1712 replies to this topic

[Ark]

Is Buddhism atheistic?

Atheism is associated with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world.

The Buddha has condemned godlessness by which He meant the denial of worship and renunciation, the denial of moral and social obligations, and the denial of a religious life. He recognized most emphatically the existence of moral and spiritual values. He acclaimed the supremacy of the moral law. Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word 'atheism', however, frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications which are in no way applicable to the Buddha's Teaching. Those who use the word 'atheism', often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism advocate nothing of that sort.

There is no justification for branding Buddhists as atheists, nihilists, pagans, heathens or communists just because they do not believe in a Creator God. The Buddhist concept of God is different from that of other religions. Differences in belief do not justify name-calling and slanderous words.

Buddhism agrees with other religions that true and lasting happiness cannot be found in this material world. The Buddha adds that true and lasting happiness cannot be found on the higher or supramundane plane of existence to which the name of heavenly or divine world is given. While the spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are orientated to a state transcending the world with the attainment of Nibbana, they do not make a separation between the 'beyond' and the 'here and now'. They have firm roots in the world itself, for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence.

[The Brain]

No proof then, that must hurt you've wasted so much time, effort and consciousness pining for a mythical being to explain your existence.

[Vardarac]

 

you've wasted so much time, effort and consciousness pining for a mythical being to explain your existence

 

That's the main thing.

 

I think someone here asked about why atheists would resist the idea of gods so much or even have a problem with others believing in it. I understand that some people definitely need the idea that they will live beyond death or see their loved ones or some external purpose to cope with an apparently uncaring and lonely world, but I also see such people sometimes pour their entire being into something they can't prove. That to me is potentially worrisome, especially when those beliefs affect their approach to the rest of the world.

 

Even if there's no absolute proof of atheism, just the strong suggestion that superpowered personal immaterial beings aren't in the habit of creating or influencing universes in any sort of unambiguous way, it still seems the smart idea to me to not behave as though said superpowered beings exist if that is how they behave. Because that's like most things that don't exist. But that's just my preference, like I said if someone wants a certain kind of world more, I guess it would be illogical in a twisted sort of way to not accept theism.

Edited by Vardarac, 30 April 2015 - 09:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Notice these guys can produce no evidence for atheism.  Why?  Because it is intellectually bankrupt.  They can call names, commit logical fallacies galore and be rude and crude all which do not deserve ones attention.  So lets not let them change the subject, which they always do, and ask what evidence is there for belief in Atheism?  That id the topic here.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

you've wasted so much time, effort and consciousness pining for a mythical being to explain your existence

 

That's the main thing.

 

I think someone here asked about why atheists would resist the idea of gods so much or even have a problem with others believing in it. I understand that some people definitely need the idea that they will live beyond death or see their loved ones or some external purpose to cope with an apparently uncaring and lonely world, but I also see such people sometimes pour their entire being into something they can't prove. That to me is potentially worrisome, especially when those beliefs affect their approach to the rest of the world.

 

Even if there's no absolute proof of atheism, just the strong suggestion that superpowered personal immaterial beings aren't in the habit of creating or influencing universes in any sort of unambiguous way, it still seems the smart idea to me to not behave as though said superpowered beings exist if that is how they behave. Because that's like most things that don't exist. But that's just my preference, like I said if someone wants a certain kind of world more, I guess it would be illogical in a twisted sort of way to not accept theism.

 

There is no proof of atheism and you must accept it by blind faith.  We might here ask as we did before, what is proof?

[The Brain]

Screw your atheism nonsense, you're avoiding that your god isn't provable, to me or to you. Why spend your time trying to hate on atheists for not believing your fantasy story.

Suck it up, you of all people have wasted so much time and effort and other people's good graces by entertaining your dribble. Look at the hours and hours of stupid you tube crap you've scurried off and found and countless copy n paste diatribes, all for what ?

A faceless, voiceless god who ignores your prayers, ignores you.

Why..... Because he's not real, not real any sense you may want to interpret him in.

What a waste of a mind, caught up in frivolous mythical nonsense.

The world will be a better place once we evolve away from superstition and belief in deities.

[Vardarac]

I believe there is no god because every concept of god that has been put to me tends to be illogical, potentially jives with reality as I know it, and would, if actually true, show little difference from a universe in which such gods have no influence on it at all (which is not far removed from how many probably-nonexistent things tend to be).

 

Examples:

- God is omniscient, but man has "free will;"

- God therefore creates knowing how man will behave, yet still blames man for what he does, as though blaming a rock for falling when dropped;

 

- Life is predicated on dynamics of hardship, suffering, competition, and randomness, which are odd ideas for a god who is not to be "the author of confusion" or who is benevolent;

 

- Both gods and leprechauns are accused of fanciful, physics-defying feats which never seem to manifest in an easily or unambiguously provable way.

Edited by Vardarac, 30 April 2015 - 10:39 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Examples:

- God is omniscient, but man has "free will;"

- God therefore creates knowing how man will behave, yet still blames man for what he does, as though blaming a rock for falling when dropped;

Free will which is valued by God is determined in a limited way.  We can fly but we have to use a machine and not just flap our arms.  So we can fly but it is in a limited way.  God creates a free man who freely chooses.  God wants a relationship so He has not just made man a blowup doll.  We are being held accountable for our choices as any free being is.  You also freely choose in a limited way and you bear the consequences of your choices.  You are mad at God because you get to choose.  You are not a rock

- Life is predicated on dynamics of hardship, suffering, competition, and randomness, which are odd ideas for a god who is not to be "the author of confusion" or who is benevolent;

You left out the good.  You are compiling because these things don’t measure up to the good.  And what is Good?  Well if there was a God things would have to be good is the logic of your statement.  You have to presuppose God to even come up with natural evil.  The negatives you mentioned are neither good or bad given atheism.  However you used the good to argue against God.  Using the good is an argument for God.

 

- Both gods and leprechauns are accused of fanciful, physics-defying feats which never seem to manifest in an easily or unambiguously provable way.

What is provable in an am ambiguous way?  What is proof?  Do you hold Atheism to the same standard?  I think you have blind faith.  What is evidence and is it proof?

God and Leprechauns are two distinct different things.  One is made up of real “things” such as hands. feet, legs. A body and a head.  All of them are real and we know what they are.  The Leprechaun, is a human creation made up of reality.  God on the other hand creates us and is not made of physical things.  So there is a huge difference between God and the Leprechaun.

As far as natural laws and physics is concerned, the laws are abstract objects and not physical.  What are they?  Where did they come from?  Well I should give you a chance to answer.

[The Brain]

"God on the other hand creates us and is not made of physical things."


Proof of this claim please ....?

[shadowhawk]

I asked the question what is proof and how does it differ from evidence.  The topic is about Atheism which is materialistic.  I did not bring up God in this discussion which has nothing to do with you.  Rave on.

[The Brain]

No proof then, that's a surprise .....

[Ark]

No proof then, that's a surprise .....

You ask for proof? But based on your own view adopted and modified by me. All I could prove for sure is "Cogito ergo sum". So prove to me you exist and I'm not just stuck in virtual reality in a laboratory somewhere....?

[Ark]

No proof then, that's a surprise .....

I'd also argue the biggest burden of proof is God's greatest creation, life itself.

[shadowhawk]

Can't follow the topic, is talking to himself and carrying on, and can't answer a question regarding what "proof" is.  He apparently does not know yet he thinks there is none.  The topic is "Is there Evidence for Atheism?"  There are other topics that also ask for evidence but Atheism is the subject here.  Evidence for God is another topic and I covered many things in the first section of "Evidence for Christianity."  I did not ask for Proof for Atheism but I asked for Evidence because as any educated person knows they are not the same.  So back to Evidence for Atheism.

[Ark]

"Do not blame God for creating the Tiger, be thankful he didn't give him wings."

[The Brain]

Still no proof of god then, not for me or yourself ?

[shadowhawk]

Tell me what proof is and maybe I will give you some.  But if you don't know what it is than you are talking gobgligoop nonsense as you usually do. 

[shadowhawk]

Why are all the new atheists such appallingly ignorant, irrational folks? I’m still waiting for a rational explanation of this strange meme. Perhaps I’ll make a best seller out of it.  Maybe I’ll call it “The Dawkins Meme”. How’s that?

Atheism is the blind man’s claim that color doesn’t exist because he can’t see it, taste it, feel it or prove it empirically!
Atheism – the belief that nothing created everything for no reason – i.e. the insane belief that nothing is actually something
Atheism – the suckers guide to failed, empty materialist philosophy posing as science
Atheism – the belief that all humans are nothing but bags of chemically animated meat
Atheism – the conviction that nothing beyond matter exists.  Information is neither matter nor energy and thus metaphysical. Oops.  Far worse: it is impossible, under the atheists’ own dictates, to prove that nothing beyond matter exists!  It is excluded, a priori, based on purely religious (metaphysical, philosophical) grounds. This, in any other domain, would be called blind faith in nothing.

So hey, lets give all the criminals a big break, because under atheist “logic” you’re “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick), with no free will (Harris), no foundations for ethics (Provine), no guilt nor merit (Blackburn) and even rape is just an “evolutionary adaptation” (Thornhill & Palmer) … Insert another long list of more atheist stupidities here…  “Morality is an illusion” (Ruse & Wilson) in the strange befuddled world view of the walking talking self-contradiction that is the new average irrational atheist dupe.

[The Brain]

I'm not interested in playing word chess dumbarse.

What's to be gained from an endless back n forth of long winded ego driven verbiage ?

In your case it's a chance to weasel out of answering questions.

[Vardarac]

Free will which is valued by God is determined in a limited way.  We can fly but we have to use a machine and not just flap our arms.  So we can fly but it is in a limited way.  God creates a free man who freely chooses.  God wants a relationship so He has not just made man a blowup doll.  We are being held accountable for our choices as any free being is.  You also freely choose in a limited way and you bear the consequences of your choices.  You are mad at God because you get to choose.  You are not a rock

 

 

What does it mean to "freely choose in a limited way"? How does it make any sense that you choose freely, but God can claim that you are accountable despite knowing EXACTLY, down to the last detail, what is going to happen before it happens?

 

If you say that he doesn't know it, then he isn't omniscient; if you say that he does know it, then there is not an ounce of compassion in creating a system in which he dooms a significant proportion of his creation a priori by creating them in a way that will lead them to choose their own destruction.

 

If he was unable to create humans to "freely choose" in perfect (or good enough) accordance with his will, then he is not omnipotent. This relationship excuse for your concept is hollow in that there are plenty of examples of people with "free will" who nonetheless meet a certain standard of faith or obedience that seem to fall in line with those set out in their holy texts. (This in and of itself makes little sense except as theatre - He knows who's going to obey, so why bother testing them with life if they're just to die and come back to him? - but you could make the argument that your God just wants a good show.)

 

By the way, this "mad at god" silliness. This requires you to assume that I 1) know God exists somehow and 2) accept your concept of God. (Which, if I'm not mistaken, is yet another irrational belief your particular religion requires you to hold, at least if you, for some reason, decide to believe Paul.) It would be as if I said you were mad at my ethereal Aunt Sally, whom you've never met, never spoken to, and have every reason to believe is a fabrication of an insane mind (even if it sounds as though she does do some pretty mean or weird things). Or Voldemort. I don't know where you people get ideas like this.

 

You left out the good.  You are compiling because these things don’t measure up to the good.  And what is Good?  Well if there was a God things would have to be good is the logic of your statement.  You have to presuppose God to even come up with natural evil.  The negatives you mentioned are neither good or bad given atheism.  However you used the good to argue against God.  Using the good is an argument for God.

That's not how it works, Sparky. First of all, saying that this system is not good does not require me to presuppose its standards; you could for the sake of argument measure it by moral standards from other systems or even from its own standpoint. The greatest commandment is love, isn't it? Love me or burn (or at least suffer without me, because that acceptably neutral resting feeling you got was actually me and all else is despair, sorry I didn't couch it in those terms); that is love, and we see it played out on a smaller scale in intolerant extremist households every so often.

 

But let's assume that this evaluation were from the point of view that there is no objective morality, or at least none that can be effectively discerned. When any atheist uses moral language, he speaks from a standpoint that most (or at least a significant chunk) of humanity understands because of how they respond to ideas and events related to morality. He leans on the idea that most people value empathy, compassion, a lack of suffering, etc. It may be entirely subjective, but that makes it meaningful to those who have such values as a result of who they are, which, like I said already, is a fairly sizeable chunk of humanity. This is what I was trying to get across the entire time I talked about morality having meaning or value even in a godless universe.

 

God on the other hand creates us and is not made of physical things.  So there is a huge difference between God and the Leprechaun.

 

You're avoiding the point. You're still assigning infinite (not to mention meta/extra-physical) power, regular miracles, and a very specific narrative to this character, all of which defy mundane experience to the point of sounding impossible or at least improbable in the extreme. That's the central pillar, the thing that fanciful and decidedly non-existent concepts have in common.
 

As far as natural laws and physics is concerned, the laws are abstract objects and not physical.  What are they?  Where did they come from?  Well I should give you a chance to answer.

 

You may as well ask me where matter came from. Do you know what natural laws even are? How can you separate them from matter, energy, and their relationships to one another? How do you know that they aren't simply the essence of matter, energy, and their relationships to one another - behaviors inherent to materially existing things - and not actually abstract "laws" as it were? As a matter of fact, we have no reason to believe they are anything other than material, because that is the only way in which the natural laws manifest, through influence on (or is it from?) natural materials.

 

A better question to ask me would have been, "where and what is consciousness, and how do you know that it is only material?" Which of course I wouldn't. It's a long way from there to God, though.

Edited by Vardarac, 02 May 2015 - 08:56 AM.

[calyptus]

 

Atheism – the belief that nothing created everything for no reason – i.e. the insane belief that nothing is actually something
Atheism – the suckers guide to failed, empty materialist philosophy posing as science
Atheism – the belief that all humans are nothing but bags of chemically animated meat
Atheism – the conviction that nothing beyond matter exists.

 

Well no, atheism doesn't require claims in itself. It's the lack of belief in gods/goddesses. Since the concept is important instead of the label, any attempt to rephrase atheism in a way that it doesn't address the main concept, is a strawman, that only refers to a very miniscule group of atheists.  You've been told that before, but when the discussion requires you to go off-script you just ignore it.

 

But, let's have a look at these claims shall we:

 

1) I've yet to meet an atheist who claims "nothingness" is a state, it's the lack of a state. So it can not be an efficient cause. So that's philosophy derp number 1. Most physicalists, like myself, don't have an answer for the ex nihilo problem. It's you who claims to have one. That means the burden of proof is on you, and no amount of fallacies will allow you to reject that burden if your claim is working within reason.

 

2) Both science and materialism have nothing inherent to do with atheism. Scientific methodology is contradictory to your definition as science is tentative and probabilistic. As I'm a physicalist and atheist(under my definition) instead of a materialist, the second one is rejected. So what you're doing, is defining atheism outside of the group actually using it as an objection against your position, then you come back and use it as an argument against atheism. Philosophy derp number 2.

 

3) I don't even know what that means. It seems nothing more than classic mind-body dualistic and antropocentrist "I want to be special and I can't accept reality if it's doesn't say this". If it's this, it's not even true because there are dualistic atheists.

 

4) That shows one again you know fuck-all about philosophy and don't even care what the people you're trying to argue against state. It's not "the conviction that nothing but matter exists". It's(and this is a very simplistic explanation) a monist theory that everything can be reduced to material explanations, which everything we know to be has.

My personal objection to materialism is that "material" isn't well-defined. Is anti-matter material? I'm a physicalist, by which I hold that the physical universe is all there is and can be reduced to it's physical behaviour, which we can (try to) describe in laws, because I see no reason to accept otherwise, and if you say there's something else, you have the burden of proof. Oh, and that makes my physicalism a posteriori, so none of that "it's dogma"-crap.  

 

 

The discussion becomes rather funny when one side can give in to BATNA's and still debunk the opposition for having only a smokescreen, while the other side has to lie on every step to make even close to a coherent case.

Edited by calyptus, 04 May 2015 - 01:34 PM.

[Vardarac]

Well no, atheism doesn't require claims in itself. It's the lack of belief in gods/goddesses. Since the concept is important instead of the label, any attempt to rephrase atheism in a way that it doesn't address the main concept, is a strawman, that only refers to a very miniscule group of atheists.  You've been told that before, but when the discussion requires you to go off-script you just ignore it.

 

His excuse is that under the "lack of belief" definition, a dog, baby, or a tree stump could be qualified as atheists, making the term effectively meaningless. (Of course, in so saying he fails to take the next step and follow the implication that the label might be specifically intended for humans; more specifically those who have the capacity for rational thought and who simply don't have god-existence as an ideological foundation.)

Edited by Vardarac, 04 May 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[calyptus]

 

Well no, atheism doesn't require claims in itself. It's the lack of belief in gods/goddesses. Since the concept is important instead of the label, any attempt to rephrase atheism in a way that it doesn't address the main concept, is a strawman, that only refers to a very miniscule group of atheists.  You've been told that before, but when the discussion requires you to go off-script you just ignore it.

 

His excuse is that under the "lack of belief" definition, a dog, baby, or a tree stump could be qualified as atheists, making the term effectively meaningless. (Of course, in so saying he fails to take the next step and follow the implication that the label might be specifically intended for humans; more specifically those who have the capacity for rational thought and who simply don't have god-existence as an ideological foundation.)

 

 

The term still conveys meaning, so it's not meaningless. It's just that if the term is the position of rocks, babies, and what I would call intellectual atheists. So is there a direct connection?

 

The answer is no, because the cause of rejection is important. Rocks and babies are atheist due to the lack of sufficient cognitive abilities, intellectual atheists are because they reject the existence of sufficiently defined gods. 

 

I've seen some philosophers reformulate the definition as "requires the cognitive ability to analyse the proposition". That's fine by me, I just don't see the need for this to be required for atheism. Just for atheism to be a reasonable state of mind, which deals with justification.

 

Edited by calyptus, 04 May 2015 - 05:09 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Free will which is valued by God is determined in a limited way.  We can fly but we have to use a machine and not just flap our arms.  So we can fly but it is in a limited way.  God creates a free man who freely chooses.  God wants a relationship so He has not just made man a blowup doll.  We are being held accountable for our choices as any free being is.  You also freely choose in a limited way and you bear the consequences of your choices.  You are mad at God because you get to choose.  You are not a rock

 

 

What does it mean to "freely choose in a limited way"? How does it make any sense that you choose freely, but God can claim that you are accountable despite knowing EXACTLY, down to the last detail, what is going to happen before it happens?

 

If you say that he doesn't know it, then he isn't omniscient; if you say that he does know it, then there is not an ounce of compassion in creating a system in which he dooms a significant proportion of his creation a priori by creating them in a way that will lead them to choose their own destruction.

 

If he was unable to create humans to "freely choose" in perfect (or good enough) accordance with his will, then he is not omnipotent. This relationship excuse for your concept is hollow in that there are plenty of examples of people with "free will" who nonetheless meet a certain standard of faith or obedience that seem to fall in line with those set out in their holy texts. (This in and of itself makes little sense except as theatre - He knows who's going to obey, so why bother testing them with life if they're just to die and come back to him? - but you could make the argument that your God just wants a good show.)

 

By the way, this "mad at god" silliness. This requires you to assume that I 1) know God exists somehow and 2) accept your concept of God. (Which, if I'm not mistaken, is yet another irrational belief your particular religion requires you to hold, at least if you, for some reason, decide to believe Paul.) It would be as if I said you were mad at my ethereal Aunt Sally, whom you've never met, never spoken to, and have every reason to believe is a fabrication of an insane mind (even if it sounds as though she does do some pretty mean or weird things). Or Voldemort. I don't know where you people get ideas like this.

