1712 replies to this topic

[wowser]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of my favourite speakers and science popularisers.

Ironically he's done a great show about the possibility of biological immortality, if anyone hasn't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Jn5Z3XTww

You can follow the link to youtube for the remaining parts

sorry but how is this evidence for athiesm?

[Link]

sorry but how is this evidence for athiesm?

What?

It's not. And I didn't say it was.

In case you haven't noticed this is a forum dedicated to the subject of indefinite life extension, so I thought people on this forum may be interested to see it.

You need to chill out.

[mikeinnaples]

Shadowhawk is an attention whore. You guys seriously need to stop feeding him what he craves.

[mikeinnaples]

Sorry cant edit my original post or I would.

Just review his post history in the forums. It is pretty obvious when you step back and look at it as a whole.

[mikeinnaples]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyHWn-Ad7bM&feature=related

On a side note. I may be in love.

Just confuses me to no end. Kind of like when you wake in the morning, horrible headache, your butthole hurts, there is 20 bucks on the table, and you are wondering why am I naked and who are all these people around me.

lmfao

Edited by mikeinnaples, 12 March 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[hooter]

sorry but how is this evidence for athiesm?

What?

It's not. And I didn't say it was.

In case you haven't noticed this is a forum dedicated to the subject of indefinite life extension, so I thought people on this forum may be interested to see it.

You need to chill out.

Off topic

What a desperate attempt at a strawman

Both sides, top Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Long debate over whether God is possible.
http://www.longecity...post__p__434098

Description of what God is like from experience.
http://www.longecity...post__p__494877

[wowser]

sorry but how is this evidence for athiesm?

What?

It's not. And I didn't say it was.

In case you haven't noticed this is a forum dedicated to the subject of indefinite life extension, so I thought people on this forum may be interested to see it.

You need to chill out.

sorry youve misunderstood my meaning... im not shouting off topic... i actually think found this video really interesting and think you should post it in a more appropriate place in this forum so everyone can see it... its wrong to bury it away in this religious based thread, dont ya think?

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

sorry but how is this evidence for athiesm?

What?

It's not. And I didn't say it was.

In case you haven't noticed this is a forum dedicated to the subject of indefinite life extension, so I thought people on this forum may be interested to see it.

You need to chill out.

There are guidelines and rules on the use of the board which I have posted several times. Atheists can't answer the question presented and do anything to change the subject. See the video in my above post, what a joke as these guys try to dodge the subject of the definition of Atheism.

[shadowhawk]

Things that do in fact exist:
Horns
Horses
Flying things such as dinosaurs
In fact we can’t even make up something that does not have some kind of reality underlying it, including God. Every example of Gods put forward as non real are made up of real things. We can only put real things together, even in our imaginations. That is what scientific progress is about. What God is real?

God is made up of thoughts. There is no other evidence other than in your head.

i thought that the topic of this thread was "is there evidence for atheism" not "is there evidence god exists"... no?

You are right. I am off topic and will take this elsewhere. See my response in another topic.

[shadowhawk]

So far, no Cogent Arguments on behalf of Atheism There seems to be not only no evidence for Atheism but no real Atheists.

Presumption of Atheism? Theists have complained that the usual arguments against God's existence do not pass philosophical muster. One of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism has been the so-called presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. When one looks more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism use the term "atheist," however, one discovers that they are sometimes re-defining the word to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. Such a re-definition trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition atheism ceases to be a view, and even infants count as atheists. So do dogs! One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist.

Other advocates of the presumption of atheism use the word in the standard way but insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies their claim that God does not exist. The problem with such a position is captured neatly by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God's existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have. This is an enormously heavy burden of proof for the atheist to bear, for two reasons: (1) On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence. (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence—not to mention all the other arguments of natural theology. In this light, the presumption of atheism seems presumptuous, indeed! For a fuller and long discussion, see my post http://www.longecity...post__p__408772


Atheist, Anthony Flew points out his own process with a story, “a Pilgrimage of Reason..”

