1712 replies to this topic

[The Brain]

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[shadowhawk]

I suppose some Atheists are into the flying spaghetti monster, so include it if you want.  It fits.  However most Atheists only accept what I listed.

[N.T.M.]

Objectively we are talking about a human life, the only difference being the age of the individual.

 

It seems arbitrary to compare an early fetus, something with no consciousness, with a mature human being and at the same time maintain that it's separate from a gamete, which contains half the DNA of any fetus. If you're going to equate the first with the second, then the third should follow, too. Wouldn't masturbation, then, constitute genocide? 

Edited by N.T.M., 18 August 2015 - 09:58 PM.

[shadowhawk]

as we age we change and have different capacities but we are nervelessness human.  Are you saying as long as anyone is unconscious it is alright to kill them?  Life begins and ends in unconsciousness and it begins at conception for a human being.  This is a perfect example of subjective morality.  Without imposing your subjective morality tell me when human life begins.

[N.T.M.]

as we age we change and have different capacities but we are nervelessness human.  Are you saying as long as anyone is unconscious it is alright to kill them?  Life begins and ends in unconsciousness and it begins at conception for a human being.  This is a perfect example of subjective morality.  Without imposing your subjective morality tell me when human life begins.

 

I don't know, but at least I don't claim to know something that I don't.

[shadowhawk]

 

as we age we change and have different capacities but we are nervelessness human.  Are you saying as long as anyone is unconscious it is alright to kill them?  Life begins and ends in unconsciousness and it begins at conception for a human being.  This is a perfect example of subjective morality.  Without imposing your subjective morality tell me when human life begins.

 

I don't know, but at least I don't claim to know something that I don't.

 

I would say that is objectively good. 

[Dakman]

It must be at least a week since someone's called you an asshole isn't it asshole 

[shadowhawk]

The great atheist Bertrand Russell on the definition of Atheism. 

 

 

“An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned… An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or denial.”

Russell was not creating new definitions for these terms but reflecting the way they have always been

 

[Vardarac]

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

[shadowhawk]

 

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

 

Russell’s rather unoriginal argument has also been rehashed by atheism’s most unoriginal apologist, Richard Dawkins. Both Russell and Dawkins (and everyone else who uses this line of reasoning) attempt to argue along the lines that “If the existence of X (celestial teapots, FSMs, God) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists.”

This point is both obvious and uncontroversial. The problem comes when they try to suggest, as philosopher William Vallicella says, “that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God.”

Vallicella points out the key problem with this thinking: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. True, atheists may not find them compelling. But so what? “The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative,” says Vallicella. “Belief in God and in Russell’s teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.”

Celestial teapots and FSMs do, however, differ on one key point. The celestial teapot is a contingent being, its coming into being and continued existence is contingent on the existence of something else (namely the universe). The teapot is a physical being whose existence is radically dependent on the existence of matter. The teapot could cease to exist without affecting the universe. But if the universe ceased to exist, so would the celestial teapot.

One last point when Russell wrote this we didn't have space stations which have the equivalent of teapots on board.  Not only are they (flying teapots) possible but probable.  But then Atheists are anti science!  No wonder theists believe.

 

[Vardarac]

If there are no compelling reasons for believing something, then why wouldn't you put it in the same class as everything else that matches that description? If you don't want to use an example like magical unicorns, then how about chemtrails, or LENR? Take your pick; the "reasons for believing" could amount to no more than the emperor making claims to richer clothing than the unicorn's fur. That is why even in a thread about atheism (belief against), you are asked continually for evidence or arguments for positive belief. Without sound logic and good evidence, there really is nothing to separate a given belief from any other kind of fiction.

[shadowhawk]

If there are no compelling reasons for believing something, then why wouldn't you put it in the same class as everything else that matches that description? If you don't want to use an example like magical unicorns, then how about chemtrails, or LENR? Take your pick; the "reasons for believing" could amount to no more than the emperor making claims to richer clothing than the unicorn's fur. That is why even in a thread about atheism (belief against), you are asked continually for evidence or arguments for positive belief. Without sound logic and good evidence, there really is nothing to separate a given belief from any other kind of fiction.

 

You are the one who brought up teapots.  Do they or don't they exist?  You don't believe in magical unicorns well neither do I.  Everything that makes up a unicorn I believe in and have seen.  I have seen chemtrails but don't know what they are.  Do you?  They exist.  But I bet you believe there is no God.  What is your evidence for atheism?
 

[Vardarac]

The teapot was really beside my point, which was to elaborate on Russell's beliefs (cliffnotes: "I'm 'agnostic', but I still think this is bologna") with another quote directly from him.

 

In any case, it would have been perfectly reasonable in Russell's time to believe that there was not likely to have been a teapot in orbit, even though teapots existed - we just didn't have the technology to put the teapot at the spot of his specific example. Today, it would be equally outlandish to believe there is a teapot somewhere near Alpha Centauri, at least while we have no proof of concept of 1) aliens and 2) FTL travel. While you could make the argument that this is quite literally moving the goalposts, his point wasn't the teapot specifically so much as it making sense to not believe in a thing for which no reasonable case could be made at the time.

 

Again, though, it's a position ultimately of belief, not knowledge. Absence of evidence isn't strictly evidence of absence, but it becomes more likely as unsupported claims and their outlandishness accumulate. So is it more likely as similarities to other fictional concepts increase, like Babylonian gods or violating physics or thermodynamics through miracles.

[shadowhawk]

So lets stay on topic.  The teapot is a good example and given your explanation I don't know why you brought it up.  Where is your evidence for your belief there is no God.

[Multivitz]

I'm afraid your linguistic analysis bares a bit of error. Atheos refers to being without god, not the positive denial of god. It stands for "godless". To be without god is fundamentally different from directly stating that god cannot exist. There is no evidence for the non-existence, but it stands on the sharper edge of Occham's razor.

I propose that atheism is called rationalism. I do not discriminate in my distinction of true or false data. I do not call myself an afairist, aunicornist, abigfootist, aghostist, asantaclausist. So I think it's ridiculous to define yourself by something you don't accept and don't adhere to. Hi, my name isn't James. I'm not 39 and I don't like milk. This tells you nothing. It's a pointless semantic polarization.

I cannot prove that ghosts don't exist. I cannot prove that aliens are not moving around among us. I can't prove there aren't fairies in the garden when I'm not looking. I cannot prove that some Arab sheik somewhere may have a unicorn hidden away. These things don't define people, they do not create groups.

Religions are not ideas that can be deduced. They are culturally ingrained. I can demonstrate this. Let's pretend you have no idea what Christianity or religion is. You go to the library and find a rare old book. It's over two thousand years old. You read it. It is the story of a supernatural stone mason in what is present day Palestine. He is born to a virgin as a result of impregnation by an invisible creature in the sky. He heals the sick and preaches praise for an omnipotent creator who not only does what comes naturally but expects excessive grovelling. Then he is crucified and resurrected.

Ii you were the first person to find this book would you really go, "Oh, that sounds completely and unequivocally true?"

Supposing the existence of a powerful creature that exists outside of the natural world requires evidence. However, there is none. If I believed in anything that people told me I would still believe in Santa Claus. Consider that on Christmas in Slovakia, children are told without any irony whatsoever that Jesus flies to their house to brings them presents based on whether they sinned.

The logical basis of rationalism should be becoming clear now.

• The universe came from nothing, which is mathematically and experimentally verified. See Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing". As clear as I can make it, denying physical equations that give accurate and reproducible results would instantly bulldoze your argument.
• Where does god come from? Why is an exceedingly complex consciousness of unknown origin more likely than the much simpler alternative?
• Out of infinite multiverses and billions of galaxies, why are humans god's most special and beloved race?
• I believe Elvis faked his death and is alive. Can you prove me wrong?
• How would you go about arguing against someone who claims that god is an alien or group of aliens with limited abilities that just created earth as a biological science experiment?

i think you make good point. what's that saying? "inocent until proven guilty'?

I think it is sad that athiests hate religious people so much

Rationalists have used basis of argument for thousands of years. How did the religious people respond? They executed the 'blasphemers'. Your own religious texts call for attacks on blasphemers or infidels. You say that homosexuals are born sinful and depraved. You say that humans are born with an original sin that a human sacrifice can absolve. This is an abhorrent sadomasochistic death cult with pleasure from pain. Why would the son of god let himself be sacrificed like an animal on display to appease himself? God in the sky could just go "whoop all the sins gone". No, he decides to send himself as his son in flesh and blood. He is born to a human mother who is already married.