 

You left out the good.  You are compiling because these things don’t measure up to the good.  And what is Good?  Well if there was a God things would have to be good is the logic of your statement.  You have to presuppose God to even come up with natural evil.  The negatives you mentioned are neither good or bad given atheism.  However you used the good to argue against God.  Using the good is an argument for God.

That's not how it works, Sparky. First of all, saying that this system is not good does not require me to presuppose its standards; you could for the sake of argument measure it by moral standards from other systems or even from its own standpoint. The greatest commandment is love, isn't it? Love me or burn (or at least suffer without me, because that acceptably neutral resting feeling you got was actually me and all else is despair, sorry I didn't couch it in those terms); that is love, and we see it played out on a smaller scale in intolerant extremist households every so often.

 

But let's assume that this evaluation were from the point of view that there is no objective morality, or at least none that can be effectively discerned. When any atheist uses moral language, he speaks from a standpoint that most (or at least a significant chunk) of humanity understands because of how they respond to ideas and events related to morality. He leans on the idea that most people value empathy, compassion, a lack of suffering, etc. It may be entirely subjective, but that makes it meaningful to those who have such values as a result of who they are, which, like I said already, is a fairly sizeable chunk of humanity. This is what I was trying to get across the entire time I talked about morality having meaning or value even in a godless universe.

 

God on the other hand creates us and is not made of physical things.  So there is a huge difference between God and the Leprechaun.

 

You're avoiding the point. You're still assigning infinite (not to mention meta/extra-physical) power, regular miracles, and a very specific narrative to this character, all of which defy mundane experience to the point of sounding impossible or at least improbable in the extreme. That's the central pillar, the thing that fanciful and decidedly non-existent concepts have in common.
 

As far as natural laws and physics is concerned, the laws are abstract objects and not physical.  What are they?  Where did they come from?  Well I should give you a chance to answer.

 

You may as well ask me where matter came from. Do you know what natural laws even are? How can you separate them from matter, energy, and their relationships to one another? How do you know that they aren't simply the essence of matter, energy, and their relationships to one another - behaviors inherent to materially existing things - and not actually abstract "laws" as it were? As a matter of fact, we have no reason to believe they are anything other than material, because that is the only way in which the natural laws manifest, through influence on (or is it from?) natural materials.

 

A better question to ask me would have been, "where and what is consciousness, and how do you know that it is only material?" Which of course I wouldn't. It's a long way from there to God, though.

 

limited determinism is the view that while we are free to choose our choices are limited, God knows what you are going to choose but you don’t.  You choose freely.  Want to blame your free choice on God and act as if you don’t have a free choice?  Then freely choose to believe that.  So you are freely choosing to blame God for your choices.  A good and just God, in your view, would have made you a robot with no free choice and no accountability..  Given Atheism everything is determined totally.  What is going to happen is going to happen and you have no choice in the matter.  But In real life you do!  You choose all the time and do so freely between limited choices.

I for many reasons ( which few Atheists here even rationally argue against.) Believe the material is not all that exists.  Since Atheism is our topic where is the material evidence for Atheism?  Is this what you call a non existent concept?  In other words, are your arguments for materialism, themselves non material?  Also, you seem to know what natural laws and abstract objects are.  Since there is nothing but the material they must be material, right?  You say they are!  What is three?  What is seven?  Yet math and numbers describe the cosmos and given its assumptions tell us the rules on how it works.  Are they material?

Since you brought it up, how about consciousness?  Given Atheism, is it material?  Again this is about Atheism, Not God so how does consciousness fit in?




 

[platypus]

How come gods don't tell anything to actual persons via prayer etc.? In fact, the situation is indistinguishable from gods not existing at all. This is evidence for atheism.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Atheism – the belief that nothing created everything for no reason – i.e. the insane belief that nothing is actually something
Atheism – the suckers guide to failed, empty materialist philosophy posing as science
Atheism – the belief that all humans are nothing but bags of chemically animated meat
Atheism – the conviction that nothing beyond matter exists.