Here is the parable he starts with: Pg. 85 http://www.amazon.co...74740197&sr=1-1

“Imagine a cell phone is washed upon a shore of a remote island where primitive natives live. This tribe has had no contact with modern society. The natives play with the phone and hit the buttons. To Their amazement there are sounds and they hear voices. They believe that the sounds and voices are properties of the phone.

Being clever natives they decide to make an exact copy of the phone and they do. To their amazement it works exactly like the original! Some Natives were convinced, obviously the voices come from the combination of crystals and metals, chemicals and shapes. The noises and voices are simply other properties of the device.

The Natives call a council of the best and brightest to discuss this. Soon disagreements sprang up. The Witch doctor believes the voices were coming through the device and there must be other people somewhere that were talking. He is condemned as less intelligent there being a rule of logic known as Ockmans Razor which states the simplest explanation is to be preferred. No reason to complicate things by postulating the existence of other beings.

The Witch doctor insisted that if you did not have faith in other unseen beings you would never understand the phone. He is rejected when he asks “What would have to occur, or to have occurred to you, to constitute a reason to at least consider the existence of an unseen, or other greater minds? “ Atheists have no evidence?

http://www.longecity...post__p__410303

[hooter]

Why did you post 4 things in a row, take some zyprexa dude. Wake up.

Edited by hooter, 16 March 2012 - 01:42 AM.

[Ben]

nvm

Edited by Ben, 16 March 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[wowser]

Why did you post 4 things in a row, take some zyprexa dude. Wake up.

wots zyprexa? is that a stim? any good? i need waking up! lol!

[johnross47]

So far, no Cogent Arguments on behalf of Atheism There seems to be not only no evidence for Atheism but no real Atheists.

Presumption of Atheism? Theists have complained that the usual arguments against God's existence do not pass philosophical muster. One of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism has been the so-called presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. When one looks more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism use the term "atheist," however, one discovers that they are sometimes re-defining the word to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. Such a re-definition trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition atheism ceases to be a view, and even infants count as atheists. So do dogs! One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist.

Other advocates of the presumption of atheism use the word in the standard way but insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies their claim that God does not exist. The problem with such a position is captured neatly by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God's existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have. This is an enormously heavy burden of proof for the atheist to bear, for two reasons: (1) On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence. (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence—not to mention all the other arguments of natural theology. In this light, the presumption of atheism seems presumptuous, indeed! For a fuller and long discussion, see my post http://www.longecity...post__p__408772


Atheist, Anthony Flew points out his own process with a story, “a Pilgrimage of Reason..”

Here is the parable he starts with: Pg. 85 http://www.amazon.co...74740197&sr=1-1

“Imagine a cell phone is washed upon a shore of a remote island where primitive natives live. This tribe has had no contact with modern society. The natives play with the phone and hit the buttons. To Their amazement there are sounds and they hear voices. They believe that the sounds and voices are properties of the phone.

Being clever natives they decide to make an exact copy of the phone and they do. To their amazement it works exactly like the original! Some Natives were convinced, obviously the voices come from the combination of crystals and metals, chemicals and shapes. The noises and voices are simply other properties of the device.

The Natives call a council of the best and brightest to discuss this. Soon disagreements sprang up. The Witch doctor believes the voices were coming through the device and there must be other people somewhere that were talking. He is condemned as less intelligent there being a rule of logic known as Ockmans Razor which states the simplest explanation is to be preferred. No reason to complicate things by postulating the existence of other beings.

The Witch doctor insisted that if you did not have faith in other unseen beings you would never understand the phone. He is rejected when he asks “What would have to occur, or to have occurred to you, to constitute a reason to at least consider the existence of an unseen, or other greater minds? “ Atheists have no evidence?

http://www.longecity...post__p__410303

This is basically a pointless and silly analogy. Analogies are useful as illustrations but they can never be proof of anything. They are greatly favoured by religious protagonists but regretably are mostly used as a drunk uses a lamp post; more for support than illumination. This one falls down because of the lack of worthwhile parallels with normal human experience. There are no voices from an unknown source (unless you forgot to take the meds). There is no medium which we cannot understand but can perfectly recreate. The analogy fails because it is empty of real world referents.

[shadowhawk]

So far, no Cogent Arguments on behalf of Atheism There seems to be not only no evidence for Atheism but no real Atheists.

Presumption of Atheism? Theists have complained that the usual arguments against God's existence do not pass philosophical muster. One of the most commonly proffered justifications of atheism has been the so-called presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. When one looks more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism use the term "atheist," however, one discovers that they are sometimes re-defining the word to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. Such a re-definition trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition atheism ceases to be a view, and even infants count as atheists. So do dogs! One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist.

Other advocates of the presumption of atheism use the word in the standard way but insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies their claim that God does not exist. The problem with such a position is captured neatly by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God's existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have. This is an enormously heavy burden of proof for the atheist to bear, for two reasons: (1) On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence. (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence—not to mention all the other arguments of natural theology. In this light, the presumption of atheism seems presumptuous, indeed! For a fuller and long discussion, see my post http://www.longecity...post__p__408772


Atheist, Anthony Flew points out his own process with a story, “a Pilgrimage of Reason..”

Here is the parable he starts with: Pg. 85 http://www.amazon.co...74740197&sr=1-1

“Imagine a cell phone is washed upon a shore of a remote island where primitive natives live. This tribe has had no contact with modern society. The natives play with the phone and hit the buttons. To Their amazement there are sounds and they hear voices. They believe that the sounds and voices are properties of the phone.

Being clever natives they decide to make an exact copy of the phone and they do. To their amazement it works exactly like the original! Some Natives were convinced, obviously the voices come from the combination of crystals and metals, chemicals and shapes. The noises and voices are simply other properties of the device.

The Natives call a council of the best and brightest to discuss this. Soon disagreements sprang up. The Witch doctor believes the voices were coming through the device and there must be other people somewhere that were talking. He is condemned as less intelligent there being a rule of logic known as Ockmans Razor which states the simplest explanation is to be preferred. No reason to complicate things by postulating the existence of other beings.

The Witch doctor insisted that if you did not have faith in other unseen beings you would never understand the phone. He is rejected when he asks “What would have to occur, or to have occurred to you, to constitute a reason to at least consider the existence of an unseen, or other greater minds? “ Atheists have no evidence?

http://www.longecity...post__p__410303

This is basically a pointless and silly analogy. Analogies are useful as illustrations but they can never be proof of anything. They are greatly favoured by religious protagonists but regretably are mostly used as a drunk uses a lamp post; more for support than illumination. This one falls down because of the lack of worthwhile parallels with normal human experience. There are no voices from an unknown source (unless you forgot to take the meds). There is no medium which we cannot understand but can perfectly recreate. The analogy fails because it is empty of real world referents.

The story was obviously not trying to create a real world as any reasonable person can get the point. It is a story. Both religious and non religious people use analogy, in this case a famous ex atheist.

Then you commit yet another logical fallacy with name calling against the religious.
Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." In this case a bigoted attack against religious people. Typical, happens all the time.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). This isn’t about real religious people but is a statement of bigotry. Back to the point, “Where is the evidence for atheism?”

[hooter]

There is no way to attack religion without getting personal because you believe in a personal god who loves you and personally thinks you are superior to non-believers. Do you dare to disagree?

[johnross47]

I have to ask.....do you know what a logical fallacy is? It's your infantile abuse of such terms that convinces me you're a phony. Calling religious people a name (as you so inelegantly put it) is not a logical fallacy. It's what rational people do when they despair of ever getting a reasonable response from a fool.

[wowser]

There is no way to attack religion without getting personal because you believe in a personal god who loves you and personally thinks you are superior to non-believers. Do you dare to disagree?

just cos i believe in God dont mean i think im superior... wtf???

