NationStates Jolt Archive

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500913&lastnode_id=408148

Feel free to add your own from the other holy scriptures, such as the Koran, etc.

No--atheism exists because some people just aren't satisfied with what religion has to offer in terms of empirical evidence for the existence of the universe. The atrocities recorded in the Bible and other sacred texts are no different than what we as humans do to this very day, militarily speaking.

Atheism exists because some of us don't think religion complies with the merits and evidence of science.

No--atheism exists because some people just aren't satisfied with what religion has to offer in terms of empirical evidence for the existence of the universe. The atrocities recorded in the Bible and other sacred texts are no different than what we as humans do to this very day, militarily speaking.

Maybe that, but I also think one of the greater roles of non-believers is ensure religion is kept sane and benevolent.

Maybe that, but I also think one of the greater roles of non-believers is ensure religion is kept sane and benevolent.

That is until they decide to punish the blasphemers

Atheism exists because some of us don't think religion complies with the merits and evidence of science.

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Incorrect. Science has explanations on why and one of which is the big bang. There is no folly in my argument. Only in the religionist argument.

Incorrect. Science has explanations on why and one of which is the big bang. There is no folly in my argument. Only in the religionist argument.

No. The big bang explains how(or, tries to, anyway) the universe was created, but fails to explain why it was created.

Please, let's not debate this, you'll just end up calling me "fascist simple minded christian again", and go and be hypocritical, claiming me to be the rude one.

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

As far as we know, it is not. There are things still unexplained by science, and if anyone has an answer to this, a good one, please let me know, for my intrigue knows no bounds: Consciousness. How did we become self-aware. Also, life from non-life, if you will, since that's impossible. I already know that the big bang started when two massive opposite energies collided, but I want to know more about us, as a part of the universe.

Also, I wish I'd read my bible a while back, I probably would have lost my faith sooner than I did (Christ-free for close to a year now)

That is until they decide to punish the blasphemers

Please give one example of this.

No. The big bang explains how(or, tries to, anyway) the universe was created, but fails to explain why it was created.

Please, let's not debate this, you'll just end up calling me "fascist simple minded christian again", and go and be hypocritical, claiming me to be the rude one.

It does explain how. There is no need to explain why because no one knows. Christianity doesn't explain how either (how was god created). I'm not hypocritical. I accept only the facts.

Atheism is a religion just like all the others; it just happens to be the belief that there is no god, its still belief though

as for why it exists, there is no way of saying that as to saying why Christianity exists, or why bhuddism exists, or why hinduism exists etc etc

basically, youre completely wrong, no one thing can be the "reason" a religion exists

Atheism is a religion just like all the others; it just happens to be the belief that there is no god, its still belief though

as for why it exists, there is no way of saying that as to saying why Christianity exists, or why bhuddism exists, or why hinduism exists etc etc

basically, youre completely wrong, no one thing can be the "reason" a religion exists

Atheism isn't a religion. It doesn't have an organized structure.

Atheism isn't a religion. It doesn't have an organized structure.

Yeah Sval, it's not a religion. A belief system, yes, but not a religion. An interpretation of the word atheism could literally mean "no religion".

It does explain how. There is no need to explain why because no one knows. Christianity doesn't explain how either (how was god created). I'm not hypocritical. I accept only the facts.

OMG......

That is exactly why an explanation is needed...Science simply cannot explain that, it's a matter of faith.

Read this (http://www.ideacenter.org/), it's a site about the scientific background of intelligent design. You'll find no religion, except in the article comparing the two.

This is why we have religion, because we simply cannot physically explain the why of the universe.

Atheism is a religion just like all the others; it just happens to be the belief that there is no god, its still belief though

as for why it exists, there is no way of saying that as to saying why Christianity exists, or why bhuddism exists, or why hinduism exists etc etc

basically, youre completely wrong, no one thing can be the "reason" a religion exists

Slow down there, buddy. I never meant to give JUST ONE REASON why atheistism exists (thread titles are often misleading.

OMG......

That is exactly why an explanation is needed...Science simply cannot explain that, it's a matter of faith.

Read this (http://www.ideacenter.org/), it's a site about the scientific background of intelligent design. You'll find no religion, except in the article comparing the two.

This is why we have religion, because we simply cannot physically explain the why of the universe.

Intelligent Design is totally bogus. I'm sorry but I'm not going into that again. I've already explained why its authors are just really creationists trying to abuse science for their own goals. I'm not accepting that theory as it has zero evidence.

We can explain the universe by the big bang. Hopefully in the future religion will serve no purpose. Religion was used as a form of coercion and control.

Intelligent Design is totally bogus. I'm sorry but I'm not going into that again. I've already explained why its authors are just really creationists trying to abuse science for their own goals. I'm not accepting that theory as it has zero evidence.

We can explain the universe by the big bang. Hopefully in the future religion will serve no purpose. Religion was used as a form of coercion and control.

So much for being open minded, eh? The site has plenty of scientific evidence. Read it. Honestly, I just think you're afraid you'll find something that may just contradict your beliefs.

We can explain the how of the universe with the big bang. We cannot, however, explain the why. Religion is used to explain the why, not as a reason to control people.

So much for being open minded, eh? The site has plenty of scientific evidence. Read it. Honestly, I just think you're afraid you'll find something that may just contradict your beliefs.

We can explain the how of the universe with the big bang. We cannot, however, explain the why.

No. Scientific evidence does not go with the Intelligent Design theory. The intelligent design theory is based on ridiculous claims and it can't contradict my beliefs because it isn't factual. So no sorry. It is more like ridiculous jumps of assumption.

Intelligent Design =/= Science

You can read the truth here: www.talkorigins.org

Religion doesn't explain why. it is assumptions made by humans. It is also used as a form of control.

No. Scientific evidence does not go with the Intelligent Design theory. The intelligent design theory is based on ridiculous claims and it doesn't contradict my beliefs. So no sorry. It is more like ridiculous jumps of assumption.

Intelligent Design =/= Science

You can read the truth here: www.talkorigins.org

Religion doesn't explain why. it is assumptions made by humans. It is also used as a form of control.

OFF-TOPIC.

No. Scientific evidence does not go with the Intelligent Design theory. The intelligent design theory is based on ridiculous claims and it can't contradict my beliefs because it isn't factual. So no sorry. It is more like ridiculous jumps of assumption.

Intelligent Design =/= Science

You can read the truth here: www.talkorigins.org

Religion doesn't explain why. it is assumptions made by humans. It is also used as a form of control.

Believe me, I've read that site. Very informative, indeed.

The site is nothing but science, there is absolutely no religion involved in it at all. It'll science your face off.

Read these (http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/articles.php) articles, and tell me there is no science.

Edit: I'm sorry about the thread hi-jacking, all my fault. Mesa said something that I felt needed to be rebutted.

Believe me, I've read that site. Very informative, indeed.

The site is nothing but science, there is absolutely no religion involved in it at all. It'll science your face off.

Read these (http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/articles.php) articles, and tell me there is no science.

Edit: I'm sorry about the thread hi-jacking, all my fault.

That's ridiculous. Intelligent Design is not science and has nothing to do with science. That site just makes a bunch of assumptions. First off check out: www.talkorigins.org - They have a ton of real factual articles on there that correctly applies science.

This is why intelligent design has been rejected. It is just creationism and still has no evidence. It tries to sugarcoat but that still doesn't work after the lies have been exposed.

Also prove god.

Incorrect. Science has explanations on why and one of which is the big bang. There is no folly in my argument. Only in the religionist argument.

You and I are both intelligent people: explain to me in terms of science why there is something rather than nothing.

You know, i cant stand the bible. I cant stand the church. Far too many people have died in the name of christ and all that is holy. Poverty in the world and meanwhile St Pauls Cathedral is draped in gold. Not having a go at anything in particular and i apologise for mentioning christianity only. But i'll leave it. Im just agreeing with the original link there. Ignore whats convenient.
Im scientifically minded. I believe god exists. As far as im concerned the science is trying to explain how the world works. How the world that god created works. Why would you let the bible tell you what to believe? My god is not responsible for atrocities in the world. Hes not a puppet master. What he did was create a universe that is by anyones standards absolutely incredible. I love him for that. I dont care what path you take to reach god or if you choose no path at all. This is because you dont need a holy book or a love for god to be a good person. I wish more people would accept this before trying to force it down everyones throats.

You and I are both intelligent people: explain to me in terms of science why there is something rather than nothing.

Do you always resort to logical fallacies?

That's ridiculous. Intelligent Design is not science and has nothing to do with science. That site just makes a bunch of assumptions. First off check out: www.talkorigins.org - They have a ton of real factual articles on there that correctly applies science.

This is why intelligent design has been rejected. It is just creationism and still has no evidence. It tries to sugarcoat but that still doesn't work after the lies have been exposed.

Also prove god.

I have looked at talkorigins many times; it makes a good case for evolution. However, you are missing the point. Evolution explains how, but cannot explain why. This is what ID deals with....it correctly applies the scientific method through observation. It makes no assumptions, only logically applies the scientific method to the origin of life, and the information that we came from. ID has not been rejected. It is a valid theory just as evolution is.

I cannot prove God; and you cannot disprove God, it is simply a matter of faith. ID does not try to prove that the christian God, or any God for that matter, exists, merely that some higher power must have designed us; through evolution, through creation, or another method.

Do you always resort to logical fallacies?

Nope. I'm just pointing out that the Big Bang is a scientific explanation of how the cosmos exists, not why. Scientific method can't really explain the 'why' of anything - it can explain that a certain phenomenon happens at a certain rate because of a certain constant or because it is in accordance with a posited law, but it falls down when it comes to the philosophically hard questions for which some people turn to religion in the hope of answers.

Is this a failing of science? No, just one of its limits.


What exact logical fallacy was I committing in my previous post? I'd be enlightened to learn that the most basic question of ontology was in fact a fallacy.

Oi, very sorry Zexaland, but I must.

Alright, Mesa. The Big Bang theory explains that everything was condensed into this tiny little thing, right? And then something caused it to explode. That explains how the universe is the way it is, but not where all this stuff came from. Has religion been used to control people? Do I need to answer this? Of course it has. But is that it's sole purpose? No, at least not anymore. The human brain wants answers, and that's why religion was created. This was manipulated by people, and that's how religion came to be used for control purposes. I believe there is something greater than us that caused the universe to be created, that created matter from nothing, life from non-life, which you still haven't answered me, scientifically, how consciousness and life came to be.

You know, i cant stand the bible. I cant stand the church. Far too many people have died in the name of christ and all that is holy. Poverty in the world and meanwhile St Pauls Cathedral is draped in gold. Not having a go at anything in particular. Im just agreeing with the original link there. Ignore whats convenient.
Im scientifically minded. I believe god exists. As far as im concerned the science is trying to explain how the world works. How the world that god created works. Why would you let the bible tell you what to believe? My god is not responsible for atrocities nor can he take credit for the great things that people do for one another and the world. What he did was create a universe that is by anyones standards absolutely incredible. Big deal. I dont care what path you take to reach god or if you choose no path at all. This is because you dont need a holy book or a love for god to be a good person. I wish more people would accept this before trying to force it down everyones throats.

Here here!

or over there?

This is what ID deals with....it correctly applies the scientific method through observation. It makes no assumptions, only logically applies the scientific method to the origin of life, and the information that we came from. ID has not been rejected. It is a valid theory just as evolution is.

ID is based on assumptions, not scientific fact. It cannot prove god, therefore is not valid. It doesn't apply science properly. I will not hijack this thread anymore then it has. ID doesn't prove that some higher power exists.

In fact I'm atheist and staying atheist. Thank you very much.

Nope. I'm just pointing out that the Big Bang is a scientific explanation of how the cosmos exists, not why. Scientific method can't really explain the 'why' of anything - it can explain that a certain phenomenon happens at a certain rate because of a certain constant or because it is in accordance with a posited law, but it falls down when it comes to the philosophically hard questions for which some people turn to religion in the hope of answers.

There is no way anyone can answer "why" and religion isn't good enough. Religion is nonsense to me. And you are not going to cram it down my throat. I don't have an answer to why. I have an answer to how. Nobody has an answer to why.

I believe there is something greater than us that caused the universe to be created, that created matter from nothing, life from non-life, which you still haven't answered me, scientifically, how consciousness and life came to be.

Science has perfectly good, if somewhat tentative explanations for both of these. The first - consciousness - on the basis of reaction experiments it appears that 'our' body acts before we make a conscious decision telling it to, and thus consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon which is likely just an emergent characteristic of the complexity of our brains and is in fact mainly of an illusory nature in that most of the characteristics we ascribe to it do not in fact seem to be actually inherent in it. The second - how life came to be - the random agglutination of complex chemicals through reactions and admixture such that a self-sustaining and reproducing variety of processes were created provided that the proper means of physical support continued to be available to them.


EDIT: Do these theories give full and fulfilling answers to the questions? No, certainly not, tehse remain hard questions but science allows us to approach them in new ways and provides startling revelations which are not available through other forms of inquiry - for example, the data suggesting that consciousness is epiphenomenal. This has long been a possibility considered by philosophers, but until the application of science it was as valid a possibility as any other, whereas now there is at least some evidence to support it as an interpretation.

ID has not been rejected. It is a valid theory just as evolution is.

No, it's not.

It's not testable, and to the small extent that it is falsifiable, it's been falsified. (That is to say, where ID asserts things like "There is no intermediate stage of eyeball evolution which could be at all useful," scientists have demonstrated intermediate stages of eyeball evolution which could be at all useful, and so forth.) It is not a scientific theory. It's a perfectly fine theological argument, but it has nothing to do with science.

On the original topic, I wonder if in the "hacker" version of the Bible I heard about recently, "utterly destroyed" translates as "t0t@lly pwnz0r3d!!1!!" Because that would just be awesome. :)

ID is based on assumptions, not scientific fact. It cannot prove god, therefore is not valid. It doesn't apply science properly. I will not hijack this thread anymore then it has. ID doesn't prove that some higher power exists.

In fact I'm atheist and staying atheist. Thank you very much.

It is based on the application of the scientific method; as is evolution. It cannot prove God, but that is not what the theory is trying to prove; that some higher power must have designed us. Does it prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but it makes a good case for it, as the evolution theory makes a good case for evolution. Both are valid theories.

I don't care that you're an atheist, I care that you think anything that contradicts what you believe is automatically false.

Mesa, can you prove the laws of science? No, you can only assume them to be true. Everyone assumes them to be true, and I'm sure that they are. The reason why they became laws was because noone disproved them. Shouldn't that mean that we don't have to prove a god exists, but rather, that you must prove that no god exists?

There is no way anyone can answer "why"


which is a bit of a retreat from your earlier claim that...

Science has explanations on why and one of which is the big bang.

... which is fair enough.


and religion isn't good enough. Religion is nonsense to me. And you are not going to cram it down my throat.

I have absolutely no desire to ram religion down anyone's throat here, I'm on the side of philosophical and scientific method here.

I don't have an answer to why. I have an answer to how. Nobody has an answer to why.

There does not yet seem to be an answer to the 'why?' question, but that does not mean that investigating it through the various appropriate disciplines is useless: science, philosophy and religion have all so far failed to produce satisfactory answers, but this does not mean that some other modified version or entirely new discipline could not answer the question.

It is based on the application of the scientific method; as is evolution. It cannot prove God, but that is not what the theory is trying to prove; that some higher power must have designed us. Does it prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? No, but it makes a good case for it, as the evolution theory makes a good case for evolution. Both are valid theories.

I don't care that you're an atheist, I care that you think anything that contradicts what you believe is automatically false.

It is not based on the scientific method, and intelligent design for the most part has been rejected and is not testable. Evolution is a hundred times more solid in explaining how life evolves. It doesn't make a good case for a higher power. Evolution is a valid theory. Intelligent design is not. This is why ID for the most part isn't taught in schools.

I am a strong atheist. There is no god or higher power.

However, you are missing the point. Evolution explains how, but cannot explain why.

Why must their be an explaination for "why"?

Atheism is a religion just like all the others

I agree completely.

I know that it isn't a religion by definition, but it definitely is treated as one. The only reason people get offened when Atheism is called a religion is it puts them on the same level as the people they consider wrong. Sure, Atheism isn't a religion, but how many Atheist hot-heads on here that aren't ready and willing to jump all over smart-mouthed Christians? It's all the same because we all act the same.

I'm not an Atheist (anymore) or a Christian (anymore), but I generally think religion is more of a curse rather than a blessing for people as a whole.

Bah, I gotta stop being so negative. It hurts the already fragile mind.

I am a strong atheist. There is no god or higher power.

Every time someone says "I don't believe in Santa" and means it, a Santa dies.

[QUOTE=Magick Isles]Oi, very sorry Zexaland, but I must.QUOTE]

*loads Colt 45 and strikes Charles Bronson pose*

That so?

I'm not hijacking this thread anymore. So I will not make any more comments about intelligent design. You know my beliefs.

It is not based on the scientific method, and intelligent design for the most part has been rejected and is not testable. Evolution is a hundred times more solid in explaining how life evolves. It doesn't make a good case for a higher power. Evolution is a valid theory. Intelligent design is not. This is why ID for the most part isn't taught in schools.

I am a strong atheist. There is no god or higher power.

Evolution, in fact, does not contradict ID. I found nothing on that site that says "Evolution must be wrong", merely that "evolution without a purpose must be wrong"

It does indeed make a very good case for an outside power influencing how we came to be.

A page filled randomly with letters of the alphabet is a low probability event. But the sentence: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog, has more than a low probability. It is specified as well. There is no algorithm which could generate the sentence in a more economical form than the sentence itself. It obeys the rules and conventions governing the structure of communication in the English language. The rules of grammar and syntax are products of mind, invented to facilitate communication between English-speaking people. A properly phrased sentence, therefore, exhibits specified complexity, the hallmark of design.

So we're back to a mind. When Charles Darwin and his contemporaries were living, in fact pretty much up until Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA, it was generally thought that living cells were made of something called protoplasm. Protoplasm was just a name given to the jello-like substance that seemed to be what cells were made of. When something is merely the result of chemical and physical laws and forces, like snowflakes or salt, there is no reason to infer agency. The laws and forces are sufficient to explain it. Today we know that a single cell is not the product of a simple chemical reaction. Even the very smallest cell is filled with exquisitely precise molecular machinery, highly complex and interdependent, to the extent that, in most cases, if even one machine were to cease functioning, cell death would occur very soon thereafter.

Oh, and I know that you are an atheist. You've said so many times, no need to repeat yourself. If you're so sure that there is no higher power, then good for you.

Why must their be an explaination for "why"?

There may not be an explanation for why, or there may be an explanation for why which is restricted from our knowledge as a result of our cognitive closure, but we appear to be beings who operate on a basis of assumed causality, and as such it is in our nature to ask questions based on 'why?' and search for answers to them.

Having said that, even if we were to prove an answer of the form 'just because' - the minimal possible answer - through some mode of investigation of the world, then it would be a somewhat unsatisfying answer to many, but an answer none the less, even though it is equivalent in some aspects to no real answer at all: if nothing else it would be the elimination of all other possible answers.

*loads Colt 45 and strikes Charles Bronson pose*

That so?

Eh heh . . . Uhm, okay, let's get back on track here people . . . please?

I'm not hijacking this thread anymore.

As far as I can tell, you aren't hijacking it at all. Topic drift is a natural phenomenon.

Science has perfectly good, if somewhat tentative explanations for both of these. The first - consciousness - on the basis of reaction experiments it appears that 'our' body acts before we make a conscious decision telling it to, and thus consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon which is likely just an emergent characteristic of the complexity of our brains and is in fact mainly of an illusory nature in that most of the characteristics we ascribe to it do not in fact seem to be actually inherent in it. The second - how life came to be - the random agglutination of complex chemicals through reactions and admixture such that a self-sustaining and reproducing variety of processes were created provided that the proper means of physical support continued to be available to them.


EDIT: Do these theories give full and fulfilling answers to the questions? No, certainly not, tehse remain hard questions but science allows us to approach them in new ways and provides startling revelations which are not available through other forms of inquiry - for example, the data suggesting that consciousness is epiphenomenal. This has long been a possibility considered by philosophers, but until the application of science it was as valid a possibility as any other, whereas now there is at least some evidence to support it as an interpretation.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

As far as I can tell, you aren't hijacking it at all. Topic drift is a natural phenomenon.

No; it was hijacked.

My fault. :D

As far as I can tell, you aren't hijacking it at all. Topic drift is a natural phenomenon.

Well in that case, intelligent design still doesn't make a strong case for anything. In fact the reason why it isn't taught in classrooms for the most part is because it is ridiculous in its notions.

http://www.nj.com/living/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1122023208312060.xml&coll=2

It is also based on false premises.

I have looked at talkorigins many times; it makes a good case for evolution. However, you are missing the point. Evolution explains how, but cannot explain why. This is what ID deals with....it correctly applies the scientific method through observation. It makes no assumptions, only logically applies the scientific method to the origin of life, and the information that we came from. ID has not been rejected. It is a valid theory just as evolution is.

I cannot prove God; and you cannot disprove God, it is simply a matter of faith. ID does not try to prove that the christian God, or any God for that matter, exists, merely that some higher power must have designed us; through evolution, through creation, or another method.


"Intelligent design" is at best an un provable hypothesis, not a theory. To be more than that, you have to take the base question "Is there evidence of an outside hand in the design of life, the universe, and everything", and apply the scientific method to it, which is clearly impossible to do. Can you test god? Can you ascertain, one way or another incontravertable proof of a god's existence? You can't, there is no weight of evidence beyond sheer faith and belief.

I'll give some stuff to consider:

Intelligent Design "Theory"


Although its adherents would deny it, literal Biblical Creationism is dead. No one in the general population takes it seriously, because its fallacies are so ridiculously easy to point out. The notion of the universe being a mere 6,000 years old is so easily refuted that only the most ignorant and radical Christians will seriously propose it in public. The use of the Bible as a source of scientific data is such a gross misrepresentation of Biblical-era storytelling methods that some of the loudest critics of this practice have been not atheists, but Christians (including Pope John Paul II). It is for these reasons that creationists devised a fallback position: the "intelligent designer" theory. Its proponents (such as Dr. Behe, author of the widely quoted book: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution ) freely accept that the Bible has no scientific validity, and in Dr. Behe's case, he even accepts that life evolved over billions of years, from a common ancestor. But rather than weaken their argument, this paradoxically strengthens it in the minds of many, because the resulting vaguely defined theory no longer presents a single, well defined target for criticism. In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not. It abandons Young-Earth arguments and Biblical inerrancy, and it even accepts that evolution does occur, thus discarding most of its intellectual baggage. It only suggests that wherever we find gaps in our understanding of the entire process from start to finish, we should assume that an "intelligent designer" was responsible.


The primary justification is the notion of irreducible complexity. This is the idea that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been deliberately designed. Its proponents gloss over the fact that no one arrives at this conclusion unless they just happen to have been raised in a Judeo-Christian religious environment. They also gloss over the fact that it is flawed on philosophical grounds: it presumes that if we cannot easily find an explanation for a phenomenon, then there must be no rational explanation at all, thus requiring divine intervention. And finally, they are deliberately circumspect about the identity of this "intelligent designer", because they want to insinuate this "theory" into the school system in defiance of constitutional church/state separation guarantees, even though everyone knows that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" name for God.


The idea isn't new. Darwin's opponents upheld "irreducible complexity" as a disproof of macroscopic evolution in the 19th century, but their ideas were demolished in numerous public debates. These debates were so devastating to their case that they caused them to retreat entirely from the scientific forum and into the political forum, where they attempted to influence scientifically ignorant politicians and the court system. After this failed as well (most notably with the Scopes trial), they went underground into the world they occupy now, where they take their case directly to laypeople who are neither knowledgeable enough to easily see through their arguments (unlike scientists) or duty-bound to invest time and effort seriously investigating their claims before coming to a judgement (unlike the court system). While the logic of "irreducible complexity" was shown to be invalid more than a hundred years ago, creationists know that people have short memories, and a century of underground activity has allowed them to hone their propaganda techniques to a fine edge.


The "intelligent design" argument is by far the most clever and insidious Creationist attack, because it takes advantage of the "reasonable doubt" concept in the court system. That concept, which has thoroughly infiltrated popular culture, creates a mindset in which people tend to crystallize situations into an adversarial battle between prosecution and defense. The "intelligent design" people make no effort whatsoever to explicitly define their theory; they cannot explain how this designer might have conducted his work, what mechanisms he might have used, or how we are to determine who he was. But they know that they don't have to explicitly define their theory: they paint themselves as the defendant, and the scientific community as the prosecution in a legal trial. Therefore, rather than having to demonstrate that their theory is well defined and fits the facts more closely than evolution theory, they need only generate reasonable doubt about evolution theory and they have won an apparent victory for their vaguely defined alternative! This would not work in a real courtroom because only a criminal trial must demonstrate its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", and any judge would recognize that. But in the world of Joe Sixpack sitting in his mobile home in Tornado Alley, these arguments are as convincing as anything the mainstream scientific community has to say.


Therefore, arguments for intelligent design are invariably not positive arguments defining its predictions and showing how well they agree with observation, but rather, they are negative arguments, attempting to generate "reasonable doubt" about evolution under the pretense that the explanation for all unsolved mysteries should automatically default to divine intervention. Dr. Behe (whose book was subjected to some absolutely devastating critiques, two of which you can find here and here) expressed his idea of "irreducible complexity" as follows:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

Dr. Behe then goes on to describe the enormous complexity and inter-dependency of numerous biological structures, en route to concluding that life is too complex and easily broken to have evolved naturally. This is actually nothing more than a well-written and cleverly deceptive update on the easily refuted "found watch" analogy used by creationists since the 19th century. As with the "found watch" analogy, it is very seriously flawed for numerous reasons, which I will briefly outline here.


Hubris


Dr. Behe obviously doesn't suffer from low self-esteem. In fact, he seems to believe that he is omniscient! I say this because he apparently believes that if he can't personally figure out how a system could evolve gradually (or be reduced in complexity), then it must have been impossible for it to do so!


Even those "intelligent design" proponents who lack Behe's personal hubris subscribe to a more generalized version: they assume that if the scientific community at large has not yet figured it out, then it must be impossible, thus requiring divine intervention. Of course, their assessment of the state of scientific understanding is often over-pessimistic, as they routinely declare that scientists have no explanation for phenomena which in fact were explained years or decades earlier. In fact, Dr. Behe himself boldly declared that scientists were mysteriously "silent" about numerous phenomena in which published papers already existed and a great deal of research was underway, thus indicating that he had not done his homework, and that he was subscribing to the ludicrous "world-wide scientific conspiracy of silence" argument common to fundamentalist creationists.


The fallacy of this argument can be most easily exposed by applying it to the dawn of scientific inquiry. At that time, we understood very little about our universe. Applying Behe's mentality at that point would have led to the conclusion that since we couldn't figure out how anything worked, it must have been impossible to explain through naturalistic laws, so we should abandon the attempt and resort to divine intervention. In other words, Behe's assumption would have discouraged any further inquiry into science as a whole!


Unfalsifiability


Suppose you demonstrate to an "intelligent design" adherent that a system which he thought to be "irreducibly complex" is actually not irreducibly complex, and that it actually can function with a missing component? What will he say?


You probably already know the answer to this one. He will admit that the previous system was not "irreducibly complex", but the new one is. He will then challenge you to find a way to reduce it. And if you succeed? The third system will now be "irreducibly complex", and he will challenge you to find a way to reduce that one too. Repeat ad nauseum.


This is a classic example of an unfalsifiable theory, because it is completely impossible to refute. Each time you demonstrate that an "irreducibly complex" biological system is actually not irreducible, they simply shift to a lower stage of evolutionary development or even an entirely different system, and demand that you also prove that to be reducible, or they win by default. One could literally disprove the "irreducibility" of a thousand separate biological systems in a row, and the "intelligent designer" adherent would continue to claim victory if you couldn't quickly come with an explanation for #1001!


In fact, the use of this gradual, step by step fallback technique has been carried from the outer reaches of the evolutionary "tree" all the way back to its root. Having seen their arguments for "irreducible complexity" successively demolished by fossil evidence for species after species, organ after organ, structure after structure, the creationists finally found themselves with their backs to the wall. In fact, Dr. Behe freely admits that the physical evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution theory. But there is a region between abiogenesis and the first cellular organism in which creatures would not leave fossils. This is where the creationists have chosen to make their stand, because this time, even though they are still using the same fallacious argument they used before, they know that no damning fossil evidence will be forthcoming.


Dr. Behe attempted to put a pseudoscientific face on the fallacy by arguing that while we understand evolution on a macroscopic level, we don't understand the sub-cellular, molecular evolution that would have led from the first simplistic organic self-replicator to single-celled organisms. Ergo, (despite numerous viable theories to describe this process), we must default to divine intervention!


No Predictive Capabilities


Science is a descriptive enterprise. Its laws are actually descriptive models which also have a predictive capability. Does "intelligent designer" theory have a predictive capability? In a word, no.


In fact, while evolution theory easily predicted the emerging resistance of bacteria to antibiotics as well as the devastating effect of introducing foreign organisms into an environment in which no natural predators have evolved to combat them, "intelligent designer" theory has always been incapable of prediction! That is because it discards naturalistic mechanisms in favour of the mysterious and unknowable intent of a divine being, whose motivations, plans, and methods are inscrutable. If it can be argued to predict the same things that evolution theory predicts, it can only do so to the extent that it accepts the occurrence of evolutionary processes, thus making the "intelligent designer" a completely redundant term (see Occam's Razor).


In other words, its lack of predictive abilities disqualifies it as a legitimate scientific theory. It is incapable of predictions, so its predictions cannot be compared to new or existing observations. Therefore, it cannot be tested in even the most superficial way. And while the difficulties inherent in testing sub-cellular evolution theories are primarily of time, scale, and technology, the difficulties inherent in testing "intelligent designer" theory are of basic scientific philosophy: a theory must have some predictive capability in order to be tested or even vaguely supported, so even from a purely theoretical sense, "intelligent design" is a useless theory.


Intelligent designer or mindlessly stupid designer?


Scientists (including Catholic biochemists such as Dr. Behe) are not trained in the methodology of design, and quite frankly, when the question turns to one of design, they are not the best people to call upon. In fact, design falls within the purview of engineers rather than scientists. Therefore, some would claim that since the "intelligent design" theory is actually quite popular among engineers (for whom every design required a designer), this bodes well for the theory.


However, as an engineer myself, I would strenuously object to that assumption, because most of the engineers who support this theory have either been brainwashed from birth (thus giving them an intellectual "blind spot" where their religion is concerned) or they simply haven't studied biology in enough detail to know whether we and our ecosystem are the sort of system which indicates a methodical design approach (ie- "intelligent design") rather than a haphazard trial and error approach (ie- evolution). The "intelligent design" proponents take advantage of this fact to sell them on the idea that the ecosystem is perfectly designed, and many engineers take the validity of that claim on faith. Therefore, they proceed on this invalid assumption to conclude that it must have been designed by someone.


However, if you investigate this claim beyond the surface, it becomes blatantly apparent that it is completely false. "Intelligent design" is predicated upon the assumption that the ecosystem is a well designed system, with all of its various parts optimized to perfection and working in perfect harmony. They state this assumption as fact, and quickly move on to its ramifications. But if we hit the brakes and take a good look at the assumption, we will find that it has no basis. What possible justification is there for the claim that our ecosystem is well designed or highly optimized?


Dr. Behe and others believe that the necessary justification can be found simply by taking note of the enormous complexity and interdependency of the subsystems in a typical organism. He also notes their instability: if you so much as remove or degrade one little piece, the whole thing fails, therefore it must have been "intelligently designed". But as an engineer, I am absolutely appalled at the common acceptance of this false and groundless connection, even by some of my peers. In reality, which for me is the mechanical world of hydraulics, linkages, metallic structures, cooling systems, and electronic controls, the intelligent designer always creates the least complex, least interdependent, least unstable system to perform any given task. Occam's Razor isn't just a philosophical principle; it is an engineering axiom, and it is the incompetent designer whose designs are extremely complex and interdependent. And take note of this: the most complex, interdependent, inscrutable, and easily broken systems of all are invariably the ones that were designed not from the ground up, but by subjecting an existing system to repeated, haphazard, jury-rigged modifications!


Those familiar with computer software design will instantly recognize this phenomenon: the most convoluted, cross-wired, easily broken, metastable, bloated code is invariably that which incorporates a lot of "legacy baggage" rather than that which was designed from the ground up. Anyone familiar with basic engineering or computer programming theory, method, and practice should realize that far from disproving evolution theory, the enormous complexity of the biosystem and its life forms shows quite clearly that it could not have been intelligently designed! If we go with Dr. Behe's analogy of biochemical "machines", these machines are jury-rigged contraptions that were obviously based on legacy designs.


In fact, the enormous complicated biosystem and its complex, seemingly related, easily killed life forms are precisely what you would expect from a "trial and error" design methodology. Numerous questionable or just plain bad design aspects of living organisms are the obvious result of a sequence of repeated, haphazard, jury-rigged modifications upon a common ancestor. In other words, evolution.


Symptoms of jury-rigged design


Consider the following pieces of evidence supporting the theory that biological organisms are the result of trial and error, jury-rigged, evolutionary design rather than deliberate, "intelligent" design:


We were cobbled together from previous designs. Analysis of the human genome shows that every single piece of our genetic code is either a direct copy of other animals' codes, or a very minor modification upon said codes. Of course, by sheer coincidence, these animals just happen to be the ones that have been identified as our evolutionary precursors.


Dangerous design flaws. Because mammals evolved from the Devonian lungfish (Osteolepiformes) which swallowed air to breathe, we have inherited a respiratory system in which we use the same tube to breathe and swallow. A piece of food lodged in this double-duty windpipe can cause death! In real life engineering, the duplication of a dangerous design flaw from a previous design is considered an example of serious incompetence. In fact, if we imagine that an engineer had designed apes and then separately designed humans, he probably would have lost his license for negligently duplicating a serious, known design flaw!


Poor design aspects. For example, the human eye is wired backwards. Our photoreceptors face the wrong way, so that the side which connects to the nerve fibres is on the inside of the eye rather than the outside. This means that the nerve fibres actually "get in the way", and it also means that the eye has a hole in the back, through which these fibres must be bundled and passed through in order to reach the brain! This design increases the length of wiring for no good reason, decreases visual acuity, and creates a blind spot! A creationist would no doubt claim that God had a very good reason for doing it this way, but if so, then why did he design cephalopods (squids and octopi) with eyes wired correctly?


Failure to copy design corrections/improvements If a GM engineer discovered and corrected an intake manifold design flaw that restricts airflow for no good reason, it's a safe bet that this correction would make its way not only into future versions of that particular car, but every other GM vehicle which suffers from the original design flaw, irrespective of product line. However, the properly wired eyeballs of cephalopods were never incorporated into the vertebrate evolutionary branch. In other words, we share a poor design with all other members of our evolutionary branch. A better design exists, but only on another evolutionary branch! If this was the result of "intelligent design", then it begs the question: what kind of idiot would confine design improvements to a particular product line? Why don't humans incorporate the best design aspects of every animal species which preceded us, irrespective of evolutionary lineage? <Gasp!> Could it be that we have descended from one particular family of animals?


Poor manufacturing yields. Creationists take great pleasure in pointing out how precise our biological systems are. They love to cite, over and over, the fact that even the most miniscule alteration of certain parameters would cause the entire system to fail. However, any engineer familiar with basic quality control theory would consider such a design totally unacceptable. It is not "robust", meaning that it cannot withstand even the most minor alteration to optimal conditions. This leads to extremely low yields: out of millions of sperm in a typical ejaculation, fewer than 1,000 even reach the fallopian tubes, at which point half of them will go into the wrong tube. Only one will fertilize the egg, and the majority of fertilized eggs will not successfully implant in the uterine wall. Moreover, even successful fertilizations and implantations do not necessarily go to term; many pregnancies end in miscarriage, sometimes so early that the female may not even realize she was pregnant. We are talking about manufacturing yields below 0.0001%, people! By any engineering standard, this is awful! But by the standard of ruthless "survival of the fittest", it makes perfect sense.


