Science is Dead
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2012, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2012 02:41 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Science is Dead
(26-06-2012 02:26 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I think that's what he means.
What's the point of mentioning it, though? It's an undisputed fact that you cannot disprove the existence of a non-physical being based on the laws of physics. The burden of proof lies with him, since he's the one claiming that supernatural things like God(s) and souls exist. He does this while providing no evidence other than his own experience, which is a logical fallacy.

I myself am an agnostic atheist, which means that I choose not to deny the existence of supernatural beings, but I do not believe in them either until their existence has been proven to me. Since theists have yet to provide a single sound argument supporting the existence of their God, there is no reason to believe that he does.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 02:37 PM
RE: Science is Dead
I'm not saying that isn't the case. Just saying and pointing out that appears to be reason. I may be wrong since I can't speak for him though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 08:49 PM
RE: Science is Dead
This guy is still here?

Christians are funny. When non Christians question their silly superstitions, they resort to personal attacks and red herrings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 01:40 AM
 
RE: Science is Dead
(26-06-2012 11:41 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-06-2012 09:03 AM)Egor Wrote:  Show me that there is no God, and I’ll stop believing in Him.
Egor, you should know that it's impossible to do this.

Then why should I be an atheist?

(26-06-2012 02:26 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I think that's what he means.

Thank you--exactly. If a person is going to tell me it's irrational to believe in God, then tell me why its more rational to believe there is no God.

I'm assuming the atheist has a definition of God, too. Because it would be truly moronic to say something doesn't exist that you haven't even bothered do define. If one wants to say that the Christian God doesn't exist, fine. I agree.

(26-06-2012 02:36 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What's the point of mentioning it, though? It's an undisputed fact that you cannot disprove the existence of a non-physical being based on the laws of physics. The burden of proof lies with him, since he's the one claiming that supernatural things like God(s) and souls exist. He does this while providing no evidence other than his own experience, which is a logical fallacy.

I don't have a burden of proof--you do. You say God doesn't exist, fine. I'm willing to believe that, all I ask is that you tell me what God is and then show how that God does not exist. That's isn't too much to ask, is it? I am willing to be an atheist--just show me why I should be.

Quote:I myself am an agnostic atheist, which means that I choose not to deny the existence of supernatural beings, but I do not believe in them either until their existence has been proven to me. Since theists have yet to provide a single sound argument supporting the existence of their God, there is no reason to believe that he does.

Something started the ball rolling--that something we call God. Now where's your atheist argument? Oh, I forgot, you excuse yourself from the intellectual battle by calling yourself an "agnostic atheist." Well then, I'm an agnostic theist. I am willing to disbelieve as soon as you give me a reason to.

(26-06-2012 08:49 PM)Monk Wrote:  Christians are funny. When non Christians question their silly superstitions, they resort to personal attacks and red herrings.

I'm not a Christian.
Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 01:47 AM
RE: Science is Dead
Egor, what makes you think there is a point worth arguing over here? Why should we try to convert you to our way of thinking?

I don't want or need you to think like me. I'm happy for you to stay as you are. What is this really about?

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DeepThought's post
27-06-2012, 02:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2012 03:15 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Science is Dead
Quote:Show me that there is no God, and I’ll stop believing in Him.

Aahahaha! You just made me laugh.

We can show you things like evidence and data, but we can't show you that soap doesn't exist, or that cheese doesn't exist.

We can demonstrate those things to be true. That's when the idea of cheese, and soap come into reality.

Things you cannot demonstrate, are as good as not existing.

Now it's do or die time for your god. Can your version of god be demonstrated as true?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
27-06-2012, 02:42 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 01:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  I'm not a Christian.
Really?

"

Interests

Motorcycles, taekwondo, Christianity, philosophy, writing.
"

To continue:

"I was born on September 22, 1964. I spent ten
years in the U.S. Air Force before leaving it in 1992. Eight of those
years I spent in Southern England, but now I work as a psychiatric
registered nurse and live in the New Orleans area of Louisiana. Both my
wife and I are longtime taekwondo enthusiasts.


I graduated with a B.Sc. in Liberal Arts from Regents College in 1998
and graduated nursing school in 2004. I am also the founder of Black
Spirit Publishing and the author of “The Veridican” a an anti-atheist
webzine dedicated to fighting the atheistic influence in our society."
Per http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/member/49192/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monk's post
27-06-2012, 03:22 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 02:42 AM)Monk Wrote:  
(27-06-2012 01:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  I'm not a Christian.
Really?

"

Interests

Motorcycles, taekwondo, Christianity, philosophy, writing.
"

To continue:

"I was born on September 22, 1964. I spent ten
years in the U.S. Air Force before leaving it in 1992. Eight of those
years I spent in Southern England, but now I work as a psychiatric
registered nurse and live in the New Orleans area of Louisiana. Both my
wife and I are longtime taekwondo enthusiasts.


I graduated with a B.Sc. in Liberal Arts from Regents College in 1998
and graduated nursing school in 2004. I am also the founder of Black
Spirit Publishing and the author of “The Veridican” a an anti-atheist
webzine dedicated to fighting the atheistic influence in our society."
Per http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/member/49192/
Umm I did this earlier and then apologized for that.

Also earlier in the thread there's a person explaining the situation with Egor. MoronDog was the poster.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ead?page=9
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2012, 05:53 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(26-06-2012 09:03 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 05:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Just what is it exactly that you know that noone else knows, and how can you show that your beliefs - any of your beliefs - are reality-based? Knowledge of the nature of God doesn't count here unless you can use that knowledge to do something that noone else can do. What can you do? Can you open up a new branch of physics based on the special interactions you are having with Nature? Can you disprove or require to be refined any scientific law or theory? Can you produce more food than other people and feed the world? Can you reverse ageing? Can you fly? Can you come back from the dead, or raise the dead? Can you communicate with the dead? Can you communicate with alien species? Can you identify alien species? Can you devise a new form of space flight? Can you locate exoplanets not yet known to science? Just what is your revealed truth?
No. I can’t do any of that. I can’t even say with certainty that I am right (i.e., that God is the monistic fundamental consciousness, that human beings are spiritual in nature, that we exist lucidly on our spiritual plane when we are not blinded by our physical senses, and that the purpose of life is to learn wisdom that we need to develop into the fullness of God). For all I know, when I die, I will not know anything—I will simply become void.
But my experiences in life have led me to the above beliefs, experiences that I cannot doubt without in turn doubting all my experiences. I have had real precognition (the details of which are unimportant since you don’t believe in precognition anyway), and the implications of that have led me to believe in God. I have had lucid dream experiences and other conscious phenomena that lead me to believe there is more to life than physical life. I have watched creatures, protozoa, swimming around with apparent will and purpose, and yet I know they have no nervous system whatsoever.
I look at the oddities of nature, the apparent design, the existence of contingent things, the theory of the big bang, and the evolution of life, and I think it’s simply insane to deny a conscious application of volition underlying it all.

Not believing in precognition doesn't mean I am closed to the possibility. That's really the point here. You have closed your mind to the possibility you are wrong in your beliefs, while the sceptical among us are open to any idea that has evidence to back it up. So I continue to be interested: What are the experiences that lead you to your belief? Is it only the precognition or other things as well? If others, what were they and why do you think these experiences were significant? If only the precognition then how did you determine that you had a precognitive sense? What did your precognition tell you and how did you verify that your precognition had been accurate? What was the method you applied to be sure that your precognition was real, rather than simply an altered memory state, self-tampering of memories, etc? For example, did you write your precognition down? Did you recognise it as precondition at the time, or only after the even happened, etc?

What makes you think that your lucid dream experiences are any different to anyone else's lucid dreams, or more specifically: What is it about these dreams that make you think they are happening outside your head - outside your body? What makes you think that hallucination-generation device we call a brain was connecting with something other than itself when it generated those dreams for you?

You bring up the protozoa fairly often, but I have never seen you delve any deeper into it than saying something like "they react to things and seem to have a memory, therefore they are concious". How involved are you in this protozoa research? Have you seen them and tested them yourself under the microscope, or are you relying on second-hand accounts and selected video footage? What work have you done to determine how they might be able to learn about their environment based only on the movements of chemicals within their cell membrane rather than with a cross-connected neural network? Let's assume they do have a conciousness of some kind, what in your mind connects them to a monistic fundamental consciousness? What is the significance of these particular creatures and their relationship to "God"? Why aren't more complex animals as significant or more significant? Why aren't less sophisticated structures such as rocks and crystals significant? Is there some cut-off as to what can contain and express this conciousness? If the conciousness is so strong as to be able to guide a protozoa and allow it to learn, is it stronger in humans? Weaker? How would we judge?


(26-06-2012 09:03 AM)Egor Wrote:  So, I want answers. I want an atheist to show me how I’m wrong in all that thinking, and just saying I don’t have a peer-reviewed paper to prove my experiences says nothing. Just saying “you can’t prove it,” is not a positive argument. I’m not trying to convert you to anything; I’m waiting for you to de-convert me. Show me that there is no God, and I’ll stop believing in Him.

I doubt your beliefs, as I doubt the beliefs of those who you are sure are incorrect in their beliefs. I doubt all beliefs for whom evidence is thin on the ground. Give me evidence and I'll examine those beliefs. I don't say "no god exists". I say "the God of the bible appears nonexistent due to self-contradiction", and I tend to think that that is true of all possible gods that interact meaningfully with the universe. It's a tentative finding and I'm open to new evidence and new ideas. In this thread and others you have spent your time telling us that you are not open to new evidence or new ideas, but here you say you are.

Here's what I say: Define your god for me. Tell me about its properties. If it interacts meaningfully with our reality we'll be able to make predictions from your understanding of God and we'll be able to find out together whether the God is real. If it does not interact meaningfully with our reality I'll have little to say, but I'll have little care or interest for such a god.

Now elsewhere you have also said that making any claim about God is putting that God into a box and is attempting to diminish god. Well, that's self-falsifying. You're already making clear claims about God, such as it is the conciousness that is driving protozoa to be able to remember and to solve simple problems. Well I ask you: If we are able to accurately determine the chemical processes by which protozoa do what they are doing will you accept that as evidence that your God does not exist? If we test your precognitive abilities and we find they are no more reliable than chance, will you accept that as evidence that your God does not exist? If your lucid dreaming only puts you in contact with things from your memory and your imagination, rather than real things outside your head will you accept that as evidence that your God does not exist?

If you are looking for a way to disprove your God, first let's talk about what standard of evidence you would accept for consideration.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
27-06-2012, 07:22 AM
RE: Science is Dead
(27-06-2012 01:40 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(26-06-2012 02:26 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I think that's what he means.
Thank you--exactly. If a person is going to tell me it's irrational to believe in God, then tell me why its more rational to believe there is no God.I'm assuming the atheist has a definition of God, too. Because it would be truly moronic to say something doesn't exist that you haven't even bothered do define. If one wants to say that the Christian God doesn't exist, fine. I agree.

Well, I would have to be constantly redefining something if I were to be looking to prove something exists. I wouldn't consider myself an atheist that deals in absolutes. I can't absolutely say a god exists. I can't absolutely say a god doesn't exist. If what I'm looking for would be the current god that people define in most religion, the abrahamic religions, thus far, I see no evidence for it since it would be a god that supposedly has the ability to intervene in our world but "lives outside time and space" since it supposedly created the universe. So far, I don't feel that exists since I see lack of evidence for it. It isn't that I'm saying it can't, or doesn't exist. I just see no good reason to believe it. At least not yet. I'm open to things should evidence be presented, I'm an open book, albeit a skeptical one.

If I were to go by the naturalist definition of a god, which some pagans go by (such as a few of my friends) that god is everything and in us and is nature and is everything we see and feel... well... I suppose by that very definition of it being so broad I could go with that, but I don't really feel like I need to, because life is fine without it in the first place, so why am I adding something that isn't necessary to explain life as it is.That's at least my take on it. Granted I know there are some atheists who would be "hard set" in saying "there definitely is no" or "there can't be" but to do that, it would require absolutes, which none of us have IMO. But that definition of a god could also be more not a literal interpretation of "a god" but just rather that "we're all one thing." which if you really think about it on a molecular structure, we can trace back our roots to the same thing.

I suppose this is going to come down to each person.

Here we have anti-theists. People who would say, "Well all religion is ridiculous and god is a lie." and to some extent, I feel that some antitheists are so aggressive, so biased, that they become just as narrow minded as the theist counter-parts they so despise. I can't say all of them are that way, but I run into them. Generally they're the young'n's.

We have some hard atheists would would propose it is impossible. If we say it's impossible, we need to prove it's impossible. We don't have all the answers on everything. So why would we say it's impossible?

I myself would call myself an agnostic atheist. I can't say it doesn't exist, I can't say it does. I have no evidence of the gods proposed. I can explain the universe without the necessity of a god or creator, therefore I don't see it as necessity in any way, so I don't believe in one. That's why I'm an atheist.

On the flip side to this, someone could say, "Well you can't prove or disprove him, so why is it unreasonable for me not to believe?" But that would be more agnostic. This could perhaps also be a form of Deism in a way. Since we're not talking about "outside time and space" and all the various definitions that most mainstream christians would go by. I mean technically deism is saying - "I think there's a god, I think it's reasonable, I don't feel it's unreasonable. I feel like it was created. God doesn't intervene and he doesn't seem to be a direct part of it."

Quote:Deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

Although I may be incorrect on my understanding of what you are saying, but so far, it sounds more deist than theist, but again, I may be understanding incorrectly especially since you do often talk about near death experiences and such.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: