1712 replies to this topic

[Ark]

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

Would you say atheism leads or coexist with a mild form of altruism?

[shadowhawk]

Good point, Josh was a friend of mine.  However the subject is Atheism , not your beliefs.  Do you have something to support or not support Atheism?

[platypus]

The absence of gods is strong evidence for atheism. 

[Ark]

The absence of gods is strong evidence for atheism.

"Proof?"

[calyptus]

 

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.

 

That's nice but that's an epistemological claim, so what's your evidence that the multiverse exists, to start with.

 

What "pure" energy and how is it different of regular energy. How can energy hold thought(which is information) without a material base?

 

Shintoism is an atheistic religion. That's the parallel.

 

.

Edited by calyptus, 08 May 2015 - 03:50 PM.

[calyptus]

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. 

 

Josh McDowell convinced you? Are you serious or just a shill, he's about as bad as apologists get.

 

"the bible is unique because it's so many books across 1500 years yet it still fits perfectly", completely ignoring the Ecumenical council that's responsible for canonization, AND multiple books referencing to non-canonical books.

 

So not only did Christianity actively tried to make it fit, they f'ed it up. Aside from that, how does uniqueness of scripture logically require a god anyway?

 

Yes, that's how much of a joke the majority of his arguments are. The fact that you can't even spell atheists leads me to think you're using the common apologetics trope that CS Lewis started.

Edited by calyptus, 08 May 2015 - 04:11 PM.

[calyptus]

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?

I gave you evidence, still waiting for your reply.

[calyptus]

 

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.

 

 

But he didn't talk about a literal death. Did you miss my entire argument? How about you read thus spoke zuruhastra. Look for the quote, and then read the entire paragraph.

Edited by calyptus, 08 May 2015 - 04:23 PM.

[calyptus]

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?

 

 

 

We don't have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Knowledge isn't about absolute certainty. Read some Hume, your script is making you look clueless in modern philosophy.

Edited by calyptus, 08 May 2015 - 04:22 PM.

[Ark]

The absence of gods is strong evidence for atheism.

Strong evidence that your misinformed.http://www.techtimes...entist-says.htm

[calyptus]

 

The absence of gods is strong evidence for atheism.

Strong evidence that your misinformed.http://www.techtimes...entist-says.htm

 

 

Hate to break it to you, but if a model predicts that we shouldn't exist, it's the model that's wrong, not reality.

 

We know the current cosmological model is wrong, or at the very least severely incomplete. But it still has the best predictive capabilities out of all models. And until we have a sufficient theoretical model for quantum gravity(or an alternative mathematical system), it'll likely stay that way.

Edited by calyptus, 09 May 2015 - 06:41 AM.

[Ark]

http://www.scientifi...ilosophers-too/

[The Brain]

Have you proven god yet or are you still struggling ?

[calyptus]

http://www.scientifi...ilosophers-too/

And I very much agree with the title article, theoretical physics is very similar to metaphysics(more mathematical), except that it doesn't stop at "classical" metaphysics, it tries to draw it within the realm of experimental physics.

 

This is why the discovery of the Higgs particle was so important, the particle itself isn't really that special, it's the Higgs field that's an important parameter in theoretical physics. If CERN didn't find it, it would mean 30 years of theoretical physics down the drain.

 

This is also why people like Krauss and Hawking are retarded when shitting on philosophy as if it's useless, in books that are essentially full of philosophy.

 

But I digress, what's your point? 

Edited by calyptus, 10 May 2015 - 10:12 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Have you proven god yet or are you still struggling ?

 

I know it is completely beyond you but the topic is Evidence for Atheism.  Perhaps we are dealing with a thought disorder here that tries to change the subject from Atheism to God.  Here the Atheists get to give evidence for their position.

[The Brain]

Well in case you're not smart enough, your thread has been hijacked numerous times .......
It's been through me doing this and telling you that your attitude is assholy that it has stopped the thread from dying a filthy stagnant death.
It seems people were willing to give it another go perhaps thinking your attitude may have changed but yet once again your crap killed it dead.

[The Brain]

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?

I gave you evidence, still waiting for your reply.

Perhaps Shadowdork, you'd care to respond to this post you've either missed or ignored.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

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?

I gave you evidence, still waiting for your reply.

Perhaps Shadowdork, you'd care to respond to this post you've either missed or ignored.

 

Cite the post where you presented evidence for atheism and I ignored it.

[The Brain]

I was quoting Calyptus's post, it went unanswered.

[shadowhawk]

I missed all the good evidence by Calyptus for Atheism.  Just cite the post and I will look it up. 

[The Brain]

Are you avoiding his posts because he's made you look stupid ...

[calyptus]

I missed all the good evidence by Calyptus for Atheism.  Just cite the post and I will look it up. 

 

I'll do better, I'll even expand on it so you can't accuse me of being incomplete this time.

 

I'm using an argument from modus tollens.

 

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence

p2) we don't have sufficient evidentiary support of such existence

c) by negative evidence, such god doesn't exist

Edited by calyptus, 12 May 2015 - 05:10 PM.

[Ark]

I missed all the good evidence by Calyptus for Atheism. Just cite the post and I will look it up.

I'll do better, I'll even expand on it so you can't accuse me of being incomplete this time.

I'm using an argument from modus tollens.

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence
p2) we don't have sufficient evidentiary support of such existence
c) by negative evidence, such god doesn't exist

As if you can answer how they universe is made and why. You call anytime submission of evidence baseless yet submit your self serving bullshit. Your evidence is based off of God serving Man, when it is Man who serves God. It is not God who needs to prove God exist, it is you who should be trying to improve on all aspects of you can be, so you can be worthy of your existence to God.

A . 98 years old on your death bed
B . You are on your death bed, family around you and you want the possibility to continue.
C . YOU ABANDON YOUR LIFELONG quest against God, and finallying you figured out what people have been trying to show you your whole life, and you convert
D. YOU DIED AND ENTERED THE ETHER, and God says Hi.


The end.

[Ark]

http://en.m.wikipedi...hbed_conversion

[Vardarac]

As if you can answer how they universe is made and why. You call anytime submission of evidence baseless yet submit your self serving bullshit. Your evidence is based off of God serving Man, when it is Man who serves God. It is not God who needs to prove God exist, it is you who should be trying to improve on all aspects of you can be, so you can be worthy of your existence to God.

 

But that requires you to presuppose God before you approach the concept of God-existence like you'd approach anything-else-existence. It wouldn't make sense in any other context, so why make an exception for this one - Pascal's Wager?

[sthira]

I missed all the good evidence by Calyptus for Atheism. Just cite the post and I will look it up.

I'll do better, I'll even expand on it so you can't accuse me of being incomplete this time.

I'm using an argument from modus tollens.

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence
p2) we don't have sufficient evidentiary support of such existence
c) by negative evidence, such god doesn't exist

Belief in God was naturally selected. More people who believed in God survived than did not. Survivors passed on not only their genes, but also their belief traditions and dogmas. Similar to any other trait, when the usefulness of belief in God fails to help groups or individuals survive, then why persist? On the personal level, if belief in God helps you get through this stressful day, then why not believe in God? No one "knows" either way whether God exists or God does not. We love to talk and keep arguing about it, but the answer is clear even though it's boring. We don't know. Clearly if God does exist, God ain't providing useful evidence for all to collectively decipher. All people are agnostic whether they like it or not.

[sthira]

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence

Several possibilities here. It could be the case that your expectations are wrong. Maybe "an interventionist god" owes us no such "sufficient evidential support..." It could also be the case that god is in fact offering evidence but we're just too blind and deaf and insensitively stupid to decipher that support. Thus we require others with these sensitivities to pass along the mysteries to the rest of us schlubs. Hence, organized religion, which we all pretty much reject. Org religions are cults with gurus, books, behavioral traditions, all the rest. But just because we reject these cults doesn't add one way or another to the existence or non-existence of God. I agree with Shadowhawk that atheism (if we define atheism as roughly "God does not exist") is a belief. You believe God does not exist. How is that belief any different than the belief that God exists? Same thing, in my opinion.

My own belief -- much simpler -- is that we don't know if God exists or not, just like we don't know if, um, pxzstadddvrrsabb exists or not.

Edited by sthira, 12 May 2015 - 07:13 PM.

[shadowhawk]

calyptus
'll do better, I'll even expand on it so you can't accuse me of being incomplete this time.
I'm using an argument from modus tollens.

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence

p2) we don't have sufficient evidentiary support of such existence

c) by negative evidence, such god doesn't exist

You are denying the consequent based on p1.  Indeed we should expect evidence for God.  What evidence, what kind and what is sufficient?  That is reasonable but not clear enough.  This is not evidence for atheism.  P2 is false as I have argued in the topic “Is there Evidence for Christianity.”  Where is your evidence for c.?  This is consistant with our topic.  It is not that you simply don’t believe but you believe there is no God. Where is the evidence.  I see none.  Certainly it is not scientific.
 

[shadowhawk]

 

p1) We expect an interventionist god on humankind to leave sufficient evidentiary support of his/her/its existence

Several possibilities here. It could be the case that your expectations are wrong. Maybe "an interventionist god" owes us no such "sufficient evidential support..." It could also be the case that god is in fact offering evidence but we're just too blind and deaf and insensitively stupid to decipher that support. Thus we require others with these sensitivities to pass along the mysteries to the rest of us schlubs. Hence, organized religion, which we all pretty much reject. Org religions are cults with gurus, books, behavioral traditions, all the rest. But just because we reject these cults doesn't add one way or another to the existence or non-existence of God. I agree with Shadowhawk that atheism (if we define atheism as roughly "God does not exist") is a belief. You believe God does not exist. How is that belief any different than the belief that God exists? Same thing, in my opinion.

My own belief -- much simpler -- is that we don't know if God exists or not, just like we don't know if, um, pxzstadddvrrsabb exists or not.

 

This has some good points.

[shadowhawk]

Most atheists are also naturalists or materialists. They believe all that exists is matter. In other words, “In the beginning was the particles…..” If this is the case, then it follows that wherever each person is at this moment is the result of physical processes. We are basically molecules in motion, or “moist robots.” This should mean that our thoughts, beliefs, emotions, etc, are not rational but chemical, and we have no control over them. Whatever sense of morality we have, whatever view of God we have, and whatever else we think, is not something freely chosen or deduced rationally, but rather caused by chemical reactions in the brain. In other words we don’t reason, we just react. There is no free will, we are biologically determined on this view. This means that the atheist has no grounds to think his view is rational, because his beliefs are caused by his biology. Chances are though, most atheists will switch categories, claim they have free will, and yet cling to a worldview that undermines it completely.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argues as much in his book Mind and Cosmos. He writes:

  “Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself.”