Atheism (Discussion)

[TANRailgun]

Fox Of The North

Disclaimer
This is base on my understanding of atheism and belief in general.
Please keep the discussion clean if you are interested in a open and honest dialogue.
If you are offended,you have my apologies but i shall bare no responsibility in hurt feelings.


Atheism
What we do believe in is to question and demand evidence and not to just blindly believe. We are skeptics in general.

However religions require mental gymnastics,to believe the unproven,to hand over one's individuality and rationality base on unproven beliefs.

We base our thoughts on what is the most rational and proven ideas. We are wrong we would gladly be the first to admit it. And if something false is proven we would regard it as falsehood.

However in the case of religions nothing is up for discussion. "God created the world in 7 days." How and why is not to be questioned. It just is. Because that is what god did. Because its god's word.

I would love to hear what else my fellow gaians have to add to the discussion smile

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

[Fox Of The North]

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Disclaimer
This is base on my understanding of atheism and belief in general.
Please keep the discussion clean if you are interested in a open and honest dialogue.
If you are offended,you have my apologies but i shall bare no responsibility in hurt feelings.


Atheism
What we do believe in is to question and demand evidence and not to just blindly believe. We are skeptics in general.

However religions require mental gymnastics,to believe the unproven,to hand over one's individuality and rationality base on unproven beliefs.

We base our thoughts on what is the most rational and proven ideas. We are wrong we would gladly be the first to admit it. And if something false is proven we would regard it as falsehood.

However in the case of religions nothing is up for discussion. "God created the world in 7 days." How and why is not to be questioned. It just is. Because that is what god did. Because its god's word.

I would love to hear what else my fellow gaians have to add to the discussion smile

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

[TANRailgun]

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

[Fox Of The North]

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The Bible is evidence of God

Well thanks for informing me of my mistake.
And no,the bible is not evidence for the existence of a god.
The bible are claims,claims that have yet to be demonstrated.

It have been claimed that all holy text are divinely inspired,however until the claims
can be proven it isn't evidence for anything.

its historicity is disputed.
its authorship is disputed.
its miraculous claims is disputed.
and its morality is disputed.

miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Fox Of The North

What we do believe in is to question and demand evidence and not to just blindly believe. We are skeptics in general.

You're adding things to atheism when there isn't anything to be added. Atheism is just a response to a question. It has nothing inherently to do with skepticism, as there are religions that are atheistic and still make claims that they cannot demonstrate to be accurate (buddhism for example). There are also plenty of atheists who are atheists for bad reasons...and there are atheists who make claims that they too cannot demonstrate to be accurate (i.e. god doesn't exist...note, I'm not saying all atheists do this, but that is one atheistic position, and it's one they can't prove).

Quote:

We base our thoughts on what is the most rational and proven ideas.

Not necessarily. You're overgeneralizing based on what you THINK atheists are...but that's not a position that is intrinsically inherent in atheism.

Quote:

We are wrong we would gladly be the first to admit it. And if something false is proven we would regard it as falsehood.

Again, not necessarily. Being stubborn or gullible isn't something that changes just because someone's views on religion change.

You see, what you're doing is trying to add dogma to atheism...and there isn't anything dogmatic in atheism. The only thing it takes to be an atheist is a lack of belief in god(s). Skepticism isn't required. Intellectual honesty isn't required. Intelligence isn't required. There is nothing else because it's just a response to a single question...and the only way to be a "bad atheist" is to believe in the existence of god(s).

[TANRailgun]

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such: nu

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The Bible is evidence of God

Well thanks for informing me of my mistake.
And no,the bible is not evidence for the existence of a god.
The bible are claims,claims that have yet to be demonstrated.

It have been claimed that all holy text are divinely inspired,however until the claims
can be proven it isn't evidence for anything.

its historicity is disputed.
its authorship is disputed.
its miraculous claims is disputed.
and its morality is disputed.

miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence.

Don't forget that it's also circular logic: "Evidence for God comes from the bible, the Bible's cedibility comes from God". Its easier to fight this one by calling it out as a logical fallacy than by disputing the Bible's credibility.

Next one:

Assuming you are right, and there is no evidence of God, you still cannot assume that God doesn't exist. The existance of something is not dependant upon your ability to detect it. 500 years ago we didn't know that gems cause disease, that does not mean they did not exist. Yesterday you did not know that I existed, but I did. Just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

[The Herald of War]

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such: nu

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The Bible is evidence of God

Well thanks for informing me of my mistake.
And no,the bible is not evidence for the existence of a god.
The bible are claims,claims that have yet to be demonstrated.

