Atheistic arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2015, 05:56 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Most here would be open to change our minds if you would define your god and provide evidence. You are saying we need to defend our atheism with things that are not related. But when asked for the simplest definition and evidence for your, the positive, position, you shrug it off and evade.

You are a coward. I will rescind that when you define your god clearly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2015, 06:05 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(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.

There are many questions that humans do not have an answer for including the existence and/or beginning of the universe, just how life began, what exactly "life" is, how consciousness arises, etc

Theists posit a god, assume that answers all questions, and stop looking. Atheists see the god explanation as just answering an unknown with a bigger unknown. It doesn't actually answer anything, it is just a security blanket.

When you come to realize that there isn't a good reason to accept the god explanation without some actual evidence then you are still left with all the big questions. Atheism doesn't base its arguments, existential or otherwise, on scientific arguments. Atheists use scientific arguments to offer possible answers to the "big" questions that are still unanswered. Refuting any or all of those conjectures would not disprove atheism in any way since, as I said, those arguments all come after reaching the conclusion that atheism is the rational stance.

Let's try an analogy: we find a twisted pile of metal in the front yard one morning. You say that it must have come from a parallel dimension. I say that I've never seen anything shift into or out of our reality and that it might be an auto wreck, or that a plane crashed and this is a piece of the debris. If you can prove that it isn't from a car or a plane then it still doesn't make alternate dimensions the most likely explanation. It just means that I haven't figured out the chain of events that resulted in what we see.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
30-05-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Gravity is observable, testable and falsifiable. god is not, regardless of which god you choose.

I've already said I don't have scientific proof of God's existence. I was making an analogy explaining what "faith in God" means to me.

(29-05-2015 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Intriguing, tell me about this broader set of evidence, baffle me with your analysis, truly. I am open minded, help me understand your reasoning for believing that an invisible creative god dwelling in the unseen transcendental world exists.

As a thought exercise, do you also believe in bigfoot? if not why not?
....

Innuendos aside, I don't believe in big foot because 1) there is no scientific evidence for its existence and 2) there is no logical need for believing in bigfoot since it doesn't explain anything about existence. Whereas there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, but existential questions along with observations of nature logically leads to a creator and designer of the universe; namely God, or what have you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Step 1: Define your 'god' in a meaningful (i.e. falsifiable) way.


If you cannot do that, there is no reason to proceed further when you 'god' concept is a nebulous and meaningless as a Nork.


Good luck with that... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-05-2015, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 30-05-2015 10:12 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 09:55 AM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Gravity is observable, testable and falsifiable. god is not, regardless of which god you choose.

I've already said I don't have scientific proof of God's existence. I was making an analogy explaining what "faith in God" means to me.

(29-05-2015 06:07 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Intriguing, tell me about this broader set of evidence, baffle me with your analysis, truly. I am open minded, help me understand your reasoning for believing that an invisible creative god dwelling in the unseen transcendental world exists.

As a thought exercise, do you also believe in bigfoot? if not why not?
....

Innuendos aside, I don't believe in big foot because 1) there is no scientific evidence for its existence and 2) there is no logical need for believing in bigfoot since it doesn't explain anything about existence. Whereas there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, but existential questions along with observations of nature logically leads to a creator and designer of the universe; namely God, or what have you.

Actually they don't, but you've been indoctrinated to think in those terms. So you admit you *need* a mental answer, and because of that you assign functions to that god you have no other answer for. (It's called the "god of the gaps", and you have a lots of big gaps). You *need* (psychologically) a "place-holder" for the answers, (as you suffer from low ambiguity tolerance and high cognitive closure needs). Nothing "logically" leads to the gods, (as there is no coherent definition of one, or one that makes any sense). The fact that innocent children suffer and die is evidence there is no loving god directing anything. "Or what have yous" indeed.

Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. There are many internally logically consistent systems that are 100 % logically correct, yet do not exist. Logic is not enough. Evidence is required. There is no evidence for any god, or any "what have yous".

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
30-05-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 05:42 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Expect derision when you make baseless posits lacking substantiation.

So is that how you treat people you meet face-to-face when, in your opinion, they make baseless posits lacking substantiation? When you meet someone at a cafe for example?

The OP pointed out how atheist positions do not have the support of science since science can't support existential arguments, and so logically, when we're talking about existential questions, they are as much conjecture as their religious counterparts. That being my perspective, you're in the same position as me as far as scientific support is concerned; making baseless posits lacking scientific substantiation.

And then there are these posters writing sob stories about how I've dehumanized atheists in my OP. The hypocrisy is a bit overwhelming here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 12:00 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  So you want us to scientifically defend our non-belief but refuse to defend your belief scientifically?

You got it. Well, to be clear, I'm saying you can't scientifically defend your position, and neither can I. As far as I'm concerned, atheist positions are as much conjecture as their religious counterparts when it comes to existential questions, since science can't support existential arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 10:10 AM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 12:00 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  So you want us to scientifically defend our non-belief but refuse to defend your belief scientifically?

You got it. Well, to be clear, I'm saying you can't scientifically defend your position, and neither can I. As far as I'm concerned, atheist positions are as much conjecture as their religious counterparts when it comes to existential questions, since science can't support existential arguments.

That's why the practical and more openly honest position is one of not knowing. And not making assertive claims to one regard.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
30-05-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 10:07 AM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 05:42 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Expect derision when you make baseless posits lacking substantiation.

So is that how you treat people you meet face-to-face when, in your opinion, they make baseless posits lacking substantiation? When you meet someone at a cafe for example?

The OP pointed out how atheist positions do not have the support of science since science can't support existential arguments, and so logically, when we're talking about existential questions, they are as much conjecture as their religious counterparts. That being my perspective, you're in the same position as me as far as scientific support is concerned; making baseless posits lacking scientific substantiation.

And then there are these posters writing sob stories about how I've dehumanized atheists in my OP. The hypocrisy is a bit overwhelming here.


Anyone who posits something exists, without evidence to back it up, has failed to meet their burden of proof. You fail to recognize how noticing this failure, and refusing to agree with those who lack any evidence for their positive convictions, is not an equal but opposite proposition. You don't know the first thing about the null hypothesis, the burden of proof, or what it means to be either a skeptic or scientifically literate.


You can go fuck yourself off now, good day sir. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(30-05-2015 10:10 AM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(30-05-2015 12:00 AM)Clockwork Wrote:  So you want us to scientifically defend our non-belief but refuse to defend your belief scientifically?

You got it. Well, to be clear, I'm saying you can't scientifically defend your position, and neither can I. As far as I'm concerned, atheist positions are as much conjecture as their religious counterparts when it comes to existential questions, since science can't support existential arguments.

So are you saying you believe in the Christian God...or just a god in general. Meaning you think science doesn't explain everything clearly from your point of view--so there must be some ethereal entity pulling the strings?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: