There's no such thing as god

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Sep 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Exactly why does god get special treatment over pink fluffy unicorns?
It didn't.
Givemeliberty wrote:
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
I did not vanish. And I in fact explained in great detail that the fluffy pink unicorn was falsifiable, and could be dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The God concept could be dismissed both due to the lack of evidence and because it is non-falsifiable.

Or if you prefer you can carry on covering for Skippy's dishonesty, forget about the scientific method and use the Skippy method instead, in which case you would never have discovered bacteria, aliens or the multiverse.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Sep 27, 2012
 
Christianity is paganism always has been always will be.
swerty wrote:
<quoted text>what came first christanity or paganism

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Sep 27, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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).
Well put!

(I wish you could make the same definitive statement without resort to Skeptic's position as I do not think contrasting his position against your is necessary. But that's been my chief complaint all along.)

And, as you know, I take it one step further and posit that without a clear definition of properties for deities, any consideration of existence is absurd -- it is the cart before the horse.

But that does not argue against your well defined statement on the limits of inductive science.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Sep 27, 2012
 
Nope these are invisible spirit pink fluffy unicorns who only appear to the chosen believers at special times of worship.

Enough excuses why does god/s get special treatment vs said unicorns of the dark side of one of Jupiter's moons?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't.
<quoted text>
I did not vanish. And I in fact explained in great detail that the fluffy pink unicorn was falsifiable, and could be dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The God concept could be dismissed both due to the lack of evidence and because it is non-falsifiable.
Or if you prefer you can carry on covering for Skippy's dishonesty, forget about the scientific method and use the Skippy method instead, in which case you would never have discovered bacteria, aliens or the multiverse.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Sep 27, 2012
 
Oh and the maybe we don't have the technology yet to find god/s argument?

Are you truly suggesting ancient tribal people who invented to concept of god/s did have such technology? Are you saying they understood the world and universe better than us?

See some ancient Romans speculated on microscopic life forms but this was based on observable data they collected sadly they did not have the microscope to prove it. It was not a concept based on superstition though.

How was the concept of god/s created? Observable tested data or purely superstition? Some of the earliest mentions of a god is ancient tribal hunters thinking if they insulted the wind god, pictured as an old bearded man head blowing, by smacking their buttocks and insulting him he would blow in that direction which was so they had the wind at their back. Basically this is the formula in one shape or another of every single god ever.

Ok so let's use your scientific proposition. Be it today, 1000 years, 5,000 or 10,000 years is it possible science will find this giant floating bearded man head that blows and creates the wind?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Sep 27, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Nope these are invisible spirit pink fluffy unicorns who only appear to the chosen believers at special times of worship.
Enough excuses why does god/s get special treatment vs said unicorns of the dark side of one of Jupiter's moons?
<quoted text>
I have often made the same argument.

In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.

Although most other examples you can cite have a definitive set of properties, when it comes to the question of 'god', there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible.

Until the properties that must be met are agreed to, the issue simply cannot be properly addressed and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.

So then the question becomes "is there a possible set of properties which can define any entity as a 'god'?"

To date, there has never been such a set of properties. HOWEVER, although I am inclined to say there will not be and in fact cannot be such a cogent set of properties, I honestly cannot rule out some future as yet undefined possibility.

So, it kind of leaves a "grey" area. I can only add that I consider this remote possibility so absurd that I am amazed how adamantly some fight to maintain this wiggle room, but they do.

To paraphrase Aristotle, I can entertain their thought process without fully accepting their conclusion.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Sep 27, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have often made the same argument.
In order to determine whether an object exists or not, the properties of that object have to be clear enough to allow some sort of judgment based on the evidence.
Although most other examples you can cite have a definitive set of properties, when it comes to the question of 'god', there is little to no agreement about the properties, so no determination of existence can be possible.
Until the properties that must be met are agreed to, the issue simply cannot be properly addressed and the question is, strictly speaking, meaningless.
So then the question becomes "is there a possible set of properties which can define any entity as a 'god'?"
To date, there has never been such a set of properties. HOWEVER, although I am inclined to say there will not be and in fact cannot be such a cogent set of properties, I honestly cannot rule out some future as yet undefined possibility.
So, it kind of leaves a "grey" area. I can only add that I consider this remote possibility so absurd that I am amazed how adamantly some fight to maintain this wiggle room, but they do.
To paraphrase Aristotle, I can entertain their thought process without fully accepting their conclusion.
There is no logical possibility of a god if you consider the entire body of scientific evidence. And I mean entire.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Sep 27, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Nope these are invisible spirit pink fluffy unicorns who only appear to the chosen believers at special times of worship.
Enough excuses why does god/s get special treatment vs said unicorns of the dark side of one of Jupiter's moons?
<quoted text>
The dude is an illogical shill who sides with nuggin.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Sep 28, 2012
 
"A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about God, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so." ~ Richard Dawkins

.

"Perhaps the best of the available euphemisms for atheist is nontheist. It lacks the connotation of positive conviction that there is definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth Fairy Agnostics. It is less familiar than atheist and lacks its phobic connotations. Yet, unlike a completely new coining, its meaning is clear. If we want a euphemism at all, nontheist is probably the best.

