Atheist Becomes Catholic

[Walking Void]

Wow, I never thought I would meet a "space gnome" that follows:

Accident conclusions, ad hominems, composition, ad antiquitatem, ad ignorantium, ad nauseum, ad passiones, ad populam, ad verecundiam, black or white, burden of proof, cherry picking / special pleading, appeal to moderation/extremism, no true Scotsman (in the faith department), poisoning the well, and destroying a strawman that does not even represent atheism.

[Esquilax]

You can't argue with the gnome once he's "dropped some knowledge bombs" on you. The main point is you don't know what you think you know you just believe you know what you know, but it's a belief at the end of the day. You don't get to "prove" the existence God either way with science which atheists seem to think they have done.

Jeez, you really have no idea what atheism is, do you?

So, no atheist thinks that science has proven god does not exist- or at least, no honest one should- because it's very hard to prove a negative, and you guys spend a lot of your time working to make your god as unfalsifiable as possible too. In fact, if you'd actually asked any of us, you'd probably get the answer that we don't know that god doesn't exist at all. We just feel that your side hasn't provided evidence sufficient to believe that he does.

What we've done is look at the evidence without bias, and found no evidence for a god there, nor in the types of arguments you and yours offer as justification for your belief.

The reason I was so incredulous about you using the space gnome is that I've seen him before; the lengths that video goes to to misrepresent the atheist position is just sad, and apparently you've swallowed those lies hook line and sinker rather than doing the honest thing, which would be to speak to us about what we believe.

Something has to exist eternally, our universe didn't

Don't just assert it, demonstrate it. If you can't, it's not worth believing.

and our universe has structure and precise mathematical construction, structure and contingency.

Or, or... we as humans can spot patterns and repetition in the universe and see a structure and predictable framework in that. Don't mistake your cosmic pareidolia as some form of divine truth.

You may as well say you can construct a car by detonating a bomb in a junkyard and all the parts just come together naturally.

This is the most idiotic strawman ever...

We know something to be the work of an intelligence when we see it the universe is such a construction.

Nope. Sorry, but we don't just instinctively see design, we identify design via comparison. How do we know a car is designed? Well, we've seen natural things, and by comparison the two don't measure up. We also have examples of cars being designed, while we definitely don't have examples of universes being designed. You've got no means of comparison, and therefore no means- beyond bias- to identify design.

Rather than some kind of deism it's clear that there is some kind of relational aspect as you have billions of humans who claim to experience him, you can see the impact of this on the world and throughout history. But if you're just going to ignore all of this then it's not rational, if that's what you want to insist.

And we end with an argument from popularity. We've seen plenty of people who have had experiences with alien abductions, does that mean those are real?

Oh, and despite all these "experiences," it's clearly not the same being, because even within your own religion there are thousands of variations who all think this god is different and all think the others are wrong... do you have anything better than this?

You argue like this and you still wonder why atheists don't believe you?

[Creed of Heresy]

Well it's true you may as well be talking about pink invisible unicorns the concept of God being so absurd to them at this point. But this is through the influence of the media and your surrounding culture not because God actually is that absurd. God actually makes a great deal of real rational sense.

The influence of the media, huh?

It has nothing to do with media influence. If media influence were a factor in this, more people would be becoming Christians given how much of you morons love to flock to the TV to whine about your bullshit beliefs being threatened by the rise of secularism.

God is actually very absurd. It makes no rational sense of any kind. Simply saying that it does, an argument does not make.

You're not very bright.

No wonder you're a Christian.

[Ryantology]

Something has to exist eternally, our universe didn't and our universe has structure and precise mathematical construction, structure and contingency.

I'm curious, when I apply all of this reasoning to God, what is the special exception you'll come up with?

So, what existed external to God and created him, since order and structure and intelligence can never occur without an intelligent guiding hand?

You may as well say you can construct a car by detonating a bomb in a junkyard and all the parts just come together naturally.

This is a fallacy we all learn about in our first day of Atheist 101. How sad.

We know something to be the work of an intelligence when we see it the universe is such a construction.

People who can't tell order apart from design make that mistake a lot.

Rather than some kind of deism it's clear that there is some kind of relational aspect as you have billions of humans who claim to experience him, you can see the impact of this on the world and throughout history. But if you're just going to ignore all of this then it's not rational, if that's what you want to insist.

Billions more humans claim your god doesn't exist, so if we're going to cite majority rule here...

[Cato]

@OP,

I am not fucking impressed. My brother, raised catholic, went from atheist to the most obnoxious Mormon you will ever encounter in less than a week. This happened twenty years ago.

[Creed of Heresy]

You can't argue with the gnome once he's "dropped some knowledge bombs" on you. The main point is you don't know what you think you know you just believe you know what you know, but it's a belief at the end of the day. You don't get to "prove" the existence God either way with science which atheists seem to think they have done.

I think the argument was actually made...that argument being "you can't possibly be serious with this unbelievable level of intellectual ineptitude."

And no atheist has ever claimed that science has proved god either way. In fact, it's the fact that god is an unprovable that makes it so easy to reject his existence; if you cannot prove nor disprove something, it has no basis in reality. Science is the study of reality. If your god cannot fit in with the study of reality, then he is not real. However, if he could become disprovable, then he would actually suddenly become a part of reality. The fact he is unprovable is NOT a strength of the theistic argument; it is, in fact, the very basis of you not being allowed to claim your stance to be rational, reasonable, or logical in any context other than your subjective own. Your subjective experience and belief is not an objective truth that we are all blind to, stop being such an egomaniacal arrogant piss. How many fucking times do we have to tell you delusional ass-brains that the burden of proof lies with you because you are making the claim? You don't get to state that just because someone else doesn't blindly believe you without carefully scrutinizing and testing your claims and pointing out when it comes up empty and baseless that they're unreasonable or irrational, you ass-bag.

Here, allow me to demonstrate.

I believe you're literally a dickless bitch with a solid stone slab for a brain. I claim you are, in fact. Oh, sure, you might go get a brain scan to show otherwise and you might be able to look between your legs to know otherwise, but I am claiming both of these to be true, and this is rational because I claim this, and I bet I can convince a good number of people that this is truth, and even if you bring to bear a whole load of proof showing this can't be the case, my subjective truth over-rides yours entirely because it is objective, because I claim it so and have others who believe me, therefore it is rational.

This is no different from your own stance. You believe the bible is true because it says so and others believe it's true and that actually somehow means something. Even though there is lots of undeniable proof to show it isn't, that all of its claims are in fact bullshit claims, you are still stating that it is true just because. QED.

Something has to exist eternally, our universe didn't and our universe has structure and precise mathematical construction, structure and contingency.

Are you really so sure it didn't? How do you know? Do you just believe this? Do you have a means of disproving this? Or proving this? Or are you just making yet another claim that has nothing to back it up? I am going to say yes, yes you are.

You may as well say you can construct a car by detonating a bomb in a junkyard and all the parts just come together naturally.

Do it a few trillion times and that might actually happen. How do you know it couldn't? Can you prove or disprove this? Or is this another unprovable? Yes, yes it is.

We know something to be the work of an intelligence when we see it the universe is such a construction.

Do we, now! How do you know that we will always know something to be the work of an intelligence? What happens if we come across something that is shaped like a building, looks like a building, has windows and everything like a building but it turns out it was a one in a googleplex chance that it just happened to all form that way because the forces of nature happened to align themselves in such a way as to have that all happen? Can you prove that this will or will not happen? Or is this another unprovable claim? YES, IT IS.

Rather than some kind of deism it's clear that there is some kind of relational aspect as you have billions of humans who claim to experience him, you can see the impact of this on the world and throughout history. But if you're just going to ignore all of this then it's not rational, if that's what you want to insist.

Wait.

billions of humans who claim

o.o

billions of humans who claim

O_O

billions of humans who claim

8|

claim

8O

claim

Thank you, good sir, for admitting that you are in fact an irrational tool who thinks something is rational because of a

claim.

If six billion people believed 2 + 2 = 4, it still wouldn't make it true. The crux of your argument and the foundation of it is a pillar of sand. You are the one who is irrational, sir. You argue that because billions of people think it's true, therefore it must be, and that everything is as it is because it was created, because everything must have a creator. That's the logic you're REALLY going for, here?

Well, then, who is the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator? And who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator?

Ad infinitum.

Where is this so-called rationality you claim to be possessing, eh? Keep trying to square the circle, amigo, one day you might just realize that in order to fit the square (your reality) in the circle (actual reality), you have to change its shape into a circle. And on that day, you, too, will become an atheist.

[Sword of Christ]

Atheism is a claim as well. At least if you want to argue against the belief or faith in God in favor of what would be material scientific naturalism.

And no atheist has ever claimed that science has proved god either way.

You don't need to make a claim when you're making an assumption. Some people may simply assume God exists though that isn't necessarily the right idea either.

Science is the study of reality.

The part of reality we can observe, detect and test. Though you'll think we can observe, detect and test everything no doubt. Can we even observe, detect and test consciousness? No, but we know it exists.

If your god cannot fit in with the study of reality, then he is not real.

Prove to me you're a conscious being not some kind of automation or simulation of one that acts as though it is. By your logic I'll consider myself to be the only consciously aware being in existence as I will only believe what can be proven and demonstrated as a certain fact. Sure I can see you, via a scan I could see your brain and neurological activity but I don't see your consciousness.

If your god cannot fit in with the study of reality, then he is not real.

You have it the wrong way around, reality itself fits God he created it he is the reason why it exists at all. Though you don't think there is a reason for it.

However, if he could become disprovable, then he would actually suddenly become a part of reality.

God isn't a part of reality God is context for why reality exists in the first place.

The fact he is unprovable is NOT a strength of the theistic argument; it is, in fact, the very basis of you not being allowed to claim your stance to be rational, reasonable, or logical in any context other than your subjective own.

That's fine reasoning if God was ever meant to be physical object in this universe we could observe but that was never the idea.

I believe you're literally a dickless bitch with a solid stone slab for a brain. I claim you are, in fact. Oh, sure, you might go get a brain scan to show otherwise and you might be able to look between your legs to know otherwise, but I am claiming both of these to be true, and this is rational because I claim this, and I bet I can convince a good number of people that this is truth, and even if you bring to bear a whole load of proof showing this can't be the case, my subjective truth over-rides yours entirely because it is objective, because I claim it so and have others who believe me, therefore it is rational.

Theists do an opinion regarding nature of reality, they have what they consider to be the historical evidence to back this opinion up and they have what they believe to be experiential evidence to reaffirm their stance. Atheists have an opinion aaand...*gesticulates*... they have an opinion. Alright but why is that opinion more likely to be factually true than the alternative? Because it's you personally who has this opinion therefore it's the true one and any opinion that differs from this has to be untrue unless proven otherwise?

You believe the bible is true because it says so and others believe it's true and that actually somehow means something.

I'm not particularly limited to the Bible, note how I described myself. But certainly the Biblical view of God does fit my general concept of what God is and his relationship to ourselves. In any case I think I've demonstrated by now that I have given this a bit of thought, I'm not believing anything I'm told. The question is whether you have or not.

Even though there is lots of undeniable proof to show it isn't

It isn't a book of history if that's what you're saying it's better to see it as a spiritual tool that sets out Gods relationship with humanity. There is some real history in there of course as it's about a people and their experience and encounters with God.

[Tonus]

Atheism is a claim as well.

Yes. It is the claim "I do not believe in god." There can be any number of reasons or rationalizations informing that claim, and they probably come in different order depending on the person. I find it highly unlikely that they all developed at once, as opposed to being added, modified, and subtracted as a person seeks more knowledge and understanding. It's even possible that a person supports his atheism with platitudes instead of his own research and thinking, in which case I would consider it to be much like any religion.

[Creed of Heresy]

http://i.imgur.com/MDJeYK4.gif

Atheism is a claim as well. At least if you want to argue against the belief or faith in God in favor of what would be material scientific naturalism.

If it is a claim, it is only a claim (B) in response to a claim made prior (A).

A: This is real.
B: Prove it.
A: No. I can neither prove nor disprove it is real.
B: It doesn't exist.

A makes the initial claim. B makes the responding claim. The initial claimant must show that their claim is factual. It does not go in reverse order that B must provide proof before A does. What logic is it that you follow that you think this is rational?

You don't need to make a claim when you're making an assumption. Some people may simply assume God exists though that isn't necessarily the right idea either.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...ord=assume#

3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>
4: arrogance, pretension
5a: an assuming that something is true
b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

...

: to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true

So it's OK when YOU think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true, but when an atheist makes an assumption in reaction to your claim being an assumption, it's irrational? Nice, the double-standard fallacy, and also outright bullshit.

The part of reality we can observe, detect and test. Though you'll think we can observe, detect and test everything no doubt. Can we even observe, detect and test consciousness? No, but we know it exists.

Yeah we can, actually. Read up on the Turing Test. And for the love of fuck don't bring up zombies; if you think you must, just consider that you would be arguing that zombies exist.

Prove to me you're a conscious being not some kind of automation or simulation of one that acts as though it is. By your logic I'll consider myself to be the only consciously aware being in existence as I will only believe what can be proven and demonstrated as a certain fact. Sure I can see you, via a scan I could see your brain and neurological activity but I don't see your consciousness.

We know what we are experiencing right now and every thing else is inferred. "Everything else" includes your god. You infer god. My axiom is that what we experience right now is testable through the input of our consciousness, which is to say our senses, via the scientific method. It may only be one sense, or all of them, but I can achieve sensory input in that way. Your axiom is that because everything must come from something and that something must come from something and so on and so forth that therefore it must be so. God is unprovable but so are fairies, and there are people who claim to have seen them. Consciousness is unprovable but yet I can test mine and you can test yours. I assume other people have consciousness, and I can work with them to test what I consciously experience by using sensory input, and so can you.

Can you work with others to consciously test your experiences with god? Can you work with others to consciously test their experiences with god? And will you come to a conclusion that can be consciously tested in like ways between you to a detailed extent?

Given the enormous number of conflicting religions and "spiritual" accounts, I'm going to say no. But me? Going by my logic, I can test what others have found to be true, if I am being genuine to my desire to test it and see what conclusions I come to. And if I am going by the set axioms of logic, that which science has shown to be true will end up true to me as well. I can reject it, sure, but on what basis what I do so? What would my conscious argument entail? That even though I experience it with all my senses, I still reject it because it does not hold to a preconceived notion? Well, if I do that, then clearly I am not being true to my desire to test my consciousness, now am I?

So, I ask again, can you test the existence of god? Like, at all? With all your senses? Or even one of them? No, you cannot. Because you are not testing your consciousness, you are not receiving any conscious input. You are assuming that your consciousness must be correct because others have claimed to have experiences similar to your own and because you have a preconceived bias that you are not unwilling to test, but rather are incapable of testing. Can either you or others who "share" your "experiences" test with your senses, that which is the input for your consciousness, the existence and/or experience of god?

No, you cannot. You are consciously inverted, not testing the nature of reality, but assuming the nature of reality. Assuming, as in taking something to be true without knowing it is true...after all, how can you know for sure beyond any reasonable doubt that something is true if you aren't even testing it?

Nice attempt at philosobabble, though.

You have it the wrong way around, reality itself fits God he created it he is the reason why it exists at all. Though you don't think there is a reason for it.

Really? Got any way you and me can consciously test this? Or are you just assuming?

God isn't a part of reality God is context for why reality exists in the first place.

Shall we consciously test that? Do you have any reason to believe that? Or are you just using the thing where "everything must have a beginning?" Because if that is the case, god must have a beginning to. If god is the context for why reality exists, then he must be capable of reality himself, for how can something that is Not actually Be? Unless you are stating that god is not real, at which point we would actually be agreeing on something, here. So either god is real, therefore a part of reality, or he is not real, which is the only way to not be a part of reality. Your logic is reaching a critical fail state. Maybe you should try consciously testing the world to come up with logical answers, huh?

That's fine reasoning if God was ever meant to be physical object in this universe we could observe but that was never the idea.

Ahh...the "idea." Yeah, that pretty much sums up what god is. An idea...and nothing more.

Theists do an opinion regarding nature of reality, they have what they consider to be the historical evidence to back this opinion up and they have what they believe to be experiential evidence to reaffirm their stance. Atheists have an opinion aaand...*gesticulates*... they have an opinion. Alright but why is that opinion more likely to be factually true than the alternative? Because it's you personally who has this opinion therefore it's the true one and any opinion that differs from this has to be untrue unless proven otherwise?

Except that the historical "evidence" is untestable and when it is testable it turns out that it isn't evidence supporting the claims. Tell me, where is the historical evidence that the earth was created in seven days? I'll tell you; the historical evidence is the age of the world itself, which we have tested...and come to find out that it is billions of years old, that the square will not fit the circle in any context. The very initial claim of god's work already proven false. With the axiom disproven via conscious input, the rest of the claim is hereby dismissed as false.

I'm not particularly limited to the Bible, note how I described myself. But certainly the Biblical view of God does fit my general concept of what God is and his relationship to ourselves. In any case I think I've demonstrated by now that I have given this a bit of thought, I'm not believing anything I'm told. The question is whether you have or not.

So tell me, does anyone else share your view of god to the letter without your own input on their view? And how old were you when you were introduced to the notion of god?

As for myself, I have consciously tested the universe and found no reason to believe there was an intelligent entity responsible for its existence. It is vast and complex and wondrous, no doubt. And yet its fate is a cold and bleak one. If god is not a part of reality, he cannot affect it, not without becoming a part of it in some way. And, again, the universe is vastly complex, but instead of seeing order, I see chaos. I see universal dice being rolled, so many of them that there is no name for the number. At this point, I become enamored instead with quantum theory than the idea of an intelligent designer or creator of everything. A googolplex of possibilities with nothing but chance having any say in them. They all lead back to one possibility, however; the possibility of the universe existing.

So it started at 0. At nothing. And since math exists, it had to become 1.

0 was Nothing. No god, no speck of matter...just nothing. No reality. Math is the only thing that is true, remember. Absolutely, provably true. And if 0 is Nothing...then there was nothing. God included. Especially by your claim that the universe was shaped around god. Because that would mean the universe was shaped around math, which is true...but then, there was 0. Which means there was no entity. It only became an entity at 1. The big bang. The possibility that spawned an uncountable number of random possibilities. Because that is how the sequence works. 0, 1, 2, 3... "Nothing" is a mathematical fact. So when theists tell me "everything must come from something," I laugh. It may seem absurd, but math itself is the only thing that is unwaveringly true...and math shows that everything starts at nothing.

Everything came from nothing. The only reason that there is no longer any way for something to come from nothing is because in order for that to be the case, we'd have to be back at 0. The numerical chain is way too far down the line for that. But, one "day," everything will reset back to either 0, or 1. Everything will subtract to 0, or it will become on single possibility from which the rest of possibility will begin again.

OR. ALTERNATIVELY...

Everything came from something. 0 is nothing. Either it was that there was nothingness at all, and that BECAUSE there had to be something, there become 1, or...1 is the constant. The single possibility of existence itself. The big bang. Without the point of matter, there is no possibility. It is the point that is there, the one existence. Only one possibility; matter existed. And then there were two possibilities. It exploded, or it did not. And it did. From there came the rest of the possibilities.

Then what happens? When all the possibilities have played out, what happens then? Does everything become 0? Nothing? Or does it become one? A single possibility? Does the entire universe collapse in on itself, time itself folding backwards in a rush...only to begin again? And this time, do the dice roll in different directions?

This is why quantum theory fascinates me more. virtually limitless possibilities. Either multiverse, or a single universe on an infinite loop simply because it must be so.

The theories of the beginning of the universe are disturbing in their complexity and implication...and in all of them, in all their mindblowing wonder...I see no actual reason for a god to be there. Indeed, with the concept of 0, I see a reason for there NOT to be a god...because if everything must come from something...then god must have come from something if god existed, because the context in which the universe is built is mathematics, meaning god would have to be mathematics. And in such a case...there is the possibility of god's absence.

Just think about that. You begin to understand why I find the man-made religions of the world so pathetic and unsatisfying in the face of considerations like this.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheism is a claim as well.

I was born an atheist (lacking any belief or concept of a god or gods).

Are you saying I was born making a claim?

Your point needs thinking through more.