The absurdity of atheism

[PRmerger]

Who said anything about 100%? You know I haven’t. Beyond reasonable doubt will do it for me. Remember what I said? ‘Based on the evidence that has been presented so far…’

Fair enough.

I amend to “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

You say that God exists. You present evidence. I don’t find that evidence convincing. Therefore, until such time as evidence is provided that will change my mind, I do not believe He does exist. My conviction is beyond reasonable doubt.

No-one says that the MV exists (if you can find a quote where someone says it does, then I’ll be with you in saying they are incorrect and that it’s not possible to say so). What people do say is that there are aspects of mathematics that point to the possibility of an MV.

So the fact that Theists assert that God does exist, rather than saying “there are arguments that point to the possibility that God exists” is the dividing line?

Really?

I find those possibilities compelling. That doesn’t mean I believe it exists. There is no evidence for me to make a call beyond reasonable doubt.

So, to be consistent, you should have the same answer.

Either…“I consider the possibility that God exists, just like I consider the possibility that the MV exists”

OR…“I reject the possibility that God exists, just like I reject the possibility that the MV exists”.

Careful, mk. Mention to a Catholic that something they believe is to be found in the bible and all hell breaks loose.

Er, no.

I don’t know why you keep getting this wrong, friend.

Our beliefs are reflected in the Bible.

They just don’t come from the Bible.

Yes, the church says that this particular portion of the bible is to be trusted. That this portion is to be taken literally. That this portion is not. That this is allegorical. That this bit…well, you can make your own mind up on some of it. But…it is all found in the bible. I mean, that’s what the book is for.

Yes.

That’s how we know what Jesus taught

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Nooooooooooo!

So again., where did the idea of heaven come from:

It comes from logic, reason, and the kerygma, which is the good news of our redemption, professed through the Word of God, Jesus Christ, to his apostles, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

And in passing, Happy Xmas to everyone. Friend and foe alike (well, there are no foes really). Believers and those without hope

Back at 'cha, luv!

I hope that whatever Christmas means to you , you’ll enjoy it.

Really?

Even if it means attending a Black Mass where the Eucharist is blasphemed?

Would you be ok with that?

I am curious about your answer, as an atheist. Since the Eucharist means nothing to you are you of the mind, “Hey, different strokes for different folks!” or are you of the mind, “I don’t believe in God, in Jesus as the Son of God, or the Eucharist, but I do see the blasphemy of such an event and would not endorse such a thing.”

 

[PRmerger]

No-one says that the MV exists (if you can find a quote where someone says it does, then I’ll be with you in saying they are incorrect and that it’s not possible to say so).

Let’s hear you say it then!

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22I+believe+the+multiverse+exists%22

I believe we exist in a multiverse of universes.–Michio Kaku
Read more at brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/michiokaku523323.html#tAiMJUwKsjUDst1q.99

 

[PRmerger]

Archaeology, artefacts, art, multiple written accounts both within and outside the Empire.

I’m perfectly fine believing Jesus lived. I reject any assertion or claim that he was the son of the creator of the universe and possessed supernatural powers.

So did his apostles lie about seeing him resurrected?

 

[PRmerger]

What you attribute to your God is impossible.

Nothing, nothing could prove any being is omnipotent, infinite and omniscient.

So you lied when you said that you would believe if tangible proof were offered?

Would you think this man a good man if he told his son, “I’ll pay you $10 if you drink this full glass of water?” and when the son does this, the man says, “Haha! I said I’d give you money if you drank a full glass of water. It’s empty! Not full! Hahahah!”

What he was really saying was, “I will never give you $10”, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Can I prove that there is nothing after death? Nope

So you believe something without any proof.

What an egregious assertion coming from an atheist!

This, below, is a doctrine made of blind faith–a belief made from no evidence whatsoever:

Death is nothingness and nothingness is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Rohzek]

So you believe something without any proof.

What an egregious assertion coming from an atheist!

This, below, is a doctrine made of blind faith–a belief made from no evidence whatsoever:

To be fair to 987mk he is merely abiding by the following maxim: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. You’re following the same exact maxim too when you reject the notion that there is nothing after death. In short, you’re no different than him in this sense.

So you lied when you said that you would believe if tangible proof were offered?

Would you think this man a good man if he told his son, “I’ll pay you $10 if you drink this full glass of water?” and when the son does this, the man says, “Haha! I said I’d give you money if you drank a full glass of water. It’s empty! Not full! Hahahah!”

What he was really saying was, “I will never give you $10”, right?

Could you for once give those who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt and just simply allow for the possibility that 987mk merely amended his previous statement without ever having the intention to lie whatsoever? Logically speaking, one cannot veritably prove something to be infinite solely because of the problem of infinite regress.