Not only did god ghost rape and impregnate a married woman without her consent, he used her offspring to sacrifice himself on display in human form. This along with the absurd celibacy rites of priests shows that there is something seriously ill with religion.

God is supposed to be an brilliant deity that supervises and watches everything. You are his chosen people. He is very benevolent. For breaking his laws, you will be put in an oven forever. You are supposed to both love and fear him. He made everything possible for you. He can read your thoughts and convict you of thought crime. He knows if you commit sin in your sleep. This sounds like an extremely fascist and inescapable dictatorship to me. You really want me to believe we are the pawns in a black iron prison of some gargantuan bully?

This is why I hate religion. It's the desire to be a slave. The eternal praise and begging. It's a demeaning totalitarian scenario where you are but a puppet of a more powerful entity. You have no purpose but to dance for him. I think this is severely ill.

You were doing great there until the hate bit at the end. Your description of Romanistic Christianity is fair, but you would think the genocide of the Cathars and the intelligent women of Europe during the first popes reign would be more mainstream in the minds of recent history. They talk about the dark ages, you talk about Cathars?
Religion is a book of instructions written at a time to suit the population. The ideas of the Romans have been took and forced upon a large group of people. It organises them, and motivates them. I was an atheist not by choice, my parents let me make my own mind up and never really talked about religion.
Religion has it's benifits, ideas, companionships, life styles, logic and fads.
Facing one's third eye to the earth is a way of looking for the etheric footprints of all. The third eye works as part of ones self. There are many million people that practice a religion.
An atheist would have a hard time on earth, not because of religion but because they were not willing to notice life through thier faculties. God or not, theres life. Theres plenty of religions the allow the revoking of a gods existence, well they gotta keep with the times.

[shadowhawk]

"Facing one's third eye to the earth is a way of looking for the etheric footprints of all. The third eye works as part of ones self. There are many million people that practice a religion."

 

Perhaps with this help we bmay be able to see better in the future.  The Atheists know the way,

[bijao~]

"Facing one's third eye to the earth is a way of looking for the etheric footprints of all. The third eye works as part of ones self. There are many million people that practice a religion."

 

Perhaps with this help we bmay be able to see better in the future.  The Atheists know the way,

 

The sarcasm is unwarranted and, frankly, ironic.

His/Her beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Claiming otherwise is pure arrogance, considering your "proof".

[shadowhawk]

 

"Facing one's third eye to the earth is a way of looking for the etheric footprints of all. The third eye works as part of ones self. There are many million people that practice a religion."

 

Perhaps with this help we bmay be able to see better in the future.  The Atheists know the way,

 

The sarcasm is unwarranted and, frankly, ironic.

His/Her beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Claiming otherwise is pure arrogance, considering your "proof".

 

You think they are valid?  Proof?  That is what I have been asking for.  Since your statement is about "validity," and you claim to know something about it, is there any evidence for Atheism?

[shadowhawk]

1. How many of you would believe in God if you saw compelling scientific evidence for His existence and saw that evidence increase as we learned more about the universe and the record of nature?

2. How many of you here would not believe in God until the scientific evidence eliminated all other alternate conceivable explanations for the universe and life?

 

How would you answer these questions?  Now replace God with Atheism.  This will show if we have a bias. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 April 2016 - 11:37 PM.

[marcobjj]

Atheism is a negative claim, doesn't have to be backed up by positive evidence. For example: no reason to believe it's cloudy outside, until evidence is presented to me.

 

If in your own personal experience you have evidence of God's existence then good for you, but most rational people won't just take your word for it. The claim is too bold. Likewise if you are simply counting the bible or what your priest tells you as evidence, then you must lack critical thinking skills.

Edited by marcobjj, 26 April 2016 - 01:25 AM.

[shifter]

I can say with 100% accuracy and assurance that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun. If there was one, the speed required for orbit (Earth is moving at 30km/s) would mean even a dust particle hitting the tea cup would obliterate the cup. Then there is solar radiation. Without a protective atmosphere or magnetic field it would be bombarded with unforgiving, unfiltered radiation. If you hang a coloured shirt on the washing line in the sun too long, the radiation bleaches it. Do you think the American flag on the moon is as pretty as the day it was planted? NO! It is now the 'Surrender' flag as it would have turned completely white! And that's if its still in one piece and hasn't disintegrated.

 

Then there is also the fact that a teacup is a human invention and nobody has launched or chucked a teacup out from a spaceship.

 

Whatever/whoever precipitated the creation of the universe (or if we are a universe inside another universe) or the original parent universe is a God. It doesn't matter if it was a mindless random singularity. It is humans who say a God must be omnipotent. Who are we to say what powers God has? Whatever/whoever started the process could be long gone.

 

Or for all you know we are living in a paradox and sometime in the future we create the very universe we are living in making mere mortal humans, God. :p Just saying

 

 

Edited by shifter, 26 April 2016 - 05:36 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Atheism is a negative claim, doesn't have to be backed up by positive evidence. For example: no reason to believe it's cloudy outside, until evidence is presented to me.

 

If in your own personal experience you have evidence of God's existence then good for you, but most rational people won't just take your word for it. The claim is too bold. Likewise if you are simply counting the bible or what your priest tells you as evidence, then you must lack critical thinking skills.

Of course a negative statement requires evidencee.  We have discussed this several times so I won't repeat tne issue here.  You are irrational and lack crital thinking to make such statements without one bikt of evidence and this goes for your logical fallacies as well.

 

[shadowhawk]

I can say with 100% accuracy and assurance that there is no china teapot orbiting the sun. If there was one, the speed required for orbit (Earth is moving at 30km/s) would mean even a dust particle hitting the tea cup would obliterate the cup. Then there is solar radiation. Without a protective atmosphere or magnetic field it would be bombarded with unforgiving, unfiltered radiation. If you hang a coloured shirt on the washing line in the sun too long, the radiation bleaches it. Do you think the American flag on the moon is as pretty as the day it was planted? NO! It is now the 'Surrender' flag as it would have turned completely white! And that's if its still in one piece and hasn't disintegrated.

 

Then there is also the fact that a teacup is a human invention and nobody has launched or chucked a teacup out from a spaceship.

 

Whatever/whoever precipitated the creation of the universe (or if we are a universe inside another universe) or the original parent universe is a God. It doesn't matter if it was a mindless random singularity. It is humans who say a God must be omnipotent. Who are we to say what powers God has? Whatever/whoever started the process could be long gone.

 

Or for all you know we are living in a paradox and sometime in the future we create the very universe we are living in making mere mortal humans, God. :p Just saying

The Topic is evidence for Atheism.  So far non has been presented.  By the way, there is a space station in orbit and I feel confident they have the equivalent of a teapot in orbit.  Russell was just ignorant when he made that statement.  There is evidence. 

[shifter]

I agree, there is no evidence for atheism however atheism is not a belief system where you believe that a God or deity does not and has never existed. It is a total lack of belief. In the same way a dog or cat etc looks at the universe.

 

In saying that, humans are a little different in that our minds have the ability to expand and conjure up anything we can imagine outside of what we are seeing. We can believe. Atheist arguments here fall flat when they essentially preach as fact there is no such thing as a God or creator because knowing either way requires knowledge. And knowledge about events that happened supposedly ~15 billion years ago which I don't think anybody has definitive answers for or ever will. And even then there is a possibility to consider that we are just 1 in a infinite multiverse. Without knowing what caused the creation of the universe, one cant say with assurance that a God did/didn't do it if the idea has been put.

 

Basically if an idea (only has to be an idea) has been put forward and you don't have the knowledge to dispute it, you cant say with assurance what the answer is or isn't. And that's where we differ from lower animals. We can conceive ideas. They can't. So is there any true atheist humans? Or just a level of agnostism that is more closed minded to the possibility. I would say a dog is atheist because it lacks the ability to belief (atheism = lack of belief) I would say a human is not atheist because it has the ability to believe. Even ancient Aborigines from Australia thousands of years before the God of Abraham was conceived, they still believed in something greater than us or this world.

 

In the end, when you are talking about things as infinite as the universe, you can only narrow things down to improbabilities. If you personally don't believe in The or A God, then without any evidence or knowledge to the contrary you can say its only (in your belief or opinion) improbable. Everything unknown but belief (either way) comes down to some sort of faith in the end.

 

Maybe in the human genome there is a faith gene or something and there really are people who lack any ability to consider the possibility or idea. I don't envy them

 

Even Richard Dawkins did not consider himself to be a 100% atheist. He gave 7 levels in his spectrum of theist probability with 1 being a strong theist where they would say 'I don't believe but I know' to 7 - A strong atheist where they say ' I know there is no God'. Richard himself placed himself as a 6 - which is a De Facto Atheist Very low probability but short of zero. His reasoning was that humans have the capacity to think. He later qualified his level in an interview as 6.9. The most famous atheist not considering himself as 100% atheist.

 

 

 

[marcobjj]

Of course a negative statement requires evidencee.  

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't. It's not real until proven real, innocent until proven guity. Reverse that order and you could get thrown in jail on baseless claims of pedophilia without anyone ever presenting proof. You know, like your bosses in the Vatican, 'cept they did it for real.

[marcobjj]

 

Even Richard Dawkins did not consider himself to be a 100% atheist. He gave 7 levels in his spectrum of theist probability with 1 being a strong theist where they would say 'I don't believe but I know' to 7 - A strong atheist where they say ' I know there is no God'. Richard himself placed himself as a 6 - which is a De Facto Atheist Very low probability but short of zero. His reasoning was that humans have the capacity to think. He later qualified his level in an interview as 6.9. The most famous atheist not considering himself as 100% atheist.

 

 

Richard Dawkins is also only 6.9 out of 7 on Peter Pan or the Loch Ness Monster not existing in real life. It's not really a flattering statement about God or Religion like you think it is. People can say they know there is no God, in the same way they know there are no gnomes or X-men in real life, and if you can't say you know those latter two exist than you need your head examined.

[shifter]

 

Of course a negative statement requires evidencee.  

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't. It's not real until proven real, innocent until proven guity. Reverse that order and you could get thrown in jail on baseless claims of pedophilia without anyone ever presenting proof. You know, like your bosses in the Vatican, 'cept they did it for real.

 

 

Negative statements without any qualification, proof to the contrary or evidence? Personally I like to think of God the same way as I think about science. Because for someone, something or some process to have started the universe is the ultimate in science and knowledge. If God is out there then he/it is the king of Science. And in science any statement or argument, positive or negative should be thoroughly investigated. If you want to dispute a claim, back it up. If you can't then simply say I don't know the answer. Otherwise you look like a mindless unthinking, arrogant lesser animal.

 

If people have no evidence in their 100% atheist 'I know there is no God' mantra then they look as foolish as those who are 100% theist who claim 'they know there is a God'. Because its not about faith anymore at that point.

[shifter]

 

 

Even Richard Dawkins did not consider himself to be a 100% atheist. He gave 7 levels in his spectrum of theist probability with 1 being a strong theist where they would say 'I don't believe but I know' to 7 - A strong atheist where they say ' I know there is no God'. Richard himself placed himself as a 6 - which is a De Facto Atheist Very low probability but short of zero. His reasoning was that humans have the capacity to think. He later qualified his level in an interview as 6.9. The most famous atheist not considering himself as 100% atheist.

 

 

Richard Dawkins is also only 6.9 out of 7 on Peter Pan or the Loch Ness Monster not existing in real life. It's not really a flattering statement about God or Religion like you think it is. People can say they know there is no God, in the same way they know there are no gnomes or X-men in real life, and if you can't say you know those latter two exist than you need your head examined.

 

 

Gnomes and the X-Men are fictional characters invented by human Imagination. Current religions may be human invented, even fictional, yet we still exist in a universe created by something unknown many billions of years ago. The proof is our own existence. Whoever/whatever started the universe is a God by any means/definition. A 100% atheist claims that there is no higher being / God / creator etc. Yet where did they attain that knowledge? Were they around before or the moment of the birth of the universe? Humans can think and knowledge is constantly evolving. To say you already have an answer to the most important and exotic question about the universe well.... You'd have to be... God!

Edited by shifter, 27 April 2016 - 03:01 AM.

[marcobjj]

first off, if you're going to accept "whatever" as God then you already moved the goalpost. What If a clash of particles was what kickstarted the universe? are you gonna claim that the particles are God? If it's not a sentient being than it's not God, period. And second, the universe doesn't have to have a starting point necessarily. Maybe it was never created, and has always existed, and your mind just can't process  infinity. In both cases, our existence would be proof of nothing.