Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 1, 2022, 8:00 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Case for Atheism
#11
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 12:00 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Gracias senor. Point noted.

de nada, jesus, de nada.
Reply
#12
RE: The Case for Atheism
Kayenneh's Wager: As long as no one can prove their god and their religion to be the True OneTM, it is safer not to believe in any of it.
When I was young, there was a god with infinite power protecting me. Is there anyone else who felt that way? And was sure about it? but the first time I fell in love, I was thrown down - or maybe I broke free - and I bade farewell to God and became human. Now I don't have God's protection, and I walk on the ground without wings, but I don't regret this hardship. I want to live as a person. -Arina Tanemura

Reply
#13
RE: The Case for Atheism
Quote:I don't know what you would count as "indisputable facts" but I've got 3 philosophical arguments that I'm thinking off the top of my head:

An indisputable fact is one that nearly everyone believes is true (there are alway some nutcases who are willing to disupute any fact) such as the fact the Holocaust occurred, the US landed on the moon, life exists, the universe exists and so forth. A fact is one that can be used as evidence in a court of law. That's what evidence is, facts that comport with a belief.

You couldn't submit philosophical arguments as evidence...their just arguments.

Quote:You are completely unable to show me any physical evidence of your god.
Argument over.

I agree there is no direct physical evidence of God's existence just as for example their is no direct evidence of black holes or other universes. There is no direct evidence anything caused the universe to exist but we infer a cause because the overwhelming majority of things (if indeed not all things) that begin to exist can be traced back to a cause. Even though there is no direct evidence of blackholes (they can't be directly observed or tested) the indirect evidence of their existence is strong enough that the existence of black holes has been established as fact. I don't want to turn this into the case for theism argument...I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

The idea of creating a model (even if only a thought model) is to propose an idea and see how well it dovetails with available evidence if true. Atheism if true means we owe our existence and that of the universe to some non-god non-intelligent non-intended cause that resulted in a universe coming into existence as well as sentient life. If atheism is true (there is no God or Creator) then life came from non-life and sentient life came from non-sentient life and such occured not as a result of plan or intent but minus any plan or intent for it to occur. You say you reject the existence of God due to lack of direct physical evidence God exists. What evidence then leads you to believe that mindless forces without plan or intent caused something totally unlike itself (life and sentience) to exist?
Reply
#14
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I agree there is no direct physical evidence of God's existence just as for example their is no direct evidence of black holes or other universes.

A cloud of gas is in the process of being consumed by the black hole at the centre our gallaxy and is being watched very closely.

As for other universes, they are an interesting hypothosis but without proof it is not to be believed.

Quote: There is no direct evidence anything caused the universe to exist

The Universe exists.
Either it has always been or it suddenly came into existence

Quote:but we infer a cause because the overwhelming majority of things (if indeed not all things) that begin to exist can be traced back to a cause. Even though there is no direct evidence of blackholes (they can't be directly observed or tested) the indirect evidence of their existence is strong enough that the existence of black holes has been established as fact. I don't want to turn this into the case for theism argument...I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

Huge leap of faith there at the end, why go the magic route it isn't needed?

Quote:The idea of creating a model (even if only a thought model) is to propose an idea and see how well it dovetails with available evidence if true. Atheism if true means we owe our existence and that of the universe to some non-god non-intelligent non-intended cause that resulted in a universe coming into existence as well as sentient life. If atheism is true (there is no God or Creator) then life came from non-life and sentient life came from non-sentient life and such occured not as a result of plan or intent but minus any plan or intent for it to occur. You say you reject the existence of God due to lack of direct physical evidence God exists. What evidence then leads you to believe that mindless forces without plan or intent caused something totally unlike itself (life and sentience) to exist?

Because no mystery when solved has ever turned out to be magic.

You want there to be a god and try to fit him in gaps in our knowledge.

These gaps will shrink and it will have nowhere to go, but people like you will still believe because you want to.
And that's fine.
Just don't pretend that it is in any way rational.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#15
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I agree there is no direct physical evidence of God's existence just as for example their is no direct evidence of black holes or other universes. There is no direct evidence anything caused the universe to exist but we infer a cause because the overwhelming majority of things (if indeed not all things) that begin to exist can be traced back to a cause. Even though there is no direct evidence of blackholes (they can't be directly observed or tested) the indirect evidence of their existence is strong enough that the existence of black holes has been established as fact. I don't want to turn this into the case for theism argument...I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

The idea of creating a model (even if only a thought model) is to propose an idea and see how well it dovetails with available evidence if true. Atheism if true means we owe our existence and that of the universe to some non-god non-intelligent non-intended cause that resulted in a universe coming into existence as well as sentient life. If atheism is true (there is no God or Creator) then life came from non-life and sentient life came from non-sentient life and such occured not as a result of plan or intent but minus any plan or intent for it to occur. You say you reject the existence of God due to lack of direct physical evidence God exists. What evidence then leads you to believe that mindless forces without plan or intent caused something totally unlike itself (life and sentience) to exist?

Because that is where science points.

The truth is I don't know how the universe or life came about.

The difference between you and me is that, while I would like to know, I am comfortable with NOT knowing. I don't need to believe in a sky daddy to make me feel like my life has some divine purpose and that the universe was created just for me. I prefer to watch science do its thing and then marvel at the wonderful discoveries we make.

Let me ask you a question. Doesn't it seem odd to you that, of all the things god has been credited with over the past xx thousand years, not one of those things has been confirmed by science?

I mean, the saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Where is gods acorn?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -Einstein
Reply
#16
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

All you've done is offer fallacious arguments.

The existence of the universe, life, sentience is only evidence for the existence of the universe, life, sentience.

By claiming that these are evidence for a creator, you are guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#17
RE: The Case for Atheism
In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "
Reply
#18
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm)goodnews Wrote: In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

indeed.... but how did some people come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?
Reply
#19
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm)goodnews Wrote: In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

There are problems with this.

1. if you would expect to find evidence, and there is none, then it is evidence of absence. If you are claiming a god that interferes with our reality (miracles, answering prayers, communicating with people, etc), then evidence would be expected.

2. If there is no evidence, then there is no justification for belief.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#20
RE: The Case for Atheism
(May 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm)goodnews Wrote: In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

(May 8, 2013 at 2:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(May 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm)goodnews Wrote: In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

indeed.... but how did some people come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

Right, and the absence of evidence does not give one license to poof! all sorts of imaginary characters into existence.

If anything, this should show the theist how very weak their position is, to be on the same level as plutonian unicorns or ten-foot tall invisible martian robot spiders. See? No evidence! But, they are real! Poof!

But I know, their god is speshul and not *at all* like a ten-foot tall invisible martian robot spider.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A Case for Inherent Morality JohnJubinsky 66 3250 June 22, 2021 at 10:35 am
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy
  Cold-Case Christianity LadyForCamus 32 2659 May 24, 2019 at 7:52 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith Alexmahone 10 1041 March 4, 2018 at 6:52 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Atheism VS Christian Atheism? IanHulett 80 23364 June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  The curious case of Sarah Salviander. Jehanne 24 4921 December 27, 2016 at 4:12 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Atheism, Scientific Atheism and Antitheism tantric 33 10634 January 18, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: helyott
  Case closed on making cases against the case for stuff, in case you were wondering. Whateverist 27 5024 December 11, 2014 at 8:12 am
Last Post: robvalue
  the case against the case against god chris(tnt)rhol 92 12764 December 10, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism Dystopia 26 10789 August 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Dawsonite
  Debate share, young earth? atheism coverup? atheism gain? xr34p3rx 13 9128 March 16, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)