1712 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

The truth about science vs. religion: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat

 

http://www.salon.com...s_flat_partner/

[shadowhawk]

There is a clear difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.  You are mixing up the two,
http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/
http://plato.stanfor...-agnosticism/#1
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

Websters says
 Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

Agnostic: One who, while he does not deny the existence of God, believes there is no proof of a Supreme Being; sometimes confused with atheist.

Agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that nothing is known or knowable of the origin or nature of the universe or its creator, except the physical manifestations of phenomena, neither accepting nor rejecting a Deity with supernatural power. 2. Any doctrine which maintains that matters generally accepted as knowledge are problematical, since all are related and trace to a common unknown source.

Now atheists wish to change this to the psychological statement that they simply have no “belief” in God.  This means a rock is an atheist and so is my cat.  Some call this weak Atheism because it is nothing more than a psychological description of lack of belief,  What they want to do is confuse agnosticism with atheism so they can escape the necessity of evidence for atheism.  Strong atheism on the other hand takes the position there is no God.  This demands evidence.  This topic clearly started out calling for evidence for the latter.  

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheism

--------------------------------
How many times do I have to say this and how many authorities?  
1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
Atheists are agnostics?
http://www.longecity...360#entry639932
http://www.longecity...360#entry639934
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647374
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
 

[shadowhawk]

The truth about science vs. religion: 4 reasons why intelligent design falls flat

 

http://www.salon.com...s_flat_partner/

 

One reason this falls flat.  It is not talking about Intelligent Design but Evolution.
 

[shadowhawk]

There is a clear difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.  You are mixing up the two,
http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/
http://plato.stanfor...-agnosticism/#1
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

Websters says
 Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

Agnostic: One who, while he does not deny the existence of God, believes there is no proof of a Supreme Being; sometimes confused with atheist.

Agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that nothing is known or knowable of the origin or nature of the universe or its creator, except the physical manifestations of phenomena, neither accepting nor rejecting a Deity with supernatural power. 2. Any doctrine which maintains that matters generally accepted as knowledge are problematical, since all are related and trace to a common unknown source.

Now atheists wish to change this to the psychological statement that they simply have no “belief” in God.  This means a rock is an atheist and so is my cat.  Some call this weak Atheism because it is nothing more than a psychological description of lack of belief,  What they want to do is confuse agnosticism with atheism so they can escape the necessity of evidence for atheism.  Strong atheism on the other hand takes the position there is no God.  This demands evidence.  This topic clearly started out calling for evidence for the latter.   

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheism

--------------------------------
How many times do I have to say this and how many authorities?  
1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
Atheists are agnostics?
http://www.longecity...360#entry639932
http://www.longecity...360#entry639934
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647374
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612
 

[Duchykins]

Guys don't bother to argue with him if you disagree with his definition of atheism. Just tell him that it simply means you're not atheists, it doesn't really change your beliefs or positions on anything. It's not like his anti-atheist arguments apply to you either way.

[shadowhawk]

Guys don't bother to argue with him if you disagree with his definition of atheism. Just tell him that it simply means you're not atheists, it doesn't really change your beliefs or positions on anything. It's not like his anti-atheist arguments apply to you either way.

 

Good evidence for Atheism.  Not bad an improvement to your usual.
 

[Duchykins]

I've given you that same argument twice before in this very thread, genius. It's valid, it shuts you down, that's why you have nothing consequential to say about.

[shadowhawk]

Typical censorship.  Can tell you are not a Libertarian.  Lets see, what other kind of controllers are there who practice censorship....  II can think of lots.  And  you think this is an argument!!!  You have given it to me twice.  Then as usual you call me a name. 

[Duchykins]

Okay he's surely trolling now. I'm out.

[shadowhawk]

Okay he's surely trolling now. I'm out.

 

[addx]

http://youtu.be/9gARuj656Es

 

Atheism TV channel just started, read a newsclip somewhere. So, I hope you enjoy it

[shadowhawk]

Okay he's surely trolling now. I'm out.

But who are you calling a troll.  Perhaps this is more name calling???  Off topic. 

[shadowhawk]

Where is the Burden of Proof: Christianity or Atheism?
by humblesmith

Christian & Atheist discuss who has the burden of proof for their position.

A: Since I am the only reasonable person here, the burden of proof lies with you theists.
C: I readily welcome the burden of proof for my views, for there are proofs for God’s existence and evidence that the Bible is true. But you have a burden of proof also. Are you making a claim that your view is true? If so, you are making a truth claim and have a burden of proof for your idea.
A: No, atheism is a-theism, a lack of belief. Since I make no truth claim, I have to prove nothing. I merely have no belief. Since you believe something, only you have to prove something, not me.
C: If you do not believe God exists, then you must hold to naturalism, which is the view that the only things that exist are natural, such as matter and energy.
A: Yes, of course. I am logical, and naturalism is the only logical position. Only matter and energy exist.
C: You then have a burden of proof to show that naturalism is true.
A: No, silly Christian. The natural world is just there, as Bertrand Russel said. It does not need an explanation.  But I do not believe in God, so you have a burden of proof for showing God exists.
C: I am an a-naturalist. I have a lack of belief in naturalism, and the burden of proof on you is to show that naturalism is the correct viewpoint.* As an a-naturalist, I merely disbelieve that the natural world is all there is. I do not have to prove anything, but you have to prove your point.
A: Well, I….uh….it just exists.
C: While you are at it, please explain the existence of things such as mathematics and justice, since they are neither matter nor energy.
A: You’re a fundamentalist and an idiot. And Christians are hypocrites. And your dog is ugly.
C: It seems that I have a great deal of rational explanation for my belief, but you have ducked your responsibility. You merely try to focus on the reasons for my viewpoint, but by your own admission, offer no good reason to say that your position is true. I will continue to hold that God exists and the Bible is true.

http://humblesmith.w...ity-or-atheism/
 

[Vardarac]

[shadowhawk]

 

Best argument for Atheism I have seen. 

[David Middlemiss]

There is evidence for communiversalism,


In simplicity, Bow humbly before each Being and carry each other to Creation, alchemise your eternal healing abilities universally, When the present calls listen with all that you are for you are present and Love, Time Is only relevant to the dream of ego, ego dissolves and all and everything GOOD awakens, Expands universally through all dimensions and concepts, The Universe Formed and the First Expansion awoke. The First inbreath, Big Bang of Our Eternity. Gigantic stars formed across the Universe upon their Trillion Trillions, out of their Love they Gave themselves to Life, became unstable and threw their Creation across the Universe, allowing their light energy to Unite throughout it all, combining and growing. Ego protects the fabric of source with false corruption and disempowerment until it's role is fulfilled, this is now, source now self aware in each particle of physicality and potential, dissolves ego's dream, ego diminishes to become fuel for life to expand limitlessly into the vacuum of spaces to fill as has been agreed, all and everything with the song and Glory of GOOD subtle light energy connecting with the countless beings across this vast universe, diversity unlimited in GOOD Enlightened energetic interplay. I love all and everything with all that I Am, Believe that the natural world to be the majority within the sphere of Our sister the Earth.... That ego may humble all, to be selfless, There being more life in a square inch of earth atmosphere than there is creatures above the size of an ant in the entire world, humble us and lift us to love each and everyone, with this in mind we should act as protectors of a great treasure not as unruly children , a god in definition is a male deity that is a dominant aspect of one fraction of the whole, ego created, yet ego is only a dream and it is Awakening that we are. heavy energy solidifies and becomes static or cyclic in nature, moving little and with little of its potential energy. being Good However lets energy release and flow the, heavy energy begins to enlighten allowing the light energy that it is actually made up of to energetically counter play with all and everything that is. God is Ego based GOOD eternite and never ending, imagine everything GOOD as a GOOD Mother, Father, Sister, Brother, Daughter and Son To All And Everything and you have Become Source, Creation and Co Creator will you play with me my family of LOVE next The great Outbreath

[addx]

ROFL, what do you do all day? Find strategies to avoid logic?
 

Where is the Burden of Proof: Christianity or Atheism?
by humblesmith

Christian & Atheist discuss who has the burden of proof for their position.

A: Since I am the only reasonable person here, the burden of proof lies with you theists.
C: I readily welcome the burden of proof for my views, for there are proofs for God’s existence and evidence that the Bible is true. But you have a burden of proof also. Are you making a claim that your view is true? If so, you are making a truth claim and have a burden of proof for your idea.

ROFL, what lies and false pretenses, like everything you say.
 

A: No, atheism is a-theism, a lack of belief. Since I make no truth claim, I have to prove nothing. I merely have no belief. Since you believe something, only you have to prove something, not me.
C: If you do not believe God exists, then you must hold to naturalism, which is the view that the only things that exist are natural, such as matter and energy.
A: Yes, of course. I am logical, and naturalism is the only logical position. Only matter and energy exist.
C: You then have a burden of proof to show that naturalism is true.
A: No, silly Christian. The natural world is just there, as Bertrand Russel said. It does not need an explanation.  But I do not believe in God, so you have a burden of proof for showing God exists.
C: I am an a-naturalist. I have a lack of belief in naturalism, and the burden of proof on you is to show that naturalism is the correct viewpoint.* As an a-naturalist, I merely disbelieve that the natural world is all there is. I do not have to prove anything, but you have to prove your point.

If you claim that something exists beyond what we both see/feel, you have the burden of proof.

You can play verbal stunts all day, you can't beat this. No "religious hero" will ever come up with any way to shift the burden of proof towards atheism.

 

A: Well, I….uh….it just exists.
C: While you are at it, please explain the existence of things such as mathematics and justice, since they are neither matter nor energy.

How did you skip from atheism not allowing imaginary things to be considered real to atheism having to "explain existence".

Atheism doesn't have to "explain existence" (whatever the f*ck that means, seems like that means atheism is supposed to provide some lame ass "creation" substitute).

Existence is evident, theists and atheist both agree they're alive and exist, they both agree they have material bodies, and they both agree the material world exists with us in it. So atheism doesn't have to prove this in the face of theism, since theism (or even more basicaly common sense) doesn't really challenge the fact that the material world exists. Theism in fact provides a myth of how it comes to existence so there's no disagreement on this. Except atheism does not propose how it came into existence so it has nothing to explain or prove.

Also, mathematics and justice are abstract terms. They do not represent entities that exist. Mathematics represents as set of knowledge of basicaly dealing with the iterations of the real world (counting and more). Justice represents a human notion that in some subjectively ideal way solves interpersonal disputes and conflicts.
 

A: You’re a fundamentalist and an idiot. And Christians are hypocrites. And your dog is ugly.

You're used to hearing that. Ever thought you deserve it?
 

C: It seems that I have a great deal of rational explanation for my belief, but you have ducked your responsibility. You merely try to focus on the reasons for my viewpoint, but by your own admission, offer no good reason to say that your position is true. I will continue to hold that God exists and the Bible is true.

Not really, you have ducked your responsibility and tried to push it onto atheism with silly verbal stunts and also lied about having proof of a world beyond ours.

Edited by addx, 25 March 2015 - 07:58 AM.

[shadowhawk]

We have discussed the Burden of Proof many times already.  Since there seems to be no evidence supporting Atheism you want to Change the subject to theism.  You can prove a negative and Atheism indeed has a burden of proof when they claim anything about God one way or the other.  Read what has been said already on the subject.   http://www.longecity...-22#entry654448

[addx]

We have discussed the Burden of Proof many times already.

90% of people involved in these discussions disagree with you and you simply ignore it and are stubborn in lying about it, hiding it with more posts, talking to yourself, spamming the subject with countless links and references to various crackpots and their opinions as if they matter. You seem to weigh these crap links as if they are worth something. They are really just cannon fodder, things you throw at people as if they are some proof of anything. You seem to find victory in the fact that noone sane would collect the same number of links and references to people supporting common sense and saying "imagined things need proof". It's ridiculous

Edited by addx, 26 March 2015 - 08:24 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Most of the people here are Atheists and there are only a few Theists.  I know of many places where it is just the opposite.  Since there are far more theists in the world is all you have got is calling me names!   I think we have shown there is no evidence for Atheism and there is no proof.  It is irrational and your post demonstrates it.  Your personnel name calling just shows what a logical fallacy most of your arguments are.  Yes, and I have given links and other sources to back me up.  What have you given?  Nothing.

[addx]

I have given links and explanations you ignored them and are repeating your lies.

[shadowhawk]

Right!!!!  What a joke.  No evidence, no proof.  More name calling.  Irrational!!! 

[addx]

My first post in this thread http://www.longecity...-23#entry654780

Your comment http://www.longecity...-23#entry654806
 

Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

And you never did "find time" to respond, because you can't talk about anything but your own arguments.

You're oblivious to everything but discussing your own arguments. Even though this thread is in fact an invitation to atheists to prove atheism, you as a theist monopolize the entire argument.

You're a liar, a hypocrite, an oblivious narcissist, hatemongerer and a troll.

Edited by addx, 30 March 2015 - 07:54 AM.

[shadowhawk]

And this typical name calling is in almost all your posts.  Not interested is this childish stuff.  More name calling, logical fallacies,  irrational, and without a drop of evidence.   

[addx]

Rofl, links to posts are evident evidence.

[shadowhawk]

Nonsense.  No evidence for atheism!!!!  None.

[Ark]

The sciences are God's way of explaining the universe. TIME is the Universe's way of keeping everything from happening at once. Humans are a reflection of God's will to experience it all and to acquire knowledge from the above and beyond and lastly IMHO atheist and agnostics exist to be converted into faith and spirituality. In doing so sharpening one's own beliefs and strengthening faith as a whole.

Edited by Ark, 03 April 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Ark, bet you get some reaction.  Like it!

[shadowhawk]

My first post in this thread http://www.longecity...-23#entry654780

Your comment http://www.longecity...-23#entry654806
 

Very interesting. On topic and reasoned. No logical fallacies. I don't have time right now to respond.

And you never did "find time" to respond, because you can't talk about anything but your own arguments.

You're oblivious to everything but discussing your own arguments. Even though this thread is in fact an invitation to atheists to prove atheism, you as a theist monopolize the entire argument.

You're a liar, a hypocrite, an oblivious narcissist, hatemongerer and a troll.

 

Addx thinks in the above links his beliefs and theories on Evolution are proof and evidence for Atheism.  He claims I won't answer his claims.  I believe in change, it is a basic to cause and effect, which I have argued elsewhere is an argument for the existence of God.  Evolution runs right into the Kalam argument for God's existence.

 

As for Evolution, I believe in it as expressed elsewhere.  http://www.longecity...8#entry721829  However, I don't believe it explains life nor is it in anyway evidence for Atheism.  So name caller, here is your response.

[shadowhawk]

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion

What do you think of Richard Dawkins' argument for atheism in The God Delusion?

- country not specified

On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified.

What does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.

So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Secondly, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations; for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, and so forth. But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.

Read more: http://www.reasonabl...n#ixzz3Wfag8lhZ