Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2017, 09:18 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 07:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 06:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  The acceleration of the falling body is the evidence. The ground provides evidence of inertia.


Sorry, which is a really weak argument?

Forces are shown to exist by their effects; that is sufficient evidence.
If your only evidence for the existence of something is none tangible & all you can say is we can feel it's presence... You can see where I'm going with this right?
They are gonna play the hypocrite card.

Trust me stay away from that argument.

You are not understanding the argument. The evidence of gravity is reproduceable and accessible to everyone. We all get the same result. That is evidence.
Feeling a 'presence' is not.

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
01-02-2017, 09:20 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 07:13 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 06:56 PM)Velvet Wrote:  I agree with you about the argument strength, but we do have tangible evidence for the existence of gravity, we can reproducibly test it and confirm reliably that something is responsible for our results and that, which is the responsible, does exist, and then we can call that whatever we want, and name it Gravity.

What we might not have is any way to deduce it is exactly what we currently think it is. (as far as I know)
They are gonna pull the "Theory" card.
Eg.
It's called the "Theory of Gravity" & you believe in that Theory right? Well we believe in the "Theory of God".
The reason why I say it's a weak argument is because it's easily defended compared to so many other stronger arguments against God.

They are not comparable. Not even close.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-02-2017, 09:29 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 08:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This would only apply to a Complex description of God.
Some theists believe God created the universe to be self sustaining & then left it alone after that.

That is not an answer or explanation. It is just putting a label of no explanatory power on ignorance.

Quote:They use arguments from intelligent design as evidence (mainly the universe was ridiculously more likely to collapse within seconds of it's creation than to be here now)

Citation required.

Quote:It's a strong argument but pointless because such a being is of no use to me.
I'm just saying some arguments against the existence of God are much better than others.
If only all Theists were Christians this would be so easy.

How would it be easy?

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
01-02-2017, 09:31 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 07:57 PM)dirtstar Wrote:  You guys are confused. You can reasonably come to some conclusions. Don't go insane. For example... I cannot prove that God's don't have owners that are HUGE poodles and it's the poodles that own the homes the God's live in and the poodles have given the God's little universes as toys to play with while away at work.

I will now follow this up with a 3,000 page bible/manual regarding the poodle beings and how they require our worship via the Gods.
So to summarize... God owning poodles created the universe and that's it.

Now you have to respond... are you not prepared to just go ahead and rule that out by saying the God owning poodle beings don't exist?

Good. Gods don't exist either for the same reason. No evidence to support such an insane idea.

Nope. Haven't you heard the poodles were ousted by the robot army. God created an army of robotic universe makers (which of course he could do since he's omnipotent). The robots were tired of cleaning up dog poo, so they rose up and sent them all to poodle hell. How do I know this ? Because I've seen them. They do try to keep fit.




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
01-02-2017, 09:33 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 09:38 PM by Velvet.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
I think his point is that he rathers debating using the most efficient arguments and not the best ones.

Because theists can strawman some arguments very easily despite how solid they are, so he rather using the ones that theists have more trouble with than using the ones that are actually solid arguments.

I hope this is the point he's trying to get across.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2017, 09:37 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 09:11 PM)Velvet Wrote:  Chas and I seem to disagree in only 1 point.

His stance is (if I understood perfectly) follows from his belief that "If there was a god, evidence would be encountered, necessarily", If I were to concede this, we would agree in everything else that comes after, but instead; I defend that "If there was a god, evidence would not necessarily be encountered", meaning that, in this case, we can't (unfortunately) conclude nothing from the lack of evidence from any god.

Then, maybe if we were talking about one god specifically, I would probably agree with him.

But I find unreasonable to assume that the only way a god would exist, is if it was one that would provide evidence for its existence, I can (and philosophers did) conceive entities that would rather hide, and would be powerful enough to do it to perfection.

I'm not making a case for the existence of this kind of god, but since it could possibly exist, is not rational to simply assume that he doesn't.

@Chas, when/if you read this, I'm addressing you as well, I just used 3rd person to try to clarify where exactly is our disagreement.

I do not claim that there are no gods, merely that the utter lack of evidence is a compelling argument for the non-existence of any.

I don't know there aren't any, but I believe there aren't. That is not a faith position, it is a logical conclusion.

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
01-02-2017, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 10:04 PM by Velvet.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I do not claim that there are no gods, merely that the utter lack of evidence is a compelling argument for the non-existence of any.

I don't know there aren't any, but I believe there aren't. That is not a faith position, it is a logical conclusion.

For the lack of evidence be an argument for the non-existence of any gods, we would need to assume that if a god existed there would necessarily be evidence.

But we can't assume this, because it is possible that an entity exists that wishes to hide all evidence for his existence and has the means to do it.

Do we have any way to rule out those 2, or even one of those 2 possibilities?

Yes? Then ok, we can logically use the absence of evidence to support the belief that no gods exist.

No? So either we wait for evidence for the no-X, or we could avoid this concluding:

"it's rational to afford belief in the non-existence of any gods EXCEPT those entities who both wish and are able to deny the evidence of their existence perfectly, this belief is logically supported by the absence of evidence for the existence of gods"

That's actually pretty good... I haven't realized including this exception could "fix" the absence of evidence problem.

Cool, now I can hold a rational belief for the non-existence of almost all sorts of gods.... I'm now a 99,9% anti-theist, and 0.01% atheist.

There are still those possibilities of gods who simply fail to produce evidence because they are indistinguishable from their non-existence in regard to us, but those are obviously irrelevant.

That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”
-P.C. Hodgell - Seeker’s Mask - Kirien
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2017, 10:03 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 10:53 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 08:42 PM)Velvet Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 08:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This would only apply to a Complex description of God.
Some theists believe God created the universe to be self sustaining & then left it alone after that.
They use arguments from intelligent design as evidence (mainly the universe was ridiculously more likely to collapse within seconds of it's creation than to be here now)
If only all Theists were Christians this would be so easy.

That's a Deist.

About your critique of my concept of Joker God, is not the case, there's no faulty reasoning or ignorance of statistical inference, if you are interested research Discartes's Evil Genius AKA Deus deceptor, you will notice that is not possible to imply the non-existence of such entity, you can only make a case for it to not matter, in terms of it being indistinguishable from its non-existence, but that, despite Chas (and others) proclamations, does not follow logically to the belief of non-existence.

X being indistinguishable from no-X does not imply no-X, and merely lack of evidence for X also does not supports No-X, even when X is something ridiculous, and it doesn't matter how horribly originated, or how ill-founded are the theist beliefs, resorting to "we just know there's no god because it's fucking obvious" is not skepticism.

Also, despite what some others said like "its mythology from ages ago", the origin of an idea holds no weight on it being true or not, since any "wrongly formulated idea" could be right by coincidence.

In any case, I will check my etymology (once again), to see if I learn something new that contradicts (or reinforces) those standards of belief and evidence.
I have read Descartes & I am also a very big fan of his Philosophy.
Before anyone reads what I wrote below I just want to point out that I came up with this concept as an alternative argument for the classical "Something cannot come from Nothing" argument which theists use as their trump card.
It comes in handy from time to time.

It was due to Descartes I was able to formulate a description of what I think true reality would be like prior to the big bang.
I know many will debate my description but it seems the most logical explanation that would eliminate the paradoxes.

True reality would not have to be bounded by forward flowing time. A reality where consciousness (it's the closest thing i can think of to describe it) can exist. In such a reality all physical realities can be possible & consciousness can experience any of the realities it wants as if it were a movie.
Movies can be played, rewinded, fast forwarded, etc. Time has no meaning to a being with the remote control to watch any movie it wants.
In such a reality this universe need not have a beginning (common presupposition) because it always existed, as does every other possible reality that can be (which is an infinite amount of universes, aka multiverse). Since their is no set movement of time then infinity is expected.
Some will object saying without evidence such a reality is incredulous but there is grounds that such a reality can be true.
It may seem illogical based on our biased understanding of time, but remember time is relative & therefore subjective even in our own reality (time dilation). This means perception is superior to time. Time is tied to the fabric of space (hence space-time), but perception is not. Space & time can change at a rate different than our own relative state. In fact it happens continuously throughout the fabric of space. If your hand moved faster than your elbow, your elbow would be older.
What makes you, you is your consciousness. Consciousness does not age & is unique to every individual. You will always be you no matter how old you get. If your consciousness loves drama you will always love drama. You can teach your brain to deny who you are and suppress the true you but only because it benefits you to do so. Remove the benefit & you will always return to the true you.
Identical twins very rarely ever carry the same personality. Google it.

Is there any limit to the imagination? Is there anything stopping you from creating any reality possible within the framework of your own mind? (not speaking about some superhuman ability to change reality).
I'm simply saying "If consciousness is the essence of true reality then the following is possible:
Something can come from nothing & the universe does not need a cause."

Has anyone ever experienced this reality outside of their own perception? How then can we say that this reality exists with or without you? Can a movie be watched if no one is watching it?
Further evidence that we are conscious entities viewing a movie in play mode is the fact that all tests regarding sub conscious body movements prove that our body reacts to this reality before we are even aware a decision is required.

Whenever our conscious mind makes a decision to do something the movie player chooses a reality that matches that decision because all realities are already possible (the movie already exists, it's just waiting for someone to watch it), we just choose which one we want to see next.
I think the illusion with time is that we think it's smooth flowing but it's really just different images within the movie played one after the next to give the illusion of motion.

If this theory was true concepts like Dejavu are simply times when you hit rewind. Reincarnation might have been because your movie ended & you wanted a sequel. Realistic dreams might simply be remnants from an alternative reality we decided not to finish watching.
In such a reality, the only difference between beings would be which movies they prefer to watch.
It's really hard to fathom a reality without time & science js just barely scratching the surface of quantum physics & duality which is all closely related to time & relativity.

I'll be the first to admit this is all unproven but it does fill the Gaps way better than the God concept as far as Evidence is concerned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2017, 10:06 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 09:54 PM)Velvet Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  I do not claim that there are no gods, merely that the utter lack of evidence is a compelling argument for the non-existence of any.

I don't know there aren't any, but I believe there aren't. That is not a faith position, it is a logical conclusion.

For the lack of evidence be an argument for the non-existence of any gods, we would need to assume that if a god existed there would necessarily be evidence.

But we can't assume this, because it is possible that an entity exists that wishes to hide all evidence for his existence and has the means to do it.

Do we have any way to rule out those 2, or even one of those 2 possibilities?

We can rule that out. If it is undetectable, it has no effect. If it has no effect, it is equivalent to non-existent.

Quote:Yes? Then ok, we can logically use the absence of evidence to support the belief that no gods exist.

No? So either we wait for evidence for the no-X, or we could avoid this concluding:

"it's rational to afford belief in the non-existence of any gods EXCEPT those entities who both wish and are able to deny the evidence of their existence perfectly, this belief is logically supported by the absence of evidence for the existence of gods"

That's actually pretty good... I haven't realized including this exception could "fix" the absence of evidence problem.

Cool, now I can hold a rational belief for the non-existence of almost all sorts of gods.... I'm now a 99,9% anti-theist, and 0.01% atheist.

There are still those possibilities of gods who simply fail to produce evidence because they are indistinguishable from their non-existence in regard to us, but those are obviously irrelevant.

Since there is no evidence of any god, they are all obviously irrelevant. Drinking Beverage

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
01-02-2017, 11:28 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 11:44 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(01-02-2017 09:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 08:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This would only apply to a Complex description of God.
Some theists believe God created the universe to be self sustaining & then left it alone after that.

That is not an answer or explanation. It is just putting a label of no explanatory power on ignorance.

Quote:They use arguments from intelligent design as evidence (mainly the universe was ridiculously more likely to collapse within seconds of it's creation than to be here now)

Citation required.

Quote:It's a strong argument but pointless because such a being is of no use to me.
I'm just saying some arguments against the existence of God are much better than others.
If only all Theists were Christians this would be so easy.

How would it be easy?
Easy to debate Christians.
Let me give you an example:

Christians state that God sacrificed his son to make it easier for us to receive salvation.
Here is the dilemma:
1.
If God is unchanging then why did he suddenly change the way to receive salvation after Jesus came on earth. If he made it easier now then he was just being a sadist to the pre-Jesus humans. It's a logical fallacy to believe this and still believe god is Just & unchanging.
2. If Jesus was sacrificed by God then how can Christians claim Jesus is still alive? The instant they claim Jesus is alive it makes the sacrifice null & void. What can a being that can create everything lose anyway? God missed his Son for three days (2 days) & you call this a sacrifice?
3. Why did Jesus have to die (2 days of rest) again? To cure us from Original sin? You mean the curse God put on us that he could have avoided in the first place? Why put the damn tree there? If you really loved us get rid of the bloody tree so we can't get cursed. Remind me again what good did putting that tree there do for your "beloved" mankind? I'm supposed to worship this monster?
4. Why did God see it fit to let the babies of Adam suffer from Original Sin's curse? Paying for the crimes of others is unjustified & pointless. That's just how it is because a Sadistic God says so.
5. Ok so let's just assume that Jesus pretend died to put an end to God's unjustified & sadistic system. Why is there still preconditions for us to receive this salvation? Apparently he didn't pretend die to save us. He did it to tweak the salvation system to make it easier to be saved right? All this death & blood and crucifixion & pain just to tweak a flawed system from God?
6. Why does God need to be worshipped & praised again? If he knows he is omnipotent & unchanging then he obviously knows he cannot get more or less powerful.
7. How can God know he is omniscient. He can only guess that he is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: