1712 replies to this topic

[Vardarac]

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.

 

Oh dear. A watchmaker argument? Really?

[shadowhawk]

How do you explain the watchmaker?  But this topic is there is no watchmaker, only the watch.  Oh Dear indeed. 

[Vardarac]

It's a bad analogy, though. Intelligence is only known to exist from material structures (brains), which design within the boundaries of natural behavior. The analogy falls apart when you try to extend it to an immaterial intelligence designing or creating from outside or in defiance of those boundaries (or rather, designing the boundaries themselves). The universe can't be proven to be a watch any more than it might be an unwitting watchmaker (through us, of course). For the inference of an intelligent designer to be "reasonable faith", you need to have some proof of concept of immaterial intelligence and spontaneous generation.

Edited by Vardarac, 08 April 2015 - 08:00 AM.

[shadowhawk]

The acts of intelligence can be seen expressed in the material world but it is not material.  Brains are not intelligence.  At any rate intelligence is not evidence for atheism.  There exist non material things beside intelligence in our material world.  This is not in any way proof or evidence for atheism.

[Vardarac]

There exist non material things beside intelligence in our material world.  This is not in any way proof or evidence for atheism.

 

The only known way through which intelligence and emotions manifest themselves outside of personal experience are through brains, which are material objects. Is the brain an antenna or a producer of consciousness? It doesn't especially matter because in either case it would appear a material object is necessary. There is no proof of concept for a wholly immaterial creator of material objects.

 

Your definition of atheism is such that no proof can actually be provided for it because the goalposts can be moved ad infinitum. I'm responding to particular claims made by Craig that you've raised in this topic, not to the topic itself.

[shadowhawk]

We do have material bodies and live in them.  We do have brains but consciousness and a brain are not the same thing.  No one argues there is not a material world but just what that is is far from what we thought just a few years ago.  Lets stick to the topic.  I defined atheism in my first post of the topic and have repeatedly done so.  I have repeatedly shown that you can prove and give evidence for a negative and you don't have to move any goalpost.  At any rate you have given no evidence for atheism.  Instead  you appear to want to change the subject to another topic.

[addx]

Instead  you appear to want to change the subject to another topic.

You appear to be an oblivious covert narcissist

[shadowhawk]

Do you honestly think name calling is anything but an ignorant attempt to cover up the fact you have nothing worthwhile to say? 

[addx]

Yes, I honestly think you're an oblivious covert narcissist

[shadowhawk]

   Wow!  Have a nice day.

[addx]

It is a pity you chose to overcome the pain from the lack of appreciation from your atheist parents during upbringing.

Religious fundamentalism is a way to spite and defeat your parents and show them they've been wrong to ignore and belittle you.



Both you and God and are true. You don't have to prove it.

Give it a rest man. Go get some psychotherapy and try and find some self-originated meaning to your life rather than be lost as a reflection to an external-originated pain from childhood.

[shadowhawk]

Ad-hominem, says nothing.

[addx]

Seriously dude, you should try and get a grasp on life.

Trying to punish your parents by being not-them is not an identity.

As if you, angered by your parents lack of appreciation, went into an anti-atheist store and picked out a nice religion of the brand 'christianity'.

You put it on and shown your parents that you chose a new set of values from the store contrary to theirs and so do not adhere to their set of values anymore. You rejected them back.

In this way you denied their ability to validate your identity to be true (which they had issues with doing in the first place - thus causing you to reject them).

Since then you are constantly driven to validate your new identity but have no means to do it since your original caretakers have failed at this and then to spare yourself the pain you denied the fact that you need their validation.

So now other people serve as mere targets that allow you to project this relationship with your parents. By arguing your pick, christianity to be better than atheism, you're trying to show your parents you're more true than them, that you don't need their validation, that they in fact need yours.

You needing their (emotional)validation is a biological given, you can't change that.

You can only admit it, you can mourn it, but you can't defeat it - you can only lose your entire life and potential identity to an endless stream of fighting projections from this repressed notion of "not being allowed to be you".

You're now stuck in showing your parents that you have all to power to be what they didnt approve. You have all the arguments that makes being christian a logical and valid decision for you. You've shown them. And what now? What when the show is over? You repeat it endlessly with every other person on the internet?



While I have said many things in these threads some to provoke you or ridicule you. It's not that you didnt deserve it but that's not the point.

Point is, I really mean what I said above, sincerely. I suggest you take a moment, forget our relations, forget these threads, just read the above post and think about it, take to a shrink and talk with him about it, talk and think for a long time, think about what you're doing with your life and where's the sense in it. What has all the time and effort here really produced.

Can you actually show a normal person what you've done here? What you've wasted your time on? Can you even show yourself? What the product here? At least 15 forum members tried a discussion with you and ended up called you names... 1-2 agreed with you but you didn't establish much of a discourse with them... for some reason... think about it...

Edited by addx, 14 April 2015 - 11:54 AM.

[The Brain]

His shrink probably ended up calling him names and telling him to fuck off too


Lol

[shadowhawk]

Nothing. No evidence for Atheism.  Why don't you call the moderatpr?

[The Brain]

You seem to be the call the moderator type, not me.

I'm not a crybaby for christ...

[shadowhawk]

  Call the modirator.

[The Brain]

For what?

Maybe to close another of your pointless threads

Lol

[shadowhawk]

So you have appointed yourself the one to close threads and call people names.  Why not have the moderator do it?

[The Brain]

You're reading into my posts what isn't there...


Your posting history shows you're here to be obtuse

Passive aggressive behaviours are so obvious with you.

[shadowhawk]

Like Atheism there is nothing in your posts. 

[platypus]

How come there are no gods but only people who talk about them? 

[shadowhawk]

This is not evidence for Atheism.  All you have done is make a baseless declaration.  Not only that but people talking about God is not evidence for atheism either.

[Vardarac]

Cliffnotes:

 

"God did it."

"No he didn't."

"Well, why don't you think he did it? Can you prove it?"

"God's a lot like many other mythical beings, so it makes sense to believe that he's in the same vein until evidence is presented to believe otherwise."

"But that's not proof!"

"Who cares?"

[shadowhawk]

You are right, none of this is any proof of Atheism which is just pie in the sky.  You have no proof there is no god and this thread proves it.  All you can do is try to change the subject.

[Vardarac]

Something being unproven does not mean it is pie in the sky. Otherwise you would say the same of god-belief.

[shadowhawk]

We used the word "evidence" rather than proof.  It does mean pie in the sky, just notice how you, off topic, tried to use it against Theism in your last post.  The topic is Evidence for Atheism.

[Vardarac]

Something without evidence isn't necessarily an unrealistic idea.

 

What makes something unrealistic is when it appears to contradict well-accepted ideas that describe reality and the idea is not in evidence. The hyperloop, for example, does not have a proof of concept and has been thought by critics to underestimate the political will and capital required to build it based on precedent, so those critics might call it pie in the sky, an unrealistic idea.

 

Meanwhile, we have a precedent that things with powers that defy the known laws of physics, or that somehow have minds without brains, are not observed by science or in any sort of reliable general experience, so it's not unrealistic to say that something like those - gods - probably don't exist or at least don't operate in any way that leaves tangible, unambiguous evidence (and are therefore indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist).

Edited by Vardarac, 15 April 2015 - 09:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Like slavery or racism?

[shadowhawk]

So are you saying science backs you up or doesn't?  Science is a method not a position, so it does not say anything.  Are you saying Science backs up your conclusions and is evidence for atheism?