not about the universe as it was initially formed, during the first few attoseconds of the universe. That's like trying to use the theory of evolution through natural selection to discuss the formation of the first self-replicating molecule.

As you are trying to use science as a foundation for a logical proposition, I suggest you learn at least a little bit about the philosophy of the scientific method, and the specifics of the hypothesis you wish to use in your arguments.

Finally, simply by having at hand several hypothesis for the initial formation of the universe is sufficient to destroy any "belief." We can now make the assumption that the universe was formed in a naturalistic fashion.

Otherwise, you have to invent something that has never been observed, has never caused an event that has been observed, nor has in any other fashion been seen to operate within the universe. So, you can use one of a plethora of naturalistic hypothesis, or you can create a supernatural being to explain what is otherwise perfectly explicable.

Your choice.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Bid deal! So what if the

Bid deal! So what if the universe had a creator or not. The problem then would be to decide which one. The naturalistic origins of the universe is not important to many atheists, including myself. If someone claims that a magic book, written hundreds of years ago, says the universe was created in one day and modern astronomy casts doubt on the scenario I believe the first in wrong and not the latter. Besides if god can stand alone and assuming it is more complex than the universe then why can't the universe exist unto itself as well?

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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Wrong you have

Llama wrote:
Wrong you have failed to prove why it's a false dichotomy.. just saying the words is not proof you are right. “I don't know” is not a third option because it's not an option only an admitance of ignorance on the subject at hand. There are many things in the universe that are “yes”, “no” or “on”, “off” and etc. Let me give you an example of your error...

There is either “yes you'll be alive tomorrow” or “no you're dead tomorrow”, can you think of a third possible alternative? The correct answer is “I don't know” but I don't know is not a third option. My point is either the Universe had a material origin or an immaterial origin. Any thing that is not matter is immaterial.

You say you see no evidence for a God but you also see no evidence for natural origin but you're going to take a leap of faith into Atheism. Atheism is the faith of choice for you.

Hahahaha.

You were talking about beliefs, Alpaca. I can "believe" something, or admit I don't know and not believe anything. I'm not limited to having to believe something. I lack a belief in god. That makes me an atheist. Here's a hint for the dim witted camelids reading: There's a subtle but important difference between having no belief in god, and believing there is no god.

If you want to force me into choosing between material and immaterial, lama glama, fine: Material origin. Why? Because there's no such thing as immaterial. It's what the word means, after all.

Remember: The non-existent looks a lot like the immaterial.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Llama "This thread I started

Llama "This thread I started is not about a discussion of theology" ~~~

                  Oh really , how not ???? 


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:That's fair

Llama wrote:
That's fair enough but how is that evidence for Atheism? I can rationally conclude you chose Atheism for other reasons rather then evidence of it being real.

 

*yawn*... because I don't need evidence for atheism.  My atheism is the lack of a belief in a creator.  Nothing else.  By asking for evidence of atheism you're actually asking for proof that god doesn't exist, there's no two bones about it.  Unfortunately for you this argument has come up a million times before.  You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish evidence for their claim.  If there is no evidence for the claim, in this case the existance of god, then it is safe to assume that the claim is untrue.

I can't see and haven't been shown any evidence for god's existance.  Thus I am an atheist.

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:To the point at

Llama wrote:

To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I don't even have to have an opinion on creation to be an atheist. In the here and now I see no evidence of any gods or reason to believe in them, therefore I am an atheist.

My lack of belief needs no evidence, if you want me to believe in something you need to provide me with evidence. I can't believe in something without a good reason.

Atheism is not a faith, it is a lack of faith (in the supernatural, at least).

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


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Llama?  Are you still

Llama?  Are you still unwilling to site your "scientific" sources for your whole "The big bang is the beginning"?

I noticed you refer to it on this thread even though you never defended it on another thread.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


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

Ok well let me give you a little heads up......not all atheists believe in the big bang....however ALL atheists don't believe in a god(s)/supernatural deity.

Now with that said. I have no reason to believe in any god, the idea that god created the universe (ok lets take the jewish/christian god) for me is just false, the evidence alones dimisses this god. For one, the evidence shows that the earth took about 10 billion years to form after the universe was formed some 14 billion years ago, that contradicts the biblical/torah version of 1 day. Plants on land didn't show up for another roughly 3.7 billion years, now there was fungi some 2.7 billion years ago, roughly, which again takes way from the biblical/torah version of 1 day. Animals don't show up for another 3.5 billion years, again contradicting holy texts of 1 day. Humans aren' t even on the map for another 4.499 billion years (modern humans don't even show up for another 900,000 years after that) again....contradicting the 1 day hypothesis of the bible/torah. In the bible it says it all took 6 days....however the evidence shows us that is wrong, so wrong that it cannot be taken seriously. If they got that part wrong, from this all knowing god...well needless to say the rest of it must be wrong (well there are so many errors) So no I have no reason to believe in that god. Nor do I have any reason to believe in any other god as there is no evidence that they exits. So please why MUST I believe in god again? Just because you believe in some fantasy doesn't mean I have to, I follow the evidence and what it shows us, not some made up imaganiary boogy man that created everything out of nothing.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:you can assume

Llama wrote:

you can assume material or immaterial creation

Can you define what "immaterial" means? Not existing in a material sense sounds a lot like not existing at all. Also, how is it a leap of faith to not believe in immaterial things? I can't imagine what an immaterial thing could be. Maybe if you could demonstrate that "immaterial" does not mean "non-existent" then you could make some headway in convincing us atheists.

I know of course that "immaterial" is practically a code word for "imaginary" but I'm just throwing this out there as something you would need to do to make any headway in convincing the godless.

This reminds me of a Dilbert comic in which the boss promises everyone will receive more benefits, but they will be non-tangible benefits. The joke being that non-tangible (read: immaterial) is exactly the same as imaginary.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
I know this is a waste of

I know this is a waste of time, but...

We see material creation constantly. We see biological life reproducing and our planet creating and re-creating elements of itself. We can (recently) look Innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaace and see it happening. It's happening INSIDE us.

So we know, as well as we can know anything, that material creation occurs.

Now... I don't claim to know The Ultimate Cause of Everything. I don't think anyone does.

But at this point, given what we know, what is more reasonable?

A) Material creation, nature, which we can observe and have the highest level of confidence in, is responsible in a way we don't understand (yet)?

B) Something entirely different and distinct, indeed supernatural, is responsible even though nobody has ever been able to prove it exists or has any effect whatsoever on anything?

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It never occures to

Quote:
It never occures to the theist that their gap argument is no different a gap when it comes to the |"BB|". It never occurs to you that a "what" not a "who" is how the "BB" happened. What would be so horrible if the origin of the universe was a natural uncognitive process, like a grass seed germinating? Do you think pollen and flowers have brains? Do you think every sperm and egg that produces any kind of life is magically manipulated by a puppetteer in the sky?

You think your deity is the gap? No, others would say their diety is the gap. And even new age people claim that the "gap" is the universe being one giant brain, which is just as stupid and silly a claim as any ancient myth. You might as well claim Micky Mouse started the Universe.

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a giant super brain in as being the cause.

Your idea that a super dad started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at immortality.

You think we are picking on you? No, we think all magical claims are absurd. Vampires, Ouiji boards, Big Foot, |Thor, pantheism, Allah, ghosts knocking up girls, flesh surviving rigor mortis are all in the same catigory as any comic book magical claim.

The only difference between a comic book and a holy book is that one is mistaken as truth when both are fiction, and that applies to any and all magical religious claims from polytheism to modern monotheism to new age crap.

So unless you have some emperical model to demonstrate, you are in the same boat as any other superstition lover by any other label.

Has it ever accured to you that there is no evidence for neither a “what” or “who” brought forth creation. The best we can do is presume and neither one of us will be right (based on physical proof). God of the gaps vs Atheism of the gaps.. why is one better then the other? You presume God is a myth, based on a faith that he doesn't exist (atheism).

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a meaningless accidental causation.

Your idea that a accidental cause started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at self Godhood.

Actually it was in the news a elderly lady survived death what I mean is her body went through the early stages of rigormortis when she came back to life. Also a court in America ruled a house haunted. Little tidbits I thought you should know.

All I got from you is “this crap isn't real” with no evidence at all to back up what you said.. you just say it with out the evidence. And those 2 lines and the third below I basically cloned from you because those statement made by you where neutral statements they do nothing to forward or retreat your claim which is why I was so easily able to turn it back on you, enjoy.

So unless you have some emperical model to demonstrate your atheism, you are in the same boat as any other material lover fundy by any other label.

Quote:
Damn Brian37 is always right by me   , except one time , long ago , 

.... as he and others said, I wasn't god , as he , as you !          

Yeah, that god of abe is our ancient curse to shake off, as so we evolve ....  as we do, as we will forever .....  till our demise .... as is written in all eternity ..... "and that's the way it was" , Walter Cronkite    

 EARTH people !  Defining god !  How painful it is, as pleasure is just yet a tease 

                       The supreme devil of earth, is the god of Abraham

Weak! If that's the best he got and that's what you praise then I laugh at you. Bleeeat!

Quote:
Llama wrote:

Is there any evidence to material origin?

Yes. There isn't an "immaterial". So ...

Llama wrote:

I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?

Where is the evidence for a created universe at all? For all we know, the universe wasn't created.
 

Llama wrote:

We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.

Uh-huh. Wow, never heard this convoluted misunderstanding before. Okay, look. First, no one has to assume creation if there's no evidence for it. But since the only kind of evidence is physical, why would anyone consider an explanation with "immaterial" in it reasonable?

It's not faith, it's a reasonable appreciation for probability.

Hmm the immaterial doesn't exist.. so I guess your mind isn't real and what you wright being a product of your immaterial mind isn't real either. Photons which have no mass and volume isn't real and my eyes evolved to see isn't real either. Gravity has no mass and volume either I guess that's not real too and it's only my imagination that keeps me firm on my chair instead of floating off into space.

Well the Universe was created because it started as the BB. The question still remains was it a accidental start or one by design? By the way the Universe is what we observe and sometimes test not by what we hypothesis what it was before the BB.

What's convoluted about it? Either the Universe had material cause or nonmaterial (immaterial) it's two choices if this is convoluted to you then you need to go back to your coloring book. Most scientist say the Universe was created because it always wasn't here that's why we give it a age and it's something like 13.8 billion years old. Come to think of it ofcourse the Universe transitioned from one state to another it had to be that way it couldn't just pop into existance with no explanation. Atheist just think it transitioned from some unknown accident, Theist think it transitioned from God. If God created the Universe it came from him or it was a transition from his powers.

You presume the only evidence is physical, I don't hold that belief. As an atheist you can't presume any thing or else you take it by faith. Where is the evidence that the only evidence of accidental Universe is physical evidence, ask yourself.

Where do you get your probabilities from? There isn't a single shred of evidence the Universe came about from accident.. so I ask you again what is your probability for a material causation for your Universe?

Bleeeat!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Ummm, Gawed is all the

 Ummm, Gawed is all the universe(s) and nothing is an accident. God of abe and similar gods are lame. Anyway how would you suggest acknowledging your god and what is a definition of it again? I just say the gawed is the "force" and we and everything is 100% the "force"..... and nothing is separate in the sense that something is worthy of religious dogma worship.

I don't think of life as a "gift", but it certainly is an interesting challenge.

If I was to say I worship anything, it would simply be peace of mind and "awe".
  Imagining a creator and / or  immaterial is an impossibility.   

My assumption is that the BB is not unique. I have no problem saying I have beliefs and faith, and I AM dead serious when I say, I am god as you .....

Gravity Force, measurable, testable.

http://astronomyphysics.com/read.php?f=3&i=387&t=264

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=is+gravity+energy%3F&btnG=Search


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Has it ever

Llama wrote:

Has it ever accured to you that there is no evidence for neither a “what” or “who” brought forth creation. The best we can do is presume and neither one of us will be right (based on physical proof). God of the gaps vs Atheism of the gaps.. why is one better then the other?

That's an easy one.

Because one requires you invent something for which we have no prior evidence. One requires something to exist in the universe that goes against the observed nature of the universe. One makes the universe more complex than required. One requires you to believe in something with powers that have no basis in reality.

Theism requires the addition of something to the universe that just isn't there, simply to give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you know what's going on. Atheism (especially rational agnostic atheism) simply says, "The only thing we can know about the universe is that which we observe. As God or the effects of God have not been observed, we can know nothing about the existence or non-existence of God."

Theism insists we do know something about God.

And that is why atheism is better than theism.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Has it ever

Llama wrote:

Has it ever accured to you that there is no evidence for neither a “what” or “who” brought forth creation. The best we can do is presume and neither one of us will be right (based on physical proof). God of the gaps vs Atheism of the gaps.. why is one better then the other? You presume God is a myth, based on a faith that he doesn't exist (atheism).

The Universe is here or it appears to be so. As in Matrix it tastes like steak so my mind thinks it's real. Why do I need more than that? You can assert all you want that a god did it but that will make no difference. It would  appear that the god of Abe Yahweh is a myth created from ancient savages in Canaan who called him a god of volcanoes and thunder. It would also appear Zeus and Thor were false gods too.

You presume what you'd like.

Llama wrote:

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a meaningless accidental causation.

I assert nothing. We clearly don't know all there is about the Universe, so why add an invisible entity made it all. This is just one more layer of asserted unproved concepts.  Maybe your god is a 12 year old in another dimension or Universe and we are in his petri dish.

Llama wrote:

Your idea that a accidental cause started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at self Godhood.

Accident or not, no one knows what was before the big bang, so I just claim to not know. Is that hard for you to say? Practice in front of a mirror, I don't know.

Llama wrote:

Actually it was in the news a elderly lady survived death what I mean is her body went through the early stages of rigormortis when she came back to life. Also a court in America ruled a house haunted. Little tidbits I thought you should know.

All I got from you is “this crap isn't real” with no evidence at all to back up what you said.. you just say it with out the evidence. And those 2 lines and the third below I basically cloned from you because those statement made by you where neutral statements they do nothing to forward or retreat your claim which is why I was so easily able to turn it back on you, enjoy.

So where's the proof for your dead lady coming back to life?

Please attach the link for the court calling a house haunted or other proof.

Llama wrote:

Hmm the immaterial doesn't exist.. so I guess your mind isn't real and what you wright being a product of your immaterial mind isn't real either. Photons which have no mass and volume isn't real and my eyes evolved to see isn't real either. Gravity has no mass and volume either I guess that's not real too and it's only my imagination that keeps me firm on my chair instead of floating off into space.

Your mind is made out of mass, your thoughts are electrical impulses, electrons have mass, mass is material or physical what was your point here?. I don't get the eye comment, unless your trying to talk about seeing visible light. Gravity is the word that describes the force, which is mutual attraction between particles having mass.

Llama wrote:

Well the Universe was created because it started as the BB. The question still remains was it a accidental start or one by design? By the way the Universe is what we observe and sometimes test not by what we hypothesis what it was before the BB.

Using the word created is an unfounded assertion on your part when describing the Universe's origination in the form we know and love. It may be a transformation or a conversion, who knows what it was before that we now perceive.

Llama wrote:

What's convoluted about it? Either the Universe had material cause or nonmaterial (immaterial) it's two choices if this is convoluted to you then you need to go back to your coloring book. Most scientist say the Universe was created because it always wasn't here that's why we give it a age and it's something like 13.8 billion years old. Come to think of it ofcourse the Universe transitioned from one state to another it had to be that way it couldn't just pop into existance with no explanation. Atheist just think it transitioned from some unknown accident, Theist think it transitioned from God. If God created the Universe it came from him or it was a transition from his powers.

Anything said about what was before the Big Bang is complete assertion. Whatever was or was not left nothing or was destroyed during or before the big bang.  Guess all you want about what was before but it's just that, a guess. The point being what was before the big bang is what resulted in our known Universe and there is no way to know. So the answer is I don't know.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"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.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Has it ever

Llama wrote:

Has it ever accured to you that there is no evidence for neither a “what” or “who” brought forth creation. The best we can do is presume and neither one of us will be right (based on physical proof). God of the gaps vs Atheism of the gaps.. why is one better then the other? You presume God is a myth, based on a faith that he doesn't exist (atheism).

Once again, no. Atheism does not require a belief that God does not exist. It only requires a lack of belief that He does. "I don't know if there is or isn't a God" is atheism.

Quote:

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a meaningless accidental causation.

Actually, there's no insertion going on at all, except by theists. You're the ones adding an observed element to the equation: divinity. All we're saying is 'we have ideas that seem to work, but we don't know for sure.'

Quote:

Your idea that a accidental cause started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at self Godhood.

So our statement that we don't know, but that (insert math here) seems to fit the observations is ego? Where is the ego in accepting that 1 + 1 does seem to come out to 2?

Quote:

Actually it was in the news a elderly lady survived death what I mean is her body went through the early stages of rigormortis when she came back to life. Also a court in America ruled a house haunted. Little tidbits I thought you should know.

Sources, please. Also note that rigor doesn't set in for a number of hours after death, by which time there is massive amounts of brain damage as cells individually die (note: cessation of brain activity doesn't mean all your cells are dead. Clinical death occurs while individual cells are still burning what fuel they have) and/or burst from dehydration. So, once again, sources, please. Back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

Quote:

All I got from you is “this crap isn't real” with no evidence at all to back up what you said.. you just say it with out the evidence. And those 2 lines and the third below I basically cloned from you because those statement made by you where neutral statements they do nothing to forward or retreat your claim which is why I was so easily able to turn it back on you, enjoy.

Except that we're not the ones making a positive assertion. You are. So where is your evidence. Again: back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

Quote:

So unless you have some emperical model to demonstrate your atheism, you are in the same boat as any other material lover fundy by any other label.

I've already demonstrated it to you:

Point 1: There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.

Point 2: Where there is no evidence, hypotheses can be offered, but not tested.

Point 3: Where hypotheses cannot be tested, no theory can be developed.

Point 4: Where no theory can be developed, no conclusions can be drawn.

Point 5: Where no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can claim to be 'known'.

Point 6: If it cannot be claimed to be 'known', then it cannot be 'believed', as 'belief' is an assertion of 'knowledge'.

Point 7: If no belief can be asserted, then you are left with atheism.

Quote:

Hmm the immaterial doesn't exist.. so I guess your mind isn't real and what you wright being a product of your immaterial mind isn't real either. Photons which have no mass and volume isn't real and my eyes evolved to see isn't real either. Gravity has no mass and volume either I guess that's not real too and it's only my imagination that keeps me firm on my chair instead of floating off into space.

A)your mind is actually very material. Your mind is the interaction of electrochemical processes in your brain over time, nothing more.

B)Photons have energy. Energy = Mass * (Speed of Light in a vacuum)^2. Ergo, Photons have mass, just a really, really little one. Also, energy is not immaterial.

C)Gravity is a property of space-time. Gravity is an effect of mass. Your statement that 'gravity has no mass' is like saying 'Dark has no color'. And gravity, as a measurable effect of mass, is most certainly not immaterial.

Quote:

Well the Universe was created because it started as the BB. The question still remains was it a accidental start or one by design? By the way the Universe is what we observe and sometimes test not by what we hypothesis what it was before the BB.

No, this state of the universe appears to have began with the Big Bang. Current theory does not seem to indicate any reason to believe there was not some state of existence beforehand.

Quote:

What's convoluted about it? Either the Universe had material cause or nonmaterial (immaterial) it's two choices if this is convoluted to you then you need to go back to your coloring book. Most scientist say the Universe was created because it always wasn't here that's why we give it a age and it's something like 13.8 billion years old. Come to think of it ofcourse the Universe transitioned from one state to another it had to be that way it couldn't just pop into existance with no explanation. Atheist just think it transitioned from some unknown accident, Theist think it transitioned from God. If God created the Universe it came from him or it was a transition from his powers.

You presume the only evidence is physical, I don't hold that belief. As an atheist you can't presume any thing or else you take it by faith. Where is the evidence that the only evidence of accidental Universe is physical evidence, ask yourself.

Where do you get your probabilities from? There isn't a single shred of evidence the Universe came about from accident.. so I ask you again what is your probability for a material causation for your Universe?

 

That's like saying a song is a 'transition' from a musician's mind. It's not. It's a distinct and separate thing. However, here's what you don't seem to be getting:

Naturalist cause for Big Bang State = requires adding no unobserved factors to the observable data.

Theist cause for Big Bang State = requires adding an unobserved factor to the observable data.

No matter how much you try to say, bleat, or whine that God is a simpler answer, He's not. God is, by necessity, a more complex thing than anything He creates, simply because His complexity includes the complexity required to conceive of the complexity of the created thing. Thus, adding God at least doubles the complexity of your answer. Occam's Razor would have us discard any complexity that is not necessary to explain the data. Simple common sense would tell us not to go adding in complications we don't have evidence for.

Thus, until there is evidence for God's existence AND active role, the case for not adding God to the observable data is stronger than the case for adding God.

 

 

"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
The traditional religious

The traditional religious are the "ego maniacs", claiming they are special gifts of a special god.

Nothing is special.

"You are god as I as everything is god", is a humble statement of equality. Basically the one of a Jesus/Buddha philosophy, and many others ..... not the Christian one ....


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

Why does it have to be an accident? Like what another singluarity crashed into ours?? I mean come on, the singularity was an unstable singluarity which is why it expanded it's energy outwards (Big Bang) so it is another natural explanation, an unstable singularity that let it's internal energy expand outwards.....or god did it....which is the more likely answer ummmm yeah the NATURAL explanation is more likely than god did it.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Actually it was in the

Quote:
Actually it was in the news a elderly lady survived death what I mean is her body went through the early stages of rigormortis when she came back to life. Also a court in America ruled a house haunted. Little tidbits I thought you should know.

Sources?

 

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Llama
Theist
Llama's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2008-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wow.  Llama, why not

Quote:
Wow.  Llama, why not just stay away?  You're not worth your amusement factor here.


 

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?


 

Quote:
All we have ever seen is natural, so that makes this the default conclusion. If we lived in a world void of anything then you could say there was no evidence on either side. However, we live in a world full of natural processes happening around us all the time. This lends some weight toward a natural beginning.


 

Of course, we all realize that the beginning of it all is really out of the scope of reality for everyone. However, if you look at the basic idea of it... You can believe as richard dawkins said, that we started on the gradual slope up mount improbable, or you can believe that POOF, God sparked his own existence and created it all. Really when you think of it, it all started somewhere, but you theists claim that right behind that somewhere is another something that is more advanced than anything we have ever known. I think the question here is "where is the evidence for this something we have never known?"

No one has ever confirmed the existence of a Deity. However, we can all think of several Gods that are no longer worshiped because the idea of them is foolish. We can all think of several supernatural claims that have proven to be false including psychics, prophets, alien sightings, witches, sorcerors, etc. Why do these facts not pile up in your mind and make you terribly skeptical to any claim that is supernatural or theistic? It's like a prostitute trying to tell you she's still a virgin, when she's already fucked us all quite a few times before... Please, start wearing your skeptical hat and critically consider all the supernatural claims of history before we all get AIDS!

I suppose you mean material when you say natural. There are lots of real immaterial things and forces in our Universe so right there your argument is false and incomplete.

Either believe in accidental or purposeful cause..of course, is there a third option? No. There is no evidence at all for accidental cause to the Universe so why should I believe it? Richardo Dawkins choses to believe in accidental despite the lack of evidence so it can suite his atheistic faith.

Confirmation of God, and what standard will we be using, yours, mine, society, science? I agree the idea of other false Gods is foolish. Don't bunch God with witches and sorcerors please they're not even in the same league. I have plenty of facts that pile up that lead me to God, such as the finely tuned universe and more. I am wearing my skeptical hat and I turned it to skepticism to atheism.

Quote:
Actually, atheism is supported by evidence; specifically, the lack of direct evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural entity. With no way to prove or disprove the existence of Lugh, Morrigan, etc, there is as much reason to believe in them, Zeus, Thor, Pele, or Great Cthulu as there is to believe in the deities of the 'major religions'. So then you are left with: Does a deity exist? If so, which? All with no evidence to support any position, which leaves us with only one empirical result: We don't know.

And if you don't know, that's not belief. And if you don't believe (which, for the quadrillionth time, is NOT the same thing as saying 'I believe there's no God'), then you're an atheist. You want to prove it's wrong to be an atheist, prove the supernatural exists. If you cannot prove this, then you have no grounds to rail against those of us who take an 'undecided' position.

So what you're telling me is that lack of evidence is in itself evidence? So because there is a lack of evidence for accidental universe one should believe in purposeful universe? I hope you see the error of your judgment now. I would love to see your reasoning used in a court of law and need I remind you? That science has tougher demands of evidence then that! There is evidence of purposeful universe because it is finely tuned for life, I'm telling you that's not evidence for an accident.

No. no, no, no it's not as simple as that. Atheism makes a positive claim of accidental universe exclusively because it makes the negative claim of God and this fact can't be negotiated with. Let's say I can prove the supernatural exists that doesn't mean I proved God exist. Most Atheists think atheism makes only 1 claim and that claim is there is no God, but if followed to it's logical conclusion it also makes the case for the undesigned Universe. Where is the proof of our undesigned Universe?

Bleeeat!


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Hey little camelid; Just

Hey little camelid; Just because you aren't aware of any evidence for an "accidental" universe doesn't mean there is none. Especially if the reason you're not aware is willful ignorance.

And this silly BS about being "finely tuned" for life. Bah. Backward thinking. Just because the universe can support life doesn't mean it was made for life. Just because something is incredibly unlikely doesn't mean it was designed to be.

Are your legs wet? Can you see the pyramids? I think it's yes to both, because you're up to your waist in denial.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Balrogoz wrote:  This is

Balrogoz wrote:

 This is one of the basic theistic attacks and has never made any sense to me.

 

Theism posits a god, power, an explanation..  whatever.

 

Atheism does not.  period.  Me, myself, as an atheist, do not use evolution, the big bang, physics, or any other proof to disprove the existence of a god.  I merely point out how erroneous the arguments for a god are.  When your logic fails you, what are you left with?

 

Theist: 'I don't know how the universe came about, so it must be the eternal sky-grandfather.'

A-theist: 'Why sky-grandad, why not sky-cousin, or sky-mom, or sky-dog?  Frankly, there's no reason to believe in any, and they aren't needed to explan anything we know about.  So, I will continue believing that none have.'

