1712 replies to this topic

[Vardarac]

Science cannot peel back the fabric of reality and see if X is staring back at us.

What it can do is tell us whether or not there are observations that support things that might be defined as X, or that are X-like, or that contradict X.

Let's suppose that for this X, there are no observations to contradict X, but observations of X do not exist. In fact, credible observations of X are virtually nonexistent.

Now, not observing X or something that supports or necessitates the existence of X doesn't mean X doesn't exist - in fact, X could very well exist but be outside of our capacity to observe - but it also means that there is a substantial basis to say that they might as well not, or that it is likely that they do not.

 

The point is not to say, "this is evidence for atheism," it's to say, "it's true that there's not evidence for atheism, but that does not make it unrealistic." This is especially true if one goes by the colloquial meaning of the word, which is usually the soft rejection of religion.

Edited by Vardarac, 15 April 2015 - 10:20 PM.

[The Brain]

Shadowhawk is here to argue an argument for his ego benefit

Not to discuss.....

[shadowhawk]

As usual the Brain is brain dead and says nothing but personal attacks.  What nonsense.

 

Science is a method but is not the only way to discover truth.  It has many limitations but that is not our topic here except to say it has almost nothing to say about Atheism.  You can give evidence for a negative, we do it all the time and we have discussed it here in this topic.  You said correctly, "it's true that there's not evidence for atheism, but that does not make it unrealistic.  I totally agree.  The belief in Atheism is without evidence and baseless.  It is not established by science which can't even consider such a thing.  Is it unrealistic?  You made the claim it is.  What evidence is there that this is true?

[The Brain]

Oh no the "don't call me names crybaby" is now calling names.

You should keep to being openly aggressive, it's more genuine and honest than your usual tactics of aggression

[Vardarac]

Shadowhawk, I think you need to re-read my post.

[The Brain]

No, he just answers what he wants to answer, bypassing any legitimate points you raise to carry on with his hidden agenda, he just wants to wrap you up in a game of word chess.

[shadowhawk]

We have gone over the meaning of Atheism before since the first post.  Science can't even scientifically establish itself as the way we discover truth and even defining science is problematic.  It can't establish Atheism and is limited in what it can study.  So atheists need to give evidence there is no God, which is the meaning of Atheism and they will have little help from science..

[The Brain]

Gods only exist in people's minds

Or in your case, fantasy

[Vardarac]

You still aren't reading my post properly.

[shadowhawk]

You still aren't reading my post properly.

 

Yes, as I said, we agree there are limitations to science which we should not expect it to go beyond.  Because of these limitations we should not draw conclusions about subjects beyond it.  Such a subject is Atheism. 
 

Gods only exist in people's minds

Or in your case, fantasy

 

Is this evidence in your mind or brain.  Wow.
 

[shadowhawk]

[The Brain]

[Vardarac]

You still aren't reading my post properly.

 

[shadowhawk]

 

You still aren't reading my post properly.

 

Perhaps you are right.  What am I missing?

[The Brain]

"Perhaps you are right"


Hahahahaha.... There's a first lol


Desperate times indeed

[platypus]

Religious people cannot agree upon what the attributes of god are. This is clear evidence for atheism.

[shadowhawk]

So, given this logic, if anyone cannot agree on something, this is evidence for them all being wrong?  Is there anything that at least someone does not disagree with you on.  Does that make the view opposite yours right?  Do Atheists all agree?  Would this be evidence for theism?  I fail to see how this is any way connected to your previous post.  Am I still misunderstanding?

[The Brain]

Dead thread, death by ego.....

[shadowhawk]

Does Evil disprove Atheism?

 

 

 

 

 

[Vardarac]

I didn't watch the video (since I can't stream from where I am), but did read an article about it.

 

These objections have been asked and answered many times before. Objective morality, if it exists, gives no indication of existing. There is only this general sense of what feels morally correct to us and what doesn't, and it's on that basis that atheists like Dawkins decry violence and the like as being evil, not on the idea of it being written into the fabric of the universe.

 

To answer your earlier question, the reason a person can assume that gods (or similarly unusual phenomenon) don't exist and not be unrealistic in this assumption is because there is substantial evidence to show that the universe behaves in decidedly not-supernatural ways. In fact, you could say it's an assumption based entirely on reality as the atheist knows it.

