1712 replies to this topic

[shifter]

Then those particles could be 'God particles' for all I care. But what created those particles? Why do we even have a goalpost? Humans put the post there but what information do we have to say that's where it belongs? Only humans have said that God must be an omnipotent being and fully aware of our existence. Why does God have to have sentience on a level we 'puny' humans understand? Are you aware of every bacteria in your body?

 

I see 2 definitions of atheism. One being a lack of any belief through a lack of understanding or being able to 'think' eg a dog or other less animal. Another is the 100% rejection of any possibility that something greater than us could have conceived the universe and rejects the notion of a God in any definition. For any educated human, I find this hard to swallow as anybody who has the capacity to think, has the capacity to reason and weigh up current and evolving knowledge. Hell, even Richard Dawkins wouldn't go that far in his atheism. Anybody who would cement themselves on that level would simply be a closed minded fool and not a friend to scientific discovery. Our greatest scientists and minds were not 'true atheists' either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shifter, 27 April 2016 - 04:59 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Atheism is absolutely a belief there is no God.  They want to act like they have no burden of proof by defining Agnosticism as Atheism.  We have gone over this nonsense several times in this thread.  Shall I do it again?  Ho humm

[shadowhawk]

Deff. of Atheism and Agnosticism 

 

http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/

 

 

 

 

[marcobjj]

Zero evidence of God existing, equals evidence of God not existing. So the ball is on your court SH. The day you present evidence of God, then the burden will be on Atheists to disprove it or accept it. For the time being, and considering you have failed to provide any evidence for the past, like 5000 years, their case is stronger than yours.

[marcobjj]

Then those particles could be 'God particles' for all I care. But what created those particles.

And then what created the thing created those particles? See If you believe in "starting points" , then you must ask what created the starting point. And what created the creator of the starting point so forth. its an infinite chain of thought, philosofically, anyway you cut it. Which is why the idea of a mandatory start or a creator is silly to begin with.

Edited by marcobjj, 27 April 2016 - 09:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Zero evidence of God existing, equals evidence of God not existing. So the ball is on your court SH. The day you present evidence of God, then the burden will be on Atheists to disprove it or accept it. For the time being, and considering you have failed to provide any evidence for the past, like 5000 years, their case is stronger than yours.

 

You have now made a clam there is no evidence for Gods existing  The topic is evidence for Atheism and you have changed it.  Typical bate and switch.  What is evidence you seem to know so much about..   Again you clame on one hand to have strong evidence and then there is non.  Gobligoop
 

[shadowhawk]

 

Then those particles could be 'God particles' for all I care. But what created those particles.

And then what created the thing created those particles? See If you believe in "starting points" , then you must ask what created the starting point. And what created the creator of the starting point so forth. its an infinite chain of thought, philosofically, anyway you cut it. Which is why the idea of a mandatory start or a creator is silly to begin with.

 

If something has a starting point then it does.  Ever hear of the Kalam argument for the existence of Gold/

[marcobjj]

You have now made a clam there is no evidence for Gods existing The topic is evidence for Atheism and you have changed it.

No evidence for God existing == evidence for God not existing. aka Atheism. Wrap your mind around that schitz. They have the upper hand over you in this debate. Your lack of evidence is their evidence.

If something has a starting point then it does. /

Right, which doesnt at all imply God. A starting point without a creator, aka Big Bang theory.

Edited by marcobjj, 27 April 2016 - 09:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Big Bang ls evidence of a beginning something Atheists have denied throughout history. It implies a creation point and fits with creation

[shifter]

Are you 100% sure marcobjj? Just because us puny humans (on a universal scale) have not located evidence, it does not mean evidence is not out there to be found. And maybe there simply is no 'evidence'. Maybe the fact we exist at all and can see the universe is all the evidence we can get.

We don't need any evidence or proof alien life exists in the vast universe. Just because we haven't seen one doesn't mean they don't exist. We can speculate they exist and call it 'probable', but what scientist would be so egotistical and arrogant to say 'it's impossible'.

Atheists don't look for evidence either way. They don't search for answers. They say the existence of a 'God', a creator of the universe or 'higher power' does not exist. It's like in a court a judge coming to a verdict without hearing or investigating both sides of the argument. Like a scientist coming to a conclusion on a question without researching. The only excuse for a true atheist is if he is an unthinking, mindless individual with no concept of free thought.

You can deny the existence of Zeus, Ra, The God of Abraham etc based on your own beliefs etc. Fair enough then, that's your own thinking mind at work. But that's not what atheism is. Atheism is denying not just current theories, but any theory that could ever exist, known or unknown. That's just ridiculous and no better than a lower animal who only views the world on primitive instinct.

Did magnetism not exist thousands of years ago because we haven't found or learned the evidence?

Maybe thousands of years from now we will know more about our universe to answer some questions. People like you are happy to remain in the dark ages never learning anything content you are right without researching.

There is no evidence for atheism as 'correct'. To all of these kinds of threads the answer is simply 'the jury is still out'. If you don't even send the jury you are pretty ignorant

[platypus]

Big Bang ls evidence of a beginning something Atheists have denied throughout history. It implies a creation point and fits with creation

Current physics does not deny the possibility that there was something before the big bang (a previous universe?), which exploded. No creation strictly needed. An

[platypus]

There are different kinds of atheism, weak and strong etc. 

[shadowhawk]

There are different kinds of atheism, weak and strong etc. 

 

My dog does not believe in God as far as i can tell.  Does that make Him an atheist?  Are you saying there is no evidence for Atheism?

https://winteryknigh...-belief-in-god/

 

 

[marcobjj]

Are you 100% sure marcobjj? Just because us puny humans (on a universal scale) have not located evidence, it does not mean evidence is not out there to be found. And maybe there simply is no 'evidence'. Maybe the fact we exist at all and can see the universe is all the evidence we can get.

We don't need any evidence or proof alien life exists in the vast universe. Just because we haven't seen one doesn't mean they don't exist. We can speculate they exist and call it 'probable', but what scientist would be so egotistical and arrogant to say 'it's imp

Zero is the baseline of rational thought. Its not real until proven real, not guilty until proven guilty. Has to be that way. If there was a burden to disprove unevidenced claims, then would have to consider the possibility of Elves, Wolverine all existing in real life. Thats a path towards schizophrenia.

Fair enough then, that's your own thinking mind at work. But that's not what atheism is. Atheism is denying not just current theories, but any theory that could ever exist, known or unknow

I dont know of a lot of people that think this way except maybe communists.

[shadowhawk]

The topic is, Is there any evidence for Atheism.  So far the answer seems to be no.  Just think if a Theist gave that answer.  I asked what evidence was.  No answer.  Now I ask what agnosticism is.

[shifter]

So I guess the word 'hypothesis' is not in your vocabulary. You may not believe in a creator of sorts for the universe but nonetheless a claim has been made and is put to you. Rather than be logical and have a view of waiting for evidence you already stake the claim there is none.

I could say 'I don't personally believe there is or has ever been a Big Foot or Lock Ness style creature out there' but that doesn't make it true. I could be wrong. To avoid being wrong I could qualify it to say I don't believe yet based on what I know but would change my judgement if further evidence is found. Otherwise to be sure of my claim I would have to explore every square inch of the water and forest where said creatures were found. And if no luck in this time, I would have to invent a time machine and go back to when the first supposed sightings happened. As it is, technically the jury is still out on both these creatures because no one has been able to prove and conversely disprove either.


Rather than just have a lack of belief, you have fallen for the trap in counter arguing the claims of the other side. Once you get involved in the argument then you technically have to follow through. Someone says 'a creator created this universe'. You then say 'that's not true, infact impossible'. While there is a burden on the first to provide evidence, you have just created a burden on yourself to provide evidence of your statement. You could have said 'that's your opinion' but you went for the polar opposite of the firsts opinion. Both sides have a different hypothesis. The fact the universe is even in existence puts the one claiming a creator ahead in the argument.

If you are so sure there was no creator like you say then you should easily be able to explain why in a way that could turn any theist around. Afterall, you are SURE which means you have facts. Not theories. So pray tell, what information do you have that the rest of the world doesn't that could finally put an end this thousands of years old argument. If that sounds silly that's because it is. That's what preaching atheists sound like.

Edited by shifter, 28 April 2016 - 10:29 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Of course I believe in hypothesis.  Anything can be a hypothesis but just because you made something up, that does not mean it's true.  It needs evidence to make a case.  You can have evidence for a negative and I am asking for it.  Just read this thread to see how after all this there is no evidence but a lot of name calling.

[platypus]

Lack of evidence for gods is enough. 

[shadowhawk]

Lack of evidence for gods is enough. 

 

OK now it is your turn.  I Hope you can read the topic.  What is evidence?  In your response you seem to know at least that.  Do you???
 

[shifter]

Shadowhawk you are too defensive lol. I wasn't referring to you, I was saying that marcobjj does not have hypothesis in his vocab. I started my post while his was the last reply.

If you read carefully I am actually in agreement with you on this. People need to be able to back up their counter claim because a counter claim also a claim in itself.

Edited by shifter, 30 April 2016 - 02:57 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk you are too defensive lol. I wasn't referring to you, I was saying that marcobjj does not have hypothesis in his vocab. I started my post while his was the last reply.

If you read carefully I am actually in agreement with you on this. People need to be able to back up their counter claim because a counter claim also a claim in itself.

You are right my friend.  I don't mind it one way or the other.  There is a lot of evidence for God but I would like to see what "Evidence" is.  I think they are just blowing hot air as they always do.  I am a better atheist than they are because i can think of a few ways to prove a negative.  I do it hundreds of times a day.  And someday  reread the topic and you will see the sorry way they argue.  All they can do is call names and mark people down.  This topic is about Atheism or I would post a list of theist arguments and see how they can handle them but not here.

 

[platypus]

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all. 

[Vardarac]

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all. 

 

You will find that there is no end to the mental gymnastics used to get around arguments like yours. I expect that it will be argued that just because not everyone can have it right, does not mean that someone does not have it right, or that each religion does not have part of it right: God is not the author of confusion, man is.

 

That's well and good, but like most theistic counter-arguments, it ignores the elephant in the room. Occam's Razor dictates that the absence of evidence IS the evidence (evidence, not definitive proof) of absence when presence would require certain assumptions about the nature of reality, particularly ones that run contrary to valid expectations.

 

This is convenient to theists, who can move the goalposts as much as they like by defining what expectations are valid or not.

 

If I told you there was a can of coke in the fridge, and you didn't see one after a thorough search, you'd assume (tentatively) that I was wrong. If I told you that there was an all-powerful, personal God who offered only one way to heaven and had a habit of intervening in human affairs, you'd expect to see some behavior demonstrating this on a semi-regular basis (rivers of blood? plagues of locusts? flood geology? regular defiance of the documented behaviors ("laws") of physics and biology?), but we don't. So atheists like myself assume (tentatively) that there isn't a God and by the same token any mythical creature that has similar reality-bending powers.

 

It's possible that a can of coke exists in a secret compartment of the fridge, or that some miserable bastard put it in the freezer, just like God could exist in a way that defies our comprehension, but without something concrete to back either assertion there is no sense in even wondering about it. It's the same kind of mental masturbation you'll see repeated ad nauseum in discussions of comic book characters fighting one another; lots of pre-defined logic, lots of completely ignoring the fact that these are fictional universes that have zero basis in any kind of reality at all.

 

Atheism is a rational position, but it should be acknowledged (even you feel that it's practically a formality) that it's tentative. Science takes a "maybe, maybe not" approach with hypotheses, but favors the null hypothesis unless there is evidence to the contrary for the very reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Which I'm unsubbing from. Because we've gone over this a billion times. Ciao.

Edited by Vardarac, 30 April 2016 - 02:17 PM.

[shadowhawk]

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all. 

You have to try to change the topic no matter what.  And beside that you are so wrong.  Why are there so many scientific views on almost every topic?  The truth is there is no truth, right.  Again for the umpth time, what is evidence?  From your statement it seems you think  you know.  So stay on topic.  Is there evidence for what you so strongly believe in?

[shadowhawk]

 

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all. 

 

You will find that there is no end to the mental gymnastics used to get around arguments like yours. I expect that it will be argued that just because not everyone can have it right, does not mean that someone does not have it right, or that each religion does not have part of it right: God is not the author of confusion, man is.

 

That's well and good, but like most theistic counter-arguments, it ignores the elephant in the room. Occam's Razor dictates that the absence of evidence IS the evidence (evidence, not definitive proof) of absence when presence would require certain assumptions about the nature of reality, particularly ones that run contrary to valid expectations.

 

This is convenient to theists, who can move the goalposts as much as they like by defining what expectations are valid or not.

 

If I told you there was a can of coke in the fridge, and you didn't see one after a thorough search, you'd assume (tentatively) that I was wrong. If I told you that there was an all-powerful, personal God who offered only one way to heaven and had a habit of intervening in human affairs, you'd expect to see some behavior demonstrating this on a semi-regular basis (rivers of blood? plagues of locusts? flood geology? regular defiance of the documented behaviors ("laws") of physics and biology?), but we don't. So atheists like myself assume (tentatively) that there isn't a God and by the same token any mythical creature that has similar reality-bending powers.

 

It's possible that a can of coke exists in a secret compartment of the fridge, or that some miserable bastard put it in the freezer, just like God could exist in a way that defies our comprehension, but without something concrete to back either assertion there is no sense in even wondering about it. It's the same kind of mental masturbation you'll see repeated ad nauseum in discussions of comic book characters fighting one another; lots of pre-defined logic, lots of completely ignoring the fact that these are fictional universes that have zero basis in any kind of reality at all.

 

Atheism is a rational position, but it should be acknowledged (even you feel that it's practically a formality) that it's tentative. Science takes a "maybe, maybe not" approach with hypotheses, but favors the null hypothesis unless there is evidence to the contrary for the very reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Which I'm unsubbing from. Because we've gone over this a billion times. Ciao.

 

 

So you are putting words into you puppet.s mouth so you can knock it down.  Still does not address our topic and what many Atheists believe..  Is there evidence for Atheism ore are you making a mindless leap of faith?
 

 

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all. 

 

You will find that there is no end to the mental gymnastics used to get around arguments like yours. I expect that it will be argued that just because not everyone can have it right, does not mean that someone does not have it right, or that each religion does not have part of it right: God is not the author of confusion, man is.

 

That's well and good, but like most theistic counter-arguments, it ignores the elephant in the room. Occam's Razor dictates that the absence of evidence IS the evidence (evidence, not definitive proof) of absence when presence would require certain assumptions about the nature of reality, particularly ones that run contrary to valid expectations.

 

This is convenient to theists, who can move the goalposts as much as they like by defining what expectations are valid or not.

 

If I told you there was a can of coke in the fridge, and you didn't see one after a thorough search, you'd assume (tentatively) that I was wrong. If I told you that there was an all-powerful, personal God who offered only one way to heaven and had a habit of intervening in human affairs, you'd expect to see some behavior demonstrating this on a semi-regular basis (rivers of blood? plagues of locusts? flood geology? regular defiance of the documented behaviors ("laws") of physics and biology?), but we don't. So atheists like myself assume (tentatively) that there isn't a God and by the same token any mythical creature that has similar reality-bending powers.

 

It's possible that a can of coke exists in a secret compartment of the fridge, or that some miserable bastard put it in the freezer, just like God could exist in a way that defies our comprehension, but without something concrete to back either assertion there is no sense in even wondering about it. It's the same kind of mental masturbation you'll see repeated ad nauseum in discussions of comic book characters fighting one another; lots of pre-defined logic, lots of completely ignoring the fact that these are fictional universes that have zero basis in any kind of reality at all.

 

Atheism is a rational position, but it should be acknowledged (even you feel that it's practically a formality) that it's tentative. Science takes a "maybe, maybe not" approach with hypotheses, but favors the null hypothesis unless there is evidence to the contrary for the very reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. Which I'm unsubbing from. Because we've gone over this a billion times. Ciao.

 

 

So you are putting words into you puppet.s mouth so you can knock it down.  Still does not address our topic and what many Atheists believe..  Is there evidence for Atheism ore are you making a mindless leap of faith?
 

[marcobjj]

There is no evidence for "god", except some feelings some people have. The judeo-christian god in particular seems unable to transmit useful information to believers about what is the right way to believe and worship. Otherwise, how come can Judaism, different types of Christianity, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, syncretistic religions etc. co-exist? Why does "god" "answer" everyone's prayers in these different denominations in just about the same way? God does not seem to care at all about the details of religion, or alternatively he/she does not really contact people at all.

They were all built by Jews. Judaism, Christianity, even Islam all product of Jewish storytellers. So is Marvel Comics for that matter, but Stan Lee doesnt try to claim that his stuff is real.

[shadowhawk]

You can't seem to address the topic and it has been suggested we have exhausted this topic.  So is there any evidence that atheism advances long life and hope for an endless future?  What is evidence that Atheism does this?

[marcobjj]

Also notice there is a correlation between intelligent cultures and belief in God. Among the highest IQ cultures, namely east Asians, Godless belief systems are prevalent. Confucianism is a secular system, Buddhists also dont believe theres a God.

[marcobjj]

So is there any evidence that atheism advances long life and hope for an endless future? What is evidence that Atheism does this?

Thats disingenuous as atheism is not a belief system, anymore than "a-unicornism" or "a-wolverism". Its just a natural development of rationalism.

[shifter]

Aborigines lived in Australia for tens if thousands of years. Did not believe in 'God' but a dream time theory. Probably one of the only cultures in the human race that didn't even invent the wheel. The belief in the God of Abraham didn't do so bad with out technological advancement. In our infancy we have always wondered and asked questions. Maybe that wonderment has something to do with why we are where we are today and not running naked in the fields in a hunter / gatherer stage of development.

If you don't believe the universe had a creator involved, fine, but if you tell others they are wrong, that is where you need to back it up. Which no one here has done

Edited by shifter, 02 May 2016 - 11:02 PM.