I am an atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter _A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_A said:
I would go on to say that it is common, in various forms, all through the population. There is a huge amount of evidence that most people dream every night. I don’t remember every night, but I do remember dreaming, and not once can I remember having an unconvincing dream.
I will show you a simple example of your own hallucination. Even when you know for a fact that the image does not move, it will still appear to move. No amount of reason will stop it.
http://blog.makezine.com/rotsnakemini3ts.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks for the picture. I can stop it for about 2 seconds if I stare at the upper left circle. I think that with concentration I could see the reality of the object (no movement) rather than the illusion (movement) for longer period.

Give it a try yourself.
 
some people don’t need an organized religion,
just plain and simple.

some people can think for themselves.

some people think there are more important
matters than if/who/what gods exist.

some people think as mere humans, we should
worry about humanity.
 
WindyHair said:
some people don’t need an organized religion,
just plain and simple.

some people can think for themselves.

some people think there are more important
matters than if/who/what gods exist.

some people think as mere humans, we should
worry about humanity.
Click to expand...
Welcome, What brings you here?
 
_A said:
I don’t mind admitting that it was ridiculous to expect an answer. You still have not offered a test with a lower level of ridiculousness though. Perhaps this is as good as the evidence is going to get. I still have to wonder how would I define your god from an invented, imaginary character?
Click to expand...
You made a silly challenge and I demonstrated what was obviously wrong with it. Why then should I be required to come up with some kind of test or challenge?

If you are looking for evidence please read this thread over again. There is evidence that is reasonable that you simply rejected out of hand. That is your choice.

It seems obvious to me that you insist on scientific evidence and proof. Scientific evidence, but not scientific proof, has been presented to you. This evidence was the physical data that we see around us in the form of creation. The source is the creator. This is not something you are impressed with but it is evidence. Your level of confidence in this kind of evidence may not be the same as mine, but that is the result of our individual reactions to the evidence. Obviously, we are free to disagree.

I hope that you are open to the possibility that not all truth is arrived at by science and scientific evidence. Some truths are not subject to scientific proof at all. That does not make them any less true. Some of this has already been touched on in this thread. Even this seemed to leave you unimpressed, but that doesn’t change the fact that philosophy can help us arrive at truths through reasoning that science cannot. Likewise, there are things of science that philosophy cannot help us with. Each has its place and strengths.
 
_A said:
Which part specifically? Was it a logical fallacy? If so, which one?
Click to expand...
You said that we claim that our God cannot die. You then said that this means in some way that our God is not alive. There is no logical connection between these two statements.
 
@Pax

“This evidence was the physical data that we see around us in the form of creation. The source is the creator.”

I’ve read the entire thread here as well, there has been no evidence presented (yet).

This statement you have given is a great example of circular reasoning and begging the question. First you’ve defined the universe and everything in it as something that supports your presupposed conclusion “creation” and then used it as evidence for your presupposed conclusion, a “creator”

This is not evidence.
 
Excuse me but the evidence pre-exists me and my contention/conclusion. I and others have merely observed the world and wonder how it came into existence. Like everything else we know and observe, the physical universe had a beginning. It is extremely unlikely that it created itself. We find the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the universe to be a Supreme Being. We see this, not as a proof, but as the most logical conclusion. Philosophical reasoning is very helpful when discussing the origins of all things…science is not. Science might take us to the “Big Bang”, but that’s about as far as it is going to go before it simply begs the question.

My reasoning is not circular.
 
Excuse me, but it is, and you do.

Are you up to date with current theories regarding the start of the universe, or does the belief in God just make you feel good?
 
Sorry, but I need to add to my previous post.

If you have other evidence besides “the universe exists so god created it” then perhaps you are not simply using circular reasoning.

However, this has not yet been presented, and if you had it I would have thought you would use it by now.

Perhaps somebody else has the evidence though, so I will at least keep on asking.
 
@AliciaCL

Thanks for your suggestion regarding the EWTN - The Journey Home with the former atheist panel.

There was nothing there I hadn’t heard before unfortunately, some strawmen, some arguments from comfort. Also, the intermittent quiet laughing in the background from one of the speakers had a very creepy quality about it! Not saying that means anything of course, it was just very distracting!
 
phooney said:
Sorry, but I need to add to my previous post.

If you have other evidence besides “the universe exists so god created it” then perhaps you are not simply using circular reasoning.

However, this has not yet been presented, and if you had it I would have thought you would use it by now.

Perhaps somebody else has the evidence though, so I will at least keep on asking.
Click to expand...
If you read the philosophical arguments, I think you might reconsider the contention that the arguments are circular. And please keep in mind that I never claimed that proof was provided. Likewise, science has proved very little if anything concerning the creation and birth of the universe. Please provide me with good reasons to even accept the current scientific theories as evidence. They are not evidence…they are the best ideas that some scientists find helpful to their particular point of view. Shall we call them circular too?
 
Pax said:
IMHO the current theories merely beg the question.
Click to expand...
I shouldn’t have said “theories” as I think many of them only qualify as hypotheses until they have evidence for them, and I am certainly not promoting belief in any particular one of them.

I say lack belief until there is evidence, and I am certainly looking forward to whatever new evidence arises, such as with the large hadron collider due to be finished next year.

However, all these scientific hypotheses are inherently better than godidit because they are at least based on mathematical models of the universe that match observable reality. All God has (or all he has that has been presented to me) is arguments from ignorance i.e. we don’t know how x happened, so god did it.

If we do get evidence for god, then that’s great as far as I’m concerned, but I’m going to give “the universe exists so god exists” my non-sequitor of the day award.
 
@Pax

“If you read the philosophical arguments, I think you might reconsider the contention that the arguments are circular.”

I didn’t say they were all circular, just this most recent one you presented.
 
Pax said:
You said that we claim that our God cannot die. You then said that this means in some way that our God is not alive. There is no logical connection between these two statements.
Click to expand...
Well, in my experience, all that lives, eventually dies. There is not one bit of evidence that life is EVER indeterminate. If something can’t die, then it does not have one of the prime characteristics of life.
How many things can you name that live, but don’t die? (I am not asking for imaginings here, only real forms of life.)
 
phooney said:
I shouldn’t have said “theories” as I think many of them only qualify as hypotheses until they have evidence for them, and I am certainly not promoting belief in any particular one of them.

I say lack belief until there is evidence, and I am certainly looking forward to whatever new evidence arises, such as with the large hadron collider due to be finished next year.

However, all these scientific hypotheses are inherently better than godidit because they are at least based on mathematical models of the universe that match observable reality. All God has (or all he has that has been presented to me) is arguments from ignorance i.e. we don’t know how x happened, so god did it.

If we do get evidence for god, then that’s great as far as I’m concerned, but I’m going to give “the universe exists so god exists” my non-sequitor of the day award.
Click to expand...
Ptolemy’s math also matched what everyone thought was the observable reality of the universe during his day and beyond.😃

I think your statement that “All God has (or all he has that has been presented to me) is arguments from ignorance i.e. we don’t know how x happened, so god did it.” does an injustice to philosophical argument. That is why I took the liberty of mocking modern science and math with the example of Ptolemy. I hope you can appreciate the point and the humor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top