Edited by Vardarac, 20 April 2015 - 09:43 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Do Atheists believe in morality?  It seems as if I remember, they argue they do.  Here you say it is some vague feeling but there is no morality.  Given Atheism I would agree.  Given Theism there is morality.

 

You claim there is evidence that the universe does not have any supernatural roots.  Good you are going to give some at last.  Let's hear you answer our topic.

[The Brain]

"Our topic"

Lol, desperate times indeed...

[shadowhawk]

"Our topic"

Lol, desperate times indeed...

Usual brain dead. 

 

[DeadBrain]

 

"Our topic"

Lol, desperate times indeed...

Usual brain dead. 

 

noooo I'm brain dead, dead brain..he's brain, he's a genius! 

[shadowhawk]

At least in your case you have it right.  That is why you think he is a genius.  So. Dead Brain, do you have anything intelligent to say about Atheism and evidence that there is no God.  Can you answer the topic?  Do you have evidence? 

[shadowhawk]

If atheism is true, then nothing is inherently good or bad—things just are. Rather, what we have are a set of labels (“Good”, “Bad” and “Neutral”) and a list of human actions. Who gets to decide which sticker gets stuck on what action? There are really only two choices: either every individual gets to decide for themselves what is “good”, or we have to defer to something like the state. But in either case, all we have are personal preferences: yours, mine, or the majority’s. — Andy Bannister (from, The Magical Moral Mystery)

[Vardarac]

There are really only two choices: either every individual gets to decide for themselves what is “good”, or we have to defer to something like the state.

 

Morality - or any sort of abstract value, really - has only ever found itself culturally/individually defined, and then those morals will sometimes get codified into law by the state (or repealed). So, you might ask, why is the state playing god? What gives them the right? Why is it at all valid for someone to declare something good or bad? It's not so much a right as a collective agreement from everyone that influences that state.

 

Humans tend to agree on what they see as good or bad, though of course there will always be disagreements. I see this as evidence that there is no one "law written on our hearts" - just a general agreement on things we tend to feel in response to consequences of certain actions. This agreement is what makes any preference, moral or otherwise, hold any kind of weight at all to other humans.

 

Moral nihilism isn't really a problem for atheism unless one considering abandoning their beliefs in favor of it finds it a hard pill to swallow emotionally. I knew it was for me when I was losing my faith, but eventually I realized that the world isn't any different afterward. The general sense of what is right, and the set of rules that previously defined what was right for me, were not all that different.

[calyptus]

If atheism is true,then nothing is inherently good or bad—things just are. Rather, what we have are a set of labels (“Good”, “Bad” and “Neutral”) and a list of human actions. Who gets to decide which sticker gets stuck on what action? There are really only two choices: either every individual gets to decide for themselves what is “good”, or we have to defer to something like the state. But in either case, all we have are personal preferences: yours, mine, or the majority’s. — Andy Bannister (from, The Magical Moral Mystery)

 

 

 

Objectivists disagree, even under your definition of atheism, the absolute gnostic kind, which doesn't represent my position. Do you realize that definitions cannot be false, and all you're effectively doing is defining a term so it represents less than 1 percent of the people associating themselves with that term?

 

But lets accept the quote for the sake of the argument, as it is my position on morality. When we're living in social communities, I consider it best for morality to be both inter-subjective and active, because that's how it's most useful. Somewhat akin to Ralwsian ethics, where you have a social contract.

 

For some reason I have the idea that your entire argument is based on the consequences that this has.

Edited by calyptus, 26 April 2015 - 04:27 AM.

[shadowhawk]

The consequence doesn't matter if there is no, "the good."  However Atheists often argue they can be moral and judge others based upon subjectivism.

[Vardarac]

The consequence doesn't matter if there is no, "the good."  However Atheists often argue they can be moral and judge others based upon subjectivism.

 

Which is wrong... Why? Of course it matters; maybe not to the universe itself, maybe not to someone who doesn't care about morals, but to most of us it clearly matters or we wouldn't say anything about it in the first place.