1712 replies to this topic

[The Brain]

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.

You're such a wanker

Enough with the word chess wanker

You should become one of those slimey scuzzball lawyers that specialises in getting the obvious guilty filth that commit the most heinous crimes off.

POS !

[shadowhawk]

Notice the total lack of anything but name calling. 

[Vardarac]

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

 

The entire reason we have the scientific method is because reasoning that isn't based on the consistency of observational reality can be fuzzy and unreliable. That hardly means that the idea of naturalistic evolution undermines itself; its existence would be independent of our ability to flesh it out from our observations.

 

To have an accurate picture of the outside world is actually pretty damn important from an evolutionary standpoint. Yes it isn't guaranteed to be reliable because it's advantageous in some respect to have irrational fears and irrational optimism (seems contradictory but depends on the context). But you can't change the fact of your genes not getting passed on by failing to comprehend or sense the tiger hiding in the bush just around the corner.

 

Reason itself is a reaction mustered by the individual in response to the world around him, but that doesn't call into question its validity if it's based on something that requires a certain degree of clarity and reliability.

 

Why would this bother you, anyway? What is so empty or wrong about this? Moist robots or not the return value of my Human.Person.experienceLifeWell() function is no longer affected by my existential_status or thinks_he_has_free_will attribute.

Edited by Vardarac, 13 May 2015 - 04:58 AM.

[The Brain]

Notice the total lack of anything but name calling.

You say name calling.... I say personality profiling

Lol

[calyptus]

 

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?

 

That's actually the reason why I'm not an antitheist as a pragmatist. Belief in god can be useful for a society, and at the very least faking belief in god can be useful on a personal level.

 

The big problem is that when a society is sufficiently advanced, it becomes more useful to care about what's true then old superstition. Religion had a clear evolutionary advantage. It's just that we have come to the point that the cost/benefit ratio is no longer justifiable.

 

 

 

On the personal level, if belief in God helps you get through this stressful day, then why not believe in God?

 

Because you can't decide what you believe on a whim(if at all), and it's naive to consider religious beliefs as if they exist in a vacuum, they influence the rest.

 

I've a deadline to meet this friday, I'll likely answer more in detail after this.

Edited by calyptus, 13 May 2015 - 04:55 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Vardarac:  The entire reason we have the scientific method is because reasoning that isn't based on the consistency of observational reality can be fuzzy and unreliable. That hardly means that the idea of naturalistic evolution undermines itself; its existence would be independent of our ability to flesh it out from our observations.

Science is a process not a position, a method for examining the material physical world.  As such it has serious limitations when it comes to applying its hotly contested methods to the non physical.  The Scientific method is itself not a product of science.  Science to its credit is almost always wrong in its conclusions which are usually overturned by later scientific conclusions.  Could this also be called fuzzy and unreliable?  Evolution is a study in progress, one which some argue is guided by ID.  It it or is it some other yet to be discovered theory or some present theory awaiting more evidence?  ID is in, which is our topic.
 

To have an accurate picture of the outside world is actually pretty damn important from an evolutionary standpoint. Yes it isn't guaranteed to be reliable because it's advantageous in some respect to have irrational fears and irrational optimism (seems contradictory but depends on the context). But you can't change the fact of your genes not getting passed on by failing to comprehend or sense the tiger hiding in the bush just around the corner.

By outside world do you mean only the physical, (what ever that is) We all agree things change, it is the basis for several arguments for the existence of God.  What ever begins to exist has a cause.  No one denies natural selection as I have argued elsewhere.  The issue is the creative power of random mutations to bring forth life as we know it.
 

  Reason itself is a reaction mustered by the individual in response to the world around him, but that doesn't call into question its validity if it's based on something that requires a certain degree of clarity and reliab

ility.

Yes and what is that world?  I use reason as much as you do.

 

Why would this bother you, anyway? What is so empty or wrong about this? Moist robots or not the return value of my Human.Person.experienceLifeWell() function is no longer affected by my existential_status or thinks_he_has_free_will attribute.

 

What bothers me?  What are you talking about?  That you are a material robot who also has emotions which can be explained by chemical reactions to tigers?  This is all reason is?
 

[Ark]

I think it's safe to say that we can end this thread on this last note.

Attached Files

•  11258788_829530220462200_8072163219579263474_n.jpg   32.57KB   0 downloads

[Vardarac]

Could this also be called fuzzy and unreliable?

 

To the extent that predictions about the universe's behavior fail in our engineering. The first principle of consistent natural behavior, however, is the reliable constant to which I was referring. Our understanding of how the universe works changes and grows, but I know of no instances where "physical laws" themselves have changed (for example, an apple starting to fall up, or a negative attracting a negative).

 

My point is that reason, being of naturalistic origins or not, can have its roots in consistent and/or demanding truths, be the idea that gravity pulls or that tigers kill.

 

What bothers me?  What are you talking about?  That you are a material robot who also has emotions which can be explained by chemical reactions to tigers?  This is all reason is?

 

 

Basically. I don't see what's so bothersome or wrong with this idea.
 

[sthira]

I think it's safe to say that we can end this thread on this last note.

Funny, but when I pray all I get is silence, frustration, abandonment, nothingness. Probably the same silence, frustration, abandonment and nothingness that you, too, in fact experience by praying to the almighty. I mean, if you're actually honest with yourself. Or do you hear, see anything from God? Does God answer your prayers? Howso? Nothingness is what we get from God -- but our minds remain wide open for any indication that agnosticism beliefs are untrue and humanity is anything but completely lonely and lost.

[Lewis Carroll]

 

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 post is worth bumping. Of course, it's also a post that Shadowhawk/Ark ignored and down rated.

 

 

EDIT: LC needs to come up with a feature that allows users to see who leaves specific ratings...

Edited by MajinBrian, 14 May 2015 - 08:53 PM.

[Ark]

Because there's a big difference between pure atheism and being agnostic.

Also you didn't explain how you can prove God doesn't exist but can't even give any logical explanations on how you can prove that God didn't make the universe, even though the mathematical theory on which you based your proof doesn't work. You ignore that and seek conflict with those on here. I'm here pointing out the obvious that until you can explain the core issues your viewpoint, which has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. You shouldn't be so confident/arrogant. Don't forget you saying that mathematical model that suits you hasn't been discovered and CERN scientist are wrong...... Haha save it because in the end you've been beaten with proof. Search my posts I have displayed 4th dimensional properties left behind that don't fit with atheism, explain explain explain?!


And what if I have seen I can vouch that I have seen God in life and heard God in physics.

P.S.
.................87654321...
Now let's see how long before pinky comes along to troll? I wonder if he was able to get all that brown shit off his nose and mustache from his last posts where he road his atheist friends nutz so SOO, hard.

Attached Files

•  Pinky_Jane_and_Brain_Daria_by_Lycissa.jpg   184.17KB   0 downloads

Edited by Ark, 14 May 2015 - 08:50 PM.

[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 post is worth bumping. Of course, it's also a post that Shadowhawk/Ark ignored and down rated.

 

 

You don't have a clue.  I gave him a good point and said so as well. 
 

[shadowhawk]

 

  Vardarac: My point is that reason, being of naturalistic origins or not, can have its roots in consistent and/or demanding truths, be the idea that gravity pulls or that tigers kill.

Reason is not material and like abstract objects is not caused.  Another word for reason is logic.  Material things evolve and change not based on truth but survivability. Logic like numbers is not caused and has no origins that begun to exist.  

Basically. I don't see what's so bothersome or wrong with this idea.

I don’t need to add to what I said above.  http://www.longecity...-37#entry727668
 

[The Brain]

You always know when christians are desperate and upset .......

They bring out the old "you can't disprove god" routine.



I also can't disprove fairy's, but we can presume from the lack of any physical or non physical proof of their existence except for anecdotes from unprovable sources.

[shadowhawk]

Again and again the word "Proof."  What does it mean?  As always off topic, hostile and bigoted.  Nothing meaningful is ever said.

[Ark]

You always know when christians are desperate and upset .......

They bring out the old "you can't disprove god" routine.



I also can't disprove fairy's, but we can presume from the lack of any physical or non physical proof of their existence except for anecdotes from unprovable sources.

I love how atheists in this thread love to use the whole generalisations instead of proving the argument wrong. You make a assuming statement that somehow on a previous discussion that old argument was proved flawed, when your the side lacking burden of proof.