It have been claimed that all holy text are divinely inspired,however until the claims
can be proven it isn't evidence for anything.

its historicity is disputed.
its authorship is disputed.
its miraculous claims is disputed.
and its morality is disputed.

miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence.

Don't forget that it's also circular logic: "Evidence for God comes from the bible, the Bible's cedibility comes from God". Its easier to fight this one by calling it out as a logical fallacy than by disputing the Bible's credibility.

Next one:

Assuming you are right, and there is no evidence of God, you still cannot assume that God doesn't exist. The existance of something is not dependant upon your ability to detect it. 500 years ago we didn't know that gems cause disease, that does not mean they did not exist. Yesterday you did not know that I existed, but I did. Just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

If he can't assume God doesn't exist, why can you assume that the world wasn't created a second ago and you're replying to a post that no person created? It seems to be your assumption by replying to it. There's a large problem with consistency in how you live your life if you want to tell people they can't assume things with no evidence aren't true. There's a problem with consistency in even arguing anything if you can't assume things without evidence aren't true. Quite frankly there's a problem doing anything at all as you'd be forced to accept opposing claims with no evidence.

[Jason the Samurai Knight]

The Herald of War

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

I would rebutt that as such: nu

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The Bible is evidence of God

Well thanks for informing me of my mistake.
And no,the bible is not evidence for the existence of a god.
The bible are claims,claims that have yet to be demonstrated.

It have been claimed that all holy text are divinely inspired,however until the claims
can be proven it isn't evidence for anything.

its historicity is disputed.
its authorship is disputed.
its miraculous claims is disputed.
and its morality is disputed.

miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence.

Don't forget that it's also circular logic: "Evidence for God comes from the bible, the Bible's cedibility comes from God". Its easier to fight this one by calling it out as a logical fallacy than by disputing the Bible's credibility.

Next one:

Assuming you are right, and there is no evidence of God, you still cannot assume that God doesn't exist. The existance of something is not dependant upon your ability to detect it. 500 years ago we didn't know that gems cause disease, that does not mean they did not exist. Yesterday you did not know that I existed, but I did. Just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

If he can't assume God doesn't exist, why can you assume that the world wasn't created a second ago and you're replying to a post that no person created? It seems to be your assumption by replying to it. There's a large problem with consistency in how you live your life if you want to tell people they can't assume things with no evidence aren't true. There's a problem with consistency in even arguing anything if you can't assume things without evidence aren't true. Quite frankly there's a problem doing anything at all as you'd be forced to accept opposing claims with no evidence.

I agree with this and also will add this against your ideas of gods.
As well though it may be true that even if their is no evidence to prove gods don't exist. You can't prove that gods do. So as such, they become the same as other mythical creatures. Like fire breathing Dragons, Pegasus, Ogres, Frost Giants, Mermaids, etc.

[TANRailgun]

The Herald of War

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

I would rebutt that as such: nu

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The Bible is evidence of God

Well thanks for informing me of my mistake.
And no,the bible is not evidence for the existence of a god.
The bible are claims,claims that have yet to be demonstrated.

It have been claimed that all holy text are divinely inspired,however until the claims
can be proven it isn't evidence for anything.

its historicity is disputed.
its authorship is disputed.
its miraculous claims is disputed.
and its morality is disputed.

miraculous claims requires miraculous evidence.

Don't forget that it's also circular logic: "Evidence for God comes from the bible, the Bible's cedibility comes from God". Its easier to fight this one by calling it out as a logical fallacy than by disputing the Bible's credibility.

Next one:

Assuming you are right, and there is no evidence of God, you still cannot assume that God doesn't exist. The existance of something is not dependant upon your ability to detect it. 500 years ago we didn't know that gems cause disease, that does not mean they did not exist. Yesterday you did not know that I existed, but I did. Just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean he doesn't.

If he can't assume God doesn't exist, why can you assume that the world wasn't created a second ago and you're replying to a post that no person created? It seems to be your assumption by replying to it. There's a large problem with consistency in how you live your life if you want to tell people they can't assume things with no evidence aren't true. There's a problem with consistency in even arguing anything if you can't assume things without evidence aren't true. Quite frankly there's a problem doing anything at all as you'd be forced to accept opposing claims with no evidence.

I was playing devils advocate. I just wanted to see how he would fare in the hellscape that is religious debate on the internet. He was doing well until he quit.

Your answer has the makings of a good one, but I would recommend a different approach. You lost me for a second there, and I think if you had focused more on the thesis, instead if taking that little nihilist detour, it would have been more clear. The way you did it works...but it feels weak, and a little confusing.

[Lightning the Lulu]

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The bible is evidence of a book. Please go learn some interesting arguments.

[Lightning the Lulu]

God Emperor Baldur

Rumblestiltskin

God Emperor Baldur

Rumblestiltskin

God Emperor Baldur

2 different type of people

No...they aren't. Again, a/theism speaks to what you BELIEVE...a/gnosticism speaks to what you KNOW. They are answers to TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. And you can assert that they're "2 different type of people" all you want, but you'll still won't be correct...

Except agnostics don't believe there is no god, atheists do.

No...Atheists just LACK A BELIEF in a god. Not believing the claims of a god and asserting there is no god are two different statements. So, as an atheist, I would appreciate you not telling me what my position is on the matter....

Then as an agnostic, stop telling me that I am an atheist. I am not like you nor do I desire to be like you. Now there is a huge difference between not believing in God which is a deceptive statement to begin with and believing that there is no god. My problem is with people like you trying to gather people like me into the same group as people who believe there is no god, but are unsure.

That's sort of tough, because words mean things. Agnosticism addresses the philosophical question of whether it is possible to know if gods exist. It does not address a stance on belief, for which there are two positions only: either one believes or one does not. If one is uncertain, one cannot claim to positively believe, and the default position is then lack of belief. Believing that there is no god is a positive assertion, which is a step beyond the position of atheism, which is the rejection of a positive assertion via the response "I don't believe that".

Let’s say I have a jar of marbles here that someone filled (say 2000 years ago). Neither you nor I saw them fill it. I think you and I would both agree that the number of marbles in this jar is either even or odd. Theism says “I assert that the number of marbles in that jar is even, because (insert scripture here).” and my position is “I do not believe your claim". Have I said that it is impossible for the number of marbles to be even? Have I asserted that the number is odd? I have done neither and I do not appreciate anyone who is claiming that I have.

Now let's say the jar of marbles is not even a tangible item, it is just something that has been the subject of some old moldy book. A theist will believe the jar exists, an atheist will not. A gnostic theist will assert that the number of marbles in the jar can be determined via (insert reason here, because it is not always scripture), an agnostic theist will believe the jar probably exists but it's not likely we can determine the number of marbles in the jar, and an agnostic atheist will not believe the jar exists but even if it did, we would not be able to determine the number of marbles with the evidence currently available.

[TANRailgun]

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The bible is evidence of a book. You're a terrible troll, please go learn some interesting arguments.

My trolling was done with the best intentions. He seemed new to this, so I wanted to see how he would do. He did well. I stuck to common and relativly easy arguments because I wanted to make sure he could at least handle that.

Here's an interesting argument: assuming a truly infinite universe (or multiverse, which ever), everything must occur eventually. Therefore a truly omnipotent and omniscient being must exist somewhere at some time (along with everything else). Since this being is omnipotent it cannot be restricted by time and space, or anything else for that matter, therefore it existes everywhere (across the infinite universe and/or multiverse), including right here, right now.

This one took me a few when I first came across it, I'm interested in seeing how others fare.

[Lightning the Lulu]

TANRailgun

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

Let's start with an easy one:

Prove God doesn't exist.

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The bible is evidence of a book. You're a terrible troll, please go learn some interesting arguments.

My trolling was done with the best intentions. He seemed new to this, so I wanted to see how he would do. He did well. I stuck to common and relativly easy arguments because I wanted to make sure he could at least handle that.

Here's an interesting argument: assuming a truly infinite universe (or multiverse, which ever), everything must occur eventually. Therefore a truly omnipotent and omniscient being must exist somewhere at some time (along with everything else). Since this being is omnipotent it cannot be restricted by time and space, or anything else for that matter, therefore, existes everywhere (across the infinite universe and/or multiverse), including right here, right now.

This one took me a few when I first came across it, I'm interested in seeing how others fare.

Ah, gotcha. In that case, I'm glad you put some effort into it! wink

That looks like some variation of the Cosmological Argument, to which I would reply:

1) Where is the evidence to support the notion that "everything must occur eventually"? Can we examine an "everything"?
2) In the absence of evidence for the above, there would need to be more information regarding how we could examine a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" in order to determine if, in fact, such a thing "must" exist.
3) How is the connection made between the possibility that a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" might exist "somewhere at some time" and it existing everywhere and at all times, including right here and right now?

Where did you find that argument, may I ask?

[TANRailgun]

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The bible is evidence of a book. You're a terrible troll, please go learn some interesting arguments.

My trolling was done with the best intentions. He seemed new to this, so I wanted to see how he would do. He did well. I stuck to common and relativly easy arguments because I wanted to make sure he could at least handle that.

Here's an interesting argument: assuming a truly infinite universe (or multiverse, which ever), everything must occur eventually. Therefore a truly omnipotent and omniscient being must exist somewhere at some time (along with everything else). Since this being is omnipotent it cannot be restricted by time and space, or anything else for that matter, therefore, existes everywhere (across the infinite universe and/or multiverse), including right here, right now.

This one took me a few when I first came across it, I'm interested in seeing how others fare.

Ah, gotcha. In that case, I'm glad you put some effort into it! wink

That looks like some variation of the Cosmological Argument, to which I would reply:

1) Where is the evidence to support the notion that "everything must occur eventually"? Can we examine an "everything"?
2) In the absence of evidence for the above, there would need to be more information regarding how we could examine a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" in order to determine if, in fact, such a thing "must" exist.
3) How is the connection made between the possibility that a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" might exist "somewhere at some time" and it existing everywhere and at all times, including right here and right now?

Where did you find that argument, may I ask?

I was a long time ago, I wanna say in YouTube comments, but I cant remember what video exactly.

Anywho, I responded to this by pointing out that an infinite amount (or number) is not an all-encompassing one. For example: There are an infinite number or numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4627181974538, etc... ) but none of these numbers can ever be 3. Therefore you cannot assume that a god will ever occur in an infinite universe, in the same way you cannot assume that 3 is between 1 and 2 just because there are an infinte number of numbers between the two.

[Lightning the Lulu]

TANRailgun

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

The Legendary Guest

TANRailgun

Fox Of The North

I would rebutt that as such:

How can something not proven to exist in reality,be proven not to exist?
My imagination of another supernatural entity exists could not be proven not to exist.

If someone said to me "Zeus is real,and you can't prove the contrary "
I will ask him as such " Where is your evidence for your claims? until you show me evidence
that is rooted in reality. until then i cannot take your claims of Zeus existence as real"

The burden of proof lies on the person who claims.

Hope i cleared some of your questions.

Rebut only has one "t".

The Bible is evidence of God.

The bible is evidence of a book. You're a terrible troll, please go learn some interesting arguments.

My trolling was done with the best intentions. He seemed new to this, so I wanted to see how he would do. He did well. I stuck to common and relativly easy arguments because I wanted to make sure he could at least handle that.

Here's an interesting argument: assuming a truly infinite universe (or multiverse, which ever), everything must occur eventually. Therefore a truly omnipotent and omniscient being must exist somewhere at some time (along with everything else). Since this being is omnipotent it cannot be restricted by time and space, or anything else for that matter, therefore, existes everywhere (across the infinite universe and/or multiverse), including right here, right now.

This one took me a few when I first came across it, I'm interested in seeing how others fare.

Ah, gotcha. In that case, I'm glad you put some effort into it! wink

That looks like some variation of the Cosmological Argument, to which I would reply:

1) Where is the evidence to support the notion that "everything must occur eventually"? Can we examine an "everything"?
2) In the absence of evidence for the above, there would need to be more information regarding how we could examine a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" in order to determine if, in fact, such a thing "must" exist.
3) How is the connection made between the possibility that a "truly omnipotent and omniscient being" might exist "somewhere at some time" and it existing everywhere and at all times, including right here and right now?

Where did you find that argument, may I ask?

I was a long time ago, I wanna say in YouTube comments, but I cant remember what video exactly.

Anywho, I responded to this by pointing out that an infinite amount (or number) is not an all-encompassing one. For example: There are an infinite number or numbers between 1 and 2 (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4627181974538, etc... ) but none of these numbers can ever be 3. Therefore you cannot assume that a god will ever occur in an infinite universe, in the same way you cannot assume that 3 is between 1 and 2 just because there are an infinte number of numbers between the two.

Uggggh YT, you've got serious guts! I usually stick to Tumblr, which takes a different sort of guts, know what I mean?

Very nice response, did they get it?