[hooter]

There is no way to attack religion without getting personal because you believe in a personal god who loves you and personally thinks you are superior to non-believers. Do you dare to disagree?

just cos i believe in God dont mean i think im superior... wtf???

People who are 'believers' will be rewarded in a celestial place of eternal bliss while people who disagree with you are placed forever into an oven of incredible pain forever. This is quite frankly the most arrogant idea I've ever heard voiced in my life.

[wowser]

There is no way to attack religion without getting personal because you believe in a personal god who loves you and personally thinks you are superior to non-believers. Do you dare to disagree?

just cos i believe in God dont mean i think im superior... wtf???

People who are 'believers' will be rewarded in a celestial place of eternal bliss while people who disagree with you are placed forever into an oven of incredible pain forever. This is quite frankly the most arrogant idea I've ever heard voiced in my life.

i dont think it works that way... good people go to heaven... bad people go to hell... plain and simple... u are judged on ur actions in life and how u behave... athiests who good people still go to heaven... u dont go to hell just cos ur ignorant! lol!

[hooter]

i dont think it works that way... good people go to heaven... bad people go to hell... plain and simple... u are judged on ur actions in life and how u behave... athiests who good people still go to heaven... u dont go to hell just cos ur ignorant! lol!

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS DOGMAS AND YOU'RE DEFENDING IT. This is what all the abrahamic faiths believe (christian, jews, muslims, etc.) I'm IN TEARS. This is giving me an aneurysm. I can't... I don't.. understa.... AAAAHAHA

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you ⁷ and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. ⁸ He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹ They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

(2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

-John 15:6

"But for the cowardly and UNBELIEVING and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

-Revelation 21:8

It's even in the 10 commandments!

Edited by hooter, 20 March 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[platypus]

So is the Judeo-Christian God who is going to organise the greatest genocidal torture-barbecue in history good or bad? Are you condoning the eternal torture of billions? Torture is good?

Edited by platypus, 20 March 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[wowser]

i dont think it works that way... good people go to heaven... bad people go to hell... plain and simple... u are judged on ur actions in life and how u behave... athiests who good people still go to heaven... u dont go to hell just cos ur ignorant! lol!

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS DOGMAS AND YOU'RE DEFENDING IT. This is what all the abrahamic faiths believe (christian, jews, muslims, etc.) I'm IN TEARS. This is giving me an aneurysm. I can't... I don't.. understa.... AAAAHAHA

Have you even read the ten commandments? What the hell?

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you ⁷ and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. ⁸ He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹ They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

(2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

-John 15:6

who wrote bible? God or man?

[hooter]

who wrote bible? God or man?

If you don't believe in the bible, you're not a Christian. Where do you get the idea of hell in the first place then?

[wowser]

who wrote bible? God or man?

If you don't believe in the bible, you're not a Christian. Where do you get the idea of hell in the first place then?

so if i dont believe bible is word for word accurate im not a christian? wtf?? u have funny idea of definition of christian mate! lol!

[hooter]

so if i dont believe bible is word for word accurate im not a christian? wtf?? u have funny idea of definition of christian mate! lol!

Every religious person and priest I've talked to has said the same thing. If you're going to pick and choose what you like and twist the words, you might as well be reading Harry Potter.

Where did you get the idea of hell in the first place?

[hooter]

This is so logically decrepit I cannot possibly continue this discussion without getting an aneurysm, goodbye children.

[wowser]

so if i dont believe bible is word for word accurate im not a christian? wtf?? u have funny idea of definition of christian mate! lol!

Where did you get the idea of hell in the first place?

watching supernatural on tv! lol!

[Link]

i dont think it works that way... good people go to heaven... bad people go to hell... plain and simple... u are judged on ur actions in life and how u behave... athiests who good people still go to heaven... u dont go to hell just cos ur ignorant! lol!

Of course you don't go to hell for being ignorant.

Otherwise, how would any religious nut-jobs be able to get in to heaven?