Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Opticom

Zab wrote: »

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?

Yet again, you've already answered your own question

Zab wrote: »

Leprechauns are not the same thing as God at all.

And after leprechauns and any other strawmen you can think of, there's an infinite amount of other non equivalent entities we could also discuss, I'm only interested in the topic here, atheism.

This is just more of the same point 2) above

Opticom

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

For the conclusion to be valid the premise has to be

So, firstly any evidence that he's a) not willing, b) able c) willing or able ?

And secondly, anything other than a non sequtar argument that he able, but not willing ? (i.e. for any greater reason) and this must mean he is malevolent ?

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Including, by his very own logic, that statement.

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

Yet again, you've already answered your own question



And after leprechauns and any other strawmen you can think of, there's an infinite amount of other non equivalent entities we could also discuss, I'm only interested in the topic here, atheism.

This is just more of the same point 2) above

I haven't answered my own question. I asked you what qualities or characteristics of God make him different to leprechauns with respect to the subject at hand.

Opticom

Opticom wrote: »

For the conclusion to be valid the premise has to be

So, firstly any evidence that he's a) not willing, b) able c) willing or able ?

.

Yes. Evil exists. The holocaust happened. And your God looked on and let it all happen. Which means either he couldn't see it, couldn't stop it, or just didn't care.

And if you tell me the murder of 13 million innocent people was "all part of God's plan", then what sort of fcucking plan is that? (Leaving aside that little episode where he drowned the entire population of earth for the lols)

Opticom

Zab wrote: »

I haven't answered my own question. I asked you what qualities or characteristics of God make him different to leprechauns with respect to the subject at hand.

Zab wrote: »

Leprechauns are not the same thing as God at all.

From your own statement, what part of 'all' were you having trouble with ?

Again, I'm only interested in discussing God and atheism, not the infinite multitude of other differing entities, if you're not interested in that, I'm afraid its pointless responding to any more of your posts.

Spread

Why? Has it not already happened? Except for the feeble-minded and deluded.

Zab

Opticom wrote: »

From your own statement, what part of 'all' where you having trouble with ?

Again, I'm only interested in discussing God and atheism, not the infinite multitude of other differing entities, if you're not interested in that, I'm afraid its pointless responding to any more of your posts.

Amen to that.

Opticom

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Evil exists. The holocaust happened. And your God looked on and let it all happen. Which means either he couldn't see it, couldn't stop it, or just didn't care.

And if you tell me the murder of 13 million innocent people was "all part of God's plan", then what sort of fcucking plan is that? (Leaving aside that little episode where he drowned the entire population of earth for the lols)

First of all, that’s only an argument against Christian theism, not the existence of God.


The problem with this argument is that there is no proof or even evidence that God and evil cannot exist at the same time.

Dimithy

Opticom wrote: »

First of all, that’s only an argument against Christian theism, not the existence of God.


The problem with this argument is that there is no proof or even evidence that God and evil cannot exist at the same time.

Do you believe there is a god?
Any god will do.

Helix

#

Opticom wrote: »

Again, absence of evidence is not evidence, and that's the only argument for atheism I've heard so far.

If you have any evidence or even a good argument for atheism, other than the above logical fallacy, I'll be glad to hear it.

you're right, absence of evidence is not evidence - however it's a fairly good indicator. do you cross the road when you don't see anything coming? what if there's an invisible car hurtling its way towards you? now, we know the chances are that there's not an invisible car, but there COULD be, because after all, absence of evidence is not evidence

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

Any evidence or good arguments for atheism ?

precisely the same evidence you have for a god existing

plus a healthy serving of occam's razor of course

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

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

how about because it's absolutely fcuking retarded to believe that some all powerful magical man created us all for the soul purpose of worshiping him because he apparently gets a kick out of it. that same guy also runs this magical land where people go when they die, where they can live on forever in eternal bliss because a jewish guy was nailed to a cross.

how about that?

nozzferrahhtoo

There was some pretty poor attempts by the guy trolling you all to say that you can actually prove negatives. What should be noted here is that with the application of enough pedantry this is true, but what is also true is that you can not prove an unfalsifiable negative. Which is what the claim "There is a god" is and what people actually mean when they say "you can not prove a negative".

All "atheism" is therefore is the position that there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons being offered supporting the existence of a god therefore we should dismiss the claim and proceed without it until such time as there is. It is a position you can defeat by simply providing that evidence, argument, data or reasons. We can see the troll can not do this which just supports the atheist position further. In fact if you read back over the last few pages you even seen the troll very specifically avoiding all posts where he is asked if he himself thinks there is a god.

You people are being, poorly, trolled and you are taking the bait. You are being asked to evidence a claim you are not actually making, by someone who obviously knows you are not making it, and is giggling at the knots it is tying you up in.

This is a common and typical theist con. They distract from the fact that there is no evidence or substantiation for their claims by deflecting all conversation into pointless equivocation over the difference between words like "Atheism" and "Agnosticism". It's their "get out of a corner free" card every time when they are cornered on substantiating their claims. And it works. Every. Single. Time.

This is one of the reasons I do not even identify with the terms "Atheist" or "Agnostic" at all. They are not labels I use about myself except when a term of convenience is required. I simply identify myself as someone who dismisses and resists unsubstantiated claims when I find one and the claim there is a god is one such claim.

Sarky

So... he DID kill a hooker in Mexico then?

Min

Spread wrote: »

Why? Has it not already happened? Except for the feeble-minded and deluded.

This is the pride I talked about yesterday. Here is a poster who views themself as being superior to a person who believes in a God, with a pride that they are somehow not feeble minded and deluded.
That the reason others believe in God is because they are somehow weak.

Having to say this shows you either suffer from a false pride in your atheism or you are trying to convince yourself that you are better by putting others down.

Pushtrak

Min wrote: »

This is the pride I talked about yesterday. Here is a poster who views themself as being superior to a person who believes in a God, with a pride that they are somehow not feeble minded and deluded.

Actually it seems a lot of theists hold this view implicitly. "There are no atheists in fox holes" or "Have an atheist on his death bed and see how he'll react" and similar mindsets are things I have come across plenty of times. In short, there is a theme. When one is in emotional distress and is not at a stage of optimal thinking, or capable of rational thought. If a loved one is in hospital, as another example...

The truth is people are weak in such circumstances. There may very well be many religious people who aren't so out of being weak, but there are many, many people who are. I've known many people who have extreme fears of death. This can be a strong motivator to believe in a particular religion for the purpose of believing there is something in the hereafter.

The issue is one doesn't logic themselves in to religion. For that reason, one can not really logic them out of it. It is definitely more an emotion thing than a logic thing. Fear is one of the emotions religion can exploit.

coffee_cake

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2v7pAN0CIkI/T580I80rqAI/AAAAAAAAAFU/8n_G9QdYjdE/s1600/foxholes.jpg

Pushtrak

bluewolf wrote: »

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2v7pAN0CIkI/T580I80rqAI/AAAAAAAAAFU/8n_G9QdYjdE/s1600/foxholes.jpg

Thanks for adding that. I knew it was a load of nonsense on the face of it, and didn't think to point out explicitly that it is nonsense.

Kdoc1

If you stretch your attention span to 10 minutes you won't heed superstitious nonsense ever again.
http://youtu.be/YymNb-pr-Pc

ScumLord

Pushtrak wrote: »

Actually it seems a lot of theists hold this view implicitly. "There are no atheists in fox holes" or "Have an atheist on his death bed and see how he'll react" and similar mindsets are things I have come across plenty of times. In short, there is a theme. When one is in emotional distress and is not at a stage of optimal thinking, or capable of rational thought. If a loved one is in hospital, as another example...

That's pure desperation though, they'll attempt anything in the vain hope something good might happen.

Pushtrak

ScumLord wrote: »

That's pure desperation though, they'll attempt anything in the vain hope something good might happen.

Yep. All kinds of nonsense can be peddled out to people who aren't thinking rationally, and it doesn't support any of them. Be it mediums making money on the claim they can talk to the dead or any other pseudoscientific examples one might care to think of.

Opticom

Helix wrote: »

you're right, absence of evidence is not evidence - however it's a fairly good indicator. do you cross the road when you don't see anything coming? what if there's an invisible car hurtling its way towards you? now, we know the chances are that there's not an invisible car, but there COULD be, because after all, absence of evidence is not evidence

But you're not claiming that no cars exist, all your claiming is that you didn't see any cars when you were crossing the road.

Pushtrak

Opticom wrote: »

But you're not claiming that no cars exist, all your claiming is that you didn't see any cars when you were crossing the road.

Read it again. The post specifically mentions an invisible car. You can not just skirt that point as if it was not part of the post. Or, do so and let everyone know how disingenuous you are.

Opticom

Helix wrote: »

precisely the same evidence you have for a god existing

So no evidence or argument for atheism.

Helix wrote: »

plus a healthy serving of occam's razor of course

I'm all for Occam's razor as ironically, as Occam, the inventor of Occam's razor, was a Franciscan monk.


That's why I'm seek evidence, or even a good argument for atheism

Helix wrote: »

how about because it's absolutely fcuking retarded to believe that some all powerful magical man created us all for the soul purpose of worshiping him because he apparently gets a kick out of it. that same guy also runs this magical land where people go when they die, where they can live on forever in eternal bliss because a jewish guy was nailed to a cross.

how about that?

I think that appears to be an attempt at just arguing against the Christian version of God.

Atheism is not about non belief in one particular version of God, it's much broader than that.

Opticom

Pushtrak wrote: »

Read it again. The post specifically mentions an invisible car. You can not just skirt that point as if it was not part of the post. Or, do so and let everyone know how disingenuous you are.

Ok, so the alternative is that you want to claim God is exactly equivalent in every way to an invisible car, ok, any evidence or argument supporting that ? Otherwise we could discuss the existence/non existance of an infinite number of non equivalent entities, when the actual subject is God and atheism.

Opticom

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There was some pretty poor attempts by the guy trolling you all to say that you can actually prove negatives. What should be noted here is that with the application of enough pedantry this is true, but what is also true is that you can not prove an unfalsifiable negative. Which is what the claim "There is a god" is and what people actually mean when they say "you can not prove a negative".

Claiming that asking for evidence or even a good argument supporting atheism is trolling, is yet another ad homeim argument.

If you're claiming the existance of God is unfalsifiable, then your presenting an argument for theism, not an argument for atheism

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All "atheism" is therefore is the position that there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons being offered supporting the existence of a god therefore we should dismiss the claim and proceed without it until such time as there is.

Yet another definition of atheism that is actually agnosticism, or are you now claiming that no evidence can exist ?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You people are being, poorly, trolled and you are taking the bait. You are being asked to evidence a claim you are not actually making, by someone who obviously knows you are not making it, and is giggling at the knots it is tying you up in.

This is a common and typical theist con. They distract from the fact that there is no evidence or substantiation for their claims by deflecting all conversation into pointless equivocation over the difference between words like "Atheism" and "Agnosticism". It's their "get out of a corner free" card every time when they are cornered on substantiating their claims. And it works. Every. Single. Time.

If you personally cannot provide any evidence or a good argument for atheism just say so, it does not mean any evidence or good argument does not exist.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is one of the reasons I do not even identify with the terms "Atheist" or "Agnostic" at all. They are not labels I use about myself except when a term of convenience is required. I simply identify myself as someone who dismisses and resists unsubstantiated claims when I find one and the claim there is a god is one such claim.

So now, when it suits, you're neither an atheist or agnostic, I see.

ScumLord

Opticom wrote: »

But you're not claiming that no cars exist, all your claiming is that you didn't see any cars when you were crossing the road.

You forgot ad hominem.

Opticom wrote: »

Ok, so the alternative is that you want to claim God is exactly equivalent in every way to an invisible car, ok, any evidence or argument supporting that ?

Yes, I'll go witness on the invisible car.

Pushtrak

How about we actually try to have a discussion that is worth having on the topic? Tell us something about this deity you are trying to suppose exists. Suppose the matter was to be in court, whether or not a deity exists. People are atheists because we have not been satisfied with anything that is put forward as evidence, and for that reason, we find he/she/it not "not guilty" of existing.

I personally can't think of an argument against a deistic (non interventionist god) as such a god would not be in any way testable or falsifiable. Take any of the interventionist gods, though, and you can try to ascertain the truth or falsehoods of those claims. If you wish to do so, take the no rebuttals to a deistic god and away with you. But the moment you try to posit that there are any interventions by this deity, you will have to point out exactly what these interventions are.

nozzferrahhtoo

ScumLord wrote: »

You forgot ad hominem.

Yes, I'll go witness on the invisible car.

As I said you are just being trolled. You'd be better off, like me, no longer addressing the troll. As you can see from his poor attempt to troll a reaction out of me above he manages, every time, to respond to posts without actually responding to a thing anyone actually said... but instead things he wants to pretend you said.

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about we actually try to have a discussion that is worth having on the topic?

The only question worth asking in this context is whether there is any argument, evidence, data or reasons on offer to think there is a god. At this time there is not and a single troll trying desperately to wind you up by equivocating over definitions of words like "atheism" and "agnosticism" is not going to change that fact any time soon.

It is a fact they desperately want you to forget though and every piece of food you give the troll helps them in that endeavor by helping distract from it. Until someone changes the conversation by actually providing evidence for a god the only thing worth focusing on in that context is the fact the existence of a god is a not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated claim which should go the way of all other unsubstantiated claims.

If the best these people can offer is to ask you to prove unfalsifiable negatives then just laugh and walk away.

Bannasidhe

Pushtrak wrote: »

How about we actually try to have a discussion that is worth having on the topic? Tell us something about this deity you are trying to suppose exists. Suppose the matter was to be in court, whether or not a deity exists. People are atheists because we have not been satisfied with anything that is put forward as evidence, and for that reason, we find he/she/it not "not guilty" of existing.

I personally can't think of an argument against a deistic (non interventionist god) as such a god would not be in any way testable or falsifiable. Take any of the interventionist gods, though, and you can try to ascertain the truth or falsehoods of those claims. If you wish to do so, take the no rebuttals to a deistic god and away with you. But the moment you try to posit that there are any interventions by this deity, you will have to point out exactly what these interventions are.

IN BEFORE:
Claiming that asking for evidence or even a good argument supporting atheism is trolling, is yet another ad homeim argument...Yet another definition of atheism that is actually agnosticism, or are you now claiming that no evidence can exist ?...That's why I'm seek evidence, or even a good argument for atheism...etc etc etc