What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2014, 01:53 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh look, another brain fart in the wind.

Or come out of your arse. Matters not to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Was that another fart? Oh dear me it is getting quite gassy in here. We will need to open a window soon to vent all of the bullshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-02-2014, 08:30 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 01:17 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 12:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Don't bother. Near as I can tell he gets his kicks here from wanting to be an atheist but do everything he can to never call himself an atheist, and hilarity ensues. Drinking Beverage

Given everything I've said outlines why I'm a strong agnostic, and why I deny atheism. How you come to that conclusion will probably remain in your head.

oh look coffee, double shot. Drinking BeverageDrinking Beverage This is probably the most pointless Smilies ever. :|

It's as if I'll never understand why you're right.

Ok, I'm confused here.

Gnostic is to know. Agnostic is to not know (or can't know).
Theist is believing in a deity. Atheist is to lack belief in a deity.

To say "i'm an agnostic" to me sounds like someone who says "I do not believe in a god. I do not lack belief in a god. I quite literally do not sway to one side or the other in any way, shape or form."

Most people lean to one side or the other, just a little. Which usually means agnostic theist or agnostic atheist... again... usually. Could you clarify a little on your use of the word and your stance? I keep reading your stuff and feel like you sound like an agnostic atheist, but it's really not clear. I mean, most people who are skeptical of any claims by default stick with the "abstain from" stance until there's good reason not to. Again, saying most, not all, so that's cool if not too.

Again, no offense intended, just trying to understand your use of the word.

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
03-02-2014, 08:42 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Nature is observed by nature. We are part of it and have no explanation for nature. We observe the mechanics and processes and think we have a larger scope than is justified.

You're welcome to propose that Occam's Razor is appropriate when assessing the confounding question of existence, just be expected to be able to justify why Occam's Razor (which is often applied to the simplest explanation) when we lack an explanation. Stating something unknown (natural cause) is more parsimonious than something else unknown (a creator) is really just a leap of scientific faith.

It's more parsimonious because one must then explain the creator.

But, uh, you knew that. I'm... not sure what purpose pretended ignorance serves.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-02-2014, 08:44 AM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(02-02-2014 03:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  By applying the fossil records etc it seems you think I'm a creationist or something similar.
You did say that evolution was not "Convincing" enough for you even though it is backed up by ample amounts of scientific evidence.
Quote:I'm not a theist, I'm agnostic.
Agnostic WHAT ? Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic atheist ? you either believe that there is a God or you don't.
Quote:So, if you knew this can you propose how the above discounts a creator?
What good reason is there to assume that a creator exists? Occam's Razor doesn't permit baseless assumptions like these.
Quote:why do you posit fossil records etc as proof of something.
Its proof for EVOLUTION which you just said that had "insufficient" proof.
Quote:It links the concept of something ridiculous and mythical to something we have no idea of.
And that is precisely what the concept of God&supernatural is..
Quote:If you can propose a validated alternative to a creator to account for existence, then all bets will be off.
Not so fast tiger! first you have to tell me why a creator is necessary for universe to exist in the first place.Drinking Beverage

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 02:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Was that another fart? Oh dear me it is getting quite gassy in here. We will need to open a window soon to vent all of the bullshit.

Want to hear another? I've been eating a load of beans and can keep 'em coming. I have found anyone with an over dependence on an animal cannot be taken too seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 08:30 AM)Logisch Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 01:17 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Given everything I've said outlines why I'm a strong agnostic, and why I deny atheism. How you come to that conclusion will probably remain in your head.

oh look coffee, double shot. Drinking BeverageDrinking Beverage This is probably the most pointless Smilies ever. :|

It's as if I'll never understand why you're right.

Ok, I'm confused here.

Gnostic is to know. Agnostic is to not know (or can't know).
Theist is believing in a deity. Atheist is to lack belief in a deity.

To say "i'm an agnostic" to me sounds like someone who says "I do not believe in a god. I do not lack belief in a god. I quite literally do not sway to one side or the other in any way, shape or form."

Most people lean to one side or the other, just a little. Which usually means agnostic theist or agnostic atheist... again... usually. Could you clarify a little on your use of the word and your stance? I keep reading your stuff and feel like you sound like an agnostic atheist, but it's really not clear. I mean, most people who are skeptical of any claims by default stick with the "abstain from" stance until there's good reason not to. Again, saying most, not all, so that's cool if not too.

Again, no offense intended, just trying to understand your use of the word.

No offense taken, it's all good. On different days, I will lean either side by a few percent and this is based on an emotive response rather than rationalising it to it's full extent.

So when placing myself on the spectrum of what I hold to be a valid position to hold, agnostic suits. While I realise atheists consider the lack of a belief to be an atheist, that's not appropriate to what I believe and why I have reached my conclusion. I don't base my position on what I lack belief in, or disbelievng what someone else holds to be true. I see no evidence to justify a belief that empiricism/naturalism is an appropriate stance, also given the ironic lack of evidence to justify it.

Our mind creates order from what we have perceived, but this does not equate to justifying naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
What sort of evidence?
Let's start with physical evidence and go from there!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 08:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 01:15 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Nature is observed by nature. We are part of it and have no explanation for nature. We observe the mechanics and processes and think we have a larger scope than is justified.

You're welcome to propose that Occam's Razor is appropriate when assessing the confounding question of existence, just be expected to be able to justify why Occam's Razor (which is often applied to the simplest explanation) when we lack an explanation. Stating something unknown (natural cause) is more parsimonious than something else unknown (a creator) is really just a leap of scientific faith.

It's more parsimonious because one must then explain the creator.

But, uh, you knew that. I'm... not sure what purpose pretended ignorance serves.

Which goes back to why Occam's Razor justifies Naturalism, and why is it used so ubiquitously in atheist circles. The presumption is explanations can be obtained to account for existence. If there is a creator, why would it be a necessity that a by-product of a system, could explain the creator of that system? Unless you can explain this, using Occam's Razor seems to be a contrivance.

Why do so many atheists work off of the assumption that everything is knowable? What possible evidence, rationale, mode of causation do you promote to validate this perspective. Applying Occam's Razor despite the obvious ignorance is portraying a pretence of knowledge, where's there's none. How does natural solution become more parsimonious than a creator, unless you KNOW what the natural solution is? A potential infinite regress of creation points from big crunch to big bang, multiverses, string theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(03-02-2014 08:44 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(02-02-2014 03:19 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  By applying the fossil records etc it seems you think I'm a creationist or something similar.
You did say that evolution was not "Convincing" enough for you even though it is backed up by ample amounts of scientific evidence.
Quote:I'm not a theist, I'm agnostic.
Agnostic WHAT ? Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic atheist ? you either believe that there is a God or you don't.
Quote:So, if you knew this can you propose how the above discounts a creator?
What good reason is there to assume that a creator exists? Occam's Razor doesn't permit baseless assumptions like these.
Quote:why do you posit fossil records etc as proof of something.
Its proof for EVOLUTION which you just said that had "insufficient" proof.
Quote:It links the concept of something ridiculous and mythical to something we have no idea of.
And that is precisely what the concept of God&supernatural is..
Quote:If you can propose a validated alternative to a creator to account for existence, then all bets will be off.
Not so fast tiger! first you have to tell me why a creator is necessary for universe to exist in the first place.Drinking Beverage
Circular arguments. You sound like Tourette's. I can't be bothered with another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: