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
07-02-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact the one thing I frequently ask atheists, is for the reasons why I should believe my position is false?

Which position?

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet no one has been particularly keen on taking me up on that request, rather they tend to complain about shifting the burden of proof, etc..

That would be a lie. You routinely refuse to state a position, especially in regards to your beliefs.

There's also the fact that you have indicated that you are not here for honest discussion and frequently post under ulterior motives.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But perhaps you'd like to take it up, why should I believe my position is false?

State your position.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
07-02-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 01:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It was, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. You just insist on saying "you can't use it that way because that wasn't the original intent"

That's not my argument at all, where did you get that from?

Your continued insistence that "that's not what 'garage dragon' means". Or are you paying even less attention to your own posts than you do to anyone else's?

(07-02-2017 01:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  My point is, the way you present the "garage dragon" is in an unusable form because no-one makes a garage dragon claim.

Except deists.

And it does not matter whether or not you think it debunks very many arguments. Whether or not it is a particularly broad and sweeping rejection is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. In fact, I have gone out of my way, many times, to remind both you and others that it does only apply to a certain, very specific subset of claims. That is the whole point.

"Entities defined as undetectable necessarily have no properties, and therefore do not exist" is a trivial statement, yes. But that does not make it false, or any less applicable to claims like the deist god.

(07-02-2017 01:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  If you are suggesting that theists do this then you are straw manning. It is not a position that they hold.

You really aren't reading my posts, are you?

(07-02-2017 01:50 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Also, just because you can't find evidence for the existence of something, it doesn't mean that the something doesn't exist.

It does, if the thing is either defined in such a way that it cannot have evidence for its existence (a garage dragon) or if the evidence is missing where it would necessarily need to be (an elephant in my living room).

These are neither complicated nor earth-shattering concepts. I am uncertain as to why you seem to have such difficulty grasping them.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  we can go through each individual author's claimed version of said fictional entity and conclude that they do not exist individually.
Even that doesn't make any sense. Non of the fiction authors might be correct.

That is the point, yes.

(07-02-2017 02:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  They don't hold the definitive definition of what a unicorn or vampire actually is.

There is no definition of what a unicorn or vampire "actually is", Stevil. The claims made in the various stories are the definition. If you later found some completely unrelated animal and called it a vampire, it wouldn't change the fact that we still know that none of the fictional stories about vampires are true, and the thing that those stories were referring to when they used the term "vampire" does not exist.

(07-02-2017 02:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Why on earth would you go find a book in the fiction area of a library and take its definition of a creature as a definitive definition?

Why would you do that? It makes no logical sense.

"Why would you look at a lie and compare it to reality to verify that it is a lie? It makes no logical sense!"

You are a very strange little man.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:18 PM
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
For me the only god that exists appears to be the one my wife calls out to during sex. I guess that's me. IMO. The minute you pass you're fertilizer. That's as far as it goes for the afterlife.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are the one that equates a designer to something as fictional as FSM & God.

I never did this.

You cannot read.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When I said the statistics show improbability, that the universal constants are the way they are, you reject that claim on the grounds that "it has never been any other way for us to determine a statistic." (compare laws with other laws?)

And I was correct. You have not demonstrated that it was even possible for those values to have been anything other than what they are, let alone that they are weighted against us.

Until you can do that, you have no evidence for fine-tuning.

I mean, you still wouldn't - you'd just have the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - but that's rather beside the point right now.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I then showed you the standard model for inflation states that the (Newtonian/Quantum) laws of physics breaks down during that epoch.

And you were both wrong and going off on an irrelevant tangent. This has been explained to you many times.

"The laws of physics break down during this period" does not mean what you think it means, and even if it did, you would still not have established that it was possible for the laws, once they did come into existence, to be any different from what they are.

Not only does this "point" fail to be true, it fails to be relevant at all.

(07-02-2017 05:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If the laws go from a state of incomprehensible to comprehensible in the "blink of an eye" (within a closed system) it shows order out of disorder.

The function y = 1/x is undefined at x = 0. It goes from undefined to defined in the "blink of an eye". This is not order out of disorder. This is what is meant when they say that "the laws of physics break down" - they do not cease to exist, but the models used to examine them cease to be capable of accurately modeling anything that happened.

I'd go into more detail, but you don't understand, and I don't care, and it still isn't relevant. It still fails to establish that the laws, in their final state, could have been anything other than what they are.

You do not understand the things that you are trying to discuss. You do not understand the terms in play. You do not understand the refutations of your "arguments", despite them being presented in simple English. You do not even understand your own posts, and continue to go off on irrelevant tangents that have nothing to do with what you are ostensibly trying to establish, then try to claim victory when those are likewise refuted.

You are a waste of time.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
07-02-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So you don't understand what "null hypothesis" means, then, or how it is determined. Thanks for clearing that up.

It’s you who fails to understand the point.

It's really not.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  We can easily switch roles on the null hypothesis here with an alternative atheistic explanation

No, we can't. That is literally the exact opposite of how the null hypothesis works.

You do not understand what the phrase "null hypothesis" actually means. You just took a post from /r/debateanatheist that also failed to understand what the null hypothesis is, or how it works, and since its misinterpretation of the concept gave you what you saw as an easy out, you grabbed on with both hands and won't let go for the life of you.

Unfortunately, reality does not change to fit what you want it to be, and the null hypothesis remains that gods do not exist and we are, for all intents and purposes, a cosmic accident.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:This fails to differentiate between not accepting a hypothesis and actively rejecting a hypothesis as false.

You’re the one failing to differentiate, that I’m not speaking of an atheistic position which is merely rejecting a the God hypothesis as false, but an atheistic position that replaces it with a competing explanation of it’s own, such as a cosmic fluke.

No, I completely understand that.

The issue is that this is, in fact, the null hypothesis. You just don't know what that term actually means.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Well, no. It isn't. It's the null hypothesis, because it posits the existence of no entities or properties of entities not in evidence. It has met the burden of proof.

The position that we’re a cosmic fluke, is not a null hypothesis.

Yes it is.

It has met the burden of proof.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Which is evidence by the mere fact, that someone can use that as a hypothesis, and one can reject it without offering an alternative explanation.

Why, yes. People can be idiots without justification.

That does not in any way change the fact that "there is no designer" is the null hypothesis, and has met its burden of proof.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"Intuitive" does not mean "correct". "Intuitive" does not even begin to imply "correct". Unless you can actually demonstrate that it is true, no one gives a damn what you do or do not intuit.

A position based on intuitive reasoning, may be false, but it wouldn’t be comparable to a belief in a invisible garage dragon.

If it led you to believe that an entity exists which cannot be detected, yes, it would be.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The beliefs I stated here, are justified, justifiable, rational, and evidence based.

That is exactly the opposite of true.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact there’s very little evidence for a contrary a position, hence your appeal to a null hypothesis, rather than seeing yourself as holding an alternative competing hypothesis of your own.

You still don't understand what "null hypothesis" means.

(07-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But perhaps you'd like to take it up, why should I believe my position is false?

Because literally all evidence is against you.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
07-02-2017, 12:49 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 12:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It does, if the thing is either defined in such a way that it cannot have evidence for its existence (a garage dragon) or if the evidence is missing where it would necessarily need to be (an elephant in my living room).
These are not claims that theists hold.

Theists don't provide falsifiable claims therefore it doesn't match your elephant in the room position.

Theists don't hold a claim that their god never did anything or never will do anything. So your supposed "garage dragon" position doesn't match any position that anyone holds. (I do note that you define your dragon in such a way that you don't care if it did something or not in history, such as create the universe, but of course, if it did create the universe then it is an existent thing even though there is no evidence today to show us that it did this event).

Some theists hold that god guides evolution. Some theists hold that god guides them. Some hold that god provides a basis for morality. Some hold that god will judge them and send them to heaven or hell. Of course none of this is provable however it makes the existence of the god relevant to them whereas in Carl's story the existence of the dragon seems irrelevant to anyone, it doesn't stop them using their garage, it doesn't explain the universe, it doesn't guide them towards a certain lifestyle.

I mean, if you go up to a theist and tell them all about your garage dragon and then claim to have falsified their god. What kind of reaction are you going to get? Do you think they will say, "well OK that proves it, i'll no longer believe in god."

OR

Do you think they will scratch their heads and wonder what relevance your story has to their own position? They'll just think you are some sort of weird loser and try to avoid you for fear that you'll try to prove to them that Jesus didn't exist by pointing out that there is no birth certificate or something as equally insane and logically fallacious.

It sounds very much like straw to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:52 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 12:10 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no definition of what a unicorn or vampire "actually is", Stevil.
And yet you claim to know what one is and criticise me for proclaiming that I have no idea what one is.

I'll throw your own quote back at you.
"You are a very strange little man."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 11:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-02-2017 10:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Let's find out if anyone here agrees with you. My money says no one does. Except maybe Tomasia, but he's also a moron.
Try Rational Wiki
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

Read the first paragraph of that more carefully because you still do not understand it.

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
07-02-2017, 12:57 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 12:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It does, if the thing is either defined in such a way that it cannot have evidence for its existence (a garage dragon) or if the evidence is missing where it would necessarily need to be (an elephant in my living room).
These are not claims that theists hold.

Yes, they are.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theists don't provide falsifiable claims

Yes, they do.

Again, I don't think you actually know what the source material says. There's this whole thing about a global flood, and a few plagues, and the parting of a sea, and all sorts of other things. And that's just one god.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Theists don't hold a claim that their god never did anything or never will do anything.

Unless they're deists.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  (I do note that you define your dragon in such a way that you don't care if it did something or not in history, such as create the universe, but of course, if it did create the universe then it is an existent thing even though there is no evidence today to show us that it did this event).

This has already been explained. If the deists hold that their god created the universe in such a way that its influence would be detectable, then it falls under the same category as the rest of the theists, and we can show that their god does not exist.

If, on the other hand, they claim that it merely created the universe in such a way that it looked completely natural - that is, such that its influence was undetectable - it is a garage dragon.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Some theists hold that god guides evolution. Some theists hold that god guides them. Some hold that god provides a basis for morality. Some hold that god will judge them and send them to heaven or hell. Of course none of this is provable

If all claims they make about their god are such that they cannot be proven, then it is a garage dragon.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  however it makes the existence of the god relevant to them

Which does not change the fact that it does not exist.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I mean, if you go up to a theist and tell them all about your garage dragon and then claim to have falsified their god. What kind of reaction are you going to get?

It doesn't matter.

(07-02-2017 12:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It sounds very much like straw to me.

I do not care whether or not it sounds like straw to you, considering that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not actually read the things that you are responding to in enough detail to actually deal with them. Literally every "point" you raise in this post has been dealt with ad nauseam already.

The only reason that this is still going is that you insist on repeating the same nonsense and, yes, straw men over and over again.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: