Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Sarky

You keep getting them, and you keep ignoring them. Are you sure you're not just butthurt over something else?

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

Since when was atheism a claim that only certain gods do not exist ?

Atheism is a much broader claim than that, and I'm looking for atheism to present some evidence or even a good argument.

There are various forms of atheism. The atheism put forward by most, if not all, self described atheists in this thread is that there is insufficient evidence to support believing in God, or even that there is no evidence at all. We do not claim to know that there is no god, but that given this lack of evidence, combined with the fact that we would actually expect to see evidence if God did exist, leads us to conclude that the probability of God's existence is low. The God I'm referring to here is an Christian-type god rather than simply a creator where we might not expect to see evidence in this universe.

Opticom

All I've gotten so far is the attempted logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence, and when that fails I get agnostic answers.

Still waiting on any evidence or even a good argument for atheism . . . .

Sarky

Your inability to tell the difference between agnosticism and atheism is nobody's fault but your own. Perhaps you could try looking into it? There's a popular graph which explains it quite well graphically. I feel like being as obtuse and unhelpful as you're being though, so I'm not going to show it to you.

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

All I've gotten so far is the attempted logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence, and when that fails I get agnostic answers.

Still waiting on any evidence or even a good argument for atheism . . . .

I'm telling you why I think what I think, and my reasoning makes sense. You're asking me to defend a position I'm not taking, and defining terms I'm using to mean something other than what I mean when I use them. As I said before, stop being obtuse.

Min

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does it make you proud to call other people's posts ignorant?

I seem to remember learning the following in school:

Q 'Who made the world?'
A. God made the World.

Seems like a definitive statement to me.

No, but then everyone is ignorant.
This is the meaning of the word -

• Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
• Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

We are all ignorant in various areas of life, none of us know everything. I did not say your post was ignorant, I simply referred to your view of religion as expressed by you as ignorant.
This is what I was referring to, you said
"Science = Searching For answers.
Religion = Certain it has all the answers so no point looking further"


That is what I referred to as an ignorant view of religion. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences looks for answers and it belongs to a religion that is often dismissed on this forum.
You gave a very simplistic and non factual viewpoint based on ignorance, as in meaning number two...

Andrewf20

Opticom wrote: »

And I'm asking for evidence, or at least a good argument, for that belief/non belief

Well, in relation to Christianity for example, theres many answers to that question. Perhaps the most common one that I have come across is that basically atheists believe the bible is completely man made/inspired and dont see any tangible evidence to match its supernatural claims. One famous quote by Carl Sagan rings a bell - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Did a man called Jesus of Nazereth exist? It seems quite likely but it doesnt prove he was born of a virgin, rose again from the dead, was the son of God etc. Was he simply an eccentric preacher who could do magic or was he the son of God? The debate rages on.

The arguments have been extensivley covered in other threads so I wish to not go into them in detail here.

ScumLord

Opticom wrote: »

Good, I'm glad you realise that it possible for God to exist independently of belief/non belief.

A god could, but God is the Christian ruler. If there is a god then the bible probably missed the mark by a long shot.

You seem to be of the opinion that there's no way to disprove god therefore you can't really say your atheist because you don't know for sure. I'm confident there's no need to believe there is a god. Even if there was a god our notions of it are based on fantasy and therefore redundant.

Kdoc1

Opticom wrote: »

. . . . and yet Atheism is still an unsubstantiated claim, and I've yet to see a good argument put forward for it, never mind evidence or proof backing up same.

Opticom, do atheists make claims of anything in relation to belief? I don't think they do, but rather they accept the world 'as is'. Conversely, those who claim something created the world are obliged to produce evidence. In any serious endeavour outside of religion, that rule also applies. Someone forms a theory, tests the theory and assumes the null hypothesis is true. Atheists are not claiming anything and therefore are not obliged to produce evidence to support their world view. But if someone is claiming that a God created the world in six days then they are obliged to produce the evidence.

Min

Kdoc1 wrote: »

Opticom, do atheists make claims of anything in relation to belief? I don't think they do, but rather they accept the world 'as is'. Conversely, those who claim something created the world are obliged to produce evidence. In any serious endeavour outside of religion, that rule also applies. Someone forms a theory and then sets about testing if the the null hypothesis is true. Atheists are not claiming anything and therefore are not obliged to produce evidence to support their world view. But if someone is claiming that a God created the world in six days then they are obliged to produce the evidence.

Atheists in fact are claiming something.

An agnostic claims nothing as they are the fence sitters, the atheists and believers are on opposite sides of the fence and have fixed positions.

Opticom

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Well, in relation to Christianity for example, theres many answers to that question. Perhaps the most common one that I have come across is that basically atheists believe the bible is man made and dont seen any tangible evidence to match its supernatural claims. One famous quote by Carl Sagan rings a bell - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

The arguments have been extensivley covered in other threads so I wish to not go into them in detail here.

Atheism is a far broader claim than just about Christianity, that's why Sagan was an agnostic, and also said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm looking for any evidence or argument for atheism at this stage, never mind an extraordinary one.

Wibbs

smash wrote: »

The ONLY reason there is a belief in god, is because of the bible.

Well to be fair there was belief in deities long before writing. It's a very strong meme as some would have it. I'd more lean towards the notion that it was an evolutionary response to higher consciousness and expressions of culture as humanity evolved. It appears to have been advantageous in some way back in the day long with things like the explosion of tribal culture, art and such like. The brain/mind change that gave rise symbolic though gave rise to religions. Neandertals may have had their spirits(I'd be convinced they did), but I'd be surprised if say early Erectus did to nearly the same degree.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It must also be considered that he was crucified - a particularly lingering and painful method of execution that was reserved exclusively for those who threatened the Roman State.
He may have been saying I'm no threat to the political status quo- Rome obviously disagreed but the Jesus of the gospels is an a-political figure who rails mainly against Jewish authorities....funny that.

Well the gospels explanation seems to be that they convince the guy was a threat to Rome as well as them. Plausible. If they had seen him as an insurectionist threat they would have maybe recorded that? Maybe it's out there somewhere, though we've lost so much from that time. Even Pilate wasn't definitively nailed down as a historical figure until the 1960's(IIRC).

Opticom

Kdoc1 wrote: »

Opticom, do atheists make claims of anything in relation to belief? I don't think they do, but rather they accept the world 'as is'. Conversely, those who claim something created the world are obliged to produce evidence.

And why are those who claim something came from nothing, and had no original cause, are exempt from producing evidence ?

Zab

If it's your intention to lend credence to the notion that Theists often lack intelligence then you're doing an excellent job. I suggest you do some research in your own time. Start with a dictionary.

Opticom

Zab wrote: »

If it's your intention to lend credence to the notion that Theists often lack intelligence then you're doing an excellent job. I suggest you do some research in your own time. Start with a dictionary.

If you've any good arguments or evidence for atheism other than the usual ad homiem, feel free to present them . . . .

Andrewf20

Opticom wrote: »

Atheism is a far broader claim than just about Christianity, that's why Sagan was an agnostic, and also said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm looking for any evidence or argument for atheism at this stage, never mind an extraordinary one.

I was using Christianity an an example as I mentioned. I agree with Sagans above.

Ive given you an argument in my previous post with my interpretation of what atheism means. What kind of answer are you expecting?

Wibbs

Min wrote: »

Atheists in fact are claiming something.

Or they're claiming nothing maybe?

An agnostic claims nothing as they are the fence sitters, the atheists and believers are on opposite sides of the fence and have fixed positions.

Speaking as an agnostic all I'll claim is fecked if I know.

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

If you've any good arguments or evidence for atheism other than the usual ad homiem, feel free to present them . . . .

You've ignored all my posts. I'm not going to repeat them.

shizz

Opticom please stop brain farting all over this thread.

Ghost Buster

shizz wrote: »

Opticom please stop brain farting all over this thread.

You are being charitable by using the word 'brain' there. Opticoms approach is the boards equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I" or "LalalalalalalalalalalIm not listening."

Ghost Buster

Opticom wrote: »

And why are those who claim something came from nothing, and had no original cause, are exempt from producing evidence ?

Who claims something came from nothing?
Do you mean scientists who are looking for answers as to the origins of the universe?
or
Do you mean those who think a god just exists i.e came from nothing?

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Well to be fair there was belief in deities long before writing. It's a very strong meme as some would have it. I'd more lean towards the notion that it was an evolutionary response to higher consciousness and expressions of culture as humanity evolved. It appears to have been advantageous in some way back in the day long with things like the explosion of tribal culture, art and such like. The brain/mind change that gave rise symbolic though gave rise to religions. Neandertals may have had their spirits(I'd be convinced they did), but I'd be surprised if say early Erectus did to nearly the same degree.

In a lot of ways early religion and science are essentially asking the same questions.I think religion or spiritualism has been very important to humans. It encouraged people to rise out of basic animal behaviour into something more enlightened and above the norms of nature.

Min

Wibbs wrote: »

Or they're claiming nothing maybe?

Speaking as an agnostic all I'll claim is fecked if I know.

To claim there is nothing in terms of a God, is in itself to claim something. Surely it is the agnostic like yourself for example that is claiming nothing, and from a scientific point of view, the most balanced position as it is the most open minded view on the matter.

nozzferrahhtoo

Does not really matter how "open" a mind is if you consistently refuse to present any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to put into it.

Or does "open minded" to you literally mean "agreeing with me"?

RoundBox11

Interesting thread.

I do personally believe that atheism will have overtaken religion by then. It's heading that way anyway. I know a lot of people hold religious as a cornerstone to their life but i personally believe that the sooner religion is separated from the education system in Ireland the better. This will further decrease the number of religious people in the country.

I think up till now a lot of people formed their religious beliefs because it was literally beaten into them and they were given no opportunities to explore the scientific alternatives. This has led to people condemning people who question religion despite the fact that they themselves have a very frail and flawed argument as to why religion is the answer.

Having spent 14 years studying religion in school and 4 years studying science of various fields in school/college, i feel that that the sooner people aren't afraid to question religion the better. For me anyway, one side of the argument is astronomically more plausible than the other.

Opticom

Zab wrote: »

You've ignored all my posts. I'm not going to repeat them.

I've ignored the ad homiem and any points that I've answered before, if you have any evidence or good arguments for atheism, I'd be glad to hear them.

shizz wrote: »

Opticom please stop brain farting all over this thread.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

You are being charitable by using the word 'brain' there. Opticoms approach is the boards equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I" or "LalalalalalalalalalalIm not listening."

When you strip away the ad homeim in these type of posts, there's not much left to respond to.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Who claims something came from nothing?
Do you mean scientists who are looking for answers as to the origins of the universe?
or
Do you mean those who think a god just exists i.e came from nothing?

A poster claimed that anyone claiming that the world was created must present evidence; I pointed out that for example, anyone claiming the contrary, i.e. the world was not created also needs to prevent evidence.

Thats why I'm asking for any good arguments, or any evidence, data etc. for atheism.

And I'm still waiting for good arguments, or any evidence, data etc. for atheism.

Shenshen

Min wrote: »

To claim there is nothing in terms of a God, is in itself to claim something. Surely it is the agnostic like yourself for example that is claiming nothing, and from a scientific point of view, the most balanced position as it is the most open minded view on the matter.

Not necessarily.
The scientific approach would be to look at the evidence and then go with the simplest, most likely explanation that encompasses all available data.
That means discarding any unecessarily complex and/or unlikely situations.

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

A poster claimed that anyone claiming that the world was created must present evidence; I pointed out that for example, anyone claiming the contrary, i.e. the world was not created also needs to prevent evidence.

Thats why I'm asking for any good arguments, or any evidence, data etc. for atheism.

And I'm still waiting for good arguments, or any evidence, data etc. for atheism.

if i claim i can fly, and you claim that i can't, the onus is clearly on me to prove that i can, otherwise i can just sit here with my fingers in my ears shouting "you can't prove that i can't, i know i can and that's good enough for me"

Helix

Min wrote: »

To claim there is nothing in terms of a God, is in itself to claim something

if someone claims that there is no god, it's usually because they've seen absolutely zero satisfactory evidence that there is one, not because they have evidence that there isn't

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

I've ignored the ad homiem and any points that I've answered before, if you have any evidence or good arguments for atheism, I'd be glad to hear them.

The only one you didn't ignore was the ad hominem, which wasn't much of an ad hominem to begin with. All you're doing is continually ask people to supply evidence for a position they aren't taking.