Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

Sykk

I can't believe you're still feeding the troll.

Pushtrak

On the plus hand, it is quite likely that there are lots of lurkers who've been reading what has been going on in the thread who know more on account of reading it than had before. Hell, I know I think this is a great thread because of stuff on, for instance consciousness that was brought up. Yeah, it has its crap trolls, but the thread is more good than bad.

Opticom

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.

You see therein lies the problem, atheism is not confined to certain versions or aspects of God, its much broader than that, I've heard all the arguments and counter arguments for theism, what I'm seeking for now is a good argument for atheism.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

You see therein lies the problem, atheism is not confined to certain versions or aspects of God, its much broader than that, I've heard all the arguments and counter arguments for theism, what I'm seeking for now is a good argument for atheism.

shoo shoo back under the bridge with you! *Pokes with large stick*

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

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.

replace the christian references with references to any other god of your choosing

remember, even the religious are atheists towards all religions apart from their own. why do they believe one god exists and not the others? what good reason do they have for that?

Helix

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.

which is claiming that no cars exist, so far as you can see, on the road. but as i say, there's absolutely no proof that there aren't invisible cars there, yet you still choose to cross the road without knowing for certain that they arent

Opticom

Helix wrote: »

replace the christian references with references to any other god of your choosing

remember, even the religious are atheists towards all religions apart from their own. why do they believe one god exists and not the others? what good reason do they have for that?

Atheism is not confined to certain versions or aspects of God, its all versions.

Helix wrote: »

which is claiming that no cars exist, so far as you can see, on the road. but as i say, there's absolutely no proof that there aren't invisible cars there, yet you still choose to cross the road without knowing for certain that they arent

And when we've finished with invisible cars, if we had an infinite amount of time, there's an infinite number of entities we can discuss the existence / non existence of, this is about atheism and God, atheism is not about invisible cars or any other entity that is not equivalent to God.

smash

Opticom wrote: »

atheism is not about invisible cars

Then what have I been arguing for :eek:

Opticom

I'm genuinely surprised at the responses since I asked for evidence or a good argument for atheism.

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

1) the usual ad homiem, including I'm a troll for even daring to ask
2) strawmen arguments, and/or that X must be equivalent to Y, or that atheism is only about certain versions of God
3) there is no evidence or argument for atheism, and/or we're not really atheists
4) the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence

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

I'm sure someone has one, but it looks like not on boards.ie, so unless you've got something different to the above, I'll try elsewhere.

Bannasidhe

Opticom wrote: »

I'm genuinely surprised at the responses since I asked for evidence or a good argument for atheism.

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

1) the usual ad homiem, including I'm a troll for even daring to ask
2) strawmen arguments, and/or that X must be equivalent to Y, or that atheism is only about certain versions of God
3) there is no evidence or argument for atheism, and/or we're not really atheists
4) the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence

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

I'm sure someone has one, but it looks like not on boards.ie, so unless you've got something different to the above, I'll try elsewhere.

Careful the door doesn't hit you in the ass on your way out.

smash

Opticom wrote: »

unless you've got something different to the above, I'll try elsewhere.

Thank fuck.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

I'm genuinely surprised at the responses since I asked for evidence or a good argument for atheism.

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

1) the usual ad homiem, including I'm a troll for even daring to ask
2) strawmen arguments, and/or that X must be equivalent to Y, or that atheism is only about certain versions of God
3) there is no evidence or argument for atheism, and/or we're not really atheists
4) the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence

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

I'm sure someone has one, but it looks like not on boards.ie, so unless you've got something different to the above, I'll try elsewhere.

Make sure to come back and let us know how everyone else says tells you the exact same thing.

This guy seems exactly the same as gkell if anyone here is familiar with him.

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

Atheism is not confined to certain versions or aspects of God, its all versions.

i know what atheism is, however i'm making the point that atheism is the disbelief in all gods, while theism is the disbelief in all gods but the one (or ones) that fall in with a certain belief system. for the most part, atheism is the belief in one less god than the vast majority of theists, so i'm asking you the question where's the evidence for theists disregarding all but their chosen god?

Opticom wrote: »

And when we've finished with invisible cars, if we had an infinite amount of time, there's an infinite number of entities we can discuss the existence / non existence of, this is about atheism and God, atheism is not about invisible cars or any other entity that is not equivalent to God.

no, it's about lack of proof being enough reason to disregard something as a possibility enough not to believe that it's there. for that reason invisible cars are a perfectly fine example. why, when you cross the road, do you not worry about being hit by an invisible car that you have no proof of not being there? that's another question for you.

Wow i think i hate atheism more then religion. Both as thick as each other. Although Atheism pips it as they are the equivalent of a facebook group.

Paparazzo

Opticom wrote: »

So no evidence or argument for atheism.


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

Here's the argument for atheism: God doesn't exist. Simple

ScumLord

Paparazzo wrote: »

Here's the argument for atheism: God doesn't exist. Simple

He doesn't want to understand that. Once you dismiss religion/spiritualism and the paranormal all that's left is atheism. Or the hedge your bets version call agnosticism.

shizz

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow i think i hate atheism more then religion. Both as thick as each other. Although Atheism pips it as they are the equivalent of a facebook group.

Well at least you've found a way to feel superior to both.

Opticom

Helix, in case you're under the misconception that your argument is any different to the four variations above :

Helix wrote: »

i know what atheism is, however i'm making the point that atheism is the disbelief in all gods, while theism is the disbelief in all gods but the one (or ones) that fall in with a certain belief system. for the most part, atheism is the belief in one less god than the vast majority of theists, so i'm asking you the question where's the evidence for theists disregarding all but their chosen god?

A version of agument no. 2 above.
Theists do not have one belief system, Theism a belief that at least one deity, of whatever version, can exist. That's it. You can be a theist and have no other belief than that.

Helix wrote: »

no, it's about lack of proof being enough reason to disregard something as a possibility

So by that exact rational where's your proof for atheism ? or even evidence, or even a good argument ? The rest of you post is about how the existance of 'x', a different entitiy, must be equivalent to God, back to a version of argument no. 2 again.

smash

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow i think i hate atheism more then religion. Both as thick as each other. Although Atheism pips it as they are the equivalent of a facebook group.

Yea, but you spend most of your time in the computer games and wrestling forums so when you grow up, come back with your opinion.

Opticom

Paparazzo wrote: »

Here's the argument for atheism: God doesn't exist. Simple

Not even Dawkins tries to claim that.
That's a conclusion reporting to be fact, so if its a fact, you'll have some proof, or even evidence or even a good argument.

Pushtrak

Catholic schools could become "agents of secularism", says academic

The report, published earlier this year, recommended the abolition of Rule 68 for National Schools, which recognises religious instruction as a fundamental part of the school day and permits a religious spirit to, "inform and vivify the whole work of the school.”

It also proposed that religion should be taught as a discrete subject apart from the rest of the curriculum, that hymns and prayers in Catholic schools should be inclusive of the religious beliefs of all children, and that Catholic schools would display the emblems of other religions and celebrate their feasts.

How about not having religion take up any school time? That'd be an improvement, I'd think.

“The Forum’s report is a wake-up call for the Catholic Church and its role in the Irish educational system. The content but also the whole approach and tone of the Forum’s report, is an important cultural marker.” The report, he said, was “preoccupied with the rights of a small minority.”

Dr Conway wrote: “In fact, it is startling how often ‘rights’ language is used in the report, predominantly regarding the 10 per cent of the population who declare themselves as having no religion.” The report had uncritically adopted the approach of the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) on religious education, which saw religious influence on education as negative, and which underplayed the right to freedom of religious expression.

Because everyone who puts down a religion on the census does so honestly[/sarcasm]

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Helix, in case your under the misconception that your argument is any different to the four variations above :



A version of agument no. 2 above.
Theists do not have one belief system, Theism a belief that at least one deity, of whatever version, can exist. That's it. You can be a theist and have no other belief than that.




So by that exact rational where's your proof for atheism ? or even evidence, or even a good argument ? The rest of you post is about how the existance of 'x', a different entitiy, must be equivalent to God, back to a version of argument no. 2 again.

Read through the arguments here

Zab

So, now that Opticom has left us in peace, I'd like to say that I'm genuinely disappointed with the lack of rational thought exhibited by some members of our species.

What truly disappointed me in this debate was Opticom attempting to formulate a rational argument (laudable in my opinion) but then refusing to take it in certain directions when he could see his argument was in trouble. Who exactly is he fooling here? Clearly not the people he's arguing against, so is it that he genuinely doesn't understand rationality? Or does he inwardly admit that his position is irrational but won't admit to that here because he doesn't want to look foolish? I hope the latter, although I fear the former.

If you do hold an irrational belief, surely it would be easier to just say as much? I think the majority of people have some degree of irrationality to them. For instance, I want to be cremated after I die because I want to preserve my dignity, while I also think that the notion of me having dignity after death is totally ridiculous. However, I still want to be cremated, and that level of irrationality is okay with me. I'm not going to attempt to give a rational explanation for it for my wanting it. I think the theists such as the ones arguing in this thread are similar in that regard. The main reason that they're theists is because they genuinely feel the need for there to be a God, not because they have rational reasons for believing that there is one. The attempt at rational argument comes later, and I don't think it does them any service as it quickly becomes apparent that they're just pretending to be rational.

smash

smash wrote: »

Yea, but you spend most of your time in the computer games and wrestling forums so when you grow up, come back with your opinion.

What you dont believe in Wrestling and Computer games ? Maybe you should start a group and name it.

Bannasidhe

Opticom wrote: »

Not even Dawkins tries to claim that.

Why should I care what Dawkins claims? Dawkins speaks only for Dawkins, the rest of us are free to agree or disagree .

Or are we on to the 'Hive mind' BS now?

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

Read through the arguments here

You've linked to a section in the article called Ontological arguments, which is an argument for theism. I've heard all the arguments and counter arguments for theism.

I'm looking for an actual good argument for atheism itself.

Sarky

Oh, he's stopped? Where will I get my dose of Shadenfreude now?

Edit: Ah, still there. Excellent. Please, continue.

Opticom

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should I care what Dawkins claims? Dawkins speaks only for Dawkins, the rest of us are free to agree or disagree .

Or are we on to the 'Hive mind' BS now?

In that case, If you've evidence or a good argument for the statement "God does not exist" fire away so.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

You've linked to a section in the article called Ontological arguments, which is an argument for theism. I've heard all the arguments and counter arguments for theism.

I'm looking for an actual good argument for atheism itself.

Well it seems you can't read. I said look through the arguments. I linked to the start of the arguments.

In any case, an argument for theism is an argument for atheism due to the fact that if I reject the argument for theism I AM AN ATHEIST.

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

Well it seems you can't read. I said look through the arguments. I linked to the start of the arguments.

In any case, an argument for theism is an argument for atheism due to the fact that if I reject the argument for theism I AM AN ATHEIST.

Those are arguments for theism.
If theism and all its arguments never existed, and even if man never existed, that would still not mean that God does not exist.

I'm looking for a good argumement for atheism.