LONGECITY

Funny how you god botherers will jump on anything remotely referenced by scientists that could be pro god to prove your case.

God can grant free will and know the outcome every time. Free will is a secret between humans that God knows the answer to only.

How do you know that statement of yours is correct? Did it pass some kind of a critical thinking test or are you just trusting a hunch? 

Can anyone name a single indisputable piece of information that gods have told humans? The absence of such info is evidence for atheism.

Edited by platypus, 05 May 2015 - 07:51 AM.

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

 

 

This is NOT the definition of Atheism.  

 

It's not your definition of atheism. For the last time, it's the concept behind the label that matters, not the label itself.

 

We have argued this point several times in this topic.  Since, like a dog you believe nothing, why are you arguing as if you do?Because in fact you do. 

 

Oh ffs:

Person x gives label a to concept b

you give label a to concept c

YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME CONCEPT, SO WHY WOULD YOU ASSOCIATE PERSON X WITH CONCEPT C.

 

So given this, you have no evidence. 

 

I actually did. Absence of evidence for the positive claim x, given sufficient possibility of analysis, is evidence of absence of claim x.

 

So don't then proceed to tell me what Atheists believe they don't believe.  

 

So you're going to tell ME what I believe?

 

By the way I can show you leading Atheists who believe all the things you deny.

 

What are "leading atheists"? Since when is atheism a unified thing with leading people?

 

The claim is made that you don't believe in anything and that is atheism, so you then need no evidence. 

 

I don't actively believe in gods/goddesses. I believe in things. Just not gods/goddesses. Do I believe they don't exist? No, because I'm a non-cognitivist. Why would I form an opinion about what's not defined in coherent terms? Do you believe in maghoegeldiquap?

 

You have no burden of proof because you don't believe anything.  So there is no evidence for Atheism.  At least we agree on something.

 

The fact that someone doesn't have the burden of proof doesn't mean they have no evidence. It's that they aren't required justification for their conclusion. I wish I would have you in my modal logic class, you're the pedestal of ignorance on it.

Edited by calyptus, 05 May 2015 - 01:21 PM.

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding, as in you don't even know what Nietzsche meant by this, yet are ignorant enough to post it as a quote.

Edited by calyptus, 05 May 2015 - 01:27 PM.

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent. 

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding, as in you don't even know what Nietzsche meant by this, yet are ignorant enough to post it as a quote.

Do enlighten

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding, as in you don't even know what Nietzsche meant by this, yet are ignorant enough to post it as a quote.

http://www.philosoph...he/god-is-dead/

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent. 

Case in point, Yahweh is apparently talking to pious jews all the time in prayer, but does not tell them that Jesus is the messiah. On the other hand Yahweh is also apparently talking to pious christians all the time in prayer and is telling them that Jesus is the messiah. What gives? 

 

Clearly, this is evidence for atheism. 

 

 

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding, as in you don't even know what Nietzsche meant by this, yet are ignorant enough to post it as a quote.

Do enlighten

 

 

Sure. It's not about a literal death of god, it's a figurative death of god, in the fact that Western society is no longer based on theistic doctrine like it was before.

 

To keep it on-topic, Nietzsche is in a sense relating back to the Epicurianistic concept of gods, which, even if they exist, don't care about society, as we are to gods what ants are to us, nor should we as ants care about the gods, as nothing that we can do will have any bearing to them whatsoever nor can we understand them. That fact makes him angry.

 

Nietzsche's views would actually be similar to the definition of atheism described in the OP. A more ontological atheism instead of an epistemological one.

 

I thank you for bringing this up, I'll bring this up in my next class on existentialism. I spent too much time on Kierkegaard, as Nietzsche tends to cause depression in new students.

 

I might have forgotten to mention that I'm going for a D.Phil and teach ethics and basic philosophy. So if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Edited by calyptus, 05 May 2015 - 06:00 PM.

 

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent. 

Case in point, Yahweh is apparently talking to pious jews all the time in prayer, but does not tell them that Jesus is the messiah. On the other hand Yahweh is also apparently talking to pious christians all the time in prayer and is telling them that Jesus is the messiah. What gives? 

 

Clearly, this is evidence for atheism. 

 

 

This is actually known as the (I don't know the proper translation) argument from multiplicity.

 

The core is that if multiple faiths attempt to bring forth the same argument, the argument becomes void as they can't all be right, but can all be wrong.

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent.

Case in point, Yahweh is apparently talking to pious jews all the time in prayer, but does not tell them that Jesus is the messiah. On the other hand Yahweh is also apparently talking to pious christians all the time in prayer and is telling them that Jesus is the messiah. What gives?

Clearly, this is evidence for atheism.

This is actually known as the (I don't know the proper translation) argument from multiplicity.

The core is that if multiple faiths attempt to bring forth the same argument, the argument becomes void as they can't all be right, but can all be wrong.

God lives in a multiverse, more comparable to being made of pure energy and thought. Also I've noticed Shinto relegion on philosophy holds some parallels with atheism.

Like I said before, the proof is in the pudding.

The proof is in the pudding, as in you don't even know what Nietzsche meant by this, yet are ignorant enough to post it as a quote.

Do enlighten

Sure. It's not about a literal death of god, it's a figurative death of god, in the fact that Western society is no longer based on theistic doctrine like it was before.

To keep it on-topic, Nietzsche is in a sense relating back to the Epicurianistic concept of gods, which, even if they exist, don't care about society, as we are to gods what ants are to us, nor should we as ants care about the gods, as nothing that we can do will have any bearing to them whatsoever nor can we understand them. That fact makes him angry.

Nietzsche's views would actually be similar to the definition of atheism described in the OP. A more ontological atheism instead of an epistemological one.

I thank you for bringing this up, I'll bring this up in my next class on existentialism. I spent too much time on Kierkegaard, as Nietzsche tends to cause depression in new students.

I might have forgotten to mention that I'm going for a D.Phil and teach ethics and basic philosophy. So if you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

The picture meme below refers to him saying we killed god, says him. Followed by God giving his time of death aka he's dead and God is still and will always be now and forever alive.

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent.

Case in point, Yahweh is apparently talking to pious jews all the time in prayer, but does not tell them that Jesus is the messiah. On the other hand Yahweh is also apparently talking to pious christians all the time in prayer and is telling them that Jesus is the messiah. What gives?

Clearly, this is evidence for atheism.

This is actually known as the (I don't know the proper translation) argument from multiplicity.

The core is that if multiple faiths attempt to bring forth the same argument, the argument becomes void as they can't all be right, but can all be wrong.

God lives in a multiverse, more comparable to being made of pure energy and thought. Also I've noticed Shinto relegion on philosophy holds some parallels with atheism.

I'd say atheism is a mind set and in most cases a lack in development in certain areas of the brain. Which is why people tend to have religious experiences when / under certain circumstances like psychedelic drugs and become enlighten. --- Also has anyone else heard of the trend of people adopting / combining Shinto and atheist belief systems, seems like some atheists are looking to coincided the other side.

http://www.washingto...am-study-finds/
Edited by Ark, 05 May 2015 - 07:24 PM.

OMG, not believing in an invisible unprovable mythical being is a lack of brain development ?

You're fucking nuts.


Lol

Quote from the crazy looney religio...,

"God lives in a multiverse, more comparable to being made of pure energy and thought. "



Um, proof of this please?

For someone who has never seen or heard from any god you seem to know awful lot about how one lives. This shit is getting crazier by the page.

OMG, not believing in an invisible unprovable mythical being is a lack of brain development ?

You're fucking nuts.


Lol

And you don't know what proof is.    You have said nothing, are off topic and continue your name calling.  Heavy!  What a mind.

 

It seems that atheism has tons of evidence as gods are permanently absent. 

Case in point, Yahweh is apparently talking to pious jews all the time in prayer, but does not tell them that Jesus is the messiah. On the other hand Yahweh is also apparently talking to pious christians all the time in prayer and is telling them that Jesus is the messiah. What gives? 

 

Clearly, this is evidence for atheism. 

 

And how would you know God isn't talking  and some are are or are not listening?  You seem to know.  In addition how does God talk?  You seem to know.  Evidence?

Too funny, it's the persons fault for not listening to god the right way


Your god doesn't exist clown, that's why there are no voices from god.

The only voices you are hearing is your own pretending to be god because you're so desperate to affirm your beliefs

Looks like ShadowHawk finally found a friend... how nice.

Unfortunately, it seems Ark is even more ludicrous and nonsensical.

 

"God lives in a multiverse, more comparable to being made of pure energy and thought."

"I'd say atheism is a mind set and in most cases a lack in development in certain areas of the brain."

 

Are you kidding me? How on Earth do you have 376 reputation points?

