Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

...it is not an existential choice. It is a petulent election of a mind unable to ween itself from the infantile comfort of the fairy tale.

Was there an argument in there somewhere?

[Esquilax]

meanwhile mine actually has some data to back it up and support the conclusion I have come to.

So what is the purpose of life according to this empirical knowledge that you posess?

I don't know, and neither do you. There might not be one. What does this have anything to do with what I was talking about?

Currently you're looking very silly as you appear to be making claims of knowledge from not knowing something.

What's happening is that I'm not making claims based on not knowing something; you're the one making a claim.

You're seriously suggesting that logic is not evidence? I might want to frame that one. If logic is faulty then it isn't logic. It's illogic. To conclude that the earth is flat would be a mistaken assumption, given the evidence.

Given the evidence right now. See the problem? Back when the belief was widely held the pool of evidence pool was more limited, and it fit the belief in a flat Earth. Who's to say that the situation now isn't the same? That's why it's ridiculous to make claims at all without knowledge.

(corrected)

So, are you going to demonstrate this premise now?

Really? Name a few.

The believers of every other god claim seem to think that theirs is just as sound as yours.

Why? why can't you use your best logic and defeat it that way? How can you defeat the logic with no evidence? Where is your scientific vigour?

Why am I required to refute your logic before you'll be willing to let go of your assumptions? Moreover, why do you hold beliefs that you can't demonstrate? What is scientific, let alone logical, about that?

How about this: you provide anything actually worth refuting, and I'll give it a go. Because until then, claims given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and mockery is the only response necessary for incoherent positions. Like yours.

So you say. But all I see are empty words vs sound logic. Taken at face value, this looks like a clear choice, wouldn't you agree. Which woukld you choose?

I would choose the person who's intellectually honest enough to just say he doesn't know, rather than the one who leaps to conclusions without any supporting evidence. Why wouldn't you?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The believers of every other god claim seem to think that theirs is just as sound as yours.

That says nothing about the quality of their claims. Some are more compelling than others. You are not being discerning if you paint them all with the same brush.

Why am I required to refute your logic before you'll be willing to let go of your assumptions?

Hellllooo? That's what this thread is about, i.e. questioning the presuppositions of science the lead to causal closure and physical reduction.

claims given without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...

Heelllooo again? I have called into question the unwarrented restriction of evidence to material and efficient cause. You can trot out your bromides about evidence elsewhere, but on this thread it's just begging the question.

[Ryantology]

That says nothing about the quality of their claims. Some are more compelling than others. You are not being discerning if you paint them all with the same brush.

The reason we are not being discerning is because none of the competing claims can distinguish itself. It's all just supernatural twaddle and holy books. That is the fault of the claimants, not us. What makes your claim higher quality than Muslim Scholar's insipid numerological proof that Allah is the true God?

The question no theist seems capable of answering is, if their chosen God is the creator of this physical universe, why is there no physical evidence that their particular God created it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if their chosen God is the creator of this physical universe, why is there no physical evidence that their particular God created it?

Yawn. You need some new material. Only a cock-leper like you would demand physical evidence for a non-physical being.

[Darkstar]

...if their chosen God is the creator of this physical universe, why is there no physical evidence that their particular God created it?

Yawn. You need some new material. Only a cock-leper like you would demand physical evidence for a non-physical being.

Silly atheist, god doesn't leave physical evidence! He doesn't prove he exists, let alone when someone asks him to!

---

1 Kings 18:36-39
New International Version (NIV)
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”

38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”

---

No fair; why doesn't this stuff happen nowadays?

[Ryantology]

Yawn. You need some new material. Only a cock-leper like you would demand physical evidence for a non-physical being.

Can you prove that God is a non-physical being? Did I miss where you did this?

[Darkstar]

Can you prove that God is a non-physical being? Did I miss where you did this?

It would probably go something like this:

1. If god is physical and exists, one would expect to find direct physical evidence of him.

2. God exists.

3. There is no physical evidence of god.

4. Therefore, god must be non-physical.

---

"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103) (from TEGH's signature)

[Esquilax]

That says nothing about the quality of their claims. Some are more compelling than others. You are not being discerning if you paint them all with the same brush.

What Ryan said. Beyond that, all of those claims do have one thing in common: a lack of evidence. This is why I feel safe in using the same brush.

Hellllooo? That's what this thread is about, i.e. questioning the presuppositions of science the lead to causal closure and physical reduction.

I know, it's only things that disagree with your view that count as presuppositions...

Heelllooo again? I have called into question the unwarrented restriction of evidence to material and efficient cause. You can trot out your bromides about evidence elsewhere, but on this thread it's just begging the question.

The moment you can explain to me how one can know anything without some form of evidence- know, not rationalize yourself into believing- I'll take your dismissive attitude toward real, evidenced work seriously. Until then, I'll continue operating under the idea that things that exist exist, and in doing so are demonstrable.

Yawn. You need some new material. Only a cock-leper like you would demand physical evidence for a non-physical being.

Yes, because wanting proof of something is madness. Chad, why are we to take you seriously at all? What is there, if there's no evidence, to show that any of these god claims exist outside of your fever dreams? You're just doing what all theists do in the end, and appeal to some special way of knowing that we atheists just don't get.

You know what we call that? Delusion.

[fr0d0]

It has precisely nothing to do with what you were talking about Esq. That's my point. You've changed the subject to your own obsession, and abandoned the question at hand.

Yes mate, given the evidence right now, which you choose to ignore because you can't let yourself think about it, as your arguments would come crashing down around your ears.

It's ridiculous to make claims without knowledge. It's acting like an emu to bury your head in the sand and pretend that you are incapable of logical thought.

Like I said, every religious endeavour addresses the same subject. You are no where near the fine detail, so to you, they all may as well be exactly the same subject. How would you be able to tell the difference between them?

My assumptions are based on logical deduction. Yours are based upon a refusal to think. Again, how can you insist on your own solution in that case? Your family line should be extinct if that we're true. That's what's scientific about that.

There's being so sloppy in your thinking that your brains fall out. There's also being so obstinate in your thinking that your brain will disappear through lack of use.