 

Well no, atheism doesn't require claims in itself. It's the lack of belief in gods/goddesses. Since the concept is important instead of the label, any attempt to rephrase atheism in a way that it doesn't address the main concept, is a strawman, that only refers to a very miniscule group of atheists.  You've been told that before, but when the discussion requires you to go off-script you just ignore it.

 

But, let's have a look at these claims shall we:

 

SH: This is NOT the definition of Atheism.  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.  So given this, you have no evidence.  So don't then proceed to tell me what Atheists believe they don't believe.    By the way I can show you leading Atheists who believe all the things you deny.  The claim is made that you don't believe in anything and that is atheism, so you then need no evidence.  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.

 

1) I've yet to meet an atheist who claims "nothingness" is a state, it's the lack of a state. So it can not be an efficient cause. So that's philosophy derp number 1. Most physicalists, like myself, don't have an answer for the ex nihilo problem. It's you who claims to have one. That means the burden of proof is on you, and no amount of fallacies will allow you to reject that burden if your claim is working within reason.

 

2) Both science and materialism have nothing inherent to do with atheism. Scientific methodology is contradictory to your definition as science is tentative and probabilistic. As I'm a physicalist and atheist(under my definition) instead of a materialist, the second one is rejected. So what you're doing, is defining atheism outside of the group actually using it as an objection against your position, then you come back and use it as an argument against atheism. Philosophy derp number 2.

 

3) I don't even know what that means. It seems nothing more than classic mind-body dualistic and antropocentrist "I want to be special and I can't accept reality if it's doesn't say this". If it's this, it's not even true because there are dualistic atheists.

 

4) That shows one again you know fuck-all about philosophy and don't even care what the people you're trying to argue against state. It's not "the conviction that nothing but matter exists". It's(and this is a very simplistic explanation) a monist theory that everything can be reduced to material explanations, which everything we know to be has.

My personal objection to materialism is that "material" isn't well-defined. Is anti-matter material? I'm a physicalist, by which I hold that the physical universe is all there is and can be reduced to it's physical behaviour, which we can (try to) describe in laws, because I see no reason to accept otherwise, and if you say there's something else, you have the burden of proof. Oh, and that makes my physicalism a posteriori, so none of that "it's dogma"-crap.  

 

 

The discussion becomes rather funny when one side can give in to BATNA's and still debunk the opposition for having only a smokescreen, while the other side has to lie on every step to make even close to a coherent case. 

SH:  So stop putting up a smoke screen regarding what you believe.  Since you claim you don't know anything, yet claim I am lying what is the truth you don't know?  Do you know what you are talking about?

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 May 2015 - 10:40 PM.

[Ark]

Free will which is valued by God is determined in a limited way. We can fly but we have to use a machine and not just flap our arms. So we can fly but it is in a limited way. God creates a free man who freely chooses. God wants a relationship so He has not just made man a blowup doll. We are being held accountable for our choices as any free being is. You also freely choose in a limited way and you bear the consequences of your choices. You are mad at God because you get to choose. You are not a rock

What does it mean to "freely choose in a limited way"? How does it make any sense that you choose freely, but God can claim that you are accountable despite knowing EXACTLY, down to the last detail, what is going to happen before it happens?

If you say that he doesn't know it, then he isn't omniscient; if you say that he does know it, then there is not an ounce of compassion in creating a system in which he dooms a significant proportion of his creation a priori by creating them in a way that will lead them to choose their own destruction.

If he was unable to create humans to "freely choose" in perfect (or good enough) accordance with his will, then he is not omnipotent. This relationship excuse for your concept is hollow in that there are plenty of examples of people with "free will" who nonetheless meet a certain standard of faith or obedience that seem to fall in line with those set out in their holy texts. (This in and of itself makes little sense except as theatre - He knows who's going to obey, so why bother testing them with life if they're just to die and come back to him? - but you could make the argument that your God just wants a good show.)

By the way, this "mad at god" silliness. This requires you to assume that I 1) know God exists somehow and 2) accept your concept of God. (Which, if I'm not mistaken, is yet another irrational belief your particular religion requires you to hold, at least if you, for some reason, decide to believe Paul.) It would be as if I said you were mad at my ethereal Aunt Sally, whom you've never met, never spoken to, and have every reason to believe is a fabrication of an insane mind (even if it sounds as though she does do some pretty mean or weird things). Or Voldemort. I don't know where you people get ideas like this.

You left out the good. You are compiling because these things don’t measure up to the good. And what is Good? Well if there was a God things would have to be good is the logic of your statement. You have to presuppose God to even come up with natural evil. The negatives you mentioned are neither good or bad given atheism. However you used the good to argue against God. Using the good is an argument for God.

That's not how it works, Sparky. First of all, saying that this system is not good does not require me to presuppose its standards; you could for the sake of argument measure it by moral standards from other systems or even from its own standpoint. The greatest commandment is love, isn't it? Love me or burn (or at least suffer without me, because that acceptably neutral resting feeling you got was actually me and all else is despair, sorry I didn't couch it in those terms); that is love, and we see it played out on a smaller scale in intolerant extremist households every so often.

But let's assume that this evaluation were from the point of view that there is no objective morality, or at least none that can be effectively discerned. When any atheist uses moral language, he speaks from a standpoint that most (or at least a significant chunk) of humanity understands because of how they respond to ideas and events related to morality. He leans on the idea that most people value empathy, compassion, a lack of suffering, etc. It may be entirely subjective, but that makes it meaningful to those who have such values as a result of who they are, which, like I said already, is a fairly sizeable chunk of humanity. This is what I was trying to get across the entire time I talked about morality having meaning or value even in a godless universe.

God on the other hand creates us and is not made of physical things. So there is a huge difference between God and the Leprechaun.

You're avoiding the point. You're still assigning infinite (not to mention meta/extra-physical) power, regular miracles, and a very specific narrative to this character, all of which defy mundane experience to the point of sounding impossible or at least improbable in the extreme. That's the central pillar, the thing that fanciful and decidedly non-existent concepts have in common.

As far as natural laws and physics is concerned, the laws are abstract objects and not physical. What are they? Where did they come from? Well I should give you a chance to answer.

You may as well ask me where matter came from. Do you know what natural laws even are? How can you separate them from matter, energy, and their relationships to one another? How do you know that they aren't simply the essence of matter, energy, and their relationships to one another - behaviors inherent to materially existing things - and not actually abstract "laws" as it were? As a matter of fact, we have no reason to believe they are anything other than material, because that is the only way in which the natural laws manifest, through influence on (or is it from?) natural materials.

A better question to ask me would have been, "where and what is consciousness, and how do you know that it is only material?" Which of course I wouldn't. It's a long way from there to God, though.

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.

[Ark]

I believe through science under close observation can link this universe to a higher plains of existence that God wants some of us to explore. http://www.dailymail...s-universe.html

Edited by Ark, 04 May 2015 - 11:48 PM.

[The Brain]

Not once does the article mention god....

[shadowhawk]

The topic is Atheism.

Atheism is the blind man’s claim that color doesn’t exist because he can’t see it, taste it, feel it or prove it empirically!
Atheism – the belief that nothing created everything for no reason – i.e. the insane belief that nothing is actually something
Atheism – the suckers guide to failed, empty materialist philosophy posing as science
Atheism – the belief that all humans are nothing but bags of chemically animated meat
Atheism – the conviction that nothing beyond matter exists.  Information is neither matter nor energy and thus metaphysical. Oops.  Far worse: it is impossible, under the atheists’ own dictates, to prove that nothing beyond matter exists!  It is excluded, a priori, based on purely religious (metaphysical, philosophical) grounds. This, in any other domain, would be called blind faith in nothing.

So hey, lets give all the criminals a big break, because under atheist “logic” you’re “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick), with no free will (Harris), no foundations for ethics (Provine), no guilt nor merit (Blackburn) and even rape is just an “evolutionary adaptation” (Thornhill & Palmer) … Insert another long list of more atheist stupidities here…  “Morality is an illusion” (Ruse & Wilson) in the strange befuddled world view of the walking talking self-contradiction that is the new average irrational atheist dupe.