Atheistic arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2015 07:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

Complete bullshit. As usual.

You can't reference even ONE place atheists make these "claims" that you invented as "claims" to try to "strawman" and pretend to argue against. What are you, a Sixth Grader ?

1. Atheism makes no claims of any kind about anything to do with any of the gods.
A-theism is the ABSENCE of something, not a "something". (Some atheists may find science helpful). God is not a gap argument that's replaced by the scientific METHOD. "We don't know yet" is good enough, when it's the honest answer. Yo don't get to make up shit, jst to make it look like you have an answer which you *need*. (That is fundamentally about Psychology, not science or even religion).

2 and 3. Not related to atheism. Science is a method that stands on it's OWN, or it fails. Science and the gods are not gap arguments for each other, (AND if you know anything about "religious faith" as preached by Judeo-Christianity, as faith in God is a *gift* of God, NOT a default position if you think a certain aspect of science fails.
All your arguments for your god are the "god of the gaps", and FAIL to meet the definition of "religious faith". (Obviously you know NOTHING about any religion).

Any phrase that uses "creator", "designer" is completely meaningless, (as Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WLC about in their debate). The reason is obvious and multifaceted. A god that "acts" cannot claim "infinity" in either direction, and NEEDS time to decide and to act. Other than Special Pleading that away, (a known logical fallacy), there is no way around that. Even the very idea of "existence" (of a god) is obviously flawed if the god in question MUST "exist" (and is therefore REQUIRED to participate in Reality, and does NOT possess also "non-existence"), thus Reality is and always was larger than any god. The question of where Reality arose from remains unanswered even with a creator god, (who MUST "exist"). You cannot define "existence" without invoking space-time. Let's see you try.

Too bad. There is no definition of any god or anything about any of them that is not complete bullshit, and most of all the Jebus god and his daddy, (Yahweh Sabaoth, the Hebrew god of war ... the 70th son of the Babylonian deity, El Elyon, and brother of Sin, (the god who magically turned into Al-Illah ... Allah ... the Arabic moon god) are all bullshit myths.

(BTW ID is an argument AGAINST the gods. A REALLY omnipotent god could make life work, no matter the design, and would not NEED to make up the VERY same design you would EXPECT to find if it had NO DESIGNER). Tricky tricky god that one. A trickster god. Thumbsup

There are no "atheistic" arguments, and none are needed. What IS needed is :
1. a coherent definition of a god, (there are none),
2. positive evidence that the ONE in question actually exists
....... and just having no better answer is not an argument for anything. So .... back to your little drawing board, dear.

In the meantime, atheism is the state of possessing no bullshit arguments. It's NOT a "positive claim" about anything.

(Are you a sock of someone from about two weeks ago ?)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-05-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 03:43 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 02:46 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  Atheism makes no claim outside of There is not enough evidence to prove their is a god. The end.

If that were true, I wouldn't be here Smile

It is true. Are you now going to go away? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
29-05-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 03:54 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 03:23 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Gravity is easily proven, and doesn't require faith...god is not, and does require faith, as there is no evidence, if there was evidence it wouldnt require faith, it would just be fact.

My point was, I can't see gravity but have reasoned faith that "it's there" based on evidence. The evidence of God can't come completely from science, that much is a given. So I'm using a broader set of evidence, but evidence, logic and reasoning none-the-less. No one's suggesting that a reasoned faith in God ought to be easy.

What is your evidence? I suspect it doesn't qualify as evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Frankly speaking I care nothing for your thoughts. If you have irrefutable proof in the existence of your god, kindly show us. If not, stop wasting our time.

(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 08:05 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 07:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

Complete bullshit. As usual.

You can't reference even ONE place atheists make these "claims" that you invented as "claims" to try to "strawman" and pretend to argue against. What are you, a Sixth Grader ?

1. Atheism makes no claims of any kind about anything to do with any of the gods.
A-theism is the ABSENCE of something, not a "something". (Some atheists may find science helpful). God is not a gap argument that's replaced by the scientific METHOD. "We don't know yet" is good enough, when it's the honest answer. Yo don't get to make up shit, jst to make it look like you have an answer which you *need*. (That is fundamentally about Psychology, not science or even religion).

2 and 3. Not related to atheism. Science is a method that stands on it's OWN, or it fails. Science and the gods are not gap arguments for each other, (AND if you know anything about "religious faith" as preached by Judeo-Christianity, as faith in God is a *gift* of God, NOT a default position if you think a certain aspect of science fails.
All your arguments for your god are the "god of the gaps", and FAIL to meet the definition of "religious faith". (Obviously you know NOTHING about any religion).

Any phrase that uses "creator", "designer" is completely meaningless, (as Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WLC about in their debate). The reason is obvious and multifaceted. A god that "acts" cannot claim "infinity" in either direction, and NEEDS time to decide and to act. Other than Special Pleading that away, (a known logical fallacy), there is no way around that. Even the very idea of "existence" (of a god) is obviously flawed if the god in question MUST "exist" (and is therefore REQUIRED to participate in Reality, and does NOT possess also "non-existence"), thus Reality is and always was larger than any god. The question of where Reality arose from remains unanswered even with a creator god, (who MUST "exist"). You cannot define "existence" without invoking space-time. Let's see you try.

Too bad. There is no definition of any god or anything about any of them that is not complete bullshit, and most of all the Jebus god and his daddy, (Yahweh Sabaoth, the Hebrew god of war ... the 70th son of the Babylonian deity, El Elyon, and brother of Sin, (the god who magically turned into Al-Illah ... Allah ... the Arabic moon god) are all bullshit myths.

(BTW ID is an argument AGAINST the gods. A REALLY omnipotent god could make life work, no matter the design, and would not NEED to make up the VERY same design you would EXPECT to find if it had NO DESIGNER). Tricky tricky god that one. A trickster god. Thumbsup

There are no "atheistic" arguments, and none are needed. What IS needed is :
1. a coherent definition of a god, (there are none),
2. positive evidence that the ONE in question actually exists
....... and just having no better answer is not an argument for anything. So .... back to your little drawing board, dear.

In the meantime, atheism is the state of possessing no bullshit arguments. It's NOT a "positive claim" about anything.

(Are you a sock of someone from about two weeks ago ?)

You can keep explaining until you're blue in the face. They will either fail to understand or they just don't want to understand. No more straws to grasp at, I guess.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 08:58 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Whatever your god may or may not be in the OP, all the innocent children born today frightfully deformed, those who starved today and all those innocent babies who died a painful death today, are irrefutable proof that even IF your Jebus were a god, the motherfucker is not someone I would worship or pay any attention to, or who deserves the title "god". If he were a god, he could have prevented all that, and didn't. Why call that monster a "god" ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 09:01 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Too many posts to respond to, but I'll say a couple of things. As I already said, I didn't come here to try and convert anyone, and am not sure why some of you are asking for scientific evidence for God's existence, as though I ever suggested I had it. In fact I clearly stated that there can be no scientific "proof" of God's existence. Science to me is just one leg of a larger stream of knowledge that makes evident the existence of God.

Having said that, the point of the OP was about atheism and science; namely how atheism often bases its existential arguments on scientific evidence which itself can't support existential theories. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative doesn't matter in this case. If I see a cloud and you make a negative claim about its existence, that would be nonsense from my perspective.

And I find it ironic that some of you are taking such offense at being compared to self-described atheists who's understanding might not be as nuanced as yourself, all the while lumping all "religionists" in one large delusional group of people. I was originally thinking of ending my OP with "Queue the ad hominem attacks, particularly related to my intellect" but then I might've missed this gem "Are you a sock of someone from about two weeks ago?", and this one "Ingersoll nailed your type over a century ago." Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
You clearly have no understanding of science. You have nothing.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
29-05-2015, 09:10 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2015 09:35 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 09:01 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Too many posts to respond to, but I'll say a couple of things. As I already said, I didn't come here to try and convert anyone, and am not sure why some of you are asking for scientific evidence for God's existence, as though I ever suggested I had it. In fact I clearly stated that there can be no scientific "proof" of God's existence. Science to me is just one leg of a larger stream of knowledge that makes evident the existence of God. ANd that's your bias. Science says nothing about a god, and the fact that 85% of the National Academy of Science are atheists is evidence that you CHOSE to make into "evidence" that which does not convince most. You STILL have missed the point about religious faith. No mainline religion says faith in a god "is made evident" by anything. ALL religions say faith is a gift of a god. You claim to talk about the gods, but are completely ignorant about religions.

No one asked for "scientific evidence". YOU went on and on and ON about science and a god, now you dishonestly reject the very argument YOU YOURSELF used in your own dishonest OP.

(29-05-2015 09:01 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Having said that, the point of the OP was about atheism and science; namely how atheism often bases its existential arguments on scientific evidence which itself can't support existential theories.

It does not. That's YOUR interpretation and you are unable to say ANYWHERE it does that. YOU NEED to frame the argument in YOUR own terms, as you are a mental midget. There are no "existential arguments". Atheism needs and has no arguments. Those who claim there is a god have ALL the burden, and cannot meet it. Atheism is the default UNTIL a coherent definition of a god is made and supported. No one has ever done that.

(29-05-2015 09:01 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Whether or not a claim is positive or negative doesn't matter in this case. If I see a cloud and you make a negative claim about its existence, that would be nonsense from my perspective.

Fallacy of the false analogy. No one sees a god, and IF there were really a cloud you could demonstrate it. Are you REALLY this stupid ?

(29-05-2015 09:01 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  And I find it ironic that some of you are taking such offense at being compared to self-described atheists who's understanding might not be as nuanced as yourself, all the while lumping all "religionists" in one large delusional group of people. I was originally thinking of ending my OP with "Queue the ad hominem attacks, particularly related to my intellect" but then I might've missed this gem "Are you a sock of someone from about two weeks ago?", and this one "Ingersoll nailed your type over a century ago." Big Grin

Nice try at deflection. Of course you start whining "ad homs" instead of actually ANSWERING ANY of the points. No one said you had to answer them all. You didn't answer even one. You are a dishonest troll. You CLAIMED "atheists this and atheists that" yet can't reference even ONE place anyone does that. You make up shit, and then tell yourself you are making an argument against your own imaginary arguments. Talk to yourself much ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-05-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 09:01 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Too many posts to respond to, but I'll say a couple of things. As I already said, I didn't come here to try and convert anyone, and am not sure why some of you are asking for scientific evidence for God's existence, as though I ever suggested I had it. In fact I clearly stated that there can be no scientific "proof" of God's existence. Science to me is just one leg of a larger stream of knowledge that makes evident the existence of God.

Having said that, the point of the OP was about atheism and science; namely how atheism often bases its existential arguments on scientific evidence which itself can't support existential theories. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative doesn't matter in this case. If I see a cloud and you make a negative claim about its existence, that would be nonsense from my perspective.

And I find it ironic that some of you are taking such offense at being compared to self-described atheists who's understanding might not be as nuanced as yourself, all the while lumping all "religionists" in one large delusional group of people. I was originally thinking of ending my OP with "Queue the ad hominem attacks, particularly related to my intellect" but then I might've missed this gem "Are you a sock of someone from about two weeks ago?", and this one "Ingersoll nailed your type over a century ago." Big Grin

I find it ironic that you seem to think a lot of us atheists have never been Christians, when in fact, many of us are ex-Christians. Many of us are also very well-versed in the Bible. There are even some in here with advanced degrees in Religion and Theology. You aren't really telling us anything new about God that we don't already know. If you have some *other* knowledge of his existence or some biblical passages or evidence you wish to share--then I would love for you to present it. I am open to hearing what you have to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: