Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Options
1…2324262829…34

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Annnnnd back they go to the ad homiem argument for atheism. Very convincing lol

    So anyone else ? Any evidence or good arguments for atheism ?


  • Options
    #753
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Red Hand wrote: »
    Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s)

    Grand, any evidence or a good argument for that lack of belief ?


  • Options
    #754
    Red Hand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    Opticom wrote: »
    Grand, any evidence or a good argument for that lack of belief ?

    I have an excellent argument.


  • Options
    #755
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If god existed, he'd have stopped you from killing that Mexican hooker. Don't even try to deny it. You can't prove you didn't do it. Therefore you did it.


  • Options
    #756
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,219 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Opticom wrote: »
    Annnnnd back they go to the ad homiem argument for atheism. Very convincing lol

    So anyone else ? Any evidence or good arguments for atheism ?

    head-against-wall.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Opticom wrote: »
    Annnnnd back they go to the ad homiem argument for atheism. Very convincing lol

    So anyone else ? Any evidence or good arguments for atheism ?

    No no you're right. There is no evidence or even a decent argument that I can give you to show you that I have a lack of belief in any god.

    Will the pope take me back?


  • Options
    #758
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    shizz wrote: »
    There is no evidence or even a decent argument that I can give you to show you that I have a lack of belief in any god.

    I not asking you to show me that.


    I'm asking for evidence, or even a good argument for atheism however you want to define it.


  • Options
    #759
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Opticom wrote: »
    I not asking you to show me that.


    I'm asking for evidence, or even a good argument for atheism however you want to define it.

    Honestly, if you can't understand, at this stage, why we can't provide you with evidence as it is logically impossible to do.... I don't want to live on this planet any more.


  • Options
    #760
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    shizz wrote: »
    we can't provide you with evidence as it is logically impossible to do...

    The 'cannot prove a negative' logical fallacy again.

    "I have no fingers, and you cannot prove a negative"

    If you have no evidence, a good argument for atheism will do


  • Options
    #761
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Opticom wrote: »
    Yep. So any scientific evidence to support atheism ?
    Well M if we go back in time *shimmering video effect and harp sounds* people believed all sorts of things about the nature of the universe and filled much of it in with "here be dragons" or "here be God". As we gained more and more knowledge we reduced bit by bit these gaps and figured out what was going on. Much of what we believed in the past as magic is now explainable in concrete terms. Does this disprove a conscious motive force, a plan to the universe, a "god"? No, but it makes it harder to find and pin down as a concept.

    It makes individual religions and their personal gods even more difficult to pin down. Once people believed the garden of Eden was actually true(even when a childs logic would cry foul), now most cry "metaphor". Once believed that Noah carried all the animals and plants of the world in a great ship and now most think metaphor/local event hyped up(unless you're a nuttier than squirrel poo US preacher). The concept of God, particulary the all too human Abrahamic God is like a man painting himself into a corner with logic as his paint. It doesn't mean he's not there at the end in that corner, but it makes it far less likely, hence some folks thinking it bunkum.

    This all too human god has always intrigued me. Why does it show such human notions and indeed often the worst of human excesses in it's description? The "in gods image" is a complete cop out. Why the hell does a god who is noted for creating more stars than all the grains of sand on the beaches of the world put together act in such a local, tribal and frankly illogical manner? BTW that's just the measure of our galaxy. There are billions of such galaxies out there.

    TBH while I may at times have my issues with blanket atheists who can at times be terribly reductive, smug and fervent as any theist, I have more issues with blanket theists. They praise a "god" they reduce to the dimensions of an absent parent and an abusive, simple minded, reactionary, egotistical and ultimately useless one at that. Why in good sense's name would anyone believe in that?

    If it was proven that the universe was god in all it's intertwined complexity, a "living" consciousness, one that felt the fall of a wren and the fall of stars, that was part of us and we were part of it and growing together, then sign me up. However don't sign me up to some drunk on power, murderous, hackneyed father figure that sets light to trees to impress some crosseyed, but power hungry bronze age farmer to make his point. That's a terribly small "god" they're describing there. One that should in fact be seeking moral guidance from the best of us in the past and today. BTW that's not hubris. It doesn't need to be, because few of the worst of us could better the image.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    I not asking you to show me that.


    I'm asking for evidence, or even a good argument for atheism however you want to define it.

    God is a complicated construct of which we have no direct experience and have no direct evidence of its existence. Therefore, if we are to choose to believe in this God rather than believing in something else or not believing, we need good evidence for the existence of God. There is no such good evidence for the existence of God and therefore no reason to believe it exists, aka atheism. This does not mean that God cannot exist. Nobody can prove that God does not exist.

    If you're going to reject this argument then tell me why you don't believe leprechauns exist.


  • Options
    #763
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Zab wrote: »
    God is a complicated construct of which we have no direct experience and have no direct evidence of its existence. Therefore, if we are to choose to believe in this God rather than believing in something else or not believing, we need good evidence for the existence of God. There is no such good evidence for the existence of God and therefore no reason to believe it exists, aka atheism. This does not mean that God cannot exist. Nobody can prove that God does not exist.

    If you're going to reject this argument then tell me why you don't believe leprechauns exist. .

    That's your argument for atheism ? really ? No one can prove that God does not exist ? Thats an agument for theism not atheism.

    As for leprechauns, the FSM etc. the great thing about them is that the more equivalent you try and make them to God (i.e. just swap the names about), the harder it is to provide any evidence or argument that they do not exist.

    Next argument please . . .


  • Options
    #764
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Opticom, trolls are supposed to inspire anger, or at least mild annoyance. Not pity. You're terrible at this.


  • Options
    #765
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    And back they go to the ad homiem argument for atheism . . . .


  • Options
    #766
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    That's your argument for atheism ? really ? No one can prove that God does not exist ? Thats an agument for theism not atheism.

    As for leprechauns, the FSM etc. the great thing about them is that the more equivalent you try and make them to God (i.e. just swap the names about), the harder it is to provide any evidence or argument that they do not exist.

    Next argument please . . .

    I don't get it. You agree that it's rational to believe that leprechauns most likely don't exist, correct? Why?


  • Options
    #767
    Kdoc1
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭Kdoc1


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

    Opticom, again I don't believe they do. Many atheists, and others of sound mind, accept evolution as providing insight into our existence. Science, of course, doesn't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean the gaps should be filled with gibberish. Religion/faith/God was how the ancients explained world order, but I think most have moved on from that simplistic view.


  • Options
    #768
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Opticom wrote: »
    And back they go to the ad homiem argument for atheism . . . .

    Deny it all you like, you can't prove you didn't kill that hooker.


  • Options
    #769
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Zab wrote: »
    I don't get it. You agree that it's rational to believe that leprechauns most likely don't exist, correct? Why?

    Name swapping ? Define your leprechaun and its qualities for me, is it God like or not, physical / non physical ?

    So lets say God and leprechauns are identical in all qualities but name.

    Any evidence or a good argument for atheism ?


  • Options
    #770
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    Name swapping ? Define your leprechaun and its qualities for me, is it God like or not, physical / non physical ?

    So lets say God and leprechauns are identical in all qualities but name.

    Any evidence or a good argument for atheism ?

    I asked you do you believe in leprechauns and if not why not? You have not answered me. You can read about leprechauns here if it's helpful.


  • Options
    #771
    Kdoc1
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭Kdoc1


    God is an illusion and prayer is mere superstition:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    Kdoc1
    Registered Users Posts: 15 ✭Kdoc1


    http://youtu.be/YymNb-pr-Pc


  • Options
    #773
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Zab wrote: »
    I asked you do you believe in leprechauns and if not why not? You have not answered me. You can read about leprechauns here if it's helpful.

    and I've asked you to define leprechauns, (not provide a several thousand word link), and unless they are totally equivalent to God in all aspects then that's not the discussion, it's a straw man tangent. God is the topic.

    Swap whatever names for God you want, you don't avoid providing an argument or evidence for atheism that way.


  • Options
    #774
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    and I've asked you to define leprechauns, (not provide a several thousand word link), and unless they are totally equivalent to God in all aspects then that's not the discussion, it's a straw man tangent. God is the topic.

    Swap whatever names for God you want, you don't avoid providing an argument or evidence for atheism that way.

    A leprechaun is a small mischievous fairy, as you well know. Leprechauns are not the same thing as God at all. Do you believe in Leprechauns?


  • Options
    #775
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Zab wrote: »
    Leprechauns are not the same thing as God at all.

    Then I've no interest in discussing them whatsoever, as there is an infinite number of entity existences we can discuss as well as Leprechauns, and their existence / non existence will provide no bearing on the existence of God question.

    So, any evidence or good argument for atheism yet ?


  • Options
    #776
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,427 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Opticom wrote: »
    .

    So, any evidence or good argument for atheism yet ?

    Dozens of them. Right throughout this whole thread. But if you're going to ignore them and keep bleating the same phrase over and over like a lost sheep why would anyone bother to provide any more.


  • Options
    #777
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    Then I've no interest in discussing them whatsoever, as there is an infinite number of entity existences we can discuss as well as Leprechauns, and their existence / non existence will provide no bearing on the existence of God question.

    So, any evidence or good argument for atheism yet ?

    So, you don't believe in leprechauns for the same reasons I don't believe in God. I can provide no proof that there are no leprechauns just as I can provide no proof that there is no God. This doesn't stop either of us lacking a belief in leprechauns, and you give no reason why this doesn't apply to God also. If it is your position that you should not lack a belief in something if there is no proof that it doesn't exist, why does this not apply to leprechauns?


  • Options
    #778
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Dozens of them. Right throughout this whole thread. But if you're going to ignore them and keep bleating the same phrase over and over like a lost sheep why would anyone bother to provide any more.

    So far, I've had four variations, repeated over and over :

    1) the usual ad homiem
    2) strawmen arguments, and/or that X is equivalent to Y
    4) there is no evidence or argument for atheism
    3) the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence

    None of them provide either sufficient evidence, or a good argument for atheism.

    If you've got anything new, feel free to post it.


  • Options
    #779
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


    Zab wrote: »
    So, you don't believe in leprechauns for the same reasons I don't believe in God. I can provide no proof that there are no leprechauns just as I can provide no proof that there is no God. This doesn't stop either of us lacking a belief in leprechauns, and you give no reason why this doesn't apply to God also. If it is your position that you should not lack a belief in something if there is no proof that it doesn't exist, why does this not apply to leprechauns?

    You've already answered your own question
    Zab wrote: »
    Leprechauns are not the same thing as God at all.

    And after leprechauns, there's an infinite amount of other entities we could also discuss, I'm only interested in the topic here, atheism.


  • Options
    #780
    Zab
    Registered Users Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Opticom wrote: »
    You've already answered your own question



    And after leprechauns, there's an infinite amount of other entities we could also discuss, I'm only interested in the topic here, atheism.

    So, you're saying that it's rational to not believe in leprechauns without proof of their non-existence but the same does not apply to God? What quality or characteristic of God is it that makes him different from leprechauns in this way?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,427 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Opticom wrote: »
    So far, I've had four variations, repeated over and over :

    1) the usual ad homiem
    2) strawmen arguments, and/or that X is equivalent to Y
    4) there is no evidence or argument for atheism
    3) the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence

    None of them provide either sufficient evidence, or a good argument for atheism.

    If you've got anything new, feel free to post it.

    Not sure if it's been posted, but let's try the Epicurean paradox:

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?

    ...and a personal favourite of mine, Hitchens' razor:

    "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

    POW, right in the religion.


Advertisement