 

[987mk]

So you lied when you said that you would believe if tangible proof were offered?

Would you think this man a good man if he told his son, “I’ll pay you $10 if you drink this full glass of water?” and when the son does this, the man says, “Haha! I said I’d give you money if you drank a full glass of water. It’s empty! Not full! Hahahah!”

What he was really saying was, “I will never give you $10”, right?

Lied, wut?

What I’m saying is that your God is impossible.

You’re asking me what would it take for me to believe in an impossible God.

No test, no proof could prove a God is all powerful, all knowing and infinite.

How could such a God provide any proof that he is those three things?

 

[Bradski]

Either…“I consider the possibility that God exists, just like I consider the possibility that the MV exists”

OR…“I reject the possibility that God exists, just like I reject the possibility that the MV exists”

I have considered the CLAIM that God exists and the evidence provided has led me to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that He doesn’t exist (atheism).

I have considered the PROPOSAL that the MV exists and I am open to the possibility. No evidence has been provided so the matter remains in my ‘pending’ tray (agnosticism).

Your definitions of the terms I use may vary.

Even if it means attending a Black Mass where the Eucharist is blasphemed?

I obviously have no problem with blasphemy. It is strictly a matter of freedom of speech. What each of us considers to be over and above what should be allowed is a personal matter. But we should all bend over backwards to uphold the principle.

Then again, if someone claims the right to call into doubt my daughter’s virtue, then I will similarly claim the right to smack him in the mouth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Free speech versus violence hey Bradski?

 

[Lion_IRC]

What you attribute to your God is impossible.

Nothing, nothing could prove any being is omnipotent, infinite and omniscient.

Maybe I’m dumb but could you please explain to me how it would be impossible for a Being who can do anything to prove that He could do anything.

Wouldnt the very act of doing a certain thing be the proof that He could do it?

 

[zyzz]

I have considered the CLAIM that God exists and the evidence provided has led me to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that He doesn’t exist (atheism).

I have considered the PROPOSAL that the MV exists and I am open to the possibility. No evidence has been provided so the matter remains in my ‘pending’ tray (agnosticism).

Let’s not forget that the existence on MV is totally irrelevant in every respect. Even if there is a “parallel universe”, there can be no communication between us. (If there could be, it would be a single universe). On the other hand, if God exists, it would be very relevant to our existence.

Your definitions of the terms I use may vary.

You can bet the farm of that. Some say that “atheism” is the positive claim that “god” does not exist and that definition is simply incorrect. This has been pointed out many times, but there are some people who refuse to learn.

 

[Lion_IRC]

zyzz - do you think God that does not exist? Is that your belief?

 

[Bradski]

Free speech versus violence hey Bradski?

As I said, we all have our personal limits. So I reserve the right to strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Touché

 

[tonyrey]

It is about time to remember:

Absence of proof is NOT a proof of absence

HOWEVER:

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence!

The statement “Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence” is obviously false because it presupposes the existence not only of the person making that statement but also the persons intended to read or hear that statement…

In addition it is not made clear what evidence consists of. Sense data and nothing else? In that case it is false because the mind and realities like truth, freedom and justice cannot be perceived by the eyes, ears, nose, skin or tongue. Materialism is obsolete since the logical positivists realised the verification principle itself cannot be verified by physical means - nor can it verify itself!

 

[zyzz]

zyzz - do you think God that does not exist? Is that your belief?

You are most welcome to use either one of both versions:

1. I don’t believe that “god” exists. and
2. I believe that “god” does not exist.

They are semantically the same. Neither one is a “positive claim”. It does not matter where the word “not” is placed, it is a negative claim.

Please observe the lower-case “god”, which is any “god”, not just the God of Christianity (the upper case God).

Now let’s consider linguistics and correct philosophy. The word “theist” designates someone who believes that a “god” (“theos”) or “gods” exist. The word “god” describes an entity who or what exists in some non-physical fashion, but this existence is physically active. What the word “exists” means in this respect must be defined as well. Also how can a non-physical being be physically active? What kind of process makes this possible?

**The word “atheist” which is “a”+“theist” describes a person who lacks such a belief. **That is all.

The word “atheist” covers some “sub-groups”. Someone may be an atheist because she never ever heard of the concept of a “god”. Someone may be an atheist because he cannot even comprehend the term “god”. Someone might be an atheist who heard the term, understands what it is supposed to mean, but rejects the idea as incoherent.

Let’s consider a scenario: “I say that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my basement and it demands that you turn over all your assets to a charity under my supervision”. You can either accept this claim, or reject it. Would you accept it on my say-so? I hope not. The point is that positive claims must be substantiated before they can be accepted.

If you would try to “wiggle out”, then I will ask: “can you prove that there is no IPU in my basement”? If you cannot “prove” it, then please give me all your money. Would you accept this “reasoning”? I hope not. Negative claims cannot be “proven” (except in axiomatic systems, like mathematics).

 

[Lion_IRC]

You are most welcome to use either one of both versions:

1. I don’t believe that “god” exists. and
2. I believe that “god” does not exist.

Great. Now we are getting somewhere.

…The word “atheist” which is “a”+“theist” describes a person who lacks such a belief.

Sure, you lack the belief that God/god exists.
But you don’t completely lack beliefs with respect to God’s (or gods’) existence.

I can play semantics too. I can merely assert that I lack the particular belief that you hold.

God yes? (Theist)
God no? (Atheist)
God maybe? (Agnostic)

There’s no fourth option.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Lied, wut?

What I’m saying is that your God is impossible.

You’re asking me what would it take for me to believe in an impossible God.

No test, no proof could prove a God is all powerful, all knowing and infinite.

How could such a God provide any proof that he is those three things?

I think you are confusing “no possible proof” with “no proof that 987mk could possibly assess with any degree of reliability or certainty.”

Sure you can make a claim about the impossibility of an all-powerful, all-knowing and infinite – although “eternal” would be a better choice of words – God. The problem is that your warrant to decide upon the possibility or impossibility of any of those qualities (alone or together) would require you having access to metaphysical certainty (and the corollary logical proofs) with respect to each of those characteristics as far as God possessing them is concerned.

We have very little assurance (none actually) from your limited knowledge, your limited power and your temporal and spatial finitude that you are in anything like a privileged position to arbitrate on the possibility or impossibility of any of the 3Omni attributes or their alleged impossibility with regard to God possessing any or all of them together.

No doubt, you are sincerely convinced about their impossibility, but given that you lack the wherewithal to determine THAT with any degree of epistemic certainty, it is safe to conclude that your determination on the matter amounts to nothing more than bloviating.

Oh, sure, you feel “safe” in doing so, but it wouldn’t take very much for an all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal God to change your mind on the matter.

If we want to speak decisively about possibility and impossibility, I would be more certain about the impossibility of you knowing with any degree of certainty about whether God’s attributes are, indeed, impossible. Yup, it would be determinably IMPOSSIBLE (based upon your limited knowledge, your limited power and your finitude) for you to know with any degree of certainty that an all-knowing, all-powerful and eternal God is impossible, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, it is more possible that the all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal God exists than it would be for you to adequately and correctly judge with certainty the impossibility of his existence.

How would it be possible for you, a being with limited knowledge, to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that no possible being (or Being Itself) could possess all possible knowledge?

How would it be possible for you, a being with limited knowledge and limited power, to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that no being (or Being Itself) could possess the power to act in a manner not restricted by any other force, power or being?

How would it be possible for you, a being limited within time and space, with limited knowledge and limited power to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that no being (or Being Itself) could exist outside the restrictions of time and space?

Care to demonstrate how you KNOW any of those with certainty?

A logical proof would be appreciated, since you are claiming logical impossibility for those attributes.

Keep in mind that an assertion of certainty does not count as a logical proof.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Great. Now we are getting somewhere.

Sure, you lack the belief that God/god exists.
But you don’t completely lack beliefs with respect to God’s (or gods’) existence.

I can play semantics too. I can merely assert that I lack the particular belief that you hold.

God yes? (Theist)
God no? (Atheist)
God maybe? (Agnostic)

There’s no fourth option.

Ignostic? Someone who claims it is impossible to know because the question is inherently unanswerable or nonsensical.

 

[zyzz]

Great. Now we are getting somewhere.

I am glad to hear that.

I can play semantics too. I can merely assert that I lack the particular belief that you hold.

This is not really a “game”, but if you like, we can treat it as such. I am “game”. The phrase “I believe that God exists” and “I don’t believe that God exists” are both metaphysical claims. Metaphysical claims are about existence. There is no third option here… you either believe or you don’t believe.

The phrase “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe he does” or “I don’t know if God exists, but I don’t believe he does” are both “epistemological claims”. Epistemological claims are about knowledge. Two different realms.

There might be some more possibilities: Some might say “I know that God exists” or “I know that God does not exist”, and these claims must be evaluated on their own turf. I would ask the proponents “how do you KNOW it”? Which is another epistemological question.

Philosophy has several sub-disciplines:

1. Metaphysics - what exists?
2. Epistemology - how do we know it?
3. Ethics - so how should we behave?
4. Aesthetics - a branch dealing with art and such. Pretty much irrelevant for our current purposes.