Tendency to modify instead of add. Also known as "transformed organs". When a component of a design is modified to perform some new function at the expense of its original function, engineers generally describe the result as "jury-rigged". Nature is full of examples of such jury-rigging (eg. insect mouth-parts that used to be legs, dolphin fins that contain a full set of finger bones), but the best example is your arms. We have two arms and two legs because we are bipedal, but bipedal locomotion is ridiculously inefficient (for example, a typical dog can easily outrun a human despite its short legs). Worse yet, we are horribly inefficient runners even for bipeds (compare a human's running speed to the land speed of an ostrich or any other landed bird). Our poor speed and our lack of natural defenses make us easy prey for predators, so if not for our ability to make weapons, we would have been the footstool of the animal world. Even today, people are regularly killed by wild animals because they can't run quickly enough to get away. So why were we "designed" this way? Why would a competent engineer cripple us in this manner, rather than giving us four legs and two arms? This question is difficult to answer with "intelligent design", but it's easy to answer with evolution: we evolved from creatures with four legs, and two of those legs were transformed into our arms. The evolutionary advantage was presumably reproductive: we could carry food, so we could shelter our mates and our young in protected caves while we foraged.


Creationists open a dangerous can of worms when they suggest that we consider biological structures as engineered designs. Any engineer can examine the entire "product line" and see widespread evidence of massive, inexplicable incompetence. Dangerous, potentially lethal design flaws are mindlessly propagated through entire product lines, design improvements are mysteriously confined within product lines, manufacturing yields are horrendous, and every design has been cobbled together from previous designs, and new features are often jury-rigged from old ones instead of being added as genuinely new systems. Any engineer who takes a serious look at biological organisms from an engineering standpoint (as opposed to mindlessly accepting creationist propaganda about its "perfection") will have no choice but to conclude that there was no intelligence whatsoever behind it.


Extinction


The fossil record is full of species which are now extinct. More than 99% of the species in the history of this planet are now gone. This is extremely easy to explain with evolution theory, which predicts that changing environments and ruthless competition will drive some species into extinction while making others thrive.


But does "intelligent design" theory predict this? Absolutely not. Unless this "intelligent designer" is incredibly incompetent, it is hard to imagine why he would devote so much time to so many badly designed creatures, and then let them live for so long before creating competitive species that would wipe them out.


What explanation can be given? That the "intelligent designer" wasn't particularly good at his craft, so he had to keep tweaking and improving his initial designs? If so, then how does that differ from evolution theory, apart from the apparently redundant term that is our "intelligent designer"?


No major revisions


An intelligent designer will occasionally make the effort to discard legacy design considerations. Sometimes, we'll recognize that a design has become so convoluted that it would be better to start from scratch, rather than continuing to tweak the existing mess. Other times, we'll carefully pick through a design, replacing certain sub-optimal components with redesigned parts and eliminating wasteful redundancies or weak points.


Does the imaginary "intelligent designer" responsible for our biosystem do this? Not exactly. In fact, there is not one example anywhere of fresh starts, new ideas, sudden left turns, or any of the other kinds of occasional major revisions that are typical of real large-scale, intelligent design. Instead, this "intelligent designer" appears to be the most unimaginative designer in the universe, having never once, in billions of years and millions of species, created a biological structure which didn't resemble a modification upon some kind of antecedent!


One might try to argue that our intelligent designer, being omniscient and omnipotent, designed his first cellular organism so well, with such foresight that no sudden and dramatic design revisions were ever required. But that flies in the face of the countless wrong turns taken in the evolutionary history of this planet (eg. extinct species), not to mention the severe debilitating effect of "legacy hardware" in our biological "design". In other words, if he were so damned smart, then why did he screw up so many times, and why aren't we better designed?


There are countless examples of sub-optimal design in the human body. For example, the aforementioned examples of our breathing apparatus and our eyeball design are obviously sub-optimal. Also, why is the skull so thin (particularly in the temples), even though this greatly increases the probability that a blow to the head will damage the vulnerable brain inside? There are, in fact, a huge number of sub-optimal design characteristics found in nature (see the Jury-Rigged Design FAQ at TalkOrigins.org for examples).


Conclusion


"Intelligent Design" proponents are fond of claiming that "evolutionists" always approach the data with the wrong mindset (ie- not the "design" mindset). However, if we do approach it from an engineering mindset as they suggest, and we apply due diligence in that analysis, we will quickly find that the biological "product line" is such an egregious example of jury-rigged, half-assed design that no one in his right mind would ever attribute it to an intelligent designer, never mind one who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.

From here: http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesign.shtml

:rolleyes:

Intelligent Design has also been dismissed for what it really is, a fraud and a hoax:

http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm

Editor's Introduction -- Among the various frauds that creationists have used in their attacks on science education, the newest is a body of woo-woo known as "intelligent design." The creationists depict "intelligent design" as a scientific construct and as an alternative to the theory of organic evolution, though it is neither. They insist that it must be included in biology curricula and biology textbooks, though its essential assertions revolve around supernaturalism, not biology. Sometimes they even call it "intelligent design theory" or "the theory of intelligent design" to imply that it is intellectually comparable to the theory of organic evolution, though it isn't comparable at all. Nor is it a theory. It is a hoax.
"Intelligent design" is a derivative of "creation-science," the religious pseudoscience by which creationists, during the 1970s and the early 1980s, purported to show that the concept of organic evolution was false and that there was no genealogical connection between man and any other species. After "creation-science" was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it, disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk, and presented it under the name "intelligent design." Since then, "intelligent design" has figured prominently in many of the creationists' campaigns to undermine science education -- indeed, it has become the creationists' favorite device for deceiving state education agencies, for tricking local school boards, for gulling classroom teachers, and for inducing schoolbook-publishers to pervert and falsify the treatment of organic evolution in biology books.

State boards of education, officers of local school districts, science educators, and the public at large need information about the origin and features of the "intelligent design" hoax, but such information isn't easy to find. It surely can't be found in newspaper or newsmagazine articles about the creationists' campaigns, because such articles fail to provide any substantive information at all: They display the phrase "intelligent design" a few times, in throwaway lines, but they don't tell what it signifies, they don't describe the fantasies that the devotees of "intelligent design" try to peddle, and they don't explain that "intelligent design" has already been discredited by scientists, just as "creation-science" was. Many of the newspaper articles are worse than worthless because they parrot the creationists' rhetoric and mislead the public by falsely referring to "intelligent design" as a "theory."

With these points in mind, we present here a historical and scientific exposition of the "intelligent design" hoax. This material was published originally in The Textbook Letter as a part of William J. Bennetta's review of Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum, a book written by Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes. In their book, Nord and Haynes proposed a scheme for converting America's public schools into agencies for propagating biblical religion -- and as a part of their proposal, they endorsed two books that promoted "intelligent design." In his review, "A Pair of Common Tricksters," Bennetta responded with the detailed commentary that appears below.

"Intelligent design" is at best an un provable hypothesis, not a theory. To be more than that, you have to take the base question "Is there evidence of an outside hand in the design of life, the universe, and everything", and apply the scientific method to it, which is clearly impossible to do. Can you test god? Can you ascertain, one way or another incontravertable proof of a god's existence? You can't, there is no weight of evidence beyond sheer faith and belief.

I'll give some stuff to consider:



From here: http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesign.shtml

Out of all you put there, all I saw was "life, the universe, and everything."

And there is an answer, but you're not going to like it: 42.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838

In your own words please, or at least a summary here: it is obscenely late where I am in the world.

There may not be an explanation for why, or there may be an explanation for why which is restricted from our knowledge as a result of our cognitive closure, but we appear to be beings who operate on a basis of assumed causality, and as such it is in our nature to ask questions based on 'why?' and search for answers to them.

Having said that, even if we were to prove an answer of the form 'just because' - the minimal possible answer - through some mode of investigation of the world, then it would be a somewhat unsatisfying answer to many, but an answer none the less, even though it is equivalent in some aspects to no real answer at all: if nothing else it would be the elimination of all other possible answers.


Indeed, quite true. I think this can be viewed as one of the reasons atheism exists; some people believe that the question of "why" we exist is extremely important, and some just accept that we do. I myself find the exercise pointless for most mortals, for the time being at least, for we lack any real way of finding an answer; merely speculation. Oh well.

, Atheism isn't a religion, but how many Atheist hot-heads on here that aren't ready and willing to jump all over smart-mouthed Christians? It's all the same because we all act the same.

Is your sole definiton of a religion 'a school of thought which leads to a tendency to metaphorically jump all over the adherents of other schools of thought'?

Indeed, quite true. I think this can be viewed as one of the reasons atheism exists; some people believe that the question of "why" we exist is extremely important, and some just accept that we do.

In mu opinion atheism is technically as much a fudge when it comes to rational inquiry as any religious option: agnosticism seems to be the only really valid position open to us.

I myself find the exercise pointless for most mortals, for the time being at least, for we lack any real way of finding an answer; merely speculation. Oh well.

Yes, but the ontological investigations of philosophy do seem to have produced food for thought which has a real value, even if they haven't produced actual answers. I guess Heidegger here would be the prime example from recent times, even if personally I think he's just a jumped up little fascist...

Simply put: I have no problem with 'Intelligent design' or 'Creationism' being taught, provided that-

a) It not be a science class, as it isn't science

b) That advoctes of thes so-called "theories" be prepared to give classroom time to other philosophical and religious opinion, be it Islam, Taoism, the Norse gods, or whatever.

In your own words please, or at least a summary here: it is obscenely late where I am in the world.

:D

No problem.

The basic argument is that, in the origin of life; life could not have created itself.

The basic idea behind the chemical origin of life is that simple molecules became more complex molecules which eventually allowed the first auto-catalytic self-reproducing molecule to exist. Many would define the chemical origin of life as the existence of a single molecule that was not only able to replicate on its own, but could produce any molecules necessary to facilitate that replication.

The Primordial soup:

There is no geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest Precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of "isotopically light" carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature,29 and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup. If these processes produced a soup, they should have left a significant (1-10 meter thick) layer of tar encircling the earth, but there is no geochemical evidence of such a layer30 nor any published geochemical evidence of a primordial soup.31 Had there been a soup, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ought to contain an "unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals" which they do not.15

DNA Chicken and Egg problem:

Which came first? DNA needs enzymes to replicate, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA. DNA needs protection of the cell wall, but the cell wall is also encoded by the DNA. The answer is that neither came first for all are required in DNA-based life. These fundamental components form an irreducibly complex system in which all components must have been present from the start.

Small snips from the article. If you get the time to read it, please do. Very, very informative.

Edit: It is also very late where I am...I'm hitting the sack...If you wish to debate, telegram me tomorrow for one-on-one debate. :p

Simply put: I have no problem with 'Intelligent design' or 'Creationism' being taught, provided that-

a) It not be a science class, as it isn't science

b) That advoctes of thes so-called "theories" be prepared to give classroom time to other philosophical and religious opinion, be it Islam, Taoism, the Norse gods, or whatever.

Indeed, let us fight to make sure that the Ancient Egyptian story of world creation through masturbation is taught to our wide-eyed children.

:D

No problem.

The basic argument is that, in the origin of life; life could not have created itself.



The Primordial soup:



DNA Chicken and Egg problem:



Small snips from the article. If you get the time to read it, please do. Very, very informative.

Please read the source I provided refuting the primary foundation of intelligent design. Your source is not informative. It makes a huge jump and is based on something called "false dichotomy" (false dilemmia).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

I'm sure you should check it out.

Indeed, let us fight to make sure that the Ancient Egyptian story of world creation through masturbation is taught to our wide-eyed children.


Why not? I think if they boys spent more time 'jerking the trigger' on their own 'pistols', they might be less inclined to pack guns and pull the trigger on those. Besides, you're delusional if you think that kids don't already have most of that figured out by the time they hit grade 3. Better to tech them how their 'equipment' works, and tech them responibility, then to hide it and let them figure it out for themselves, I think.

Is your sole definiton of a religion 'a school of thought which leads to a tendency to metaphorically jump all over the adherents of other schools of thought'?

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion. Making the arguement whether Atheism is a religion or not moot. In other words, Atheism might as well be called a religion because it is acts like one anyway.

OMG......

That is exactly why an explanation is needed...Science simply cannot explain that, it's a matter of faith.

Read this (http://www.ideacenter.org/), it's a site about the scientific background of intelligent design. You'll find no religion, except in the article comparing the two.

This is why we have religion, because we simply cannot physically explain the why of the universe.

Does it actually matter? I don't follow Marx, but he definately had a point regarding religion; people wasting days on end on what is happening upstairs or what some deity wants instead of being down on earth, trying to fix the crap that humans have created.

Who *cares* whether or not our existance is of an accident or intelligent design; the important thing should be trying to work towards the betterment of society based on mutual respect and understanding - maybe once that is achieved, we would have finally evolved higher than the animals.

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion. Making the arguement whether Atheism is a religion or not moot. In other words, Atheism might as well be called a religion because it is acts like one anyway.

No. Atheism does not act like a religion. It is unorganized and it doesn't even have a structure... there is no Atheist Church that unites all atheists under its rule (like the catholic church). I'm not affiliated with any church. So to say it is a religion is a total stretch.

Why not?

I was actually agreeing with you. Consider it a bitter pill that some of the proponents of certain other religious theories might find hard to swallow, despite the fact that it employs exactly the same methodology as their pet theories. If their theories get in (other than as subject matter in religious education) then it has to get in too.

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion.

Fair enough: this is why I consider myself an agnostic. There is no evidence to settle the matter one way or another, while both theistic and atheistic worldviews insert their own particular primitive assumption into the way they view the world - either 'there is a god' or 'there is not a god' - both are equally dogmatic and to me less interesting than the middle path.

I was actually agreeing with you. Consider it a bitter pill that some of the proponents of certain other religious theories might find hard to swallow, despite the fact that it employs exactly the same methodology as their pet theories. If their theories get in (other than as subject matter in religious education) then it has to get in too.


Exactly. Then all get thet their proper place in the curriculum, and all are given equal weight. But this isn't about equal time; it's about the Creationist camp using underhanded methods to get their brand of religion into the education system, and discredit in a backhanded manner anything that doesn't fit their world-view.

No. Atheism does not act like a religion. It is unorganized and it doesn't even have a structure... there is no Atheist Church that unites all atheists under its rule (like the catholic church). I'm not affiliated with any church. So to say it is a religion is a total stretch.in addition there is neither tradition nor holidays.

Why does Atheism exist? (short abridged history)

1. There have always been (since the development of human society) people of intelligence and courage who recognized the truth of the physical world. However these people lived in ignorant and savige times in which spiritialism and theism dominated. They lacked the tools to demonstrate the truth and structure of the physical world in a detailed way. They were often persocuted and killed, so they remained hidden.

2. The differing factions of Christanity fought each other after the corrupt Catholic church could no longer continue its domination of the faithful. The great wars of religion killed many and sowed the seeds of pluralism. Religious tolerence became a must. Meanwhile with the translation of the Bible and it's mass production personal literacy became an important componet of faith. This lead to many Christain communities placing high value on education. (needless to say all Christain communities which placed a high value on education, such as Puritan New England, have whitered for reasons I explained below). Education and literacy spread.

3. As what would become modern science began to develop in Europe (primarly due to the fact that there was no one group who could turn off the tap, as in China or the Islamic world) many religous scholars invested in it in the hope of discovering physical proof of God and the morality of nature. During the 17th and 18th centuries there was the rise of Deism is Western Europe and the United States (primarly among the elite and educated). Due to pluralism and tolerence Atheists no longer needed to hide. They would emerge with a vengence...

4. Along came David Hume (founder of Empricism and an Atheist) and Charles Darwin (among others) and the Deistic world was utterly destroyed. The Science that they had put faith in would reveal God, his glory, and demonstrate how to achieve an ordered moral rational universe had instead disproved God and inherent morality. The Atheists stood truimphent as now they could no longer be burned and science had disproved the old ignorant beliefs. It is no surprise that Deism vanished and that liberal Churches have done poorly ever since. Many of those who would have been attracted to those churches/beliefs say 200 to 300 years ago are now Atheists. Those areas of the Christain world which were the most educated also tended to be the most vulnerable to the the attack of science (hence the dramatic decline of Western European and New England Christanity). The areas of the world where spiritial/religous beliefs continue to dominate tend to be (in the Western world) areas which placed low priority on education and progress and (in the non-western world) places which have only been superficialy affected by the Modern Project (they are still as fearful, ignorant and malnurished as they where 300 years ago). It is no surprise that the primarly areas of religous growth are in Africa and Southern/Central Asia, the areas with the greatest poverty, misgovernment, corruption, and lowest rates of education (not to mention local theistic power blocs hostile to western influenence). It is also no surprise that the factions of Christainity which continue to survive have rejected science altogether and embrace mindless dogma.

God was pronounced Dead!

5. The modern world is one constructed and shaped by Atheists. Science continues to advance and reveal more of the physical world every-year. Despite the callenges posed by fundamentalists (who only inhibit and do not contribute in any way) the Western world continues to move forward away from the Dark ages. It is only a matter of time before a similar process takes place throughout the Third World (an interesting sidenote: Bin Ladin's terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is primarly aimed at stopping modernism from invading the Islamic World and destroying Islam. They seek to establish a theocracy across the Middle East so as to snuff out proggess, science and knowledge. I should also note that in many Islamic countries being an Atheist is still a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Like the Christain Fundamentalists, the Islamic Fundamentalists are doomed to failure.) The future of the world is primarly in our hands!

Fair enough: this is why I consider myself an agnostic. There is no evidence to settle the matter one way or another, while both theistic and atheistic worldviews insert their own particular primitive assumption into the way they view the world - either 'there is a god' or 'there is not a god' - both are equally dogmatic and to me less interesting than the middle path.

Wrong, Atheism is not dogma, it is the recognization of the truth of the physical world. Nor is it a primitive assumption, it takes a lot of thought and courage to be an Atheist, as in being an Atheist one has turned ones back on simpility and come to recognize faith as be based upon nothing. One is left to construct ones own world view based upon ones views regarding the physical world and what is in the best interests of oneself and humanity.

Why am I an Athiest?

Becuase nothing else makes sense.

The link in the original post makes a good example of the many inconsistancies of the bible, and how ultimately, the "word of God" is fairly rife with them.
But for me, it goes deeper.
Asking me to believe in the hardest thing to imagine is asking too much when so many things happen, that no "Kind, Loving, Benevolent God" would ever allow if he could prevent them, and if he existed, but could not prevent them, then his power isnt absolute now, is it?

What originally was probably intended to be a basic guide to living in peace with thos around you...(Jesus's teachings) ultimately became a fanatical twisted version of the truth soon thereafter by his followers.
Eventually becoming the most hideous, and yet, ironic organization the world has ever seen.
Mother Church has become a delusional whore who robs the sanity and wisdom out of life, and demands blood for her followers.
Inquisitions, Crusades, slaughter of natives for gold, and child molestation are just some of the crimes wich have occured in Jesus' name.

And yet...Christians still beleive they are following the way to an honest and pure life?

Please give one example of this.

The Spanish Inquisitions.

European wars of heresy (notably the Arganots sp.?)

The Crusades

The witchburning trials of Europe

Salem Witch Trials

Teutons enslaving/converting Baltic slavic people

Most ancient wars, based upon oracles, prophecies, religious excuses, one god supposedly establishing superiority over another

Every act of torture in the name of a religion

Every execution in the name of a religion

Islam forcing itself across the Middle East and Africa, and Spain

Israelites exterminating the Canaanites

There are thousands more incidents, perhaps tens of thousands. Perhaps even millions, you ignorant dolt.

Amestria']Wrong, Atheism is not dogma, it is the recognization of the truth of the physical world.

It may very well be that there is no God, but to state this as a known fact one first requires proof. You have that proof at hand?

Nor is it a primitive assumption, it takes a lot of thought and courage to be an Atheist, as in being an Atheist one has turned ones back on simpility and come to recognize faith as be based upon nothing.

'Primitive assumption' used here to mean a premise which cannot be proven but must instead be taken on faith - a phrase oft used in logic.

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion. Making the arguement whether Atheism is a religion or not moot. In other words, Atheism might as well be called a religion because it is acts like one anyway.That depends on the athiests. If someone simply doesn't follow any religious paths because he thinks it's stupid, then it's not much of a religion.
If someone goies out of their way to show that their athiest, then they're preaching "their Gospel" and becomes somewhat of a religion.

Atheism is a religion just like all the others; it just happens to be the belief that there is no god, its still belief though

as for why it exists, there is no way of saying that as to saying why Christianity exists, or why bhuddism exists, or why hinduism exists etc etc

basically, youre completely wrong, no one thing can be the "reason" a religion exists
No. Atheism is a belief, but it is not a religion.

Amestria']4. Along came David Hume (founder of Empricism and an Atheist) ...

I think you'll find that if anybody deserves the name of 'founder of Empiricism' it would be Aristotle. But hey, what's an error of more than 2,000 years between friends.

Atheism exists because some of us don't think religion complies with the merits and evidence of science.
:eek: So atheism is a form (or subset, perhaps?) of scientism?

OMG......

That is exactly why an explanation is needed...Science simply cannot explain that, it's a matter of faith.

Read this (http://www.ideacenter.org/), it's a site about the scientific background of intelligent design. You'll find no religion, except in the article comparing the two.

This is why we have religion, because we simply cannot physically explain the why of the universe.

That's not an article about the scientific background of ID.

Science is a specific procedure. It isn't defined as "what scientists do." If it's science, then scientists do it, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Testing a theory in science consists of stating a theory, making predictions based on it, and looking for instances in which outcomes from those theories seem to contradict or fall outside of the theory.

ID fails in two of those regards. You can't test it, because even if the creator still exists you can't ask him any questions. You can't make predictions based on it, because you don't know anything about this creator and what might induce him to create life ex nihilo again.

In essence, science is a way of saying, "we don't know how this works or why this happens, but here's how we can go about finding out."

ID says "I don't know, so it must be magic."

Atheism, the disbelief in God/god/gods, exists for precisely the same reason as disbelief in Santa Claus.

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion. Making the arguement whether Atheism is a religion or not moot. In other words, Atheism might as well be called a religion because it is acts like one anyway.

You mean like when the Humians conquered all of Scotland and began the athiest crusades, throwing to the sword and the fire all in Continental Europe who would not renounce their heretical faiths and embrace the truth of Secular Inhumanism?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you can't bolster an argument with anecdotes that took place in Fantasyland.

No, you misunderstand. I mean to say that Atheists and other religious people treat their beliefs in the exact same fashion. Making the arguement whether Atheism is a religion or not moot. In other words, Atheism might as well be called a religion because it is acts like one anyway.
That's like saying that people who do not collect stamps are the same as a club dedicated to leaf collecting. The Leaf Collectors are a group of people who choose to come together because of a shared "belief" or interest, while people who are uninterested in stamp collecting don't share anything other than their lack of interest in stamp collecting. They don't get together to talk about how uninteresting stamps are, nor do they organize a heirarchy of leaders who help arrange events dedicated to their mutual non-stamp-collecting.

There may be some people who are very strongly and vocally active in their atheism, and those people may resemble religious persons in the fervor with which they pursue God-related issues. But that does not make atheism itself a religion, any more than my uncle's passionate hatred of stamp-collecting makes non-stamp-collecting a religion.

Amestria']Why does Atheism exist? (short abridged history)

1. There have always been (since the development of human society) people of intelligence and courage who recognized the truth of the physical world. However these people lived in ignorant and savige times in which spiritialism and theism dominated. They lacked the tools to demonstrate the truth and structure of the physical world in a detailed way. They were often persocuted and killed, so they remained hidden.

2. The differing factions of Christanity fought each other after the corrupt Catholic church could no longer continue its domination of the faithful. The great wars of religion killed many and sowed the seeds of pluralism. Religious tolerence became a must. Meanwhile with the translation of the Bible and it's mass production personal literacy became an important componet of faith. This lead to many Christain communities placing high value on education. (needless to say all Christain communities which placed a high value on education, such as Puritan New England, have whitered for reasons I explained below). Education and literacy spread.

3. As what would become modern science began to develop in Europe (primarly due to the fact that there was no one group who could turn off the tap, as in China or the Islamic world) many religous scholars invested in it in the hope of discovering physical proof of God and the morality of nature. During the 17th and 18th centuries there was the rise of Deism is Western Europe and the United States (primarly among the elite and educated). Due to pluralism and tolerence Atheists no longer needed to hide. They would emerge with a vengence...

4. Along came David Hume (founder of Empricism and an Atheist) and Charles Darwin (among others) and the Deistic world was utterly destroyed. The Science that they had put faith in would reveal God, his glory, and demonstrate how to achieve an ordered moral rational universe had instead disproved God and inherent morality. The Atheists stood truimphent as now they could no longer be burned and science had disproved the old ignorant beliefs. It is no surprise that Deism vanished and that liberal Churches have done poorly ever since. Many of those who would have been attracted to those churches/beliefs say 200 to 300 years ago are now Atheists. Those areas of the Christain world which were the most educated also tended to be the most vulnerable to the the attack of science (hence the dramatic decline of Western European and New England Christanity). The areas of the world where spiritial/religous beliefs continue to dominate tend to be (in the Western world) areas which placed low priority on education and progress and (in the non-western world) places which have only been superficialy affected by the Modern Project (they are still as fearful, ignorant and malnurished as they where 300 years ago). It is no surprise that the primarly areas of religous growth are in Africa and Southern/Central Asia, the areas with the greatest poverty, misgovernment, corruption, and lowest rates of education (not to mention local theistic power blocs hostile to western influenence). It is also no surprise that the factions of Christainity which continue to survive have rejected science altogether and embrace mindless dogma.

God was pronounced Dead!

5. The modern world is one constructed and shaped by Atheists. Science continues to advance and reveal more of the physical world every-year. Despite the callenges posed by fundamentalists (who only inhibit and do not contribute in any way) the Western world continues to move forward away from the Dark ages. It is only a matter of time before a similar process takes place throughout the Third World (an interesting sidenote: Bin Ladin's terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is primarly aimed at stopping modernism from invading the Islamic World and destroying Islam. They seek to establish a theocracy across the Middle East so as to snuff out proggess, science and knowledge. I should also note that in many Islamic countries being an Atheist is still a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Like the Christain Fundamentalists, the Islamic Fundamentalists are doomed to failure.) The future of the world is primarly in our hands!
There you go. :)

Atheism now has its own mythology, one more step towards being a religion.

Amestria']God was pronounced Dead!So was Nietzsche... :rolleyes:

The key point with the pre-Israelite nations in Canaan is that they were sinful - they exploited and oppressed each other, venerating strength above mercy, power before compassion. They devised religions to support their hierarchal systems of power, sharply unjust systems that ignored the value of life and human dignity.

The Israelite nation - probably a nation of oppressed peoples in one form or another, slaves according to the Bible, an amalgation of exiles according to some Biblical analysts - was told to do differently, to create a society where the mighty protected the weak. With this moral mission they were given a code of worship and ritual law to reinforce it, and to differentiate themselves from the sinful nations surrounding them.

All God's commandments to destroy those nations are not commandments meaning, literally, "destroy those people utterly." They are aimed at the practices of those people, and meant to show in clear terms that God disapproves, and does not want the Israelites to follow their example. Genocide was what nations did to each other at the time. It was a sharply contextual message, one modern readers miss because modern readers live in a different era. Furthermore, some were probably added after the fact, by people trying to remind and convince the Israelites that the practices of the surrounding nations should not be followed and by people trying to explain why they WERE followed. (The Biblical verse in Deuteronomy advocating destruction explicitly gives the reason: so that the Israelites would not assimilate and adopt their practices.)

The Israelites never really slaughtered the inhabitants of the land. This is clear from later Biblical books, and from simple military logic. Joshua is mostly an exaggeration. It isn't meant to be taken literally, merely as a pseudohistorical parable, like most of the historical and story aspects of the Bible. Its point is that Joshua was opposed to the sins of the surrounding nations, and his opposition was rewarded by God. The mass murder is a metaphor for this.

Our current concepts of human equality weren't widely accepted at the time, and the Bible reflects this. It is a contextual book, and in interpreting it this should be taken into account. Its messages are timeless, but its explicit statements are hardly so.

Yet still the Bible has such incidents as the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, where Abraham asks God why He, who is supposed to be the just ruler of the world, will destroy the innocent with the guilty. This does seem to espouse such a concept, and God's eventual reply that if Abraham can find ten innocents in the two sinful cities they will be spared seems to imply that God agrees. (Accepting a literalist interpretation of the Bible, this would also seem to indicate that all the cities Joshua destroyed also lacked innocents. I don't accept this, but it is a way out for more traditionalist people.)

The Bible also has the story of Jonah, where God makes quite clear that all nations are permitted redemption, even nations that in the past have harmed and in the future will harm the Israelite people.

You mean like when the Humians conquered all of Scotland and began the athiest crusades, throwing to the sword and the fire all in Continental Europe who would not renounce their heretical faiths and embrace the truth of Secular Inhumanism?

Try replacing the words 'Humians' and 'Scotland'/'Continental Europe' with the words 'atheist ideologues' and ''USSR/China'.

Amestria']4. Along came David Hume (founder of Empricism and an Atheist) and Charles Darwin (among others) and the Deistic world was utterly destroyed. The Science that they had put faith in would reveal God, his glory, and demonstrate how to achieve an ordered moral rational universe had instead disproved God and inherent morality. The Atheists stood truimphent as now they could no longer be burned and science had disproved the old ignorant beliefs.

It is a matter of debate whether Hume was actually an atheist or not - "The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . ." - from his Natural History Of Religion

As far as Darwin goes, his private correspondence makes it clear that he was not an atheist -"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." - from a letter to J. Fordyce.

Atheistism?
What the hell is that? I know what atheism is, but I've never heard of atheistim!? :p

Ah, atheists crack me up...

Atheistism?
What the hell is that? I know what atheism is, but I've never heard of atheistim!? :p

Ah, atheists crack me up...

Is that the sum of your contribution to the thread? No actual opinion on the matter other than concerning spelling?

What can I say that hasn't been said?
There have been good posts and bad posts, from both sides.
This debate has been done to death a million times over, in a million different ways. I believe in God, and I thoroughly detest atheism. I find it amusing how atheists can insult religion, and individuals with relgious beliefs, yet when the favour is returned they cry foul. Science and belief, for me, are not mutually exclusive.

What can I say that hasn't been said?

Involvement in these kind of things leads to interesting side enquiries: for example I wouldn't have been driven to go and check to see if Darwin was actually a professed atheist if not for this thread.

I believe in God, and I thoroughly detest atheism.

Any opinion on agnostics?

:eek: So atheism is a form (or subset, perhaps?) of scientism?

It has been greatly strengthened by the development of science, see my origional post, but Atheist thought actually predates Christianity. There was also an Atheistic civilization in India, but it was destroyed by the Hindu states and its people forced to convert. So complete was the destruction and purges that we are only know learning about it...

It must be remembered that most the world has been hostile to Atheist thought for milliniums and in many countries throughout South East Asia and Middle East still regularly persocute it.

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Because there is no 'why'.

Any opinion on agnostics?

I appreciate their open minds.



Amestria]Atheist thought actually predates Christianity. There was also an Atheistic civilization in India, but it was destroyed by the Hindu states and its people forced to convert. So complete was the destruction and purges that we are only know learning about it...

Proof?
Can we see a link?



Because there is no 'why'

And you know this how?

There you go. :)

Atheism now has its own mythology, one more step towards being a religion.

It's HISTORY, not mythology, and a short one at that (due you think I can squeez in all the details on this subject on a single post when it involves thousands of years of History and most of the recent history of Western civilization, I'd like to see you try. I can't offer Bible or Koran quotes and call them truth.) Also you will notice it is completely free from miricles, no virgin births, fire from the sky, devine command or anything like that. Everything is rooted in accurate history, critisims about my interpretations of Hume aside ("Yes there is the chance that there is life after death, there is also the chance that if you put this coal on the fire it will not burn")

But since you are so determined about labeling Atheism a religion, give me one tenet of Atheism, besides the reconization of the physical world being the only world and everything be derived from it.

Amestria']
give me one tenet of atheism besides the reconization of the physical world being the only world and everything be derived from it.

The disbelief in Supreme Being?
Your use of a capital A? :p

So was Nietzsche... :rolleyes:

Yes Nietzsche was a human being and he died, as no being or creature has yet been discovered to be immortal, what is your point? Perhaps he needed, to get your approvel, the unwashed massess to claim he had risen from the dead?

The disbelief in Supreme Being?
Your use of a capital A? :p

Thats the recoginization of the physical world being the only one (all spiritial/theistic beliefs having been disproved), in other words the recogization of truth. And who says whether you write something in capitals has anything to do with anything (in many languages there is such thing as capital letters)!

I mean tenets like

You shall due this
You shall due this
blah blah is wrong
Do not be a homosexual
You shall not due that
Killing is wrong (does not apply to non-believers or enemy's of the Faith)
I/We are the the only true God(s)/spirits, ect., and you will worship only us, ect.

Amestria']Thats the recoginization of the physical world being the only one (all spiritial/theistic beliefs having been disproved), in other words the recogization of truth.


That's quite a bold and pretentious statement to make...

That's quite a bold and pretentious statement to make...

So what, it's true! (Mommy mommy, besides that everyone currently thinks the opposite and it may be pretentious for me to be so bold as to point this out, the Emperor has no clothes!)

Amestria']So what, it's true!

Er, it's not. That's your opinion. If it were truth, then there would be no religion. Fortunately, there still is.

Er, it's not. That's your opinion. If it were truth, then there would be no religion. Fortunately, there still is.

Lies and untruth have a remarkable way of persisting, there are also Holocost deniers, a group in California which claims the Earth is flat, another group that claims suffering is caused by human souls and another group which claims the Earth is hollow. There are also people who believe that if you fly airplanes into buildings you will go to heaven and be with virgins (fortunately :rolleyes: )

As Nietzsche would say, God is dead but his horrible shadow remains and has yet to be fully vanquished. But we will vanquish it... only a matter of time.

Proof?
Can we see a link?


I will provide further information (proof) and references when I get back later to night, but right now I have a plane to catch....

till then :cool:

Amestria']Lies and untruth have a remarkable way of persisting

I hear ya, you'd think atheists would finally wake up to the truth by now :p

I'm still waiting for that link, by the way...

I hear ya, you'd think atheists would finally wake up to the truth by now :p

I'm still waiting for that link, by the way...

I love how you avoided addressing the holocost deniers, the Flat Earth people, the Scientologists and the Muslem Fundamentalists.... whats wrong, to awkward?

till tonight :cool:

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Science explains 'how' things happen, but allows for the fact that there is no NEED for a 'why'.

Just 'is'.

Oh, sorry Amestria, I had no idea you were being serious...

there are also Holocost deniers

This has what to do with religion, sorry?

a group in California which claims the Earth is flat

Ditto.

another group that claims suffering is caused by human souls

I wasn't aware it's been empirically proven that humans have no souls.

and another group which claims the Earth is hollow

See: Holocaust denial.

There are also people who believe that if you fly airplanes into buildings you will go to heaven and be with virgins

Though I, along with the majority of the world, disagree with the actions of these extremists we cannot disprove that they aren't in heaven with their virgins.

I hear ya, you'd think atheists would finally wake up to the truth by now :p

I'm still waiting for that link, by the way...

What truth? For it to be truth you have to prove it.

Also atheism is not a religion. I don't even consider it a set of beliefs (in god). It is a lack of belief in god.

Also atheism is not a religion. I don't even consider it a set of beliefs (in god). It is a lack of belief in god.

By that definition agnostics fall under the mantle of atheism. Is this intentional?

By that definition agnostics fall under the mantle of atheism. Is this intentional?

Agnostics that I know state that god cannot be proven or disproven.

Atheism exists because some of us don't think religion complies with the merits and evidence of science.

Others of us recognize that religion and science really don't have that much to do with each other.

Agnostics that I know state that god cannot be proven or disproven.

Ergo, they have a lack of belief in God*, and according to your definition would be atheists, yes?



* unless the openly avow that God can't be proven or disproven whilst simultaneously believing in the existence of God.

Others of us recognize that religion and science really don't have that much to do with each other.

Notice that I said "some of us".

Agnostics are not sure. Atheists are sure that there is no god.

Atheist thought actually predates Christianity.

Proof?

Is Epicureus good enough for you?

Agnostics are not sure. Atheists are sure that there is no god.

Do atheists have a scientific or philosophical rationale for this certainty, or is it just a matter of faith?

Do atheists have a scientific or philosophical rationale for this certainty, or is it just a matter of faith?

For me scientific and philosophical reasons.

For me scientific and philosophical reasons.

Could you explain them to me? Certainly if there is proof that God doesn't exist, I want to hear about it.

Could you explain them to me? Certainly if there is proof that God doesn't exist, I want to hear about it.

No you don't understand. What I mean by that is my beliefs are supported by science, and I feel that science (big bang theory) conflicts with religion.

No you don't understand. What I mean by that is my beliefs are supported by science, and I feel that science (big bang theory) conflicts with religion.

Okay, you are either conceding here that atheism is a somewhat arbitrary matter of faith in the non-existence of God, or you are claiming that because you have faith in science it is incompatible to hold a belief in God, yes?

What is inherently impossible about there being a God who functioned as a Prime Mover and caused the Big Bang?

Okay, you are either conceding here that atheism is a somewhat arbitrary matter of faith in the non-existence of God, or you are claiming that because you have faith in science it is incompatible to hold a belief in God, yes?

What is inherently impossible about there being a God who functioned as a Prime Mover and caused the Big Bang?

Atheism is not arbitrary.

Because the notion of god is nonsense. I have confidence in my beliefs. Someone weak in their beliefs as yourself will not change that.

athiesm. probably the worst religion in the world. ;)
oh yeah and grampus you got that idea off Dan Browns angels and demons didnt you?
im a christian by the way. :p

oh yeah and grampus you got that idea off Dan Browns angels and demons didnt you?
im a christian by the way. :p

Nope. I ain't read a word of him: it is a fairly old idea that has been kicking around from at least the time of Aristotle, that God is just a Prime Mover that creates the initial state of existence and then lets it run its course.

athiesm. probably the worst religion in the world. ;)
oh yeah and grampus you got that idea off Dan Browns angels and demons didnt you?
im a christian by the way. :p

Atheism is not a religion. And it is the best thing to happen to this world.

Atheism is not arbitrary.

Because the notion of god is nonsense.

In what way? Is there something inherently contradictory about the notion? By what standard are you claiming it to be nonsense?


I have confidence in my beliefs. Someone weak in their beliefs as yourself will not change that.

Ah-hah: I'm weak in my beliefs because I ask for evidence rather than plumping for an arbitrary position? I guess in this way I'm weak in my beliefs like Darwin (the chap you erroneously claimed as an atheist hero a few pages back) then? The strength in my beliefs is a faith in proper epistemological method here. If I am going to believe in something or not, then I want to actually have some kind of evidence for my position.

i know its a joke. i know its not a religion, how old do you think i am, 12? no im 13 lol. but seriously i know. :D

[/QUOTE]Nope. I ain't read a word of him: it is a fairly old idea that has been kicking around from at least the time of Aristotle, that God is just a Prime Mover that creates the initial state of existence and then lets it run its course.[/QUOTE]
ok my bad. :(

Ah-hah: I'm weak in my beliefs because I ask for evidence rather than plumping for an arbitrary position? I guess in this way I'm weak in my beliefs like Darwin (the chap you erroneously claimed as an atheist hero a few pages back) then? The strength in my beliefs is a faith in proper epistemological method here. If I am going to believe in something or not, then I want to actually have some kind of evidence for my position.

You are very weak in your beliefs and yes I do champion Darwin (I didn't say he was an atheist hero). You need to get your facts right about me. For one, your contributions to debate is next to nothing and you don't provide any facts.

You are very weak in your beliefs and yes I do champion Darwin (I didn't say he was an atheist hero). You need to get your facts right about me.


My sincere apologies there, for a moment I had thought that you had made a post which was actually made by [NS]Amestria. Mea culpa. Sorry.

For one, your contributions to debate is next to nothing and you don't provide any facts.

I am not providing facts because I don't believe there are any facts available to us either through science or religion* which conclusively prove the matter either way. That is why I am arguing that atheism is as much an arbitrary position as theism, and that the logical attitude to adopt is therefore one of agnosticism.



* or philosophy, for that matter.

Atheism is not a religion. And it is the best thing to happen to this world.
wow how sad are you! :eek:
by the way, Darwin turned christian in laterlife.

I am not providing facts because I don't believe there are any facts available to us either through science or religion* which conclusively prove the matter either way. That is why I am arguing that atheism is as much an arbitrary position as theism, and that the logical attitude to adopt is therefore one of agnosticism.

I just believe in science. I have also repeatably said nobody has answer to why everything exists. I can explain how (through the big bang theory) and how life evolves. I'm adopting atheism. It isn't arbitrary. You need to stop bashing my beliefs.

wow how sad are you! :eek:

Explain.

I just believe in science. I have also repeatably said nobody has answer to why everything exists. I can explain how (through the big bang theory) and how life evolves. I'm adopting atheism. It isn't arbitrary. You need to stop bashing my beliefs.

I'm not bashing your beliefs. I'm pro-science/scientific method here too, but I do not believe that science is able to answer the question of God's existence or not. The fact that we are able to create a coherent model of the universe which excludes the intervention of God does not show that God not only doesn't exist but can't exist. Like the big 'why?' question, the existence of God is a question which it is beyond science to answer.

Explain.
i think i got the hang of this quoting now. anyway, i can think of thousands of things betta then athiesm. xboxes, aston villa, halo 2, malcolm in the middle, were does the list end? you must be sad to think its the best thing in the world.

oh yeah and i only heard of the big bang, not the big band. :rolleyes:

im only 13 i cant tell as well as you lot probs can so can u say whether your athiesm or your religion in your post?

Nietzsche said it best.

"God is dead".

Thank you Mesatecala, for your compelling arguments against the face of "God" in proof of Science. I may not be as knowledgeable as some on the subject, but I assure you I am no slouch. However since this is "my" first post... Ill keep quiet until my place has been accepted.

Thank you.

i think i got the hang of this quoting now. anyway, i can think of thousands of things betta then athiesm. xboxes, aston villa, halo 2, malcolm in the middle, were does the list end? you must be sad to think its the best thing in the world.

oh yeah and i only heard of the big bang, not the big band. :rolleyes:

I believe atheism is great because it counters religion and prevents the spread of it.

Grampus: I have the reason to believe that the notion of god was created to control people. That's why I do not believe in god. There is no reason for one.

Prospero: No, I got the common sense.

... athiesm...

oh yeah and i only heard of the big bang, not the big band. :rolleyes:

Skitt's law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or grammar errors.

'Atheism' not 'athiesm'.

No. The big bang explains how(or, tries to, anyway) the universe was created, but fails to explain why it was created.

Please, let's not debate this, you'll just end up calling me "fascist simple minded christian again", and go and be hypocritical, claiming me to be the rude one.

Why does there have to be a "why?" The repetitive insistence that "science might be able to explain how but we need religion to explain why" presupposes that there *is* a 'why.' Can theists not conceptualize the idea that maybe it just happened? That maybe there's an answer to the 'how' but that there is no reason to be found?
It seems to me that those who insist on the utility of religion to provide a reason for the existence of the universe do so because they're afraid to face the possibility that there is no reason. The very insistence on the use of the word 'created' presumes a creator, with intention and purpose. People who are free of that constraint on their thinking tend not to agonize over "why" the big bang happened, and instead concern themselves with that which they think we can know.
It's okay if there is no god-- you're still a component of something so vast and intricate and amazing as to boggle the imagination. Your constituent elements were created inside of stars billions of years ago. That ought to be more than enough of a wonder as to make obsessing over some superstitious tribal god seem quaint.

Grampus: I have the reason to believe that the notion of god was created to control people. That's why I do not believe in god. There is no reason for one.

Fair enough, would you agree though that there is a difference between 'not believing in God' and 'believing in the non-existence of God'?

Prospero: No, I got the common sense.

Er, the common sense to blatantly ignore the conclusion that minds greater than ours have reached?

Notice that I said "some of us".

Agnostics are not sure. Atheists are sure that there is no god.

Agnostics believe it is impossible to know (for sure) if there is a god.

You could be an Atheist Agnostic, a Christian Agnsotic, etc... it's just about knowing... not about believing.

Atheists come in two flavours:

Those who DENY the existence of god(s) - the Explicit (Hard/Strong) Atheist.

Those who simply LACK BELIEF in god(s) - the Implicit (Weak/Soft) Atheist.

Er, the common sense to blatantly ignore the conclusion that minds greater than ours have reached?

what are you ranting on about? Start naming some of these people.

Why does there have to be a "why?" The repetitive insistence that "science might be able to explain how but we need religion to explain why" presupposes that there *is* a 'why.' Can theists not conceptualize the idea that maybe it just happened?

Because science has often given us other "why's".

The very insistence on the use of the word 'created' presumes a creator, with intention and purpose.

Not necessarilly: those scientists who espouse a model of a self-creating universe will also speak of it being 'created'.

Er, the common sense to blatantly ignore the conclusion that minds greater than ours have reached?

Clang. Appeal to authority.

what are you ranting on about? Start naming some of these people.

Um, I'm not ranting, it's commonly accepted that the existence of God cannot be proved, nor disproved.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Um, I'm not ranting, a consensus was reached long ago that the existence of God cannot be proved, nor disproved.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. The burden of proof is on those who make the notion that god exists.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. The burden of proof is on those who make the notion that god exists.

The absence of evidence supporting a theory does not necessarily make an opposing theory correct.

The simple truth is that there is no proof to support either side's view.

If Atheists are sure there are no gods, surely, they must have proof to back this up, otherwise they cannot be sure. They cannot possibly know. Agnosticism is the only thing that seems to make real sense to me.

The absence of evidence supporting a theory does not necessarily make an opposing theory correct.

The simple truth is that there is no proof to support either side's view.

You're resorting to false dictohomy.

A false dilemmia.

That's a logical fallacy.

You need to provide evidence for the notion of god. If you don't do that, there is no need me to disprove a negative.

You're resorting to false dictohomy.

A false dilemmia.

That's a logical fallacy.

You need to provide evidence for the notion of god. If you don't do that, there is no need me to disprove a negative.

Uh, you're resorting to the argument from ignorance by asserting that because there is no evidence of God's existence, God must not exist.

The absence of evidence supporting a theory does not necessarily make an opposing theory correct.

The simple truth is that there is no proof to support either side's view.

This being the case, Occam tells us to follow the more straightforward path... i.e. the one that doesn't require any esoteric knowledge.

Thus, unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary, god didn't do ANYTHING that could be explained some other way.

Uh, you're doing exactly the same by asserting that because there is no evidence of God's existence, God must not exist.

No. :cool: All I'm saying is I don't have to disprove a negative.

1st let me say that the big bang when it originated was frowned upon by scientists because the big bang was seen as a theory that supported the idea of God.

Now as for emprical evidence, Empiricism is idea that “experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge (dictionary.com).” In other words only that which is observable is knowable. I cannot know something unless it corresponds with experience or observation. Too many professionals and lay persons alike believe the only things a person can know are those they can actually see and experience. This formation of thought is held to discredit the existence of God, I cannot see God therefore there is no God. It’s not uncommon to hear people object to certain notions like the existence of a deity or supernaturalism by saying ‘if it can’t be proven by science to be true then it is obviously not true.’ This notion of verification by science is referring to the observable senses in other words, can I see, smell, touch, taste, hear, and observe repetitively something so that I can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed true.

Empiricism is nice but experience is not the only means of knowing something, for example there are some things we just know, I know 2 plus 2 equals 4. I can’t answer how I know such a thing as 2 + 2 = 4 I just know it (J.P.Moreland). There is no empirical data to prove the existence of numbers and letters and such. Furthermore to ask ‘can it be proven by science’ is self refuting because the statement ‘can it be proved by science cannot itself be proven by science. Not all things require empirical data for conclusive knowledge and furthermore just because something doesn’t have empirical data does not mean that it is not true or that it doesn’t correspond with reality.

Empiricism is often used by people who fundamentally believe in Darwinian Evolution which again is a futile stance. No one can observe or experience the origin and evolution of life therefore it is hypocritical of a person to discredit a belief because they believe its unknowable through empirical data yet at the same time hold a belief that is itself not knowable through empirical data. As I mentioned before empirical data does not account for all knowledge, in searching for truth in any manner you have to know the facts, examine the evidence and proceed with caution and logic. At the end of the day one must ask himself or herself what the facts are and secondly what is the best explanation of those facts (William Lane Craig). Knowledge can be derived through the examination of evidence even if the knowledge cannot be made 100 % conclusive or in other words one need not be 100 percent certain to know something or too have knowledge about something. To know something one need only be 51 percent certain to have knowledge, insofar as long as one’s belief corresponds with reality. It would be foolish of me to say that I believe that I only have one arm and furthermore that I am 53 percent certain that I indeed only have one arm, my belief no matter how certain I am has no correspondence to reality.


“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.”

-Donald Rumsfeld

“If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved.”
-C.S. Lewis

http://dontreallyunderstand.blogspot.com/

Uh, you're doing exactly the same by asserting that because there is no evidence of God's existence, God must not exist.

Not necessarily; if there isn't enough or no evidence to convict someone of a crime, they're found not guilty. In that case, absence of evidence does indicate evidence of absence. The burden of proof is always on the accuser.

All I'm saying is I don't have to disprove a negative

Would you care to elaborate on this? It seems that this only a matter of perspective.

This being the case, Occam tells us to follow the more straightforward path... i.e. the one that doesn't require any esoteric knowledge.


Very true, but Occam's Razor relies on the assumption that the universe tends towards a simplistic nature rather than a complex one, and so it is oft invoked in a kind of circular reasoning.

Would you care to elaborate on this? It seems that this only a matter of perspective.

As Vetalia said, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the notion.

Very true, but Occam's Razor relies on the assumption that the universe tends towards a simplistic nature rather than a complex one, and so it is oft invoked in a kind of circular reasoning.

Not precisely... however, why ASSUME anything other than a simplistic universe?

Surely, you'd need some reason to assume all was not as it was seen to be?

So - the universe ITSELF, lends it's self to Occam's Sharp-Shaving-Thing.

Not necessarily; if there isn't enough or no evidence to convict someone of a crime, they're found not guilty. In that case, absence of evidence does indicate evidence of absence. The burden of proof is always on the accuser.

Side note: in Scotland it is possible for there to be one of three outcomes to a trial, guilty, not guilty or not proven. The last is invoked when a belief remains that the accused is quite possibly quilty, but there has not been sufficient evidence to convict them.

Would you care to elaborate on this? It seems that this only a matter of perspective.

No, in logic the statement which is to be proved is assumed to be untrue until proven to be true. (the same is true with mathematical logic)

Not precisely... however, why ASSUME anything other than a simplistic universe?

Surely, you'd need some reason to assume all was not as it was seen to be?

So - the universe ITSELF, lends it's self to Occam's Sharp-Shaving-Thing.

What you're essentially doing here is invoking Occam's Razor in support of Occam's Razor, yes?

As Vetalia said, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the notion.

But as I said, isn't this is just a matter of perspective? If I am making the notion that God exists, I must provide evidence, or there is no God. Yet, if you are making the notion you must provide the evidence, or there is God.

Side note: in Scotland it is possible for there to be one of three outcomes to a trial, guilty, not guilty or not proven. The last is invoked when a belief remains that the accused is quite possibly quilty, but there has not been sufficient evidence to convict them.

That's pretty interesting; in the US "not guilty" usually means the same as "not proven" although if found not guilty you cannot be retried for the same crime.

No, in logic the statement which is to be proved is assumed to be untrue until proven to be true. (the same is true with mathematical logic)

Agnostic comment: and as Godel points out, in both logic and mathematical logic there are statements which can't be proved to be either true or false.

But as I said, this is just a matter of perspective. If am making the notion that God exists I must provide evidence, or there is no God. Yet, if you are making the notion you must provide the evidence, or there is God.

No. It is a matter of logic. You need to stop relying of false dichotomy. You need to understand that I don't need to disprove a negative. Like I don't need to provide proof that there are no flying pigs.

You need to stop relying of false dichotomy

Then what is the third option?

That's pretty interesting; in the US "not guilty" usually means the same as "not proven" although if found not guilty you cannot be retried for the same crime.

Yeah, well Scotland's legal system is weird: I believe that if a verdict of 'not proven' is served then you can't be tried again on the same charges, but I'm not entirely sure on this point.

What you're essentially doing here is invoking Occam's Razor in support of Occam's Razor, yes?

Not really, no... although Occam does (perhaps obviously) apply best to an idealised (i.e. simplistic) reality.... which is what it is most logical to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

So - Occam's Razor DOES support the principles BEHIND it's own sharpness, but it isn't exactly the REASON FOR it.

Agnostic comment: and as Godel points out, in both logic and mathematical logic there are statements which can't be proved to be either true or false.

That's true. Usually, however, the mathematical and logical conjectures work in certain cases but haven't been proven for all cases; God cannot be proven to exist even in trivial cases.

Then what is the third option?

All I'm saying you seriously have to stop asking me for proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the notion.

All I'm saying you seriously have to stop asking me for proof. The burden of proof is on the one making the notion.

All I'm saying is that science cannot disprove the existence of God. I am not trying to prove God's existence, I'm simply stating the accepted conclusion to this argument is that there is no proof for either side.

You keep repeating that I'm relying on a false dichotomy, but what are the other options?

All I'm saying is that science cannot disprove the existence of God. I am not trying to prove God's existence, I'm simply stating the accepted conclusion to this argument is that there is no proof for either side.

You keep repeating that I'm relying on a false dichotomy, but what are the other options?

All i'm saying is you don't understand what I am getting at. I'm saying I don't have to provide evidence for something that cannot be proven.

I'm saying I don't have to provide evidence for something that cannot be proven.

So if you cannot provide evidence, are you not relying on faith?

Not really, no... although Occam does (perhaps obviously) apply best to an idealised (i.e. simplistic) reality.... which is what it is most logical to assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

So - Occam's Razor DOES support the principles BEHIND it's own sharpness, but it isn't exactly the REASON FOR it.

Wouldn't it be equally valid to suppose an elaborate set of principles ('not-Occam's Swiss Army Knife And Multi-Tool') which indicate that we should always look for the most convoluted and torturous explanation to things? Provided the set of principles were sufficiently convoluted and torturous to pass their own criteria, then they would also support their multi-faceted sharpness.


And yes, I know I am being facetious here, and that Occam's Razor is an extension of empirical experience where more often than not the simplest explanation does seem to be not only sufficient to explain something but also most likely true.

All i'm saying is you don't understand what I am getting at. I'm saying I don't have to provide evidence for something that cannot be proven.
Nor do you have to tell us what has led you to be convinced. But a little indulgence on that front would be very much appreciated, Mesatecala. Think you could let us know where your line of thought comes from?

Nor do you have to tell us what has led you to be convinced. But a little indulgence on that front would be very much appreciated, Mesatecala. Think you could let us know where your line of thought comes from?

Fine I won't tell you why I don't believe in god.

For one, the burden of proof is on those who make the assumption. Not me to disprove it.

So if you cannot provide evidence, are you not relying on faith?

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof; however, because God cannot be proven to exist even in a trivial case, the proposition of nonexistence does not require faith because it is the logical outcome of lack of proof. If you cannot prove a proposition even in the trivial case, then it is by its very nature untrue.

Atheism would only require faith if God could be proven to exist in a trivial case.

Wouldn't it be equally valid to suppose an elaborate set of principles ('not-Occam's Swiss Army Knife And Multi-Tool') which indicate that we should always look for the most convoluted and torturous explanation to things? Provided the set of principles were sufficiently convoluted and torturous to pass their own criteria, then they would also support their multi-faceted sharpness.


And yes, I know I am being facetious here, and that Occam's Razor is an extension of empirical experience where more often than not the simplest explanation does seem to be not only sufficient to explain something but also most likely true.

If you drop an apple... it heads towards the ground... and it is fairly easy to see that, with repitition causing the same thing OVER AND OVER, there must be something that MAKES it happen the same way each time.

Maybe the Earth just sucks?

Or maybe there is a governing force, that always pulls things towards the centre of a mass?

Or maybe there are millions of little pixies, that prod the apple towards the ground with tiny pixie pitchforks?

Faced with the choice of a force (sucky planet or otherwise), or pixie apple-wranglers, the LOGICAL assumption would be the one that multiplied less entities.

The universe works because it WORKS... it is survival of the fittest, on a universal scale. The simplest route is (almost always) the most efficient.

So... why multiply entities?

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof; however, because God cannot be proven to exist even in a trivial case, the proposition of nonexistence does not require faith because it is the logical outcome of lack of proof. If you cannot prove a proposition even in the trivial case, then it is by its very nature untrue.


Yes, but as has been said, if you make a notion, you must provide the proof. Since one cannot prove that God does not exist, it is a matter of faith because you believe in something for which there is no proof.

Yes, but as has been said, if you make a notion, you must provide the proof. Since one cannot prove that God does not exist, it is a matter of faith because you believe in something for which there is no proof.

No. Now you are twisting logic. You are just plain wrong. What I said was: If you say god exists you must provide evidence. Thse who don't think god exists, don't have to provide anything to disprove the existence of god.

Yes, but as has been said, if you make a notion, you must provide the proof. Since one cannot prove that God does not exist, it is a matter of faith because you believe in something for which there is no proof.

Yes, but you cannot prove that God exists in any cases. If something cannot be proven to be true in any case, it is by definition untrue until proven to be true in at least one case. If it can be proven true in one case, then the statement of untruth also requires proof.

Effectively, if there is no proof at all for any case the proposition is untrue.

If there is one case that is proven true, then the proposition is neither definitely true nor untrue until proven beyond doubt for all cases or disproven in one case (this is why the burden of proof falls on the accuser).

Once someone proves a single case in which God exists, I will become agnostic.

Faced with the choice of a force (sucky planet or otherwise), or pixie apple-wranglers, the LOGICAL assumption would be the one that multiplied less entities.

I think using gravity as an example of the simplest solution is a dangerous one: our understanding of how it works remains shaky at best.

Or maybe there are millions of little pixies, that prod the apple towards the ground with tiny pixie pitchforks?

Hmmm. Falling apple? Gravity? Chap called Newton?...

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Yes, I'm just being mischevious here now.

Fine I won't tell you why I don't believe in god.

For one, the burden of proof is on those who make the assumption. Not me to disprove it.
But the case against the assumption is very much strengthened by someone who can reason his position of the world without such an assumption. Screw burden of proof; we're not asking for evidence if you don't want to provide any, but outlining your thought patterns for the degree of your convictions will only make your case stronger.

Quick general question; If Christianity were to throw in the towel, how would you argue in favour of the non-existence of God or other equivilent powers?

I'm not on either side of the fence, by the way, but I think arguments are only won by at least some degree of construction rather than just continuously pulling down your opponents' ideas.

If you drop an apple... it heads towards the ground... and it is fairly easy to see that, with repitition causing the same thing OVER AND OVER, there must be something that MAKES it happen the same way each time.

Maybe the Earth just sucks?

Or maybe there is a governing force, that always pulls things towards the centre of a mass?

Or maybe there are millions of little pixies, that prod the apple towards the ground with tiny pixie pitchforks?

Faced with the choice of a force (sucky planet or otherwise), or pixie apple-wranglers, the LOGICAL assumption would be the one that multiplied less entities.

The universe works because it WORKS... it is survival of the fittest, on a universal scale. The simplest route is (almost always) the most efficient.

So... why multiply entities?
Just in passing, do we want to go into the discussion of Gluons here? >_>;

But Vetalia, you and Mesatacala keep slipping into the argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.



Argument from ignorance:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."

I think using gravity as an example of the simplest solution is a dangerous one: our understanding of how it works remains shaky at best.


No - our knowledge of the details might be a bit shaky, but we've a pretty good idea of roughly how it 'works'.


Hmmm. Falling apple? Gravity? Chap called Newton?...

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Yes, I'm just being mischevious here now.

Newton wasn't sure WHY... but, ultimately, the 'why' isn't all that important, so long as it does it every time...

...I think arguments are only won by at least some degree of construction rather than just continuously pulling down your opponents' ideas.
Neither are they won by declaring yourself the winner, then refusing to illustrate why that might be, and going on to threaten people who disagree with pre-emptive claims of victory.

Stating that you won isn't stating your case. Or making an argument.

*Edit: please note that I am not addressing your arguments, Kamsaki... just arguments in general.

But Vetalia, you and Mesatacala keep slipping into the argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

In certain types of logic; however, in mathematical logic the lack of proof for even the trivial case means the proposition is untrue until proven in at least one case. Since the "n=1" case of God's existence is unproven, the entire proposition is untrue until that trivial case is established.

That leads to the question of what form of logic is the proper kind for determining the existence of God (a debate in itself).

Atheism exists becasue some of us just can't be bothered to make the effort to pointlessly follow religion!

That leads to the question of what form of logic is the proper kind for determining the existence of God (a debate in itself).

If you were on this forum about 18 months ago under another Nation name you might have witnessed Cartese's hilarious and deeply fundamentally flawed attempt to disprove an interventionist God (IIRC) on the basis of poorly understood and worse implemented Boolean logic. It was a truely horrific sequence of several twenty page threads that almost literally had me banging my head against the wall. Thankfully I appear to have blocked out most of the specifics of that ordeal from my memory.

In certain types of logic; however, in mathematical logic the lack of proof for even the trivial case means the proposition is untrue until proven in at least one case. Since the "n=1" case of God's existence is unproven, the entire proposition is untrue until that trivial case is established.

That leads to the question of what form of logic is the proper kind for determining the existence of God (a debate in itself).

So what you and Mesa are saying is that you don't have any proof, because you don't need it. The same is true about the other side. While they are accusing a god of existing, aren't you accusing a god of not-existing? Neither side has proof, and therefore isn't the most logical side to take the middle? Let's remember that this isn't something as trivial as mathematical postulates, this is about whether or not a supreme being exists. In this kind of argument, your normal rules for declaring evidence of absence get thrown out the window.

I believe in a higher with no proof to support my arguments. You believe there is no higher power with no proof to support your arguments. Both are matters of faith, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Let's remember that this isn't something as trivial as mathematical postulates, this is about whether or not a supreme being exists. In this kind of argument, your normal rules for declaring evidence of absence get thrown out the window.

Are you claiming here that before we can select an appropriate epistemological method to determine the truth-value of a proposition we first need to put that proposition through a system which is able to determines its objective value?

Just as a little aside, what does everyone make of Systems Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Theory)? Is there sufficient scientific grounding behind that to consider it a plausible idea?

Atheism exists becasue some of us just can't be bothered to make the effort to pointlessly follow religion!

No. No matter how you look at things, the only bottom-line reason that atheism exists is because some of us lack faith in the existence of any higher deity. Religion has improved lives, thereby not deeming it entirely pointless, but has also cheapened many. The important issue is the task of making the presence of one's preferred deity irrelevant in their daily external dealings. The neccessity for this is the reason humanism exists. There's no need to bash or squabble against one side or another, but understand it, and hopefully move past it as a detail so that we may function in society sans any detrimental and narrow-minded fanaticism.

No. No matter how you look at things, the only bottom-line reason that atheism exists is because some of us lack faith in the existence of any higher deity. Religion has improved lives, thereby not deeming it entirely pointless, but has also cheapened many. The important issue is the task of making the presence of one's preferred deity irrelevant in their daily external dealings. The neccessity for this is the reason humanism exists. There's no need to bash or squabble against one side or another, but understand it, and hopefully move past it as a detail so that we may function in society sans any detrimental and narrow-minded fanaticism.

I would argue that science and secular humanism has improved far more lives than religion ever has.

The numbers are irrelevant, both have helped, and harmed mankind. Twidgets hit the nail on the head. One doesn't have to be religious to be a fanatic...

I would argue that science and secular humanism has improved far more lives than religion ever has.

In this debate, quantifying factors are either irrelevant to my point, or detrimental. I agree with you entirely. However, some lives - some of whom I know and others I merely know of - have been improved by religion. Atheism gives Bad Religion something to sing about. Mike Ness of Social Distortion sucked until he cleaned up and turned his life over to God. Everything has pro's and con's.
In my life, I don't care if someone is christian or not, but rather whether or not they are a good person in some way. Generally, I manage to receive the same sort of acceptance, even from fanatics.

Hmm. I believe I'll just pull a few relevant quotes from the Objectivist Center (http://www.objectivistcenter.org); their writers are more eloquent than I.

Objectivists reject the existence of God for the same reason they reject the existence of elves, leprechauns, and unicorns: because there is no credible evidence of such beings.

Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.

Agnosticism, in the philosophical sense, holds that we should not reject anything that we have not disproved (particularly the claim that God exists). Because agnosticism refuses to reject arbitrary propositions, agnosticism is false. Agnosticism is wrong about how to approach claims that lack evidence. A proposition that is not supported by any evidence at all should be rejected not as false, but as arbitrary, and should not even be entertained as a hypothesis. The proposition that God exists is an example of an arbitrary proposition. The burden of proof is on he who advances a claim—it is not the atheist's responsibility to disprove the existence of God, whether or not it is possible to do so.

Objectivism holds that in order to obtain knowledge, man must use an objective process of thought. The essence of objective thought is, first, integration of perceptual data in accordance with logic and, second, a commitment to acknowledging all of the facts of reality, and only the facts. In other words, the only thoughts to consider when forming knowledge of reality are those logically derived from reality.

People can come up with an infinite number of claims. Some claims have conclusive supporting evidence: evidence that is ultimately reducible to perceptual concretes (examples of well-supported claims include "the world is round" and "water is made of hydrogen and oxygen"). Other claims may have inconclusive supporting evidence (examples include: "Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy" and "an asteroid crash caused the extinction of the dinosaurs"). Still other claims have no supporting evidence whatsoever (e.g., "gremlins are green" and "souls are immortal"). In those cases in which the evidence is truly inconclusive, one may legitimately say with regard to a claim, "I don't know whether it's true." But claims that have no supporting evidence at all should be rejected as arbitrary rather than being evaluated or even entertained as hypotheses. This is basic scientific procedure: every claim must have some evidence in its favor before a scientist considers the possibility of testing it. And it applies to non-scientific inquiries as well. A claim that has no evidence whatsoever in its favor should not be rejected as false—rather, the very question of whether the claim is true or false should be rejected outright, for the claim itself is arbitrary.



To clarify, Objectivism is a philosophy whose ideas I mostly agree with. I hesitate to call myself an Objectivist, however, as the Center holds some beliefs that I do not. Just swallowing their ideals as true would be making the same mistake as I might by following a religion. It would go against the organization's very spirit.)

Hi, I'm back and my flight was uneventful and anticlimactic. So where were we :cool: .

Oh, sorry Amestria, I had no idea you were being serious...
.

Why not?


This has what to do with religion, sorry?
.

In a previous statement you remarked...


Er, it's not. That's your opinion. If it were truth, then there would be no religion. Fortunately, there still is.
.

I was demonstrating how there are many cases in which the truth is perfectly clear, but is ignored by large groups of people. In the case of those who deny the Holocaust or claim, "Jews rule the World by proxy" (a former Malyasian Prime Minister at his retirement speech) they ignore all evidence to the contrary. You claim that if something were true, as is the disproval of god, that no one would deny it. History unfortunately proves that human beings are capable of denying anything....

Concerning the Flat-Earthers that is a religious topic, there is a fanatical religious group in California (of about 6000) which claims that the Earth is flat, as it says in the Bible, and that all evidence to the contrary has been created by a vast satanic conspiracy. That such groups exist is proof that human beings are capable and regularly deny the truth of the physical world and cling to spiritual beliefs that have been totally disproved by science and sense perception. Belief in the possibility of god is on an equal level as the belief in the Flat Earth.




I wasn't aware it's been empirically proven that humans have no souls.
.

That was a typo, I meant to say that there were certain groups (Scientologists cough cough) that believe that human suffering is caused by ALIEN souls. Why were on this topic there is no evidence of anything like the soul existing, where is it? The soul is invisible, undetectable with any scientific tool, with no physical properties.... Thus it cannot exist.




Though I, along with the majority of the world, disagree with the actions of these extremists we cannot disprove that they aren't in heaven with their virgins.

With this comment you have revealed your true colors and taken your arguments of unconfirmable "possibilities" to its only possible conclusion. Religion by its nature tends to be exclusive that is one Faith is the true one and all others are heresy/evil/satanic, yet when confronted with science one cannot defend ones Faith with evidence, because evidence does not exist. Therefore the Theist/Spiritualist is forced to fall back upon the argument of unlimited possibility. When he does that he cannot claim exclusivity, as that would contradict his argument, so the realm of possibility is extended from his beliefs to all others (least to the challenging Atheist has gone away) no matter how obviously untrue.

Thus the conclusion is total relativism. The Earth possibly could be flat, the 9/11 hijackers possibly could be serving "gods will" and thus be in heaven with there virgins, the victims possibly deserved it, the Earth could be hallow, the Earth could stand upon the back of Atlas who sits upon an elephant which stands upon a turtle, black is white and white is black, est. Truth and objectivity vanish...

This shows that ones arguments are nothing more then sophistry, truth does not matter to you, it never did. It is only whose argument convinces the most people, or generally in the case of terrorists the loudest argument (BOOOM).

Relativism has always been unsustainable. If one where to stand in the rubble of a terrorist attack, would one think, "maybe they were right and we are evil". Would one contemplate "it is possible they are in their Heaven for doing god's will"? How about addressing the victim of a terrorist attack, or a family member of a victim. Would one march up to them and say, "it is a possibility that the terrorists were serving gods will and you deserved it". How do you think they would respond? How do you think such arguments would hold up?

It is possible, which has been an argument used constantly by Theists and Agnostics is no argument at all. It is relativism and sophistry; the sacrifice of truth to meet ones preconceived notions.

Saying something is possible, with no evidence or impression to back up what you say is not an argument for anything!

Now I'll tell you the truth concerning the 9/11 hijackers and what happened to them. They were violent primitive fanatics who died in the service of a bankrupt and dying fundamentalist belief system. When they died their bodies turned to dust and they ceased to exist. What they did was not in any way right or justified! How could it be, unless one resorts to arguments of what is "possible"....

God is Dead, the World is better off!

I lost track of this thread.

Prospero: No. I'm not sliding into a logical fallacy. You are. That's the problem with your entire argument.

But the case against the assumption is very much strengthened by someone who can reason his position of the world without such an assumption. Screw burden of proof; we're not asking for evidence if you don't want to provide any, but outlining your thought patterns for the degree of your convictions will only make your case stronger.

Screw burden of proof? It doesn't work that way. Throwing out common sense and logic is not good for an argument. I already outlined my views. They are rather cut and dry. Nothing much to them. I don't believe in god, and I don't feel religion can prove it because they have not fullfilled the burden of the proof in any lengths.


Quick general question; If Christianity were to throw in the towel, how would you argue in favour of the non-existence of God or other equivilent powers?

Again I would argue like before... the burden of proof is not met therefore I do not need to argue in the favor of non-existence of god, since there is no evidence to prove it.

I am currently a student in highschool and i have only one thing to say about teaching creationism in school.
Go for it!!!
How great the class would be
"Okay class. welcome to creationism 101. Your first lesson will be that God created everything....See you at the finals."

No--atheism exists because some people just aren't satisfied with what religion has to offer in terms of empirical evidence for the existence of the universe. The atrocities recorded in the Bible and other sacred texts are no different than what we as humans do to this very day, militarily speaking.
Agreed to an extent … the atrocities recorded in the bible for me create a dissonance with their description of an all loving deity … as much as they try to explain it away it adds to the “wrongness” I feel about it

Agreed to an extent … the atrocities recorded in the bible for me create a dissonance with their description of an all loving deity … as much as they try to explain it away it adds to the “wrongness” I feel about it

The Old and New Testaments just do not match, in terms of the 'intent' of God. The Old Testament is clear on the fact that the 'god' it describes is a god of vengeance, and a jealous god.

It is only in the New Testament that god is repackaged as a generally benevolent entity... to better match the agenda of the Christian prophet.

It is often assumed that Gabriel (as one of the two 'named' angels in the Old Testament) is one of the two angels sent to destroy Sodom... and yet, Gabriel has also acquired a new 'lover, not a fighter' persona in the New Testament story...

The Old and New Testaments just do not match, in terms of the 'intent' of God. The Old Testament is clear on the fact that the 'god' it describes is a god of vengeance, and a jealous god.

It is only in the New Testament that god is repackaged as a generally benevolent entity... to better match the agenda of the Christian prophet.

It is often assumed that Gabriel (as one of the two 'named' angels in the Old Testament) is one of the two angels sent to destroy Sodom... and yet, Gabriel has also acquired a new 'lover, not a fighter' persona in the New Testament story...
Exactly .... I get a completely different feel from the two gods ... and there is no honest explanation for the change between the two of them. (an omni-everything deity should be fairly static because of his knowledge of what is best … not to mention the problem with all of the sudden needing to change salvation rules on us)

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

no kidding... science will never be able to explain everything.
----------------------------

John 20:29 (New International Version)
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

1 Corinthians 13:12 (NIV)
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Exactly .... I get a completely different feel from the two gods ... and there is no honest explanation for the change between the two of them. (an omni-everything deity should be fairly static because of his knowledge of what is best … not to mention the problem with all of the sudden needing to change salvation rules on us)

Well, if you really look at the Old Testament god... well, he's just not much 'good'... he's vengeful, spiteful, and a bit dim. He makes mistakes all the time (and has to keep 'repenting'), and gets most of his policy from his human associates. He's also a little immature and bratty... he shows people his bottom, and cheats in fights.

For some reason, he can't kill people in chariots, either.

The New testament 'god' is better marketing... they've replaced most of the classic design flaws, and added a nice fluffy exterior... in fact, it's has everything but the 'new and improved' sticker.

no kidding... science will never be able to explain everything.


See that's the difference between religion and science. Religion CLAIMS to explain everything... and science admits that it can't, and is happy that way.

LOL. I am sorry. I really find this amusing. First, I apologize if I touch on something that has already been discussed. I have a slight headache and only read the beginning and end of this discussion.

I am atheist. I don't "choose" to not believe in god because of the atrocities of the bible, or the contradictions that are found in some religious texts...or even because of the fundamentalists who constantly barrage me to repent or go to hell (and my own dear mother is one of those). Those things irritate me to no end, but they are not the reason for my atheism. I don't "choose" anything. It is not a choice. It is an epiphany. I am atheist because I realized that with all the information before me, logically a god cannot exist. Might I be wrong? Maybe, but that is between me and whomever this deity (or deities) may be during the time in which I may be judged.

Now, as for the Science and Intelligent Design argument, I think that even the ID people (most of them at least) will agree that the scientists have a good point in that there must have been a method for the creation of the universe. Sure. God could just snap his fingers and make something appear, but why would he break the very laws of the universe that HE created. To have something in physical existence, The laws of Physics MUST be in place first...THEN things can be created. Without these laws, things wouldn't work in this universe.

NOW, I heard it mentioned many times in this thread that science does tell how, but not why. Of course. Science explains the how. That's what it is supposed to do. That, after all, is what the laws and theories are all about. There are some why questions, but the "why" in these cases are always related to other laws and theories. EXAMPLE: Why does the apple fall from the tree? ANSWER: See Newton's Law of Gravity. NOW...sure there is the question of why the universe was created. This line of question will never have a scientific answer because it is not a scientific question. This is a question of Philosophy. This area answers the questions of: "Why do I exist?," "Why are humans around?," and "Why did G-d create the universe?" They are not simple questions and the answers can never actually be proven. They are answers of human nature, behavior and thought. They can be understood, but will never have a solid answer as to "why." Take the answer "I think...therefor I am." Well, yeah...but is there more than that? I am sure that there could be an entire range of studies based on that one thought alone.

:)

Well, if you really look at the Old Testament god... well, he's just not much 'good'... he's vengeful, spiteful, and a bit dim. He makes mistakes all the time (and has to keep 'repenting'), and gets most of his policy from his human associates. He's also a little immature and bratty... he shows people his bottom, and cheats in fights.

For some reason, he can't kill people in chariots, either.

The New testament 'god' is better marketing... they've replaced most of the classic design flaws, and added a nice fluffy exterior... in fact, it's has everything but the 'new and improved' sticker.
Maybe the first one was a beta
Now god 2.0 is out and 20 percent faster then regular dialup :p

In this debate, quantifying factors are either irrelevant to my point, or detrimental. I agree with you entirely. However, some lives - some of whom I know and others I merely know of - have been improved by religion. Atheism gives Bad Religion something to sing about. Mike Ness of Social Distortion sucked until he cleaned up and turned his life over to God. Everything has pro's and con's.
In my life, I don't care if someone is christian or not, but rather whether or not they are a good person in some way. Generally, I manage to receive the same sort of acceptance, even from fanatics.

and then when you consider the possibility of heaven and hell... that life does not end here... being a christian might really improve things a lot.

(not verifiable, but possible that they exist)

See that's the difference between religion and science. Religion CLAIMS to explain everything... and science admits that it can't, and is happy that way.

and yet, to hear some people gloat about Almighty Science... one might get the impression that science does explain everything. I respect science for what it can do, but laugh at it for the things it will never be able to predict/measure/explain.

I understand that the Science As God complex isn't science's fault, per se... just that of some of science's nuttier fanatics. hehe

Originally Posted by Swimmingpool
Atheism exists becasue some of us just can't be bothered to make the effort to pointlessly follow religion!
No. No matter how you look at things, the only bottom-line reason that atheism exists is because some of us lack faith in the existence of any higher deity.
Isn't that the same thing, though? It is faith that you cannot be bothered to make the effort to understand. What is it for? What is it good for? What is the point?

Pointless.

Well, if you really look at the Old Testament god... well, he's just not much 'good'... he's vengeful, spiteful, and a bit dim. He makes mistakes all the time (and has to keep 'repenting'), and gets most of his policy from his human associates. He's also a little immature and bratty... he shows people his bottom, and cheats in fights.

For some reason, he can't kill people in chariots, either.

The New testament 'god' is better marketing... they've replaced most of the classic design flaws, and added a nice fluffy exterior... in fact, it's has everything but the 'new and improved' sticker.

to my knowledge, God never repents/repented. Maybe it's hidden somewhere, but if so I missed it and none of the pastors i've ever heard preach have ever mentioned it.

God is jealous, and when people don't do what He wants them to do (a la the Israelites throughout the Old Testament) He punishes them.

But time after time the Israelites crawled back to Him, and he accepted them and forgave them.

Maybe the first one was a beta
Now god 2.0 is out and 20 percent faster then regular dialup :p

The new one is on a promotion, too.... 'buy one, get two free'...

The new one is on a promotion, too.... 'buy one, get two free'...
Ohhh just what I wanted for christmass! (that was horrible I know)

to my knowledge, God never repents/repented. Maybe it's hidden somewhere, but if so I missed it and none of the pastors i've ever heard preach have ever mentioned it.

God is jealous, and when people don't do what He wants them to do (a la the Israelites throughout the Old Testament) He punishes them.

But time after time the Israelites crawled back to Him, and he accepted them and forgave them.

Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them".

Exodus 32:14 "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people".

Deuteronomy 32:36 "For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left".

First Samuel 15:10-1 "Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, ... It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments".

First Samuel 15:35 "And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel".

Second Samuel 24:16 "And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite".

First Chronicles 21:15 "And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite".

Psalm 135:14 "For the LORD will judge his people, and he will repent himself concerning his servants".

I could go on.....

Maybe the first one was a beta
Now god 2.0 is out and 20 percent faster then regular dialup :p

His system requirements sure have gone up though.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=500913&lastnode_id=408148

Feel free to add your own from the other holy scriptures, such as the Koran, etc.

Sometimes certain people just need to be wiped out.

His system requirements sure have gone up though.
I know the added checksum just does not compensate for transmission errors and signal ambiguities (getting really geeky I will give you a cookie if ya get what the checksum is ... seemed crass to state it)

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Religion explains why, but not in a satisfactory manner for lots of people.

Bleh. Religious people, atheist people, nontheist and agnostic people, we all love each other, right? :rolleyes:

Isn't that the same thing, though? It is faith that you cannot be bothered to make the effort to understand. What is it for? What is it good for? What is the point?

Pointless.

Everything's pointless, including atheism.

Yes, I'm a nihilist. Shoot me. :p

Sometimes certain people just need to be wiped out.
God of vengance thing ... I thought he was suposed to love us all :p

Prospero: No. I'm not sliding into a logical fallacy. You are. That's the problem with your entire argument

So, show me how I'm wrong then Mesa. You said I'm relying on a False Dilemma, I refuted that, now what logical fallacy am I falling into this time?

Saying you don't need to disprove this negative is a fallacy. We necessarily cannot prove such existence claims about God either way. The whole point is that the concept of God is so thoroughly irrational, like pink unicorns and all that, that the only way to deal with existence claims about Him is to assume or reject them on faith. Atheists have faith that God does not exist. Whether you have faith for or against, it's still simply faith no matter the rationale that you attempt to give


I was demonstrating how there are many cases in which the truth is perfectly clear, but is ignored by large groups of people. In the case of those who deny the Holocaust or claim, "Jews rule the World by proxy" (a former Malyasian Prime Minister at his retirement speech) they ignore all evidence to the contrary. You claim that if something were true, as is the disproval of god, that no one would deny it. History unfortunately proves that human beings are capable of denying anything

Uh-huh. These groups are minorities. Are you suggesting that atheists outnumber the religious?

Concerning the Flat-Earthers that is a religious topic, there is a fanatical religious group in California (of about 6000) which claims that the Earth is flat, as it says in the Bible, and that all evidence to the contrary has been created by a vast satanic conspiracy.

Wow, thank you for revealing the identity of this group to me. I did not know they existed. On this matter, I agree with you - they are nuts, because it is possible to prove that the earth is not flat.

That such groups exist is proof that human beings are capable and regularly deny the truth of the physical world and cling to spiritual beliefs that have been totally disproved by science and sense perception. Belief in the possibility of god is on an equal level as the belief in the Flat Earth.

Not exactly, you can prove that the earth is round, or at least not flat. It has yet to be proven whether God does, or does not exist. I guess it's some government conspiracy that's keeping the truth of God's non-existence away from us...

That was a typo, I meant to say that there were certain groups (Scientologists cough cough) that believe that human suffering is caused by ALIEN souls. Why were on this topic there is no evidence of anything like the soul existing, where is it? The soul is invisible, undetectable with any scientific tool, with no physical properties.... Thus it cannot exist.

Er, there's no evidence to prove that the soul does not exist.


Religion by its nature tends to be exclusive that is one Faith is the true one and all others are heresy/evil/satanic

Just to split hairs, this is not entirely true, Sikhs believe that salvation can be attained by non-Sikhs too.

yet when confronted with science one cannot defend ones Faith with evidence, because evidence does not exist

Neither is there evidence to completely refute religion. Again.

When he does that he cannot claim exclusivity, as that would contradict his argument, so the realm of possibility is extended from his beliefs to all others (least to the challenging Atheist has gone away) no matter how obviously untrue

Thus, we arrive at one problem with organized religion :)

Thus the conclusion is total relativism. The Earth possibly could be flat, the 9/11 hijackers possibly could be serving "gods will" and thus be in heaven with there virgins, the victims possibly deserved it, the Earth could be hallow, the Earth could stand upon the back of Atlas who sits upon an elephant which stands upon a turtle, black is white and white is black

Here's some news for you: nothing is impossible, only improbable, it's entirely possible that the sun may not rise tomorrow, just as it's possible that God exists, or doesn't exist.


It is possible, which has been an argument used constantly by Theists and Agnostics is no argument at all. It is relativism and sophistry; the sacrifice of truth to meet ones preconceived notions.

Uh-huh, just as you are failing to acknowledge that no scientist, philosopher or otherwise has ever been able to definitively prove that God does not exist, right?

Saying something is possible, with no evidence or impression to back up what you say is not an argument for anything!

Like saying it's possible God doesn't exist, yet having no evidence to back it up?

Now I'll tell you the truth concerning the 9/11 hijackers and what happened to them. They were violent primitive fanatics who died in the service of a bankrupt and dying fundamentalist belief system. When they died their bodies turned to dust and they ceased to exist. What they did was not in any way right or justified! How could it be, unless one resorts to arguments of what is "possible"

As I said, I disagree with their actions and their beliefs, but my disagreement does not determine whether their claims are true or false. You're confusing religious ethics with the existence of God, and they are totally separate from each other. Again, you are confusing your opinion with the truth. Just because you feel that the hijackers were "violent primitve fanatics" does not necessarily make it so. The possibility of God's existence has all of nothing to do with relativism or subjectivism; it is an ontological claim.

So, show me how I'm wrong then Mesa. You said I'm relying on a False Dilemma, I refuted that, now what logical fallacy am I falling into this time?

Saying you don't need to disprove this negative is a fallacy. We necessarily cannot prove such existence claims about God either way. The whole point is that the concept of God is so thoroughly irrational, like pink unicorns and all that, that the only way to deal with existence claims about Him is to assume or reject them on faith. Atheists have faith that God does not exist. Whether you have faith for or against, it's still simply faith no matter the rationale that you attempt to give

You didn't refute anything. As far as I'm concerned you are not looking at all the options in this debate. It is either your way or the highway.

No. It is not a fallacy because the argument for god does not have evidence. I thought vetalia went through with you? You don't understand what logical fallacies are. You need to learn what they are before you go accusing people of using them. There is zero evidence for the existence of god. I don't need to prove the non-existence. It isn't about faith. It seems you know little about atheists. Atheists don't believe in god because there is zero evidence for the notion. It is more of an evidence issue.

You didn't refute anything. As far as I'm concerned you are not looking at all the options in this debate

I asked you before to give me another option, and you sidestepped the question.
I will ask you again: what other options do we have?
The whole point of the false dilemma is that you are being presented with perhaps two options when there are maybe more.

You don't understand what logical fallacies are. You need to learn what they are before you go accusing people of using them.

I don't know what logical fallacies are? Here's one for you to learn:


Argumentum ad hominem

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

Example:
Ad hominem: instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion

Now would you care to address the issue, as opposed to guessing how much I know about logic.

There is zero evidence for the existence of god. I don't need to prove the non-existence. It isn't about faith

You are making the same mistake creationists and religious fundamentalists make all the time - your arguments are reifying God by insisting that God's existence is subject to spatio-temporal proof, like a table or chair.
Any inference about the existence of God is an inductive inference because God is trans-finite and any evidence available to us is finite. God's existence, then defies the possibility of being proven through a strong inductive argument. Your claim that you do not need to disprove a negative does not apply because the scope of the claim is so large as to be prohibitive of our testing it.

Thus, there is no proof to support either argument, and both parties are relying on faith.

I asked you before to give me another option, and you sidestepped the question.
I will ask you again: what other options do we have?
The whole point of the false dilemma is that you are being presented with perhaps two options when there are maybe more.
Though I do think Mesatecala is lacking in verbal explanation, he does have a point with this one. You're both relying on a false dilemma; Either God exists exactly as Christianity would portray him or he doesn't at all.

Bearing that in mind, finding other options is simple. You simply understand the possibility that God might possibly exist in forms other than that to which Christianity assigns him. Like a Complex or Natural Systems theory Emergence, an otherworldly but ultimately restricted programmer or an individual spirit guide, for instance.

Though I do think Mesatecala is lacking in verbal explanation, he does have a point with this one. You're both relying on a false dilemma; Either God exists exactly as Christianity would portray him or he doesn't at all.Bearing that in mind, finding other options is simple. You simply understand the possibility that God might possibly exist in forms other than that to which Christianity assigns him. Like a Complex or Natural Systems theory Emergence, an otherworldly but ultimately restricted programmer or an individual spirit guide, for instance

The ridiculous thing about these arguments is that when atheists target "religion" it almost always boils down to attacking Christianity and more recently Islam. Substitute "God" for "Deity" or "Supreme Being" or even "pink unicorn" if you like, but my argument remains the same, I'm not arguing for the existence of any particular religion's conception of God. I'm saying that the "idea" of God has no evidence, either for the religious or for atheists.

The ridiculous thing about these arguments is that when atheists target "religion" it almost always boils down to attacking Christianity and more recently Islam. Substitute "God" for "Deity" or "Supreme Being" or even "pink unicorn" if you like, but my argument remains the same, I'm not arguing for the existence of any particular religion's conception of God. I'm saying that the "idea" of God has no evidence, either for the religious or for atheists.
No evidence for God as you know it. There is observational evidence for the theory from which the idea of Gaia originates; namely, organ systems, systemic colonies, Evolutionary phenotypic response and cellular automata themselves, to name a few. Living Systems Theory has a solid observational foundation that provides an explanation for a Universal (or reasonably close to universal... perhaps Evolutionary would be a better adjective) and Conscious Force.

It's evidence for the means by which such an idea could be. If an equivilent was found for Christianity, it would be something along the lines of actually finding out what the Soul looked like and discovering that it left its host upon biological death.

Uh-huh. These groups are minorities. Are you suggesting that atheists outnumber the religious?
.

So a claim’s credibility depends in part on how many people believe it?... (sigh) Another sophist argument....



Wow, thank you for revealing the identity of this group to me. I did not know they existed. On this matter, I agree with you - they are nuts, because it is possible to prove that the earth is not flat.

Here's some news for you: nothing is impossible, only improbable, it's entirely possible that the sun may not rise tomorrow, just as it's possible that God exists, or doesn't exist.
.

So it is all a "possibility" the Earth might be flat and the sun might not rise tomorrow. I notice a new word used, improbable, I see... So tell me, if everything is possible who are you to say something is improbable?



Er, there's no evidence to prove that the soul does not exist.
.

I don't think you heard me... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL. If something lacks evidence for its existence it does not exist


Just to split hairs, this is not entirely true, Sikhs believe that salvation can be attained by non-Sikhs too.
.

I said "tends"...


Like saying it's possible God doesn't exist, yet having no evidence to back it up?

Neither is there evidence to completely refute religion. Again.
.

Yes there is! The physical world has been explained and no evidence/impression found for that which is spiritual or supernatural. Thus the spiritual and supernatural do not exist. How can you disprove something more then that?


As I said, I disagree with their actions and their beliefs, but my disagreement does not determine whether their claims are true or false. You're confusing religious ethics with the existence of God, and they are totally separate from each other. Again, you are confusing your opinion with the truth. Just because you feel that the hijackers were "violent primitive fanatics" does not necessarily make it so. The possibility of God's existence has all of nothing to do with relativism or subjectivism; it is an ontological claim.

No the two are not separate, as you use the same argument for both. You argued that it was "possible" that the 9/11 hijackers were right and that god existence is "possible". You used the same argument of "possibility for both, because if you said, "no what the hijackers believe is untrue" you would have destroyed the very rational you are currently using to justify your belief in god. It is the same with the Flat Earth people. So you lamely say you disagree with them and try to separate their whacked out beliefs from your own using the word improbable.... While claiming that your beliefs, based on the same total lack of evidence as theirs, are a probability that is not improbable......... Word Games!

I don't think you heard me... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL. If something lacks evidence for its existence it does not exist.

Yes there is! The physical world has been explained and no evidence/impression found for that which is spiritual or supernatural. Thus the spiritual and supernatural do not exist. How can you disprove something more then that?

I believe we lie on the same 'side' of this issue, but I still wish to point out these logical fallacies. Just because something cannot be proven does not automatically mean it is disproven. Relatively speaking, it was not long ago that humans could not prove the existence of microorganisms; that does not mean that they did not exist then.

Rather, there is simply no reason to attempt to prove or disprove a claim with no evidence. No value is to be gained by going around refuting arbitrary claims.

If a man on the street tells you there's an invisible monster behind you that only he can see, and upon further inquiry creates a story that is thouroughly untestable, do you investigate the existence of this monster? Or do you pass him by as delusional?

Amestria']So a claim’s credibility depends in part on how many people believe it?

Sadly, no, that's not what I was saying. I was being sarcastic, if that was hard to make out.


So it is all a "possibility" the Earth might be flat and the sun might not rise tomorrow. I notice a new word used, improbable, I see... So tell me, if everything is possible who are you to say something is improbable?

First of all, I'd like to apologise, I hadn't realised it was a mistake to bring "new" words into this debate. Who am I to say something is improbable? The same as anyone applying logic.


I don't think you heard me... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL. If something lacks evidence for its existence it does not exist

And I don't think you read this:


Argument from ignorance

Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."


Yes there is! The physical world has been explained and no evidence/impression found for that which is spiritual or supernatural. Thus the spiritual and supernatural do not exist. How can you disprove something more then that?

See: argument from ignorance.


No the two are not separate, as you use the same argument for both.

Uh, no, I'm afraid they are separate. Making a claim about religion is totally different from making another claim about God's existence. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

You argued that it was "possible" that the 9/11 hijackers were right and that god's existence is "possible". You used the same argument of "possibility for both, because if you said, "no what the hijackers believe is untrue" you would have destroyed the very rational you are currently using to justify your belief in god

Again, no not necessarily, they could be in heaven, but that doesn't mean God exists. Converesly, God could exist, but they may not be in heaven.

So you lamely say you disagree with them and try to separate their whacked out beliefs from your own using the word improbable. While claiming that your beliefs, based on the same total lack of evidence as theirs, are a probability that is not improbable

See: above, about separating claims of God and claims of religion. I didn't say my beliefs are a "probablility that is not improbable"......word games!

First of all, I'd like to apologize, I hadn't realised it was a mistake to bring "new" words into this debate. Who am I to say something is improbable? The same as anyone applying logic.
!

Only a few posts ago you where claiming nothing was impossible.


And I don't think you read this:

Argument from ignorance

Definition:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."
!

My statements where not as well written as they should have been so they could be construed as an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. I was not arguing against something within the physical world...


Let me restate where I'm coming from. The Physical Material World is the only world. We know that world is real because it survives doubt and is not based upon faith (no matter how much we question it we still interact with it, even the jabbering mental patient cannot escape it). This is opposed to the what I like to call "spiritual world"(which is nothing), a world created by imagination/ignorance which we do not physical dwell in or interact with, does survive doubt, is based upon faith, and can be ignored/rejected. The spiritual world is a legacy created by early humankinds inability to recognize the physical worlds truth (that is figure out how the world worked). All things exist in the physical world. If anything is said to exist separate from the physical world, that assertion cannot be tested by sense perceptions or the scientific method, so it is to be assumed false and dismissed(remember the physical world is the only world). That which does not have physical properties does not exist(if you find evidence that would prove the spiritual world/god/soul as having physical properties, please let me know).

Take the soul, we have toughly examined the human body. We are still studying the brain, but that is unimportant to this argument because how the brain works is not in question, there are just the details to be sorted out. Thoughts have been proven to exist, for example (electrical signals between brain cells, really). Now when I say the soul does not exist, remember what I mean by soul, I mean something individual of that person that would survive after death/recarnate/whatever. Those who say the soul exists have no physical properties to point to, so they are advocating the existence of something spiritual (cannot be tested and has no physical properties). Thus the soul is to be dismissed.

Now if we had been talking about something in the physical world (such as Aliens, microorganisms) I would have been guilty of using the argument from ignorance. However I am making an argument with evidence and that evidence is the Truth of the Physical World. I will state specifics if you want...


Come to think of it, you regularly use the argument from ignorance...
"Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true." You state your belief in god and use this argument to protect it....


Uh, no, I'm afraid they are separate. Making a claim about religion is totally different from making another claim about God's existence. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

Again, no not necessarily, they could be in heaven, but that doesn't mean God exists. Conversely, God could exist, but they may not be in heaven.
!

Possibilities, possibilities, possibilities.... They "could" be in heaven but "that doesn't mean god exists", but then again it could be reversed.... You are talking in circles and still being (in actuality if not intention) a relativist. You can't come out and recognize the truth of the bankruptcy of the 9/11 hijackers beliefs because that would destroy the world of unlimited possibility you have constructed!

I asked you before to give me another option, and you sidestepped the question.

I didn't sidestep anything. You said the only option is that there is no proof either way, and that means being agnostic is the only logical way. You did not consider other options.


I don't know what logical fallacies are? Here's one for you to learn:

If you flame me again, I will report you.


You are making the same mistake creationists and religious fundamentalists make all the time - your arguments are reifying God by insisting that God's existence is subject to spatio-temporal proof, like a table or chair.
Any inference about the existence of God is an inductive inference because God is trans-finite and any evidence available to us is finite. God's existence, then defies the possibility of being proven through a strong inductive argument. Your claim that you do not need to disprove a negative does not apply because the scope of the claim is so large as to be prohibitive of our testing it.

No I'm not making the same mistakes. I do not make assumptions or statements about god, because I don't believe god exists. There is no evidence for god, and any notion of god is human made. So please stop with the vocabulary you don't understand, and please come back to reality. I do not need to disprove the existence of god, when there is ZERO evidence for it. It does apply. You can stop being arrogant now.

Thus, there is no proof to support either argument, and both parties are relying on faith.

No, wrong.

Only one side.. because they are making the claims.

If anything is said to exist separate from the physical world, that assertion cannot be tested by sense perceptions or the scientific method so it is to be assumed false and dismissed

You hit the nail right on the head there, but not quite. This is my point exactly, you and Mesa are trying to look for finite evidence of a trans-finite concept (or being, if you will). This is simply not possible. Ditto for your argument on the soul.

Now if we had been talking about something in the physical world (such as Aliens, microorganisms) I would have been guilty of using the argument from ignorance. However I am making an argument with evidence and that evidence is the truth of the physical world

Logical fallacies are not simply limited to the physical world. Where did you get this idea?


They "could" be in heaven but "that doesn't mean god exists", but then again it could be reversed.... You are talking in circles and still being (in actuality if not intention) a relativist. You can't come out and recognize the truth of the bankruptcy of the 9/11 hijackers beliefs because that would destroy the world of unlimited possibility you have constructed!

Again, no. The idea of God and the concept of religion are not mutually inclusive. This is not talking in circles, it's logic. Claims of religious people has nothing to do with the existence of God. God's existence does not necessarily mean Moses parted the Red Sea, and vice versa.



I didn't sidestep anything. You said the only option is that there is no proof either way, and that means being agnostic is the only logical way. You did not consider other options.

Then I will ask you again what are our other options?


I do not need to disprove the existence of god, when there is ZERO evidence for it.

Just as I said too, there is no evidence. For either side. You cannot prove, nor disprove the existence of God because it is not humanly possible. Empirical evidence and scientific method? You would be looking for finite evidence of a trans-finite concept, just as Fundamentalists and creationists do. Logic? You would continually be under-determining the conclusion, and generally fallin onto the problem of induction.


Mesa, I will ask you this one final time, if you're going to continue on this debate, could you please discuss the matter at hand instead of insulting me. You have continually resorted to ad hominem attacks. If you have something more constructive to add then say it and we will debate.

No. The big bang explains how(or, tries to, anyway) the universe was created, but fails to explain why it was created.

Why because the matter and gasses were compressed into helium and ignited
thats why.

Why because the matter and gasses were compressed into helium and ignited
thats why.

No, that's not "why". That is the Big Bang, which is the how.

Then I will ask you again what are our other options?

If you want to consistently ignore what I said I'm done with you.

Just as I said too, there is no evidence. For either side. You cannot prove, nor disprove the existence of God because it is not humanly possible. Empirical evidence and scientific method? You would be looking for finite evidence of a trans-finite concept, just as Fundamentalists and creationists do. Logic? You would continually be under-determining the conclusion, and generally fallin onto the problem of induction.

You are wrong. First off, atheists do not need evidence to disprove the existence of something that can't even be proven. Like I don't need to provide evidence that the Easter bunny doesn't exists. You are denying several realities.. that's your own fault. You reject common logic and the fact that people do not have to disprove negatives.

Mesa, I will ask you this one final time, if you're going to continue on this debate, could you please discuss the matter at hand instead of insulting me. You have continually resorted to ad hominem attacks. If you have something more constructive to add then say it and we will debate.

You cannot kick me out of this thread. You are not a moderator. And you are not following your own statements. You are the one resorting to ad hominem attacks. You do it again and I WILL REPORT YOU. That is the final warning before I hand this over to the moderators. I didn't use ad hominems.

Science has perfectly good, if somewhat tentative explanations for both of these. The first - consciousness - on the basis of reaction experiments it appears that 'our' body acts before we make a conscious decision telling it to, and thus consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon which is likely just an emergent characteristic of the complexity of our brains and is in fact mainly of an illusory nature in that most of the characteristics we ascribe to it do not in fact seem to be actually inherent in it. The second - how life came to be - the random agglutination of complex chemicals through reactions and admixture such that a self-sustaining and reproducing variety of processes were created provided that the proper means of physical support continued to be available to them.

I've been thinking about this, and there are a few things I don't understand, such as why the elements went beyond simple molecules in the first place. If the universe strives for balance and stability, then why did any compounds form that were beyond a small number atoms? Wouldn't they have stopped at the simplest possible combination of atoms? It doesn't make sense to me that these molecules would continue to become more and more complex until they form life. It would suggest that the universe doesn't just settle for the simplest solution, but rather seeks more complexity, which wouldn't make sense unless something we're driving it to (or if it was driving itself to). These are just my thoughts formed of limited knowledge on the subject of course.

If you want to consistently ignore what I said I'm done with you.

Mesa, you have not once given us these other options, you just keep dancing around it using the same excuse. If you have said anything like that, give it to us now, in quote form, and I will apologize. But you need to give us an answer before you say you're going to ignore us.



You are wrong. First off, atheists do not need evidence to disprove the existence of something that can't even be proven. Like I don't need to provide evidence that the Easter bunny doesn't exists. You are denying several realities.. that's your own fault. You reject common logic and the fact that people do not have to disprove negatives.

But you cannot prove or disprove it with material means, that's why it's "spiritual" and a matter of faith. And how, praytell, is the claim that god exists a negative? It seems improper terminology, as the existance of anything should be a positive and the non-existance of anything should be a negative (it even uses the negative prefix "non")/


You cannot kick me out of this thread. You are not a moderator. And you are not following your own statements. You are the one resorting to ad hominem attacks. You do it again and I WILL REPORT YOU. That is the final warning before I hand this over to the moderators. I didn't use ad hominems.

How did Prospero attempt to kick you out of the thread? If anyone should reporting someone it should be us reporting you.

Mesa, you have not once given us these other options, you just keep dancing around it using the same excuse. If you have said anything like that, give it to us now, in quote form, and I will apologize. But you need to give us an answer before you say you're going to ignore us.

I did. And if you want to keep ignoring me, that's fine. I won't have anything else to say to you.

But you cannot prove or disprove it with material means, that's why it's "spiritual" and a matter of faith. And how, praytell, is the claim that god exists a negative? It seems improper terminology, as the existance of anything should be a positive and the non-existance of anything should be a negative (it even uses the negative prefix "non")/

Again, please stop resorting to logical fallacies. I don't need to disprove anything because it isn't proven. I do not need to disprove a negative. The claim that god exists is unsubtantiated.

How did Prospero attempt to kick you out of the thread? If anyone should reporting someone it should be us reporting you.

You can't! I did nothing wrong. In fact it was prospero resorting to ad hominems.

I did. And if you want to keep ignoring me, that's fine. I won't have anything else to say to you.

You stated "You did not consider other options." And then you failed to give us examples.



Again, please stop resorting to logical fallacies. I don't need to disprove anything because it isn't proven. I do not need to disprove a negative. The claim that god exists is unsubtantiated.

As is the claim that god does not exist. You do realize we will keep going in circles if you keep giving the same answer without, in your words, considering other options.


You can't! I did nothing wrong. In fact it was prospero resorting to ad hominems.

And you failed to answer another of my questions. How did he attempt to kick you out of this thread. Also, how is using ad hominems grounds for reporting? There is no logical explanation for whether or not god exists, and so it is the personal matter of faith.

You stated "You did not consider other options." And then you failed to give us examples.

I gave examples. Ignoring them doesn't buy you an argument.

As is the claim that god does not exist. You do realize we will keep going in circles if you keep giving the same answer without, in your words, considering other options.

Nope. I dont need to disprove a negative. That's all I'm going to say.

And you failed to answer another of my questions. How did he attempt to kick you out of this thread. Also, how is using ad hominems grounds for reporting? There is no logical explanation for whether or not god exists, and so it is the personal matter of faith.

They are because personal attacks are not permitted. Additionally, if you make a claim you have to back it up. If you don't back it up, I don't need to disprove a negative. Faith means nothing to me.

Faith seems to mean everything to you, since you do not even entertain the possibility of a god. What you fail to realise is that your "disproving a negative" bit is man-made, and man has been wrong in the past, since man is not perfect. Therefore it is an imperfect argument, as imperfect, if not more so, than my own arguments.

Faith seems to mean everything to you, since you do not even entertain the possibility of a god. What you fail to realise is that your "disproving a negative" bit is man-made, and man has been wrong in the past, since man is not perfect. Therefore it is an imperfect argument, as imperfect, if not more so, than my own arguments.

No. Faith means nothing to me because I don't need to believe in god. First off, I don't need to disprove a negative. So please... god is man-made too. So doesn't that invalidate it?

I didn't sidestep anything. You said the only option is that there is no proof either way, and that means being agnostic is the only logical way. You did not consider other options.



If you flame me again, I will report you.



No I'm not making the same mistakes. I do not make assumptions or statements about god, because I don't believe god exists. There is no evidence for god, and any notion of god is human made. So please stop with the vocabulary you don't understand, and please come back to reality. I do not need to disprove the existence of god, when there is ZERO evidence for it. It does apply. You can stop being arrogant now.



No, wrong.

Only one side.. because they are making the claims.

Where, Mesa, in this entire post, did you give other examples?

Also, how was Prospero flaming you with the definition of "Argument from Ignorance?" It seems completely justified to me and not at all a flame. You're just oversensitive.

Also, how was Prospero flaming you with the definition of "Argument from Ignorance?" It seems completely justified to me and not at all a flame. You're just oversensitive.

It was false and is considered a flame. It is only justified to you because he agrees with you. First off I'm not ignorant.

and then when you consider the possibility of heaven and hell... that life does not end here... being a christian might really improve things a lot.

(not verifiable, but possible that they exist)
Possible and unverifiable, sure. When we begin to strive for them, it cheapens the idea of doing the right thing. I prefer doing the right thing for it's own sake, not for points toward the afterlife.

It was false and is considered a flame. It is only justified to you because he agrees with you. First off I'm not ignorant.

But you are! I accept the fact that there is a possibility that there is no god, yet you do not consider the possibility that there is! You keep hiding behind the same argument, which is the same as many people who are ignorant in their belief in god do.

It was false and is considered a flame. It is only justified to you because he agrees with you. First off I'm not ignorant.
Saying that someone is "arguing from a position of ignorance" really isn't flaming. I'm pretty sure any of the mods would tell you the same...

But you are! I accept the fact that there is a possibility that there is no god, yet you do not consider the possibility that there is! You keep hiding behind the same argument, which is the same as many people who are ignorant in their belief in god do.

No. Actually I'm correct because I do not have to disprove a negative. A negative has no evidence. The notion of god has no evidence. So I'm correct and i'm not ignorant. So you are wrong.