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, 03:51 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 02:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, they don't.

According to the broad definition of evidence, it is.

Evidence: Signs or indications of something.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. -wikipedia


Quote:You do not understand what the word "evidence" means any more than you understand what the phrase "null hypothesis" means.

No, you just want to play semantics. What I understand is that atheists, have their own communal understanding of commonly used terms like evidence, uniquely defined by groups like this. In fact what you get is a circus of atheists, who go even as far as suggesting that other disciples like history that use the term evidence, are supposedly not using it correctly either. Your criticism here is more politically driven, more driven by the value you place on the term, then what the term actually means here.

In fact, if this was not evidence, then pretty much every intuitive reason driven conclusion, as the result of such external inputs, which make up the bulk of our everyday beliefs, whether it be the position that my wife if faithful, that my parents are my biological ones, etc..... would be non-evidence based positions.

That standards for what is considered evidence vary by discipline. We are talking about the nature of reality here, so what constitutes acceptable evidence is scientific evidence.

You want to broadly construe 'evidence' into meaninglessness. It is you who is playing fast and loose with the language.

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, 03:52 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:49 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You don’t see the contradiction in that statement do you?

I'll save you some time.

No, he doesn't. No, he won't. No, not even if you spent an entire thread trying to explain it to him. No, he will never reconsider his position. No, he will never concede any sort of point.

No, there is no point in engaging him.

Yes, I do it anyway.

Because I'm a masochist.

"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, 04:00 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2017 04:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 03:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Our understanding of the system state could be what's different.
Correct my equations:
Laws = order.
No laws = disorder
Order = Design
Design = Designer
Designer = Consciousness
Consciousness = Intelligence
Intelligence = Entity
Pre Life Entity with the power to create laws = Creator

Side note:
No 2 crystals are alike. Crystals are not ordered.

All right, I'll consider them even though you still haven't responded to my plea for info in a previous post 'cause the humans can get no love.

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Laws = order.

That's a strange use of "=", I'll assume you mean ":=".

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No laws = disorder

hmmmmm .... I guess in the literal sense of anarchy that's true but I'm not sure what that means in the context you're using. Randomness has its own laws it obeys. At least that's what Shannon told me.

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Order = Design

That would seem to imply that a sequence of 10,000 random fair coin tosses landing up heads is impossible.

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Design = Designer

In this case I'll assume you mean "".

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Designer = Consciousness

See above.

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Consciousness = Intelligence

One more time.

(07-02-2017 03:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Intelligence = Entity

oops, two more times.

Leave out the second premise 'cause it doesn't have anything to with the argument, if I read this as "Let laws be defined as order. Order entails design which entails a designer which entails consciousness which entails intelligence which entails God.", I find none of those entailments particularly compelling let alone obvious and self-evident. If you mean the laws of nature entail God in a Spinoza or Einstein sense, then just say that and be done with it. I can't argue with that.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
07-02-2017, 04:19 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  What part of:
Sagan Wrote:Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
don't you understand?
The guy is asking a rhetorical question. He wants the claimant to offer some testable and falsifiable criteria so that the claim can be evaluated.


He is not going to construct a stawman and beat his chest proclaiming it to be proven false.
What part of Carl's conclusion don't you understand? Me thinks you don't understand the part where he talks about an "open mind" and "waiting for data to become available"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 04:38 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The guy is asking a rhetorical question. He wants the claimant to offer some testable and falsifiable criteria so that the claim can be evaluated.


He is not going to construct a stawman and beat his chest proclaiming it to be proven false.

If it is a straw man, and the garage dragon can be coherently said to exist, then you can answer the question, whether or not it was intended rhetorically.

What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

"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, 04:52 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 03:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 03:49 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You don’t see the contradiction in that statement do you?

I'll save you some time.

No, he doesn't. No, he won't. No, not even if you spent an entire thread trying to explain it to him. No, he will never reconsider his position. No, he will never concede any sort of point.

No, there is no point in engaging him.

Yes, I do it anyway.

Because I'm a masochist.

We all have to get our jollies somewhere. At least when you engage I learn something.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The guy is asking a rhetorical question. He wants the claimant to offer some testable and falsifiable criteria so that the claim can be evaluated.


He is not going to construct a stawman and beat his chest proclaiming it to be proven false.

If it is a straw man, and the garage dragon can be coherently said to exist, then you can answer the question, whether or not it was intended rhetorically.

What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
It's not my position so I'm not going to defend it.
Who, do you believe holds this position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2017, 07:21 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 06:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 04:38 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The guy is asking a rhetorical question.

If it is a straw man, and the garage dragon can be coherently said to exist, then you can answer the question, whether or not it was intended rhetorically.

It's not my position so I'm not going to defend it.

So you don't read your own posts either, then. Good to know. Or are you just disagreeing with everything Chas or I says automatically, without actually thinking about it beforehand, and then tap-dancing afterwards when you realize that you don't actually have grounds for disagreement?

"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, 08:44 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My belief that God exists, as previously indicated is based on a variety of intuitive reasonings, and like any other intuitive based thought process, it's the result of variety of stimuli, observations, and external inputs, in which the conclusion here is inferred by.

And without scientific evidence your belief remains a belief. It does not equate to scientific knowledge.

(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And the plethora of stimuli, observations, external inputs, etc... that lead to me to the conclusion that God exists, by definition constitute as evidence. I mean this is how biological minds work, and naturally deduce what's true.

We are evolved, pattern-seeking primates. That fact does not indicate that the patterns we perceive are always accurate or true.

Nothing you cite counts as evidence. People of other faiths use the same "evidence" that you use but cite entirely different gods.

What makes you right?

(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The common suggestion here by atheists, is that we shouldn't trust our intuitive reasoning capacities,

Most of the posters that advocate science posit that science must be used to verify our reasoning. It is an additional level of confirmation and unlike prayer, actually works.

(07-02-2017 02:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  but unfortunately if this were the case would cast doubt on biological brains being able to determine whats true at all. If natural reasoning capacities can't perceive whats true, then truth would forever be an enigma.

Why are you correct and Muslims wrong?
Mormons?
Jews?
Buddhists?
Hindi?
Catholics?

How do you know that you are not being deceived by Satan?

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
07-02-2017, 08:48 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(07-02-2017 07:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-02-2017 06:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's not my position so I'm not going to defend it.

So you don't read your own posts either, then. Good to know. Or are you just disagreeing with everything Chas or I says automatically, without actually thinking about it beforehand, and then tap-dancing afterwards when you realize that you don't actually have grounds for disagreement?
Is that your answer to my question about whose position is the garage dragon?

I have been saying this all along, that it is a strawman arguement, that no-one holds onto this position so it is a useless argument. No-one argues for an invisible, non interacting irrelevant thing.
Even the deists believe their god created the universe, so at least it did something. In their view a universe without a god would not exist, there would be no energy and matter and no life.

So whose arguing for a garage dragon (as you term it?)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: