Atheism is the most illogical of all beliefs

flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is the most illogical of all beliefs

I keep hearing all over that atheism is the most logical, the most scientific. So I wanted to first try and show that it is not, and then give the atheists a chance to respond.

 My first point is this. You use the fact that all other beliefs are believed in with little to no evidence, and therefore they are foolish beliefs. However, the very definition of atheism, is the belief that NO GOD exists. Not that you are unsure, but that you BELIEVE there is no God, when it CANNOT be proven, EVER that there is no God. You are putting as much or more faith into this, than the christians.

Second, you all try and find little discrepancies in the bible, and yell and holler when you find "492" here, and "491.999" there. This is not significant enough to denounce a faith, when you have over 1000 pages to work with, you should be able to find something more major, were the religion false. You then go on to say that such errors are proof of christianities ignorance, even though I have NEVER seen ANYTHING that has not been explained away by christians.

Third, after the above has been done, you go on to claim that christians base all their beliefs on this dumb book, even though you have not proved it wrong, simply proved that it is a long shot. Perhaps what you are missing is the fact that they have a book, and you don't even have a pamplet. There is no proof for you here. 

Fourth, you use the line "a christian once told me" FAR too often. You CANNOT use the far fetched ideas of one man to disprove an entire religious system. I have heard atheists who believe in different types of evolution, or in aliens. Disproving any one of those does NOT disprove the "religion", or discredit the others who believe in it. It does nothing what-so-ever to prove atheism, or disprove theism.

Fifth, I have NEVER seen a SINGLE shred of evidence for ANY form of atheism. Be it evolution or aliens or anything else. The only things I have EVER seen are far fethced claims by heavily biased scientists, who show no evidence for their claims. They simply laugh at the idea of God, and so they look at the only other alternatives they can find. I have asked MANY hardcore atheists over and over to show me ANY evidence, and I have yet to see anything beyond that example with the moths, which was(as far as I have seen) poorly documented at best. You have to be able to do better than that to be the "smarter" choice.

Sixth, you NEVER try and prove atheism, you only attempt to disprove other religions. Well? Have you disproved every single one? Because, if disproving God is the only way to be sure of atheism, then, to be the logical choice, you would have to FULLY disprove EVERY religion on earth, or at least prove that the idea of God is impossible. I have yet to see any major religion crushed, and so can only conclude that you have failed in this, your only means of proving your precious atheism.

So what is left for your "evidence"? What is it that makes you the more "logical" more "learned" more "moved on" belief? Why is atheism the best religion out there? And yes, it IS a religion, because it takes more faith or ignorance to believe in no God at all, than ANY other religion I have seen to date.

 

 

Your friendly agnostic,

Greg

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: I keep

flamingfuzzy wrote:

I keep hearing all over that atheism is the most logical, the most scientific. So I wanted to first try and show that it is not, and then give the atheists a chance to respond.

My first point is this. You use the fact that all other beliefs are believed in with little to no evidence, and therefore they are foolish beliefs. However, the very definition of atheism, is the belief that NO GOD exists.

No it isn't. The definition of an atheist is that one does not believe that God exists there is subtle but important difference between that and the belief that God does not exist. 

Quote:
Not that you are unsure, but that you BELIEVE there is no God, when it CANNOT be proven, EVER that there is no God. You are putting as much or more faith into this, than the christians.

One does not need to have something proven to believe it. If the only way we could believe things is to have them proved 100% then there is precious little that we would ever believe. 

Quote:
Second, you all try and find little discrepancies in the bible, and yell and holler when you find "492" here, and "491.999" there. This is not significant enough to denounce a faith, when you have over 1000 pages to work with, you should be able to find something more major, were the religion false.

Ok. How about the fact that the Christian God is a logical impossability. From its basic definition it is self contradictory. It can not possibly exsit. It is the same as a square triangle. 

You then go on to say that such errors are proof of christianities ignorance, even though I have NEVER seen ANYTHING that has not been explained away by christians.

Quote:
Third, after the above has been done, you go on to claim that christians base all their beliefs on this dumb book, even though you have not proved it wrong, simply proved that it is a long shot.

It is a long shot of staggering proportions. It does not matter that the Bible is not disproved 100% it is 99.9999999 + % likely to not be true. That means that it is irrational and foolish to beleive it.

 

Quote:
Perhaps what you are missing is the fact that they have a book, and you don't even have a pamplet. There is no proof for you here.

Fourth, you use the line "a christian once told me" FAR too often. You CANNOT use the far fetched ideas of one man to disprove an entire religious system.

We don't need to. The basic premises of all the worlds religions are far fetched. The very idea of God is totally far fetched. We attack that idea itself. The rambling nonsense spouted by many theists is just a bonus for us.  

Quote:
I have heard atheists who believe in different types of evolution, or in aliens. Disproving any one of those does NOT disprove the "religion", or discredit the others who believe in it. It does nothing what-so-ever to prove atheism, or disprove theism.

I agree. Evolution or aliens do not disprove or prove atheism. I don;t know any one who thinks that they do.  

Quote:
Fifth, I have NEVER seen a SINGLE shred of evidence for ANY form of atheism.

There is no evidence of any God or even God like beings.

None of these things have been found to exist. Moreover through out history we have learned that supernatural explanations are infact false and that the phenomona that they where suposed to expalin infact have a natural explanatoon. 

Quote:
Be it evolution or aliens or anything else. The only things I have EVER seen are far fethced claims by heavily biased scientists, who show no evidence for their claims.

Sorry but you are talking nonsense.

Please demonstrate how and why these scientists are biased?

Also I guarantee that there is evidence for any sceintific claim. 

Quote:
They simply laugh at the idea of God, and so they look at the only other alternatives they can find.

The idea of God is laughable. Its silly. All it is is saying that "magic" is responsible and giving it a different name

God=magic

Magic is not an explanation we should laugh at anyone who thinks that it is. 

Quote:
I have asked MANY hardcore atheists over and over to show me ANY evidence, and I have yet to see anything beyond that example with the moths, which was(as far as I have seen) poorly documented at best. You have to be able to do better than that to be the "smarter" choice.

Evidence for what? You seem to be talking about evolution. If you want evidence for evolution look it up. Its there. Evolution is a fact. 

Quote:
Sixth, you NEVER try and prove atheism, you only attempt to disprove other religions. Well? Have you disproved every single one?

I think that we can dismiss any religion that relys on a supernatural God. 

Quote:
Because, if disproving God is the only way to be sure of atheism, then, to be the logical choice, you would have to FULLY disprove EVERY religion on earth, or at least prove that the idea of God is impossible.

Indeed. This can be done to a certain extent. We can show that any supernatural explantion is highly unlikely. This covers all Gods. Therfore the rational and logical position is atheism 

Quote:
I have yet to see any major religion crushed, and so can only conclude that you have failed in this, your only means of proving your precious atheism.

Most religions that have existed throughout the history of man are now dead religions. Does anyone really beleive in Zeus or Odin anymore? So most religions have failed. The ones that remain will also fail one day. 

Quote:
So what is left for your "evidence"? What is it that makes you the more "logical" more "learned" more "moved on" belief? Why is atheism the best religion out there? And yes, it IS a religion, because it takes more faith or ignorance to believe in no God at all, than ANY other religion I have seen to date.

No it does not require faith. Please read my essay here for an explanation on this. 

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=19807 

 

Quote:
 

Your friendly agnostic,

Greg

I'm an agnostic too (on some Gods) as well as an atheist. You can be both incase you didn't know.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, why do so many

Honestly, why do so many people pride themselves on their utter inabilty to grasp basic epistemology?

Quote:

However, the very definition of atheism, is the belief that NO GOD exists.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You have hitherto not defined which epistemilogical stance of atheism you are referring to, strong or weak.

So, you, having no idea what you are talking about, have no idea what the terms strong and weak atheist mean, so I shall introduce you to them.


A weak atheist makes a negative claim I do not believe that God exists. A weak atheist holds that there is no evidence for God and proofs of God (cosmology, design etc) are invalid, hence there is no reason to accept God without evidence. In this case, the weak atheist is making a valid negative claim. This is cogent but non-binding, meaning that the weak atheist does not know without doubt that God does not exist, they never claimed that, hence making your claim an invalid non sequitor (the claim that absolute knowledge is required to dismiss the concept of God). this is false because the weak atheist position is that were evidence to come along for God, they would either counter it or abdicate their position. I have neve, ever heard a weak atheist claim they know beyond doubt that God does not exist.

Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant.

In epistemology, the burden of proof rests on the claimant at all times. Hence, unless evidence is presented for God, only the atheist is operating within their epistemic rights

As of yet, you have hitherto not justified your assertion that "atheism" is a belief, nor have you made reference to which philosophical stance you are referring to (weak atheism, otherwise known as agnostic atheism, or strong atheism, otherwise known as deductive atheism). Regarding the deductive atheist position, there are multiple deductive arguments against theistic propositions. I have written several myself. Like this one:

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

You will note that I said:

Quote:

Hence what I am suggesting is that I dislike the weak atheist/strong atheist dichotomy (I do not believe in x because there is no evidence versus I believe x does not exist because I have a deductive argument against x). Instead, I wish to view the question more along the lines of a probability continuum, and my goal with this essay is to demonstrate that from a scientific standpoint, the concept of a transcendent immaterial God is so fundamentally flawed and contradictory, postulating such an inherently absurd suggestion that we may regard the probability of its being as the same probability as DNA not being the biological molecule of Earth-based biological inheritance. Because saying with axiomatic certainty that God does not exist leaves you supceptible to making an argument from ignorance fallacy (because your deductive argument will have to rely on some scientific induction that would be impossible to prove 100%). Hence, my goal is to make the probability of God so low that the dividing line between my position and strong atheism is irrelevant. And it is for this reason that any accusation that I am making a scientific induction to support a deductive claim is inherently fallacious- being that this is totally irrelevant, since I am not making a 100% claim.

What we have here is a precisely analogous situation. All of our experiments, our mathematics, our physics, indeed, our understanding of the very foundation of reality itself, confirm that matter and information are just as much two sides of the same coin as electricity and magnetism. The probabilty of this being incorrect is absurdly low (actually, in this case, it is essentially zero, since the claim that information is immaterial is untestable, since all we can test is material existence, and so if we can test for information we know it is material). Of course, it is possible that we may discover that it may be possible for information may exist immaterially, just as we may discover somehow that it may be possible for electricity and magnetism to exist seperately. But given that we know precisely how the processes work, it is probabalistically absurd to state a possibility to the contrary, hence, it is quite safe to say that matter and information really are two sides of the same coin, and hence, that the existence of a sentient, immaterial God is patently absurd.

 

Your argument commits the positive version of the argumentum ad ignoratium. The fact that God cannot be disproved is irrelevant. Positive proof of X does not depend on X not having been falsified. Otherwise, any proposition could be defended on grounds that it has hitherto not been falsified!

There is a subtle difference between saying that an argument has not been falsified and that it cannot be falsified. The first is invalid as a method of proving X. The second, however, is absolutely critical to burden of proof and epistemic rights. If something cannot be falsified, then it cannot be tested, and then, there cannot ever be evidence of it. If something is unfalsifiable, it is untestable, and if something is untestable, then there is no epistemic rights for saying it exists (the only exception to this is axioms, since they can be defended by retortion). However, this, again, is not grounds for saying that X does not exist. Strong atheism cannot be defended via the unfalsifiability of God, only by the creation of a deductive argument against God (to which, of course, any strong atheist worth his salt would reply “no shit”).

Weak atheists would hence concur that the inherent inabilty to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of a deity would be impossible, hence adopting apathism, which means you are strawmanning their position and hence should not be so ignorant.

A strong atheist would disagree and say that God can be disproved, or at least, shown to be absurdly improbable. Such arguments are called Deductive Arguments Against God. I have written several myself. Like the link I provided.

And educate yourself in the fallacy you are making please. Start with this:

 

Quote:

Second, you all try and find little discrepancies in the bible, and yell and holler when you find "492" here, and "491.999" there. This is not significant enough to denounce a faith, when you have over 1000 pages to work with, you should be able to find something more major, were the religion false. You then go on to say that such errors are proof of christianities ignorance, even though I have NEVER seen ANYTHING that has not been explained away by christians.

I never invoke the Bible, So I cannot comment on this.

Quote:

Third, after the above has been done, you go on to claim that christians base all their beliefs on this dumb book, even though you have not proved it wrong, simply proved that it is a long shot. Perhaps what you are missing is the fact that they have a book, and you don't even have a pamplet. There is no proof for you here.

ad ignorantium and negative proof fallacy and ignoratio eclenchi. Have you EVER consulted a list of logical operators and fallacies before?

This is a foolish epistemic fallacy of negative proof. Why is it so frequently employed? The burden of proof does not rest on the negative claimant, rather the positive claimant. If your implication were true, a proposition could be defended solely on basis that it cannot be disproved! This is absurd. Do you believe in fairies merely because they cannot be disproved? Of course not.

 

Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant.

Not disproved? Surely you can display less ignorance. Everything in that book of fables contradicts all that modern science has to say about the world.

Again, being that you have no understanding of basic logic, please read this:

The Argument from Ignorance and Its Uses and Abuses

Quote:

Fifth, I have NEVER seen a SINGLE shred of evidence for ANY form of atheism.

You still have hitherto to justify which epistemilogical stance of atheism you are making reference to! If you are making reference to weak atheism, then you sir are a moron with no understanding of basic epistemilogy and epistemic rights. One does not prove a negative claim, it is called the fallacy of negative proof for a reason, and you spit on it with your willfull ignorance.

Of course, if you wish to talk about strong atheism (a much rarer stance) I can point you in the right direction....

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Quote:

Be it evolution

Don't insult me. I rolled off the combined MD/PhD program to go into molecular biology and medical research, and have studied evolution for most of my adult life. Please read this, which, just like everything else here, I took the time to write properly:

Proteomics and Its Applications For Evolutionary Mechanisms--Indisputable Proof of Evolution and Common Descent

Reading the Common Descent- Endogenous Retrovirals and Mitochondrial DNA, A Very Short Page

Quote:

or aliens

What?

Quote:

he only things I have EVER seen are far fethced claims by heavily biased scientists

Smirk. Someone with no formal training is hardly in a position to call anything farfetched.

Quote:

who show no evidence for their claims.

Perhaps you will read what I wrote. Perhaps not.

Quote:

I have asked MANY hardcore atheists over and over to show me ANY evidence, and I have yet to see anything beyond that example with the moths,

Oh, you're back to evolution are you? Making reference to an experiment that was carried out, lets see...120 years ago? Good lord, I'm glad someone is up to date. My article on the other hand, is cutting edge proteomics and proteonomics, graduate level research. Please read it.

Quote:

Sixth, you NEVER try and prove atheism, you only attempt to disprove other religions.

Back to your inabilty to distinguish between the various epistemilogical stances of atheism, eh? Well, I hope my insistent efforts have hammered into your tiny brain that weak atheism is not a claim unto itself, so your position is absurd (negative proof fallacy). If you are, again, referring to the position of strong atheism, I would, again, be happy to point you in the right direction:

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Quote:

Well? Have you disproved every single one? Because, if disproving God is the only way to be sure of atheism

Good lord, I never thought I would meet someone who so proudly wore their idiocy and inability to understand epistemilogic so proudly on their sleeve.

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

and please read this,perhaps your brain might experience some electrical activity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Quote:

r at least prove that the idea of God is impossible.

Certainly.

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Quote:

Your friendly agnostic,

Clearly we differ greatly on our notion of friendly.

{Mod Edit -- Added BB Code to save readers from horizontal scrolling} 

"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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is a lack a belief

Atheism is a lack a belief in a god.  It isn't written in stone.  If I saw enough evidence of an supernatural deity I would believe.  But I don't believe because I see no evidence. 

I don't think I've seen 'A Christian once told me' used as an actual argument.  Perhaps as an anecdote, but certainly not an argument.

I don't have to 'prove' atheism.  It is a negative claim.  I'm not the one saying there is a god.  The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.  That would be a person who believes there is a god. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I've read enough of these

I've read enough of these in my life to not have to read the body, I've read no more than the title and have two things to say.

 

1.  Atheism couldn't possibly be the most illogical belief because it's not a belief at all.

2.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
I believe the belief you

I believe the belief you are looking for is agnostic. Atheism(in every dictionary I have found) is the BELIEF in no God. Yet even without that belief, it is still more illogical to believe in nothing, than to believe in something. See how smart you are? Without reading it all, you respond! Go you!

Calling yourself an atheist means that you see yourself as an atheist, which means you ARE atheistic. It is a system of thought, a belief. It IS something you think, not something you do, therefore it revolves around belief. Even if it is a simple thought, or a lack of other thought, it IS a thought, and therefore, it takes faith(as does the resolve to follow any thought you commit too), and is therefore a belief.

Oh, and thank you for answering all my points. People like you make me feel all warm and fuzzy for the Atheists. You are so good at disproving me. Eye-wink Go you!

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
A negative claim, is still

A negative claim, is still a claim. If I were to tell you I did not believe in the wind, I would be telling you of a belief. Obviously there is more proof for the wind, but the concept is the same. It is no different, it is a claim you must either put FAITH into, or disprove. Even if you think it means you are simply NOT putting your faith in God, it is still a choice. There is no such thing as a "negative" thought. Simply thoughts that go one way or the other, with, or without proof.

And as you stated, if you saw "enough", which is saying that there is evidence(despite how patheticly little there is), and have failed to show ANY proof for no God, or ever given any evidence for anything that would go towards making a God seem improbable. For you to jump to the conclussion that there is no God, without better proof, takes more faith.

I am personaly an agnostic, but I believe it to be a temporary thing. It is(along with the unproven atheism) the dumbest thing you could ever be. To simply not believe in anything else, because the proof is not outstanding, or even good, is not a good reason to believe in absolutely nothing(which you have to realize is what you belive).

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
You didn't read the thread

You didn't read the thread that Sapient posted, did you?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: I am

flamingfuzzy wrote:

I am personaly an agnostic, but I believe it to be a temporary thing. It is(along with the unproven atheism) the dumbest thing you could ever be. To simply not believe in anything else, because the proof is not outstanding, or even good, is not a good reason to believe in absolutely nothing(which you have to realize is what you belive).

You are agnostic.... but it, along with atheist is the dumbest thing to be.... yet you are still 'agnostic'..... because proof of god is "not outstanding, or even good"..... which isn't sufficient reason to believe in god..... but it is still better to believe in god........

 

Huh? You are joking right? When you read that back to yourself does it really make sense?

I withhold belief in a god until I have ample evidence to change that position. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote:A

flamingfuzzy wrote:

A negative claim, is still a claim. If I were to tell you I did not believe in the wind, I would be telling you of a belief. Obviously there is more proof for the wind, but the concept is the same. It is no different, it is a claim you must either put FAITH into, or disprove. Even if you think it means you are simply NOT putting your faith in God, it is still a choice. There is no such thing as a "negative" thought. Simply thoughts that go one way or the other, with, or without proof.

And as you stated, if you saw "enough", which is saying that there is evidence(despite how patheticly little there is), and have failed to show ANY proof for no God, or ever given any evidence for anything that would go towards making a God seem improbable. For you to jump to the conclussion that there is no God, without better proof, takes more faith.

I am personaly an agnostic, but I believe it to be a temporary thing. It is(along with the unproven atheism) the dumbest thing you could ever be. To simply not believe in anything else, because the proof is not outstanding, or even good, is not a good reason to believe in absolutely nothing(which you have to realize is what you belive).

Please don't twist my words around.  Do you know what a hypothetical is?  If not, please look it up.  I said if I saw enough evidence.  I didn't say I have seen some evidence. In fact, I've yet to see any evidence of a supernatural deity.  Therefore, I withold belief in anything. 

There is no such thing as a negative thought?   I'm thinking plenty right now. 

I had forgotten how ignorantly obtuse you are. 

[EDIT - punctuation] 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote:

flamingfuzzy wrote:

I believe the belief you are looking for is agnostic. Atheism(in every dictionary I have found) is the BELIEF in no God.

Oh dear. Please just read up on the links you have been given above. Take the time to understand the difference between atheism and agnotism and why one can be both.

 

Quote:
Yet even without that belief, it is still more illogical to believe in nothing, than to believe in something. See how smart you are? Without reading it all, you respond! Go you![/quote

Calling yourself an atheist means that you see yourself as an atheist, which means you ARE atheistic.

Errr yes.

Quote:
It is a system of thought, a belief.

Nope. Not necessarily. Is not believing in astology a belief system? Is not believing in the loch ness monster beleif system?

Quote:
It IS something you think, not something you do, therefore it revolves around belief. Even if it is a simple thought, or a lack of other thought, it IS a thought, and therefore, it takes faith(as does the resolve to follow any thought you commit too), and is therefore a belief.

Please read the links given above. The link to my essay I gave you will explain the different uses of the word faith and should explain why your reasoning here is erronious.

Quote:
Oh, and thank you for answering all my points. People like you make me feel all warm and fuzzy for the Atheists. You are so good at disproving me. Eye-wink Go you!

Don't mention it.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote: One does not need

Quote:

One does not need to have something proven to believe it. If the only way we could believe things is to have them proved 100% then there is precious little that we would ever believe. 

Wow.... you are so skilled at debating, are you not? Saying that EVERYTHING is faith based, and then going on to admit that you believe in nothing.... how is this proof?

Quote:
Ok. How about the fact that the Christian God is a logical impossability. From its basic definition it is self contradictory. It can not possibly exsit. It is the same as a square triangle. 

Ummm.... thanks for your evidence? I still see no evidence, be is logical or fact based. Thank you for another outlandish claim. Go back to your hole. Stay.

Quote:
It is a long shot of staggering proportions. It does not matter that the Bible is not disproved 100% it is 99.9999999 + % likely to not be true. That means that it is irrational and foolish to beleive it.

YAY!! More unfounded statistics and beliefs! Any links? Any proof? No? What a suprise... please, make that hole really deep.

Quote:
We don't need to. The basic premises of all the worlds religions are far fetched. The very idea of God is totally far fetched. We attack that idea itself. The rambling nonsense spouted by many theists is just a bonus for us.  

Let me take a random guess.... ummm... no evidence? Yes! I feel so smart. Have you ever had a coherent thought? I am not trying to disprove Atheist, or prove theism, simply trying to point out that belief in no God requiers more faith, because of a total lack of evidence, of any kind.

Quote:

Sorry but you are talking nonsense.

Please demonstrate how and why these scientists are biased?

Also I guarantee that there is evidence for any sceintific claim. 

Are you ****ing serious? EVERYONE is biased. And to believe in something, and put your name on the line for something with no proof SCREAMS bias of the highest level. I mourn for the human race

Quote:

The idea of God is laughable. Its silly. All it is is saying that "magic" is responsible and giving it a different name

God=magic

Magic is not an explanation we should laugh at anyone who thinks that it is. 

Have you disproved magic? I am guessing no. Even though technicly God does NOT equal magic(not in the sense most people think), if it did, it would still not be a difinitive proof. And to try to simply make it SEEM outlandish is either a sign of dumbness, or patheticness. Magic has also never been disproven, as far as I have seen at least.

Quote:
Evidence for what? You seem to be talking about evolution. If you want evidence for evolution look it up. Its there. Evolution is a fact. 

OH MY GOD!!! Are you serious? First, I am NOT talking simply of evolution, but ANY other explanation. And secondly.... WHAT THE HELL?!?! I have been frickin' looking for ANY evidence for evolution, and think it is the most laughable idea EVER. I think that Evolution does not require a lack of belief in anything, it requires DEEP ignorance, and actualy a belief DESPITE evidence. Show me something, ANYHTING. All I have ever done is run around in circles, or found articles where scientists SAY it is true, and show no evidence. Okay, if evolution is true... there would be SOME evidence. SOME at least. It is the dumbest idea EVER to think that there would not be.

Quote:
I think that we can dismiss any religion that relys on a supernatural God. 

Yeah, because you have already made the assumtion that the supernatural does not exist. Yeah, you seem to be looking so hard for the truth.

 *sigh* Please, someone realize what I have been asking. I am NOT looking for a debate. I am looking for someone to show why Atheism requiers less faith, or to show ANY evidence for atheism. 

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
    Trollville here we

 

 

Trollville here we come....


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
We'll decide that, Matt.

We'll decide that, Matt. Thanks. Trolling a troll is trolling too. Let's keep it on topic.

 

As of yet, this is still a discussion with one side incapable of separating lack of belief and lack of knowledge due to willful ignorance.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Before I begin ripping

Before I begin ripping apart the next guy, I must apologize, I wasn't aware that I had four resposnes, and only responded to the last two, before realizing that there were two above it, hence the lack of suffiencient de-bunking in the first two "rebuttles". It was not anything intentional. Now, let me begin.

This is a response to deludedgod. First, a direct statement.

Man, I am sorry, but I cannot understnad how you think. You seem at first to be an intelligent man, but then when I actualy go and start reading you posts, you begin to say that God MUST have a physical mindm otherwise nothing makes sense. Are you aware of what the supernatural is? You mask your poorly thought ideas behind big words to cunfuse the Rube's. Pathetic. Now, on to your actual words.

Quote:
There is a subtle difference between saying that an argument has not been falsified and that it cannot be falsified. The first is invalid as a method of proving X. The second, however, is absolutely critical to burden of proof and epistemic rights. If something cannot be falsified, then it cannot be tested, and then, there cannot ever be evidence of it. If something is unfalsifiable, it is untestable, and if something is untestable, then there is no epistemic rights for saying it exists (the only exception to this is axioms, since they can be defended by retortion). However, this, again, is not grounds for saying that X does not exist. Strong atheism cannot be defended via the unfalsifiability of God, only by the creation of a deductive argument against God (to which, of course, any strong atheist worth his salt would reply “no shit”).

BULL! Are you THAT dumb? You cannot prove that my fork does not exist. It is INFALLIBLE, does that mean it cannot be proved? No, I have it here, go test it, touch it, lick it. I am not relating my fork to God, so do NOT respond by saying: "you dumb n00b, God cannot be touched or licked, retard". I am simply saying that simply because something is infallible means NOTHING. I CAN be proven. That was the WORST logical jump I have EVER seen. Go dig a deeper hole than the last guy. At least he didn't seem to be gifted with intelligence, you seem to have intelligence, but be using it in the dumbest possible way; ignorantly.

Quote:
Don't insult me. I rolled off the combined MD/PhD program to go into molecular biology and medical research, and have studied evolution for most of my adult life. Please read this, which, just like everything else here, I took the time to write properly:

Dear God! First off, I can insult whoever I want. Secondly, I looked and was not impressed. Thirdly, do not take me lightly, I was raised by missionaries and have been attending christian theological classes since I was 12.

Quote:

Oh, you're back to evolution are you? Making reference to an experiment that was carried out, lets see...120 years ago? Good lord, I'm glad someone is up to date. My article on the other hand, is cutting edge proteomics and proteonomics, graduate level research. Please read it.

You love to prove that people will see what they want to, don't you? I said ANY proof, of ANY kind, not simply evolution. Why does everyone jump to this? Are you completely devoid of abstract thought?

Quote:

Good lord, I never thought I would meet someone who so proudly wore their idiocy and inability to understand epistemilogic so proudly on their sleeve.

You finaly look in a mirror then huh? I cannot believe you said this, and then reffered me to WIKIPEDIA. WOW! Yeah, you're a real genious.

I cannot believe I wasted so much of my time reading what you wrote. I have never seen so much nothing hidden behind alot of words. I feel tainted now, I cna only hope that you eventualy use to mind to think for YOURSELF.

 

Later,

Half King of the Hopeless

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I will post this agin,

Okay, I will post this agin, because no one is getting the point. I am simply trying to say that Atheism requiers more faith than most religions. I am asking for either a logical response debating this, or evidence for atheism. I have seen neither as of yet, aside from one guy who's logic seems to say that God goes against the laws of nature, so I will clarify something. If God is supernatural, than by befinition, he iy beyond nature. so no saying that God defies nature. No duh.

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: Dear

flamingfuzzy wrote:

Dear God! First off, I can insult whoever I want. Secondly, I looked and was not impressed. Thirdly, do not take me lightly, I was raised by missionaries and have been attending christian theological classes since I was 12.


You can insult who you wish, just be sure you know the consequences.  I suggest you read the rules of the forum because ad homs are unacceptable. 

Your attitude is almost laughable.  I can only assume you're an ignorant little boy, probably 10, judging by the way your acting.  If you had an ounce of maturity you'd know how to carry on a decent conversation.  I love how you little kids think you know everything.  It's really silly and cute.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Truthiness
Truthiness's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-04-16
User is offlineOffline
If you'd be so kind,

If you'd be so kind, flamingfuzzy, please give us your ontology for "supernatural".


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: Okay, I

flamingfuzzy wrote:
Okay, I will post this agin, because no one is getting the point. I am simply trying to say that Atheism requiers more faith than most religions.

Your point is based on a strawman which is what people have tried to correct you on. An atheist doesn't have any faith so it seems very absurd to try to claim they have most.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy, The illogical

flamingfuzzy,

The illogical part is saying that faith is required to lack it.

Atheism is ill-defined with regard to its roots.

A- = without/non

theism = belief/believing in god(s)

Ergo atheism is without belief in god(s).

 

The 'gnostic' part of this is defined as:

of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

Essentially adding a- as prefix in this context is:

agnostic is without spiritual knowledge.

 

The assertion that everyone is agnostic comes from the fact that any spiritual knowledge presented has been anything but knowledge because knowledge implies an intrinsic verifiability with it.

We're not worried about what anyone THINKS they know. It is the beliefs at issue and the lack thereof.

That's why it is 'atheist vs. theist' = belief vs. non-belief

When someone declares 'spiritual knowledge' we are skeptical because as of yet, ALL have failed in the verifiability portion needed for knowledge.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Greg.....

Greg.....

Does all the wisdom of all nineteen years of your life entitle you to come he and act like a huge ass? I think not.

You ignore very valid points people have made and just spew ad hominems. Try responding to the arguments.... the root of atheism has been explained, whether you accept it or not is invalid, the truth is 'atheist' means without belief in a god, no faith is required.


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy

flamingfuzzy wrote:

Sixth, you NEVER try and prove atheism, you only attempt to disprove other religions.

Atheism = The lack of belief in god or gods.

An Atheistic claim: God or gods don't exist = A negative claim.

Therefore, the burden of proof is not on us Atheists, but the Theists who say that a god does exist. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone use flawed this argument against Atheism, I would be about 8 dollars richer.

flamingfuzzy wrote:

Well? Have you disproved every single one? Because, if disproving God is the only way to be sure of atheism, then, to be the logical choice, you would have to FULLY disprove EVERY religion on earth, or at least prove that the idea of God is impossible. I have yet to see any major religion crushed...

You are correct in some things you say here. Atheists have so far failed to crush religion. Why? Because religous people have emotions! It's hard to think rationally when they have this beautiful thing called "God" in their lives.

Another reason is that we don't have the knowledge to explain certain mysteries left in the universe. Now people have much less rational reasons to believe in God, because we no longer need it to explain the creation of life, the earth and the universe.

flamingfuzzy wrote:

...and so can only conclude that you have failed in this, your only means of proving your precious atheism.

You are wrong. God's existence and non-existence is impossible to prove, because there is no evidence. We cannot disprove religion by destroying it. It's a matter of evidence. But if you have real scientific proof that any god exists, bring it on. I would like to know about it.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
*sigh*, okay, here I

*sigh*, okay, here I go(you'd think at least one christian would speak up....).

First off, you guys are all using a system you have found you like, it is a system designed for agruing and debating, not for discovering the truth. You see anyone who is not using that system as wrong or of using flawed logic, you do not even attempt to understand their mentality.

Secondly, I do not think the 19 years have given me any wisdom what-so-ever, quite the opposite actualy, so thank God I am not resorting to Wisdom, simply logic, pure and simple.

Also, you keep stating that the belief in atheism is something other than in EVERY dictionary I have EVER read. I have had most agnostics/atheists/christians try and rip me apart for going against their precious dictionary before. I cannot understand which way rationalresponse rolls. I am simply going according to what we can rely upon right now. The dictionary says so, and we have no better way of technicly doing it, so I will go with what the dictionary says.

Again, I only act like a "huge ass" because I have heard all of these points before, am not impressed, and that is the reason for my entire post. No one has yet grasped what this post is intended for, and they are instead using flawed logic, and acting superior when doing so, so forgive me for getting a little agitated when people try to debunk anything with very faulty logic.

Okay, let me say this one more time... having no faith, IS having faith. You are CHOOSING not to believe in ANYTHING. You are saying you DO NOT believe in EVERYTHING else, and therefore believe in nothing, which requires more faith than believing in any one thing. It might be EASIER to believe, but it DOES require more faith and less evidence, and I will NOT back down on this until I see ANY evidence contrary.

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: Okay, I

flamingfuzzy wrote:
Okay, I will post this agin, because no one is getting the point. I am simply trying to say that Atheism requiers more faith than most religions. I am asking for either a logical response debating this, or evidence for atheism.

Okay: your premise is incorrect. By definition, a lack of belief requires no faith at all, so your argument is tanked right there. Lack of knowledge does not require evidential support.

(As an aside, when "no one" understands you there are two options: either everyone around you is literally incapable of understanding you ["you're all idiots!!!"], or you are not clearly articulating your case ["...because bobbada bobbada hoe daddy yanga langa furjeezama bing ying. QED."]. Just because there are two possible explanations does not mean both are equally likely.)

Atheism is the lack of belief in any god: "I do not believe (read: I do not claim the knowledge) that a god exists". It is not a claim to knowledge; it is a statement that the arguments for any god's existence is invalid.

Strong atheism, however, IS a claim to knowledge ("I believe that no god exists".), and is a different thing. To my mind, it's also a less tenable position because claims of non-existence are a lot harder to make than claims of existence. So far, no one has been able to come up with a proof of the non-existence of any god; just that it seems "highly unlikely" that any god exists.

Quote:
I have seen neither as of yet, aside from one guy who's logic seems to say that God goes against the laws of nature, so I will clarify something. If God is supernatural, than by befinition, he iy beyond nature. so no saying that God defies nature. No duh.

Special pleadings will not get you very far. Either things exist or they do not; no middle ground or extenuating circumstances. Defining something as supernatural automatically means that thing does not exist, period. See posts by todangst and deludedgod, among others, for more information.

Let's try this: some entity is defined as being an omnimax entity. Any omnimax entity is inherently contradictory and therefore, by the law of non-contradiction, cannot exist. Therefore, any entity described as being an omnimax being cannot exist. An entity may exist, but if it does, it is not an omnimax entity.

Atheists don't have to prove a god doesn't exist; atheists can, however, prove the god someone believes in does not exist, usually just by listening to the definition.

 

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
iertaenms;lkdfgjperionkmaeij

iertaenms;lkdfgjperionkmaeijaakdnza

adkfa;diadfia;dfnalkdfpwoer

w[prf.ghmkldfj'qa

e[ph,sdkna;oot

[spn'\\

 

 

Well it makes about as much sense as all the above ...

 

 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: First

flamingfuzzy wrote:
First off, you guys are all using a system you have found you like, it is a system designed for agruing and debating, not for discovering the truth. You see anyone who is not using that system as wrong or of using flawed logic, you do not even attempt to understand their mentality.

What system is that?

Quote:
Secondly, I do not think the 19 years have given me any wisdom what-so-ever, quite the opposite actualy, so thank God I am not resorting to Wisdom, simply logic, pure and simple.

Without info logic has nothing to be applied to.

Quote:
Also, you keep stating that the belief in atheism is something other than in EVERY dictionary I have EVER read.

I didn't know people like to research dictionaries.

Quote:
I have had most agnostics/atheists/christians try and rip me apart for going against their precious dictionary before. I cannot understand which way rationalresponse rolls.

Well RRS isn't all atheists and we aren't christians so I'm not sure what they do has to do with us.

Quote:
I am simply going according to what we can rely upon right now. The dictionary says so, and we have no better way of technicly doing it, so I will go with what the dictionary says.

Theist - god belief

A - without

What do you think anti-theism would mean? Are you aware of strong and weak atheism? Do you know saying the only form of atheism is the strong is called a no true scottsman?

There you go something else to go on.

Quote:
Again, I only act like a "huge ass" because I have heard all of these points before, am not impressed, and that is the reason for my entire post. No one has yet grasped what this post is intended for, and they are instead using flawed logic, and acting superior when doing so, so forgive me for getting a little agitated when people try to debunk anything with very faulty logic.

It all seems wrong to you because you have started on a false premises. So it is you who is “[seeing] anyone who is not using [your] system as wrong or of using flawed logic.”

Quote:
Okay, let me say this one more time... having no faith, IS having faith.

Re-read what you just said. Not having X is having X. Does this make sense?

Quote:
You are CHOOSING not to believe in ANYTHING. You are saying you DO NOT believe in EVERYTHING else, and therefore believe in nothing, which requires more faith than believing in any one thing.

Lacking one belief doesn't mean every belief is lacked, but for the most part I'd think most atheists lack beliefs about the supernatural. I fail to see why not believing in the supernatural means no belief can be held in the sense, 'I think X is true'.

Quote:
It might be EASIER to believe, but it DOES require more faith and less evidence, and I will NOT back down on this until I see ANY evidence contrary.

Positive claims require evidence to be without faith. In doubting such claims a person would expect to see little to no evidence of the claim.

Bob: There is a blue monkey on the ceiling.

Jon: I don't see a blue monkey so I don't believe in it.

Who has more faith?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote: Also,

flamingfuzzy wrote:
Also, you keep stating that the belief in atheism is something other than in EVERY dictionary I have EVER read.

Well, let's change that, then. On dictionary.com, the American Heritage Dictionary gives "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." as the first definition.

Apparently, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none." But, I don't have a copy of that, I've just saw it on Wikipedia.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy

flamingfuzzy wrote:

*sigh*, okay, here I go(you'd think at least one christian would speak up....).

First off, you guys are all using a system you have found you like, it is a system designed for agruing and debating, not for discovering the truth. You see anyone who is not using that system as wrong or of using flawed logic, you do not even attempt to understand their mentality.

Straw man much?

Quote:

Secondly, I do not think the 19 years have given me any wisdom what-so-ever, quite the opposite actualy, so thank God I am not resorting to Wisdom, simply logic, pure and simple.

Try again. You are using bad premises and arriving at wrong conclusions. You can do that with logic( F -> F is valid), but why bother?

Quote:

Also, you keep stating that the belief in atheism is something other than in EVERY dictionary I have EVER read. I have had most agnostics/atheists/christians try and rip me apart for going against their precious dictionary before. I cannot understand which way rationalresponse rolls. I am simply going according to what we can rely upon right now. The dictionary says so, and we have no better way of technicly doing it, so I will go with what the dictionary says.

Dictionaries reflect common usage, not technical meaning. The better way would be to ask: do you take the atheist or strong atheist position? Then again, it's harder to rant about things when you have clear-cut answers to work with...

Quote:

Okay, let me say this one more time... having no faith, IS having faith. You are CHOOSING not to believe in ANYTHING. You are saying you DO NOT believe in EVERYTHING else, and therefore believe in nothing, which requires more faith than believing in any one thing. It might be EASIER to believe, but it DOES require more faith and less evidence, and I will NOT back down on this until I see ANY evidence contrary.

I am not CHOOSING to not believe; I am unswayed by the arguments presented so far. These two things, no matter how cozy it may make you feel to believe otherwise, are not the same thing. I am assuming the atheist position makes you uncomfortable because it puts you in the position of having to do work to support your claim. Then, looking for support and finding none, you get a bit agitated, so you try to move the goalposts or rephrase the question to eliminate your problem. That's where people have stepped in and given you a flag on the play.

The only thing I can say about your inability to discern the difference between lack of belief in a god's existence and positive belief in a god's non-existence is: try harder. It's worth it.

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


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: Bob:

Voiderest wrote:

Bob: There is a blue monkey on the ceiling.

Jon: I don't see a blue monkey so I don't believe in it.

Who has more faith?

Bob: That just means you are blind to ceiling hanging blue monkeys.

Jon: Whatever ... 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
flamingfuzzy wrote:  Man,

flamingfuzzy wrote:

 Man, I am sorry, but I cannot understnad how you think. You seem at first to be an intelligent man, but then when I actualy go and start reading you posts, you begin to say that God MUST have a physical mindm otherwise nothing makes sense. Are you aware of what the supernatural is? You mask your poorly thought ideas behind big words to cunfuse the Rube's. Pathetic. Now, on to your actual words.

Yes, you unbelievably thick simpleton. The whole point of the excerise was to show that it is impossible for a supernatural being to have a mind. I would know. I poured 12 years of hard labour into the neuroscience and information physics I needed to write those articles. Which you did not read, because you did not click on the links.

And I would ask you kindly to:

-Learn how to spell

-Learn basic syntax and grammar

You will note that my posts are always perfectly articulated and thought out. Your posts, by contrast, appear to have been produced by a large number of monkeys on a large number of typewriters, which, if you read an experiment from UPenn, don't type very much at all, they just hurl excrement at the keyboard. This is precisely what you are doing.

Quote:

 BULL! Are you THAT dumb?

Oh yes, how intelligent and mature. I must say, I really feel like I am debating in the hallowed halls of Oxford now, with the walnut and sherry carts and the debatees in stamped robes.

Quote:

 ou cannot prove that my fork does not exist.

Certainly I can. This is an empirical claim. If you are making the claim

Object X exists at location Y

then I can test it and falsify it by observation. That is the definition of empericism. Pertaining to the existence or non existence of God, the process is analogous...except of course, that God is not testable, therefore God is also unfalsifiable, and an empirical claim about the world can be neither to be a meaningful claim.

 

Quote:

It is INFALLIBLE

I think the word you are looking for is irrefutable. Anyway, this statement is false. There is no such thing as an inrrefutable emperical claim. Only tautology and axioms can be defended in this way. 

Quote:

 does that mean it cannot be proved?

Yes, since the two processes are mutual. Only axiomatic truths can be defended via retortion, as you are attempting to do. 

However, as I pointed out, better than the dichotomy you suggest (you still lack the cranial capacity to understand the strong/weak atheist dichotomy), is a probability continuum. Hence in the article (which you did not read), I made this point. Emperical claims are judged on probability values, not absolute X/Y statements.  

Quote:

Secondly, I looked and was not impressed.

Oh, yes. "I looked and was not impressed". Yeah. That's a real argument. You probably had no idea what half the terminology meant. No. I suppose I'd better capitulate right here. After all, you surely must know my own subject of sixteen years of labour, yes? So, you win by default by the naked and pathetic assertion "I looked and was not impressed".

Real fucking mature. 

 

Quote:

Thirdly, do not take me lightly, I was raised by missionaries and have been attending christian theological classes

Oh, yes. This REALLY gives you the right to comment on evolutionary science, doesn't it? Yes, theological classes. That SURELY means you supersede me in molecular dynamics and biology, evolutionary population mathematics, neuroscience, information physics, microbiology and chemistry, right? Somehow, in a discussion about fields of science, a theological class will not impress me in the slightest.

Quote:

 I said ANY proof, of ANY kind, not simply evolution. Why does everyone jump to this? Are you completely devoid of abstract thought?

No, but if you wish to make a claim based on examples, the examples had better be factual.

Quote:

  I cannot believe you said this, and then reffered me to WIKIPEDIA.

Even wikipedia is bound to display the truth occasionally, if only accidently. In this case, they are correct where you are too stupid and ignorant to understand that basic epistemology behind the dichotomy of the atheist position, strong and weak. I cannot believe that you have as of yet not used these terms. Being that you have not, you really have no right to comment on the subject, since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (you refer to them as mutually exclusive positions, which is absurd).

"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


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Just an observation: This

Just an observation:

This guys eyes are real close together. 


flamingfuzzy
flamingfuzzy's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-05
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: Oh, yes. "I

 

Quote:

Oh, yes. "I looked and was not impressed". Yeah. That's a real argument. You probably had no idea what half the terminology meant. No. I suppose I'd better capitulate right here. After all, you surely must know my own subject of sixteen years of labour, yes? So, you win by default by the naked and pathetic assertion "I looked and was not impressed".

Real fucking mature. 

And the fact that you are this indignant that an, "unbelievably thick simpleton" is mature? I have always believe that the more you cuss, the more mature your artgument must be. Go you.

And yes, I looked, and found nothing but alot of words strung together. You want my biggest reason of all for my disbelief in your system? You are trying to define God by what you see around us, by nature. If a God is "supernatural" then he would not be bound by nature. Duh. You cannot look around you, and then use that to judge something you cannot even comprehend.

Quote:
Even wikipedia is bound to display the truth occasionally, if only accidently. In this case, they are correct where you are too stupid and ignorant to understand that basic epistemology behind the dichotomy of the atheist position, strong and weak. I cannot believe that you have as of yet not used these terms. Being that you have not, you really have no right to comment on the subject, since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (you refer to them as mutually exclusive positions, which is absurd).

I am assuming that since you have just made a statement in regards to my own lack of intellect and ignorance, that you have made absolutely sure that what you have said is correct before making that assumtion? Of course not. You judged my behavior, and jumped to a conclussion based on that.

Quote:
Oh, yes. This REALLY gives you the right to comment on evolutionary science, doesn't it? Yes, theological classes. That SURELY means you supersede me in molecular dynamics and biology, evolutionary population mathematics, neuroscience, information physics, microbiology and chemistry, right? Somehow, in a discussion about fields of science, a theological class will not impress me in the slightest.

Science? Why are you assuming that science is the greatest proof either way? Or even most of it? Logic is a tool everyone uses, even in science. Theology, the study of God, holds no value to you in a discussion of what..... God? Smart man. You base everything on your precious science, when, if God created science, it would not have to apply to him. Just as if you made a 2 dimensional world, you would not be bound by it's limits, and so you would not be able to use pure science, and the world around you, to figure everything out.

Oh, and as far as my vocabulary goes, I am very sorry for trying to use words the common people actualy understand, instead of rellying solely on the use of big words and empty thoguhts to sway people. And, if you reject what someone says, on the basis of how it is said in and of itself, it is like rejecting a diamond, simply because it is covered in mud, stupidity of the highest sort. And if you cannot accept someone, simply because they have devoted more of their mind to actual thought, instead of in the appearance there-of, then I doubt you will never be happy, and be doomed to lengthy conversations in which nothing is discussed.

The unexamined life is not worth living -- Socrates


FOC
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-08-23
User is offlineOffline
What dictionaries are you

What dictionaries are you looking in for the definition of Atheist? Because I've never seen them, and it seems your definition would be a contradiction to the word itself. "A" meaning No, and "Theist" meaning belief in God or Gods.

And if an apology on your part for the lack of manners displayed in your OP is forthcoming, I'm sure the accusations of immaturity will end.

We need not be so disagreeable to disagree. 


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

Quote:

And yes, I looked, and found nothing but alot of words strung together.

"I do not understand scientific terminology" is not a valid argument. I found it perfectly intelligible and understandable, as do all my colleagues.

The fact that you are ignorant of scientific applications is an invalid criticism to make of a paper merely because you cannot understand it.

Quote:

ou are trying to define God by what you see around us, by nature. If a God is "supernatural" then he would not be bound by nature. Duh.

But this is circuitous logic, since the attributes that God is given by definition (sentience etc) are natural, so it is not me who is attempting to define God as a natural being, it is the theists, who then contradict themselves by insisting that God is a supernatural being. To wit, if you insist upon God having a mind, you are insisting upon God being a natural being (since I have shown that the mental is inherently linked to the physical).

Quote:

that you have made absolutely sure that what you have said is correct before making that assumtion?

Yes, I am quite sure I am versed in the epistemic vocabulary behind the atheistic positions and the various stances. Your point?

Quote:

You judged my behavior, and jumped to a conclussion based on that.

This is a non sequitor.

Quote:

Science? Why are you assuming that science is the greatest proof either way?

You invoked evolution. That is science.

Quote:

Logic is a tool everyone uses, even in science.

Yes, your point?

Quote:

Theology, the study of God, holds no value to you in a discussion of what..... God? Smart man.

Your original point pertained to scientific concepts, therefore, yes, theology is useless.

Quote:

ou base everything on your precious science

No, I base empirical claims on science, since science is the method of testing such claims. If you had a quarter ounce of grey matter, you would realize this. I also invoke retortive axioms, or tautology, as do you. Everyone bases empirical claims on science. It is unavoidable QED.

Quote:

when, if God created science, it would not have to apply to him.

This is unfalsifiable and untestable, which makes it a pointless claim to make. Not that it matters, since it again, is circuitous logic, merely a question-begging way of attempting to avoid answering a possible conjecture, that being:

Since we have indisputable evidence of the necessary physicality of sentient beings, how is it possible that a being could be sentient and immaterial.

Your first assertion was that it is supernatural. Circuitous logic, being that you are contradicting yourself by invoking natural properties to a supernatural being. Hence, to claim God created such laws is an inherently absurd reason in a circle chain, since one falls into the very conjecture which one is attempting to solve. The only word for it is sophistry, hence, your only saving grace is to solve the conjecture, instead of dismissing it.

And by the way, you still haven't read it, have you?

Quote:

nstead of rellying solely on the use of big words and empty thoguhts to sway people

I assure you that all terminology I invoked in various articles are not empty, they make perfect sense in their respected fields of endeavor.

Your criticism being: You use big words therefore you are false? Well, I really am impressed with your arguments. If only there was a better way to express sarcasm via the internet.

Why not sign up to be a barrister right now?

Quote:

nd, if you reject what someone says, on the basis of how it is said in and of itself

Well, it would be rather difficult to accept what one cannot read, wouldn't it? Likewise, if you are sloppy, lazy, cannot even spell or grasp basic syntax, it becomes a painful exercise (more so than usual) to engage in debate with you. Why not learn to speak the language instead of vomiting on it?

Quote:

And if you cannot accept someone, simply because they have devoted more of their mind to actual thought

The projectionalism found in this comment is stunning. As of yet, I can detect nothing of substance from your posts. Perhaps, however, you will suprise me.

Quote:

nstead of in the appearance there-of

Being that you admitted to not understanding what I said, you don't exactly have any right whatsoever to comment on whether the thoughts within contain any substance.

"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


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Google provides a variety

Google provides a variety of definitions for “atheism.”

 

Etymology Online breaks the word down to its Greek origins. Note it says, “gods”; plural. If you accept the possibility of “Yahweh,” you must be at least as open to “Allah,” “Zeus,” “Odin,” and “Kali.” In fact, you have to be open to every “god” that's ever been defined; to await the evidence of one “god” over another would be special pleading. Once you've eliminated the need for evidence, you must remain open to every proposition without evidence, only because it's been conceived. To live a life not resembling schizophrenia, there are thresholds we place on propositions. We decide whether they are supported by evidence, personal experience, etc., and for all practical purposes we disregard them if they don't meet our criteria. A person who doesn't do this would be crippled with unwarranted beliefs. This doesn't mean we've shut the door on new evidence, only that certain ideas, due to their lack of supporting data, are not relevant to us today.


davidildo
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
You are right in the fact

You are right in the fact that G-d cannot be disproved. The very nature and definition of G-d runs contrary to him being disproved. If G-d were to be true, he would only be able to be defined by the rules that were created to define him. Get it? He is omnipotent, eternal, living on another plane of existance, odorless, invisible, and we as mortals cannot adequately define him. 

We could start with saying that the Old Testament is the word of G-d and is perfect. Now we could go on to prove other religions wrong. But we still need to argue from a religous perspective. That is why so many arguements come from finding inconsistancies in the Bible, it is the only source of information about G-d that we have.

Quote:

Second, you all try and find little discrepancies in the bible, and yell and holler when you find "492" here, and "491.999" there. This is not significant enough to denounce a faith, when you have over 1000 pages to work with, you should be able to find something more major, were the religion false. You then go on to say that such errors are proof of christianities ignorance, even though I have NEVER seen ANYTHING that has not been explained away by christians.

You say that it is not enough to denounce a faith? You have to be kidding me? If the Christian bible is true, then it denounces Islam, Buddism, and Hindi! If the Old Testament is true, it denounces all of them and christianity also. It is true that there is always a christian that can explain away things, but that is a symptom of the problem of putting religion to the test, there is not authority that can state all of the beliefs that will create a cohesive picture of what it is that is believed. 

I have something in my hand that is colorless, odorless, invisible, and existing within a narrow dimentional space that allows it to be undetectable. Now prove it does not exist. As a matter of fact, using your same points, you must believe that it does exist. Now the question is, do you believe I have something in my hand? Why or why not?

Now, the mere fact that something cannot be proven to not exist, is still not a reason to believe in its existance. Evidence is needed to believe something exists. This is the answer to all of the points you made. What is the evidence for G-d to exist? For what reason should someone believe? All of your reasons seem to be, "why not?"


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
  You think that just

  You think that just because something cannot be disproved that it should be acceptable? Ok lets put this to the test.  Person X get an image in his mind that tell him killing people and other livings things is AOK, this image also says it is directly from god.   Question should we allow Person X to continue on with his beliefs, simply because we cannot disprove them.  This person has faith that the image he sees is god.  So are you ok with this persons faith?   How do you determine if this person is wrong and other peoples faith is right?

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


Wolfcleaver
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-07-26
User is offlineOffline
We start in a void that

We start in a void that will be designated as 0.  As we float along you see something that catches your eye.  That object is given the designation of 1. 

You point out the object and say,"look at that! That is the most spectacular thing I have ever seen in my life! It is a great and powerful object! I shall name it 1." 

I look out in the distance and see nothing but the void. I say, "I cannot see 1 all I see is 0." 

I then see something flicker in the void, I say "I see something that could be 1 now."  Then I say. "Yes, Yes I think I see it now.  I see 1 now"

But as we float closer I realize 1 is not what I saw but rather a strand of hair that flickered in front of my eyes. I then say "I am sorry I though I saw 1 but I was wrong it was my hair now all I still see is 0." 

You say "1 is right here in front of us you cant miss it just open your eyes and your heart and you will believe."

 I then say "You need to brush that hair out of your eyes."

It takes no faith at all to believe in 0.


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Note first off that I am an

Note first off that I am an agnostic. 

flamingfuzzy wrote:

Ummm.... thanks for your evidence? I still see no evidence, be is logical or fact based.

Which necessitates a default position of non-belief concerning metaphyscial truths... atheism of the weak sort; for all practical intents and purposes however, it is reasonable to take this absence of evidence as evidence of absence. 

Quote:
I am not trying to disprove Atheist, or prove theism, simply trying to point out that belief in no God requiers more faith, because of a total lack of evidence, of any kind.

I see no evidence for any kind of god, nor do I see any reason I should accept any sort of 'evidence' for such as such.  The default is a lack of faith in any such possibilities... which is basically an atheist position. 

 

Quote:
Magic has also never been disproven, as far as I have seen at least.

The burden is on the claiment. 

 

Quote:
I have been frickin' looking for ANY evidence for evolution, and think it is the most laughable idea EVER. I think that Evolution does not require a lack of belief in anything, it requires DEEP ignorance, and actualy a belief DESPITE evidence. Show me something, ANYHTING. All I have ever done is run around in circles, or found articles where scientists SAY it is true, and show no evidence. Okay, if evolution is true... there would be SOME evidence. SOME at least.

Ok.

talkorigins.org

The Structure of Evolutionary Thought by Stephen Jay Gould and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins does a fantastic job of explaining their respective terms and sides in the actual evolutionary debate.

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

And yes, I looked, and found nothing but alot of words strung together.

"I do not understand scientific terminology" is not a valid argument. I found it perfectly intelligible and understandable, as do all my colleagues.

The fact that you are ignorant of scientific applications is an invalid criticism to make of a paper merely because you cannot understand it.

I see this response from theists rather often.

1) I demand evidence.

2) Here it is.

3) I can't understand it! So there's still no evidence!

Now we have an 'agnostic' doing the same there here.

My rule of thumb is: if a person asks for something, and then throws a tantrum after getting it, walk away. He didn't really want it in the first place.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
davidildo wrote: You are

davidildo wrote:

You are right in the fact that G-d cannot be disproved. The very nature and definition of G-d runs contrary to him being disproved.

Read Victor Stenger's "God, the Failed Hypothesis" and see if you still hold to this position. Your claim is valid vis-a-vis negative theology, but few theists in America hold to that position, most are postive theists and make a great deal of falsifiable claims for their god.

Of course, they have no problem at all of hiding behind non falsifiablity when their claims fail, in that case, they love the protection of 'separate magistrata', but otherwise, you'll rarely find an american theist who isn't telling  you about his god in falsifiable terms....

Again, take a look at Stenger's book.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


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

Quote:

I see this response from theists rather often.

1) I demand evidence.

2) Here it is.

3) I can't understand it! So there's still no evidence!

Now we have an 'agnostic' doing the same there here.

My rule of thumb is: if a person asks for something, and then throws a tantrum after getting it, walk away. He didn't really want it in the first place.

You've no idea how many people I argue with display the Dunning-Kruger effect. I suppose that if I did do that, I wouldn't have very many people left to argue with.  

 

"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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

I see this response from theists rather often.

1) I demand evidence.

2) Here it is.

3) I can't understand it! So there's still no evidence!

Now we have an 'agnostic' doing the same there here.

My rule of thumb is: if a person asks for something, and then throws a tantrum after getting it, walk away. He didn't really want it in the first place.

You've no idea how many people I argue with display the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Very nice reference, although I think Plato already knew the truth of the matter all too well:

The Wise are doubtful - Plato , from Phaedrus

 

 

Quote:

I suppose that if I did do that, I wouldn't have very many people left to argue with.

 

I can empathize with that... but when someone basically writes off your entire argument because they can't understand it, and then has the audacity to claim that their challenge has not yet been met -  I immediately realize that not even my psychotic clients react  in such ways....  if one did, I'd just call the staff and have him carted away..... 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That is a pretty ridiculous

That is a pretty ridiculous argument. Imagine someone from the bronze age saying the don't understand how the Earth could be round or how electricity works, so both must be false! Would'nt a complete idiot be able to say NOTHING is true?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I can empathize

Quote:

I can empathize with that... but when someone basically writes off your entire argument because they can't understand it, and then has the audacity to claim that their challenge has not yet been met -  I immediately realize that not even my psychotic clients react  in such ways....  if one did, I'd just call the staff and have him carted away..... 

 

Fair enough, I don't think this guy is coming back anyway. 

 

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

-Me

Books about atheism


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
This may not be the most

This may not be the most stupid topic I've ever seen on a message board but it's certainly in the top ten.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.