Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[fr0d0]

Once again entirely subjective and therefore, once again entirely irrelevant.

I was going to suggest a bigger shovel :S

---

Please don't tell Santa!

Minimalist will be along shortly to administer your daily buggery, fear not young one.

[simplexity]

Once again entirely subjective and therefore, once again entirely irrelevant.

I was going to suggest a bigger shovel

Not necessary, Mr Fr0d0.

[Epimethean]

It would make burying his argument quicker, and would be the kind thing to do, BM.

[Ace Otana]

[Cinjin]

wow... this thread has gotten all over the map.

I bailed out some time ago because I didn't want to feed the troll any longer, but my the twists and turns it has taken.





On a side note:

I also hold that since God is usually held as a supernatural being, it is impossible to measure or conclude anything about.

That's a bit of a deistic view there. No big deal ... I just noticed it out of the corner of my eye.

[Mister Agenda]

what a amazing faith you must have.

Not at all, I would quickly abandon the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution through natural selection if a more scientifically useful althernative was advanced.

Abiogenesis is a bankrupt hipotheses. And so, macro evolution through natural selection. Btw. you cannot declare yourself a weak atheist.......

Nothing but assertions.

Abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection is also a mere assertion, so i should dismiss it as well, right ?

They are not assertions, they are conclusions based on the available evidence. The alternative to abiogenesis is that biological life has existed forever: do you imagine a biological God, with a metabolism and DNA? The belief that life was created by the will of God from dust or nothing or whatever the case may be is also an abiogenetic hypothesis. As for evolution through natural selection, I've observed that a creationist who has even a simple layman's understanding of it is nearly as rare as the basilisk, so I really just don't expect you to understand why it's such a strong theory.

you take that all on faith..... fact is, the hard scientific evidence leads us to believe, such a scenario is just science fiction, and wishful thinking, nothing else.

I think a pretty accurate translation of that would be: 'you take that all on faith..fact is, the creationist websites I get my so-called facts from leads me to believe that such a scenario is just science fiction and based on wishful thinking, nothing else; despite the theory withstanding all challenges for 150 years and accepted by all but the fringe element of the scientific community actually working in the relevant fields involved.'

BTW. could you explain where the information to produce the first self replicating protein came from ?

The first self-replicating protein had no more information than other, similar proteins. It just happened to have the property of self-replication in the chemical environment it occured in, as other complex proteins that arise as expected in organic chemistry have their own unique properties without needing a cosmic programmer to intervene. Afterwards, information was added from its environment. That's what evolution through natural selection does: add information about the environment into DNA.

why ?

Because 'I don't know how natural processes can add information to DNA' doesn't entitle you to conclude 'therefore, God'. It's an argument from ignorance, as valid as 'I don't know how socks disappear in the drier, therefore aliens'.

is there another one ?

Besides 'brane theory, cyclical universe, or black hole universe? Probably several.

oh, so you believe, its phisically possible something to arise from absolutely nothing ?

Nope. I have my doubts that 'absolutely nothing' is a coherent concept. Look at the problems with saying God created the universe out of absolutely nothing: where was there 'absolutely nothing' if God existed? Now, it's absolutely possible for something to arise from as close to nothing as seems to be physically allowed: that's exactly where we find virtual particles coming into existence (briefly).

i have not said that it would be impossible. But if that would have been, we would not be here today.

So are you just being contrary, as no one is proposing the universe came from absolutely nothing?

thats not just likely, but absolutely certain.

So what remains of your point? You don't think there was absolutely nothing and neither do we, and we never said there was. There is some reason to think that it is possible for a universe to begin from 'quantum nothingness'.

thats why i get bored, when atheists ask us, theists, for proofs .....

Because you keep making claims about knowing the secrets of the universe without having even as much physical evidence as the most counterintuitive claims of hypothetical physics, AND you keep saying science is on your side. And I never ask for proof, proof is for math and whiskey. All I ask for is a reason to think your hypothesis is as sound as the hypotheses of peer-reviewed cosomologists.

i think the argument shows it without any doubt.

Which part of the argument you've presented thus far precludes a universe that has existed eternally in different forms, or a universe that is a product of other universes that preceded it?

the difference relies in, that God lived in a timeless dimension without successive addition of parts ( of time )

The thing about a timeless dimension is that nothing can occur in it.

there is overwhelming scientific support, that the universe had a beginning, and a non disputed fact today.

You misunderstand the scientific consensus. Our physics breaks down immediately prior to the cosmic inflation, we are still working on describing what preceded that point, hence the multiple hypotheses. Our universe had a beginning in terms of existing in its current form, but it's not that clear whether this was a beginning from (relative) nothingness, a collision of 'branes, or a transformation of a previous state.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t199-evi...-beginning

Do you not see how citing the work of a single scientist does not support your contention that the universe beginning 'ex nihilo' rather than transforming from a previous state has 'overwhelming scientific support'?

oh really ? why ?

Because no part of it is based on science. It's centuries old, it hasn't exactly kept up with the last fifty years of progress in cosmology. We have actually found matter that begins to exist without a cause, for one thing.

the physical lawsa apply within the universe, not beyond.....

So you're no longer going to resort to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on cosmological issues anymore, right? Did I make any point at all that didn't go over your head?

yes. faith is the result of thinking....

Enjoy 'thinking' that.

said who ? certainly not the bible.

I actually wasn't making a point about the Bible, just that what seems obvious ain't necessarily so. However, since you mention it, glad you're not gullible enough to believe the Lord kept the sun from setting long enough to give Joseph's army victory. Note: I've caught up and acknowledge that Watchman already brought up this point.

your problem is, you base your belief system in a negative.

Your problem is, you think you know what my belief system is even though you've never asked me.

You show well, how frustrating it is, to try to present positive, compelling reasons for strong atheism, and the naturalistic view to be true.

You never answered where the absolute nothingness that your omni-present God made the universe from, was. The God you described is a married bachelor, it contradicts itself, it doesn't exist. You need to lop off more attributes to make it more unfalsifiable. I suggest: pretty powerful, somewhat omniscient, good-intentioned, and semi-omni-present.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Btw. you cannot declare yourself a weak atheist.......

I think he means "may not"


However, I can and I may declare myself anything I like. I do not need the permission or corkscrew logic of some fool too stupid or unwilling to grasp as simple a concept as 'atheism'.

[jess_essential]

Stupid and unwilling go hand in hand. You've gotta be stupid to be unwilling to accept the facts of "life".

[Minimalist]

[jess_essential]

We do not need to make a "case for atheism." The fact that you have no evidence for your fucking fairy tales is sufficient for us to conclude that all gods - across all of time - have been the figments of human imagination used by powerful elites to control fucking morons.

I concur.


Like you.

---

Ah, man! My tiny iPod screen missed the last part of the quote. either way, agreed.