Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?

The Internet Explorer

What a load of nonsense before my Ape eyes. My wonderful eyes that have evolved over many thousands and thousands of years. Arggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! !

Sarky

That's still not proof you didn't kill a hooker. You're starting to look mighty guilty.

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Thats back to agnosticism again not atheism. Any evidence for atheism ?

Give me your definition for agnosticism please.

smash

Opticom wrote: »

Helix wrote: »

atheists believe that there is no proof under which to believe that there is a god

That it in itself is a definite claim, and like any other definite claim it requires proof to be valid.

it needs proof? Eh it's fact that there's no proof of a god, that's why you can't prove there is one. You're falling over your own arguments.

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

How is the statement "the absence of evidence means there is no evidence" a logical fallacy? Do you know what that means? One literally means the other.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

In terms of logic, this is very basic stuff.

http://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

Thats back to agnosticism again not atheism. Any evidence for atheism ?

atheists are just agnostics who feel that the chances of there being a deity are so slim, that they're going to discount them. that's all

agnostics choose not to do the discounting

Opticom

shizz wrote: »

Give me your definition for agnosticism please.

Look up a reputable basic dictionary it will have several definitions, and when you're at it, look up atheism. Then come back and give me evidence for atheism, or a good argument for it.

Opticom

Helix wrote: »

atheists are just agnostics who feel that the chances of there being a deity are so slim, that they're going to discount them. that's all

agnostics choose not to do the discounting

So now atheists are just agnostics ?

shizz

Opticom wrote: »

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

In terms of logic, this is very basic stuff.

http://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/

From your link:

While the absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it is, to varying degrees, evidence of absence

I never said proof of absence. It is logically evidence of absence.

Of course the fact that we do not have evidence that something created the universe doesn't mean that something did not create it. However, the God's which are touted around in our religions are interfering God's (My main reference is the Christian God) which in itself calls for far more evidence than just the creation of the universe. This is where the absence of evidence for these claims is evidence of absence.

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

That it in itself is a definite claim, and like any other definite claim it requires proof to be valid. If you have no proof, at least offer evidence or in the absence of evidence at least offer an argument for atheism. Have you examined all the proof that could possibly exist ? How do you even know you have ?

you're now saying that you need proof that there's no proof of something? surely the fact that there's no proof to begin with is the proof that there's no proof? if there is proof undeniable of a deity, show it to me and i'll no longer be an atheist. until then, you just keep talking in nonsensical circles like a good little theist

*pats head*

Opticom wrote: »

And there we are straight back round to the same logical fallacy mistake that absence of evidence is evidence.

Now, other than yet another version of the same old logical fallacy, which is an invalid argument, any evidence or good argument for atheism ?

no, i didnt say that absence of evidence was evidence. i said that absence of evidence was absence of evidence. how is it that you continually fail to grasp that. if there was genuine, actual evidence to support theism there would be no such thing as atheism, agnosticism or anything else, and there'd be a single religion that everyone was part of, apart from those who accepted that there was a deity, but chose not to worship it

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

So now atheists are just agnostics ?

why bold the first few words when the whole post was relevant? read the whole thing

is that the issue? you can't read beyond a few words of each sentence? that'd explain a lot

Shenshen

Opticom wrote: »

Thats back to agnosticism again not atheism. Any evidence for atheism ?

I know it's been explained to you before, because I did the explaining: most atheist are agnostic atheists.
Agnosticism is a statement of knowledgability, not about belief.
It is impossible to be an agnostic about believing, you either do or you don't. Agnosticism, where it comes to reliogion, merely states that it is impossible to KNOW about god's existence.
Not even the most rabid atheist I ever met would have claimed that he knew god didn't exist. Atheists are almost by definition agnostics.

Shenshen

Opticom wrote: »

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

In terms of logic, this is very basic stuff.

http://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.
It means there is no evidence.
Very basic stuff indeed.

Ciaran0

Opticom wrote: »

Any evidence for atheism ?

There's nothing yet which can conclusively prove that God doesn't exist. But there is evidence which suggests that he doesn't. Yes. First and foremost, the complete and utter lack of evidence to suggest that he does exist. This is pretty strong evidence in my opinion. Not all conclusive but still evidence.

Just because God can't be disproved doesn't mean it should be believed in. For example, if I were to ask a person to disprove that there's an invisible flying spaghetti monster floating around in the sky, who can defy the laws of physics and is all knowing, all powerful and transcends all human understanding, they wouldn't be able to disprove it. That doesn't mean it actually exists. It would be silly to conclude that something exists just because there's no evidence showing it doesn't. Just like believing in God. Silly

dark crystal

Ah lads, opticom is doing a great job here altogether....he's doing the old 'If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?' routine on ye all. No matter what reply he gets, it won't be satisfactory, so best leave him to it.

If those with faith wish to believe in an invisible, unsubstantiated being, leave them to it - it gives them comfort and where's the harm in that?

As atheists, I guess we can derive our comfort from knowing when it's over, it's over. No recriminations, no judgements, no wrath, no eternity in hell. Just lights out

shizz

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah lads, opticom is doing a great job here altogether....he's doing the old 'If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?' routine on ye all. No matter what reply he gets, it won't be satisfactory, so best leave him to it.

If those with faith wish to believe in an invisible, unsubstantiated being, leave them to it - it gives them comfort and where's the harm in that?

As atheists, I guess we can derive our comfort from knowing when it's over, it's over. No recriminations, no judgements, no wrath, no eternity in hell. Just lights out

If it was a completely personal thing which everyone kept to themselves, then there would be no problem with it at all.

Shenshen

dark crystal wrote: »

Ah lads, opticom is doing a great job here altogether....he's doing the old 'If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?' routine on ye all. No matter what reply he gets, it won't be satisfactory, so best leave him to it.

If those with faith wish to believe in an invisible, unsubstantiated being, leave them to it - it gives them comfort and where's the harm in that?

As atheists, I guess we can derive our comfort from knowing when it's over, it's over. No recriminations, no judgements, no wrath, no eternity in hell. Just lights out

To be perfectly honest, I ad been wondering if all this was his version of putting his fingers in his ears, squeezing his eyes shut, and then demand to be presented with evidnce, save in th knowledge that this way, there won't be anything he can perceive that might challenge his beliefs.

Sarky

He's doing a terrible job. As someone who appreciates the subtle nuances of a good troll, I am quite frankly disgusted by his seemingly boundless lack of talent in that area.

housetypeb

Opticom wrote: »

Thats back to agnosticism again not atheism. Any evidence for atheism ?

Anybody know whether ISAW was able to transcend internet protocols and re-incarnate into another persona?
It might explain a lot.

Bannasidhe

housetypeb wrote: »

Anybody know whether ISAW was able to transcend internet protocols and re-incarnate into another persona?
It might explain a lot.

If it was ISAW the post would essentially say the same thing but never in less the 1000 words. Verbosity - just one of the words that could be used to describe ISAW's posting style.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

He's doing a terrible job. As someone who appreciates the subtle nuances of a good troll, I am quite frankly disgusted by his seemingly boundless lack of talent in that area.

It is rather dull.

Sarky

Opticom's posts are around 6.5% of the size of that guy's.

Helix

he's got 349 posts on boards, with 122 of them coming in this thread, and about 110 of them being the exact same thing

Opticom

Shenshen wrote: »

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

Good, thats right.

Shenshen wrote: »

It means there is no evidence.
Very basic stuff indeed.

No, as you said it means :

Shenshen wrote: »

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.

The absence of something does not mean it cannot exist somewhere else

Opticom

Yet again, 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, and therefore evidence for atheism

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

Now has anyone got any evidence or argument for atheism that isn't yet just another variation on the above ?

Helix

Opticom wrote: »

Yet again, 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, and therefore evidence for atheism

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

Now has anyone got any evidence or argument for atheism that isn't yet just another variation on the above ?

and yet again you dodge every answer given to you. all you do, no matter what someone says is say the equivalent of "just because there's no evidence doesn't mean that there couldn't be evidence somewhere"

you're dead right too. however it's not here, so we can't take this imaginary evidence (which is all it is) as evidence for anything at all

additionally, do do realise that you're contradicting yourself continually yeah?

try this...

just because nobody has given you what you deem to be acceptable evidence for atheism (still not fully sure what evidence for atheism actually means since atheism is based there not being evidence for theism, but that's neither here nor there) doesn't mean that there isn't evidence

in fact, take every single argument you've ever made against atheism, and switch it around to theism

the best thing about that is that even if you tell us to do the same, and switch our arguments for theism to atheism, it's not applicable. nobody atheist here is claiming anything apart from the fact that there is currently no evidence that has been presented to them to date that supports theism being legitimate.

that's the difference between atheism and theism, logic and nonsense, that you could show me proof for the existence of a deity tomorrow and i would gladly concede that theism is correct, whereas you would never, ever admit that the atheistic stance that no evidence existing is enough of a reason not to believe in something

many things have been raised to you in this discussion, including my extreme example of invisible cars. you completely dodged the logic exercise there to say that unless invisible cars mean god, that the example is not relevant. it wasn't something that was being used to prove or disprove a deity, it was something that was being used to show the reasons for not believing in a deity - which is the lack of evidence. if there is no proof available that something exists, if you can't see it, if you can't touch it, if you can't measure it, if you can't manipulate it, if there's no tangible proof that it's there, the only sensible and sane to posit that it is not there, until proven otherwise

should you disregard this for the question of deities, then where do you draw the line. that's where my examples of extremely unlikely yet provable phenomenon came in. if you're unwilling or unable to grasp that people cannot believe in something without proof (ill again point to atheism not being a belief, it is simply a lack of belief in deities, and is the default stance on religion for every single one of us until we are indoctrinated by our peers, family or elders), then surely that suggests you live your own live in a way that sees you unable to disregard anything that has no proof

that leads into my next example. by your own logic, if i tell you that i can fly, but that i won't prove it to you, you will be wrong to disbelieve me. by your logic, disbelieving me would completely fly in the face of everything you have been pedalling tonight

*cue one of your 3 stock responses here, that picks one half a sentence, twists it out of context and then focuses on something that is completely irrelevant*

Shenshen

Opticom wrote: »

Good, thats right.



No, as you said it means :

The absence of something does not mean it cannot exist somewhere else

Absence of evidence simply means : There is no evidence.
If something is absent, it's plain and simple not there.

Opticom

Shenshen wrote: »

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence.
It means there is no evidence.
Very basic stuff indeed.

You're back to the same logical fallacy, if we say there is no evidence that there is gold on mars, then that does not mean there is no gold on mars, it means there is no evidence yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence for atheism, or a good argument for atheism

Ush1

Opticom wrote: »

So, I'm still waiting for anyone to present evidence for atheism, or a good argument for atheism

Just because a sentence/question is gramatically correct, does not make it valid or logical.

What colour is happiness? What is the sound of abstraction? Why does life exist? Etc...

Andrewf20

Opticom wrote: »

Well it used to be the belief that God does not exist, but in recent times some atheists have had to try and redefine it as the lack of belief in God, which as Dawkins himself admits is strictly agnosticism. i.e. while he doesn't believe in the existence of God, he doesn't claim to know for certain. Some athiests do claim to know for certain, some of the agnostic brand don't.

Therefore, however you want to define atheism, I'd like some evidence for atheism, or at least one good argument for atheism.

This seems to be the root of the problem here. You appear to have adopted a flawed view of Atheism based on your post here. No one knows for certain that God does not exist and there is no answer that proves for certain that God does not exist. Anyone who makes this claim can be dismissed. But this is not the actual definition of Atheism as it is in the dictionary. You seem to be twisting what it means.