Personal attacks make you sound mature bro. :-)

Making wild and fanciful claims for a god you haven't any proof of existing could be seen as childlike surely. Perhaps your brain hasn't evolved past not being able to be blinded by mumbo jumbo, if it wasn't god you got hooked on first you'd probably be a psychic, ghost junkie, tarot card , talk to animal spirits kind of guy.
Edited by The Brain, 06 May 2015 - 11:31 PM.

The topic is Atheism and its evidence.  Since these guys  have none lets admit there is none and go on.  How does atheistic materialism give evidence that only the material is the cause of everything?

The topic is Atheism and its evidence.  Since these guys  have none lets admit there is none and go on.  How does atheistic materialism give evidence that only the material is the cause of everything?

 

As mentioned numerous times before, Atheism is the LACK of belief. They are not asserting anything. The burden of proof falls on the individual making the claim. And since the claim you are making is quite extraordinary, I think you should focus on coming up with your own extraordinary evidence. Atheists are not making a claim and thus are not required to present evidence. They simply do not feel there is an adequate amount of legitimate evidence to make such a claim regarding a creator or god. I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. However, if there was adequate evidence pointing towards the existence of a very large, egg-hiding bunny, I would be open to changing my beliefs - the same goes for god.

I'd worship the easter bunny before the christian god, that god dude is a psycho murderous creep !

 

The topic is Atheism and its evidence.  Since these guys  have none lets admit there is none and go on.  How does atheistic materialism give evidence that only the material is the cause of everything?

 

As mentioned numerous times before, Atheism is the LACK of belief. They are not asserting anything. The burden of proof falls on the individual making the claim. And since the claim you are making is quite extraordinary, I think you should focus on coming up with your own extraordinary evidence. Atheists are not making a claim and thus are not required to present evidence. They simply do not feel there is an adequate amount of legitimate evidence to make such a claim regarding a creator or god. I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. However, if there was adequate evidence pointing towards the existence of a very large, egg-hiding bunny, I would be open to changing my beliefs - the same goes for god.

 

Then you as I don't believe in atheism.  A baby must be an atheist because they lack belief and all mentally defective must be atheists also.  Since you are making no claim, such as there is no God, then as far as this topic is concerned there is nothing more for you to say.  The words roots I spelled out in my very first post in this topic.  No God.  Do you deny that?  I don't care what you lack a belief in, I asked for evidence for Atheism. Do you have any?

Edited by shadowhawk, 07 May 2015 - 07:54 AM.

The topic is Atheism and its evidence. Since these guys have none lets admit there is none and go on. How does atheistic materialism give evidence that only the material is the cause of everything?

As mentioned numerous times before, Atheism is the LACK of belief. They are not asserting anything. The burden of proof falls on the individual making the claim. And since the claim you are making is quite extraordinary, I think you should focus on coming up with your own extraordinary evidence. Atheists are not making a claim and thus are not required to present evidence. They simply do not feel there is an adequate amount of legitimate evidence to make such a claim regarding a creator or god. I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. However, if there was adequate evidence pointing towards the existence of a very large, egg-hiding bunny, I would be open to changing my beliefs - the same goes for god.

Then you as I don't believe in atheism. A baby must be an atheist because they lack belief and all mentally defective must be atheists also. Since you are making no claim, such as there is no God, then as far as this topic is concerned there is nothing more for you to say. The words roots I spelled out in my very first post in this topic. No God. Do you deny that? I don't care what you lack a belief in, I asked for evidence for Atheism. Do you have any?

Let's have a look at the link between atheist and anarchism.

Yeah but that's so boring and dry though ...

I do not proselytize my own belief "stack".  I believe that some accounts of resuscitated dead people, quantum mechanics, the entire quantum "zoo", and other physics and chemistry topics more accurately lead towards metaphysical truth than any bible, koran, or the buddhist equivalent book, whatever it is. I was an athiest until about 1998 when I read the thin book   MORE THAN A CARPENTER   by J. McDowell which singlehandedly forced me to begin a reexamination of my atheism.  McDowell is undeniably relevant and objective, if not brilliant. Years later all this has resulted in a personal metaphysical "system" which works for me. I can't convey it to others and don't wish to. But I know that atheism results from the unsatisfactory/pointless application of science to an essentially historical account of what we refer to as the offspring of what we also commonly refer to as the creator.  And science will always be irrelevant when used to "process" history. McDowell has, IMO, penned the ultimate explanation of the sheer unproductiveness of analyzing history with science. I took his expanation and built on it.... and it is working very well - for me.

 

RD