[sthira]

My suspicion is most who are tagged as atheist consider themselves agnostic. Agnosticism is honest. Most would probably like to believe in a benevolent, nice God who's cool and doesn't give cancer to babies. We'd also probably like to believe that we're not alone in the universe, and in such vast, unfathonable space some sort of friendly and intelligent life exists out there. But just like there's no proof of intelligent, extraterrestrial life, there's also no proof of God. Conversely, just like there's no proof that there isn't intelligent, extraterrestrial life out there, nor is there proof God does not exist.

Atheists can't prove God does not exist; theists can't prove God does exist. This will change someday. Just not yet. We've been arguing for thousands of years, and still no one knows. Perhaps someday our smart robots or AI machines will solve the God-mystery. Meanwhile, keep thee mind wide open, and drop your attachments either way. We don't know.

[sthira]

Afterlife belief preserves hope when thinking about death, new research suggests

14 May 2015, 09:56 AM

The prospect of death does not necessarily leave people feeling hopelessly mortal but depends rather on afterlife belief, suggests new research from psychologists at the University of Kent.

Dr Arnaud Wisman and Dr Nathan Heflick, of the University's School of Psychology, set out to establish in four separate studies whether people lose hope when thinking about death -- known as Terror Management Theory -- under a range of different conditions.

The research was based on the premise that self-awareness among humans has been shown to create the potential for hope -- or the general expectation and feeling that future desired outcomes will occur.

Paradoxically however, this self-awareness, which is thought to be unique to humans, also renders them conscious of their own mortality -- known as mortality salience. The psychologists found that mortality salience affected feelings of hope among people with high and low self-esteem in different ways.

Researchers first established that mortality reduced personal hope for people low in self-esteem, but not for people high in self-esteem. However, afterlife beliefs helped to preserve hope, even among those with low esteem who experience hopelessness when faced with the prospect of their own mortality.

In two studies, the team tested to see if 'immortality' would help people with low self-esteem remain hopeful when thinking about death. In one, half the participants read a (bogus) statement indicating that scientists are convinced that there is life after death or a statement arguing that there is no life after death.

In the second, the researchers required that people read either a (bogus) statement that there was an identified gene that promises greatly elongated life, or a statement arguing that no such gene has been identified.

Both promises of immortality (life after death or elongated life on earth) preserved hope for people with low self-esteem when they had just thought about their own death.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Kent. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

[shadowhawk]

My suspicion is most who are tagged as atheist consider themselves agnostic. Agnosticism is honest. Most would probably like to believe in a benevolent, nice God who's cool and doesn't give cancer to babies. We'd also probably like to believe that we're not alone in the universe, and in such vast, unfathonable space some sort of friendly and intelligent life exists out there. But just like there's no proof of intelligent, extraterrestrial life, there's also no proof of God. Conversely, just like there's no proof that there isn't intelligent, extraterrestrial life out there, nor is there proof God does not exist.

Atheists can't prove God does not exist; theists can't prove God does exist. This will change someday. Just not yet. We've been arguing for thousands of years, and still no one knows. Perhaps someday our smart robots or AI machines will solve the God-mystery. Meanwhile, keep thee mind wide open, and drop your attachments either way. We don't know.

 

I didn't use the word "Proof."  There is very little we can prove that is real.
 

[shadowhawk]

Afterlife belief preserves hope when thinking about death, new research suggests

14 May 2015, 09:56 AM

The prospect of death does not necessarily leave people feeling hopelessly mortal but depends rather on afterlife belief, suggests new research from psychologists at the University of Kent.

Dr Arnaud Wisman and Dr Nathan Heflick, of the University's School of Psychology, set out to establish in four separate studies whether people lose hope when thinking about death -- known as Terror Management Theory -- under a range of different conditions.

The research was based on the premise that self-awareness among humans has been shown to create the potential for hope -- or the general expectation and feeling that future desired outcomes will occur.

Paradoxically however, this self-awareness, which is thought to be unique to humans, also renders them conscious of their own mortality -- known as mortality salience. The psychologists found that mortality salience affected feelings of hope among people with high and low self-esteem in different ways.

Researchers first established that mortality reduced personal hope for people low in self-esteem, but not for people high in self-esteem. However, afterlife beliefs helped to preserve hope, even among those with low esteem who experience hopelessness when faced with the prospect of their own mortality.

In two studies, the team tested to see if 'immortality' would help people with low self-esteem remain hopeful when thinking about death. In one, half the participants read a (bogus) statement indicating that scientists are convinced that there is life after death or a statement arguing that there is no life after death.

In the second, the researchers required that people read either a (bogus) statement that there was an identified gene that promises greatly elongated life, or a statement arguing that no such gene has been identified.

Both promises of immortality (life after death or elongated life on earth) preserved hope for people with low self-esteem when they had just thought about their own death.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Kent. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

interesting and thanks.  However what is it evidence for?  Do we have that kind of thing going on here at Longecity?

[platypus]

It simply does not seem probable that there are any gods who are interested in human matters. I'd call myself an agnostic if I thought the odds were reasonably close to 50/50 but since I think they are more like 1/99 calling myself agnostic seems like a cop-out. 

[sthira]

@ Shadowhawk

Proof, evidence, sure, I'll ascede. Evidence is leading down the path toward proof that may or may not realize.

And sure, I'll agree also we have very little evidence for what is real. And you shall recognize we have even less evidence for what is not real. Beyond our senses or what we may detect through our tools (eg, maths, microscopes, telescopes) there's even less evidence. God -- unknowable-- is by definition completely nonsensical to us. Yet this doesn't mean God does or does not exist. Dogs can sniff odors we can't. Their sensing of this evidence doesn't mean the odors don't exist because we can't sniff them, too. God may exist, we have no evidence, God may not exist, we have no evidence.

The point of the article I copied and pasted was to indicate that belief in God or an afterlife may give some hope to some people. Be hopeful. If belief in God makes you live happier, then believe in God with or without evidence. It matters very little. We'll all be dead soon enough, unless we begin to tackle to problems of aging. Which is the point of this site.

[platypus]

God may exist, we have no evidence, God may not exist, we have no evidence.

What do you mean we have no evidence? If you really believe in that you need to be agnostic about unicorns and orbital teapots as well, which is an untenable position. 

[sthira]

God may exist, we have no evidence, God may not exist, we have no evidence.

What do you mean we have no evidence? If you really believe in that you need to be agnostic about unicorns and orbital teapots as well, which is an untenable position.

Good point. Ok, I'd say we have more evidence that God does not exist than evidence that God exists.

[The Brain]

Proof is believing that the internal combustion engine in my car will start when I turn the key, it does, I have no idea how an internal combustion engine works other than what others have told me, but it works. I now have a powerful presence in my life that I can rely on and it's effects in my life are positive. All the information I've received about the uses and effects of a motor vehicle in my life have been proven to be truths by it's actions and results I have experienced.


I'm told god will positively affect my life, I'm told this by his word in his book the bible, I'm told this by christians who constantly praise his effects in their lives and tell me to come into their lord and saviour for these effects. I'm told all manner of wonderful things about god.


When I turn the key on god there is nothing, not even a spark, a churning of the engine alerting to a possible flat battery, the engine doesn't even make that dreadful click sound when there is no battery or spark, there is nothing, silence pervades, I wait for a sign that there is an effect, I try again, there is still nothing, nothing has changed, nothing has happened and nothing is happening that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't turned the key on god.


There is no evidence that what has been promised about god, by god, and by his followers is true or correct.

My experience with turning the key on god has been, no effect, no revelation, no conversation, change either positive or negative, just an empty lifeless silence of nothingness.

I notice no positive changes in christians lives that they purport to be the effects from god that I don't see in non believers. I see what appears to be just their manipulated experience of life to suit their beliefs. I see them alter truth and reality to suit their beliefs. I see them grasp at all manner of excuses to support that they are experiencing any effect from their beliefs. A desperation to make true that which they believe drives them to leave logic and sound reasoning skills behind to make their beliefs true in their mind.

I see them respond to this being pointed out to them by making up excuses and apologising for god and fabricating their knowledge of how god operates, to protect themselves from the obvious glaring truth that any effects they attribute to god is in fact a placebo effect.

I conclude by claiming there is no proof of god.

[The Brain]

So now Shadowdork will come along and try to word wanker his way around what I've posted.

Or now that I've mentioned his first line of defence, or is that offence, he might try his other tactic of trying to make a short comment he thinks is poignant and powerful.

Then enter that brain washed clown Ark, he'll come along with his special knowledge of how god works and apologise for him. First he'll claim that god shouldn't have to prove any effects because he's god and you should just trust that what you read in the bible and hear from christians is correct. Then he'll blame me for god not having any effect and go off into some self serving rant to protect himself from having to face the reality that he doesn't have a big psychopathic grandfather figure waiting for him when he dies.

Edited by The Brain, 15 May 2015 - 06:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It simply does not seem probable that there are any gods who are interested in human matters. I'd call myself an agnostic if I thought the odds were reasonably close to 50/50 but since I think they are more like 1/99 calling myself agnostic seems like a cop-out. 

Testimony time?  I suppose this is one kind of evidence from a scientist.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

God may exist, we have no evidence, God may not exist, we have no evidence.

What do you mean we have no evidence? If you really believe in that you need to be agnostic about unicorns and orbital teapots as well, which is an untenable position.

Good point. Ok, I'd say we have more evidence that God does not exist than evidence that God exists.

 

What is the evidence?

[shadowhawk]

Proof is believing that the internal combustion engine in my car will start when I turn the key, it does, I have no idea how an internal combustion engine works other than what others have told me, but it works. I now have a powerful presence in my life that I can rely on and it's effects in my life are positive. All the information I've received about the uses and effects of a motor vehicle in my life have been proven to be truths by it's actions and results I have experienced.


I'm told god will positively affect my life, I'm told this by his word in his book the bible, I'm told this by christians who constantly praise his effects in their lives and tell me to come into their lord and saviour for these effects. I'm told all manner of wonderful things about god.


When I turn the key on god there is nothing, not even a spark, a churning of the engine alerting to a possible flat battery, the engine doesn't even make that dreadful click sound when there is no battery or spark, there is nothing, silence pervades, I wait for a sign that there is an effect, I try again, there is still nothing, nothing has changed, nothing has happened and nothing is happening that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't turned the key on god.


There is no evidence that what has been promised about god, by god, and by his followers is true or correct.

My experience with turning the key on god has been, no effect, no revelation, no conversation, change either positive or negative, just an empty lifeless silence of nothingness.

I notice no positive changes in christians lives that they purport to be the effects from god that I don't see in non believers. I see what appears to be just their manipulated experience of life to suit their beliefs. I see them alter truth and reality to suit their beliefs. I see them grasp at all manner of excuses to support that they are experiencing any effect from their beliefs. A desperation to make true that which they believe drives them to leave logic and sound reasoning skills behind to make their beliefs true in their mind.

I see them respond to this being pointed out to them by making up excuses and apologising for god and fabricating their knowledge of how god operates, to protect themselves from the obvious glaring truth that any effects they attribute to god is in fact a placebo effect.

I conclude by claiming there is no proof of god.

 

How many times do I have to point out this is not the topic?  Look at the topic Evidence for Christianity for some evidence which has a lot of name calling and logical fallacies by those who didn't want to hear it.  Evidence for atheism, not "Proof."  But I have said this before.
 

[shadowhawk]

@ Shadowhawk

Proof, evidence, sure, I'll ascede. Evidence is leading down the path toward proof that may or may not realize.

And sure, I'll agree also we have very little evidence for what is real. And you shall recognize we have even less evidence for what is not real. Beyond our senses or what we may detect through our tools (eg, maths, microscopes, telescopes) there's even less evidence. God -- unknowable-- is by definition completely nonsensical to us. Yet this doesn't mean God does or does not exist. Dogs can sniff odors we can't. Their sensing of this evidence doesn't mean the odors don't exist because we can't sniff them, too. God may exist, we have no evidence, God may not exist, we have no evidence.

The point of the article I copied and pasted was to indicate that belief in God or an afterlife may give some hope to some people. Be hopeful. If belief in God makes you live happier, then believe in God with or without evidence. It matters very little. We'll all be dead soon enough, unless we begin to tackle to problems of aging. Which is the point of this site.

Evidence does not lead us down the path to proof.  Proof is a very limited concept applicable to only a few fields of knowledge.  It may be found in pure logic with no evidence.  That belief has some positive aspects is evidence for God how ever weak.  Since the topic is Atheism, I suppose it is weak evidence against atheism.  Off topic I presented a lot of evidence for God's existence in "Is There Evidence for Christianity."  Here the subject is Atheism.