 Theist: 'But.. then how do you explain the universe?'

A-theist: 'I don't, but when I can, I'll give you a call.  Why not go burn some animals to your sky-pops.'

Theist: 'Sky-Nana is going to be upset with you.'

 

Mind you, this is ~exactly~ the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns, werewolves, astral teapots, or any other mythological claptrap.  I needn't be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, that's the default position.  You, however, need to prove that leprechauns do exist.

 

I'l also point out that the universe in no way exhibits a quality of being designed for life.  To say so is brazenly ignorant.

 

That is, in the words of Kent Hovind, 'Willfully ignorant -- that means dumb on purpose'

 

The argument for the fine tuned universe is 'there is life in the universe'

 

In fact, the universe has way more un-lifable space than life-able.  The argument that life is so wasteful that it requires something the size of the universe to support what little amount of it we take up is ridiculous.  To the point of being simply argumentative with the sole purpose of being unlikable.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Llama wrote:Quote:Actually,

Llama wrote:

Quote:
Actually, atheism is supported by evidence; specifically, the lack of direct evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural entity. With no way to prove or disprove the existence of Lugh, Morrigan, etc, there is as much reason to believe in them, Zeus, Thor, Pele, or Great Cthulu as there is to believe in the deities of the 'major religions'. So then you are left with: Does a deity exist? If so, which? All with no evidence to support any position, which leaves us with only one empirical result: We don't know.

And if you don't know, that's not belief. And if you don't believe (which, for the quadrillionth time, is NOT the same thing as saying 'I believe there's no God'), then you're an atheist. You want to prove it's wrong to be an atheist, prove the supernatural exists. If you cannot prove this, then you have no grounds to rail against those of us who take an 'undecided' position.

So what you're telling me is that lack of evidence is in itself evidence? So because there is a lack of evidence for accidental universe one should believe in purposeful universe? I hope you see the error of your judgment now. I would love to see your reasoning used in a court of law and need I remind you? That science has tougher demands of evidence then that! There is evidence of purposeful universe because it is finely tuned for life, I'm telling you that's not evidence for an accident.

No. no, no, no it's not as simple as that. Atheism makes a positive claim of accidental universe exclusively because it makes the negative claim of God and this fact can't be negotiated with. Let's say I can prove the supernatural exists that doesn't mean I proved God exist. Most Atheists think atheism makes only 1 claim and that claim is there is no God, but if followed to it's logical conclusion it also makes the case for the undesigned Universe. Where is the proof of our undesigned Universe?

Lack of evidence is not evidence for an active claim; ie: God does not exist. It is, in fact, cause for no active claim; ie: we don't know. The term for no active claim for the existence of God? Atheism. The technical term for not making any active claim as to whether God exists or does not exist? Atheism.

Atheism makes no claim whatsoever about the origins of the universe. Atheism is not concerned with the origins of the universe, any more than Catholicism or Calvinism make claims about whether a tomato is an edible plant. Atheism merely states that there is no convincing case for God. This is not the same as making a case for no God, though some atheists do take it to that extreme.

If followed to its logical conclusion, no matter how far you take it, atheism still only makes the claim that there is no case for God. Yes, this lack of a case for God will compel the atheist to accept that there is no case for God creating the universe, but in and of itself this is not because atheism espouses a naturalist case for the universe, but rather simply because any case for God creating the universe must first be based on an active case for God's existence.

God cannot be held up as the answer to the universe's complexity if the universe itself is held up as evidence for God's existence. That is circular logic, and provides no evidence for either, and so must be discarded.

The case for the undesigned Universe, though, is simple: either the Universe had a designer, or it didn't. There's no evidence for a designer, and so Occam's Razor compels us to not add the additional complexity of one. Thus, it can be said that scientific inquiry leans toward a naturalist universe, but does not claim surety of one, since after all, the same principle compels us to not claim knowledge when all we have is hypothesis.

"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