There's no such thing as god

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#59 Sep 24, 2012
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
You need to learn what Atheist means.
Not a theist.
Lacks belief in god or gods.
He knows what it means, but he's a Creationist, so he needs to lie about it. It's what they do best (or worst)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60 Sep 24, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
May I ask you a question?
Sure.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61 Sep 24, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
He'll ignore you, he's probably Nuggin.
No, ignoring points is actually your job. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your paranoia.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe, I'll let your brain catch up a little.
Ah, I see you have not quoted me accurately either. Which is okay if you're parodying someone, but to do it on an EXTREMELY regular basis without addressing their points, nor providing the original post for context is very dishonest. You appear to be no better than your typical fundie. So tell me, were you and Buck separated at birth?

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#62 Sep 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
I understand what you are saying about absolutes concerning the existance of a god. But here is the question... If I ask you if you think there are pink, fuffy, flying unicorns hiding behind Jupiter, what would you say? I would bet that you would say "no". I would also bet that there is no doubt in your mind. I would expect this because there is no reason to believe such a thing. This is the way I feel about god. We can examine history and see that mankind has always invented one god or another to explain what he does not understand. As a matter of fact, we now know that it is wired into our genetics to do so. I will go out on a limb here and say that you do not believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Kali, Apollo, etc, and do not doubt that they definitly are not real. Ok let extend that one step farther. In the case of a god, we have no reason to believe even a little bit that there is a god. There certainly is no evidence for it, and history demonstate that it i normal, but also makes it obvios that todays god is in all probability a passing thing. He may(probably) be replace in he future by some other god (Think about the brutal,old testament god, and the nicer new testement god).

My point is, that I can confidently assert that there is no reason to believe that a god exists. If anyone can provide some positive evidence to the contrary, I am certainly open to it. I must mention that questions that are thus far unanswered do not constitute positive evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#63 Sep 24, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
I understand what you are saying about absolutes concerning the existance of a god. But here is the question... If I ask you if you think there are pink, fuffy, flying unicorns hiding behind Jupiter, what would you say? I would bet that you would say "no". I would also bet that there is no doubt in your mind. I would expect this because there is no reason to believe such a thing.
But also because we've sent probes there.
The serpent was right wrote:
This is the way I feel about god. We can examine history and see that mankind has always invented one god or another to explain what he does not understand. As a matter of fact, we now know that it is wired into our genetics to do so. I will go out on a limb here and say that you do not believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Kali, Apollo, etc, and do not doubt that they definitly are not real. Ok let extend that one step farther. In the case of a god, we have no reason to believe even a little bit that there is a god.
Why is that one step further? It isn't. We have no reason to believe simply due to the lack of evidence for any of them.
The serpent was right wrote:
There certainly is no evidence for it, and history demonstate that it i normal, but also makes it obvios that todays god is in all probability a passing thing. He may(probably) be replace in he future by some other god (Think about the brutal,old testament god, and the nicer new testement god).
Well if your genetics thing has any truth to it then quite likely.
The serpent was right wrote:
My point is, that I can confidently assert that there is no reason to believe that a god exists. If anyone can provide some positive evidence to the contrary, I am certainly open to it.
Ah, then that's where you and Skippy differ.
The serpent was right wrote:
I must mention that questions that are thus far unanswered do not constitute positive evidence.
Indeed. In fact there is no evidence either for or against thus far. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that all man-made deities such as Zeus, Vishnu, Kali, Apollo and Jesus' Dad are merely nothing more than fictional characters which evolved over time, partly due to observable changes of theology in history, and the fact that many of their claims contradict reality as we know it.

However as for the more generic possibility of (a) God creating the universe, that has no evidence for or against. And since it has a dearth of evidence to support the claim, plus is also not able to be investigated by science (hence not falsifiable) it is therefore not scientific. Ergo based on the evidence presented so far (none) there may be no reason to conclude such an entity exists. Not scientific and no evidence. This should be enough to keep atheists like our Skippy here happy.

But it isn't. He wants to take it that much further and claim that not only does it *definitely* NOT exist, but also that it's *impossible*. And he wants to claim this without even having performed a single scientific test. He has further asserted that if there is no evidence for something then it does not exist, period. In which case the multiverse and aliens are "impossible" since there is no evidence. Just as the African wildebeest example was "impossible" before its discovery, powered flight was "impossible" before 1900, and so was bacteria before they invented the microscope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64 Sep 24, 2012
Now based on what I've just explained one can perhaps now say that based on the evidence, atheism may be the most rational position to take. However Skippy's atheism goes that one step too far, going towards dogmatism. This argument has been played out on this thread, the 'Aliens and Evolution' thread, and also being played out on the 'Nuggin logic thread'(especially created by Skippy to worship Nuggin), and in all three unfortunately he has not been able to address nor present any argument. Like many fundies before him, he prefers the Nelson Muntz approach.

But as it now stands, as far as science is concerned, it, like you, is perfectly open to the possibility of (a) God, and all it demands is that objective testable evidence be provided. Skip on the other hand claims to have falsified what is as far as can be determined a non-falsifiable concept. If it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. That should be all that's required.

But it's not enough for the Skipster. And he has an arsenal of harsh language at the ready for any who dare oppose him.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65 Sep 24, 2012
By the way Skips, still waiting for that apology.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#66 Sep 24, 2012
Hold on there bobba-louie!!!

It now depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about some random, non-specific being, that created everything (But left no evidence and doesn't interact with it's creation), well, that's hard to argue. BUT, if you are talking about any other god that has some holy book or another that actually gives some kind of tangible attributes to said god, than I would differ with you or the ability of science to test it's existance. ALso, I guess you could say that science is open to the possibility of fluffy, pink, flying unicorns too. But would you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#67 Sep 25, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
Hold on there bobba-louie!!!
It now depends on which god you are talking about. If you are talking about some random, non-specific being, that created everything (But left no evidence and doesn't interact with it's creation), well, that's hard to argue. BUT, if you are talking about any other god that has some holy book or another that actually gives some kind of tangible attributes to said god, than I would differ with you or the ability of science to test it's existance.
Well apart from the magic bits which can be dismissed as non-falsifiable, most creation stories do have at least some testable claims which can be falsified, eg: global flood myth.
The serpent was right wrote:
ALso, I guess you could say that science is open to the possibility of fluffy, pink, flying unicorns too. But would you?
It is open to it, and we can test it too. The horse-shape body plan does not lend itself well to aerodynamics, and general fluffy-ness may or may not be a factor as well. The horn is probably neither here nor there. Based on this so far, unless further evidence is presented we can consider it likely that such an entity is quite unlikely. However if you want to claim that magic rescues your hypothesis then we can dismiss it as non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. And that if anyone insists it is real then all we do is ask them to provide evidence.

Note how we don't just go: "It definitely does not exist if there is no evidence oh, and it's impossible too!"

Then one day somebody comes along and dresses a horse up in a fluffy pink coat, glues a spike to its head and straps some rockets to its back. Au viola, we have a flying fluffy pink unicorn!(even if it is only for a few seconds)

After all there is nothing there that is beyond current scientific potential.

Ain't science grand?

;-)

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#68 Sep 25, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well apart from the magic bits which can be dismissed as non-falsifiable, most creation stories do have at least some testable claims which can be falsified, eg: global flood myth.
<quoted text>
It is open to it, and we can test it too. The horse-shape body plan does not lend itself well to aerodynamics, and general fluffy-ness may or may not be a factor as well. The horn is probably neither here nor there. Based on this so far, unless further evidence is presented we can consider it likely that such an entity is quite unlikely. However if you want to claim that magic rescues your hypothesis then we can dismiss it as non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. And that if anyone insists it is real then all we do is ask them to provide evidence.
Note how we don't just go: "It definitely does not exist if there is no evidence oh, and it's impossible too!"
Then one day somebody comes along and dresses a horse up in a fluffy pink coat, glues a spike to its head and straps some rockets to its back. Au viola, we have a flying fluffy pink unicorn!(even if it is only for a few seconds)
After all there is nothing there that is beyond current scientific potential.
Ain't science grand?
;-)
Yup, science is grand. But you failed to honestly answer the question.

Do you believe that pink, fluffy, flying unicorns exist?

What I am getting at, is that without any evidence at all, why should we entertain ANY claim of existance of any supernatural being? It would be absolutly acceptable to dismiss the notion of a God, just as easily as it would be to dismiss invisible sock gremlins. If absolutly zero evidence is presented, why would we entertain the possibility?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#69 Sep 25, 2012
Exactly why does god get special treatment over pink fluffy unicorns?
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, science is grand. But you failed to honestly answer the question.
Do you believe that pink, fluffy, flying unicorns exist?
What I am getting at, is that without any evidence at all, why should we entertain ANY claim of existance of any supernatural being? It would be absolutly acceptable to dismiss the notion of a God, just as easily as it would be to dismiss invisible sock gremlins. If absolutly zero evidence is presented, why would we entertain the possibility?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#70 Sep 25, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
Hold on there bobba-louie!!!
...
A fan of Quicks-Draw...your age is showing (and, since I recognized it, so is mine).

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#71 Sep 25, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
A fan of Quicks-Draw...your age is showing (and, since I recognized it, so is mine).
Hee-hee
You're right there!(And you said "quicks-draw" right too)

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#72 Sep 25, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly why does god get special treatment over pink fluffy unicorns?
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Why can't the theists get that?

Since: Mar 11

Latonia, KY

#73 Sep 25, 2012
Also these nothing is impossible agnostics. They are fast to say god/s can't be dubbe impossible but when you bring up pink fluffy unicorns they vanish. We're they to say god/s and pink fluffy unicorns can't be proven or disproven I would be fine with it. But again and again it seems they want to put god/s on a special shelf give that myth special consideration vs other myths
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Why can't the theists get that?

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#74 Sep 26, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Until there is some reasonable observable proof for a deity there is no god reason to believe.
excuse me liberty, whats older pagan or christain,trying to work out dates, as romans use to burn christains, while they were pagans thank

Since: Mar 11

United States

#75 Sep 27, 2012
Try that again in English k?
swerty wrote:
<quoted text>excuse me liberty, whats older pagan or christain,trying to work out dates, as romans use to burn christains, while they were pagans thank

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#76 Sep 27, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Try that again in English k?
<quoted text>
I'll second that.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#77 Sep 27, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Try that again in English k?
<quoted text>
what came first christanity or paganism
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78 Sep 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, science is grand. But you failed to honestly answer the question.
Do you believe that pink, fluffy, flying unicorns exist?
Actually I answered it thoroughly. So far there is no evidence, hence no reason to presume it exists. However the claim that it does not exist was demonstrated to be falsifiable.

Unless of course one takes the Skippy approach in which case that without evidence, not only has it never existed, does not exist, but also could not possibly ever exist.
The serpent was right wrote:
What I am getting at, is that without any evidence at all, why should we entertain ANY claim of existance of any supernatural being? It would be absolutly acceptable to dismiss the notion of a God, just as easily as it would be to dismiss invisible sock gremlins. If absolutly zero evidence is presented, why would we entertain the possibility?
Without evidence to demonstrate it exists there's no reason to presume it does. However, the possibility can be entertained if only for the fact that science is always tentative and is always open to the possibility of evidence being found at some later date. Skip's claims mean that in 1500 AD, bacteria, aliens, and the multiverse not only do not exist but are also impossible.

So you have two choices - you can repeatedly ask the fundies for current observable objective testable evidence and have fun watching them flounder, or you can go that one step slightly too far which the scientific method does not support and tell them it's "impossible forever and ever and ever cuz science proves atheism Amen!!!", and cuss at them a lot.

(then the fundies can go back and claim the atheists are illegally inserting atheist ideology in public schools by teaching science).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr 15th Dalai Lama 85,552
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 4,869
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Jan 15 superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web