The alternative which I favor is to renounce all euphemisms and grasp the nettle of the word atheism itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve than with some non-confrontational euphemism, but if we did achieve it with the dread word atheist, the political impact would be all the greater." ~ Richard Dawkins
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Sep 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Well put!
(I wish you could make the same definitive statement without resort to Skeptic's position as I do not think contrasting his position against your is necessary. But that's been my chief complaint all along.)
And, as you know, I take it one step further and posit that without a clear definition of properties for deities, any consideration of existence is absurd -- it is the cart before the horse.
Quite possibly.
Hedonist wrote:
But that does not argue against your well defined statement on the limits of inductive science.
Sláinte.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Sep 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Nope these are invisible spirit pink fluffy unicorns who only appear to the chosen believers at special times of worship.
Ah, then in which case they have no objective evidence, not testable and not falsifiable. So throw it into the same pigeon hole as the God concept. That pigeon hole can be safely ignored until the day someone comes up with objective evidence to support one of those claims. Which might well be never.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Enough excuses why does god/s get special treatment vs said unicorns of the dark side of one of Jupiter's moons?
<quoted text>
It didn't. Perhaps you're not reading carefully.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Sep 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and the maybe we don't have the technology yet to find god/s argument?
Are you truly suggesting ancient tribal people who invented to concept of god/s did have such technology? Are you saying they understood the world and universe better than us?
Nope.
Givemeliberty wrote:
See some ancient Romans speculated on microscopic life forms but this was based on observable data they collected sadly they did not have the microscope to prove it. It was not a concept based on superstition though.
Don't know enough about it to comment so I'll take your word for it. If they had obserable evidence then they at least had a scientific hypothesis. If they had no evidence then it was not falsifiable. Therefore these lifeforms have never existed despite the invention of the microscope - according to Skippy.
Givemeliberty wrote:
How was the concept of god/s created? Observable tested data or purely superstition? Some of the earliest mentions of a god is ancient tribal hunters thinking if they insulted the wind god, pictured as an old bearded man head blowing, by smacking their buttocks and insulting him he would blow in that direction which was so they had the wind at their back. Basically this is the formula in one shape or another of every single god ever.
Yes, initially argument from incredulity, which gradually had more and more superstitious fears tacked onto it, along with "solutions" to their "problems".
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ok so let's use your scientific proposition. Be it today, 1000 years, 5,000 or 10,000 years is it possible science will find this giant floating bearded man head that blows and creates the wind?
Already answered on the other thread. Based on current evidence, unlikely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Sep 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logical possibility of a god if you consider the entire body of scientific evidence. And I mean entire.
There is no logical impossibility of a god if you consider the entire body of scientific evidence. And I mean entire. Proposal: our finite universe had a cause and that cause was some kind of intelligent entity existing in some sort of multiverse. Logic: cause and effect. Logical impossibility? None. Problems: Lack of scientific predictions, lack of evidence, ergo lack of testability ergo lack of falsifiability. Also infinite regression problem - who or what created the creator? Conclusion: claims fall into the realm of philosophical arguments and hence irrelevant to science.

Now let's change something a bit.

There is no logical possibility of the god proposed by fundamentalist Chrisian Creationism if you consider the entire body of scientific evidence. And I mean entire.

Now (based on current scientific evidence) THAT is a rational statement.

By the way, still waiting for that apology Skip.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
Sep 28, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The dude is an illogical shill who sides with nuggin.
In which case then you should have no problem addressing my posts in a rational coherent manner instead of relying on ad-hom.

I'll wait.

(Dude chills whistling and puts feet up while Skippy prepares)

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
Sep 28, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sláinte.
do dheagh shlàinte

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
Sep 28, 2012
 
That's another HUGE misconception that atheists must prove a negative. Atheism has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything. That is going the knowledge route. Atheism is not actively believing in God/s. believing is a verb. Agnostic just means you don't know or believe you can't know. Knowledge which is a noun.

So again the agnostic either actively believes in God/s and is an agnostic theist such as the pascal's wager crowd or they don't believe and are agnostic atheist.

One can even be a gnostic atheist they have knowledge of a God say the totem pole which to their society is a god but they no longer actively believe in this god hence a gnostic atheist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
Sep 28, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
That's another HUGE misconception that atheists must prove a negative. Atheism has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything.
And on this and everything else you said I agree.

Except just one problem - Skip made the *positive assertion* that not only does God *definitely not* exist (despite the only scientific test he performed was how well his seat moulded to his azz) but also that it was *impossible*, which as Nuggin correctly pointed out on the other thread he would require extra-universal knowledge of all current *and* future events and phenomena. Add to that the blanket assertion itself is an absolute and non-falsifiable claim, rendering it unscientific.

So about proving a negative you are correct that the onus is not on you. But Skip however took it just that one step little bit too far. The reason? He couldn't give a fig about science. He gets his joneses from atheism. He is the atheist that creo's WISH Dawkins was.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
Sep 28, 2012
 
You all keep riding skeptic's jock like that you're bound to get pregnant. At the end of the day I bet you two and skeptic would agree in more than you disagree.

I have seen the enemy and it is us.:Pogo
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>And on this and everything else you said I agree.

Except just one problem - Skip made the *positive assertion* that not only does God *definitely not* exist (despite the only scientific test he performed was how well his seat moulded to his azz) but also that it was *impossible*, which as Nuggin correctly pointed out on the other thread he would require extra-universal knowledge of all current *and* future events and phenomena. Add to that the blanket assertion itself is an absolute and non-falsifiable claim, rendering it unscientific.

So about proving a negative you are correct that the onus is not on you. But Skip however took it just that one step little bit too far. The reason? He couldn't give a fig about science. He gets his joneses from atheism. He is the atheist that creo's WISH Dawkins was.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
Sep 29, 2012
 
Years ago in pre-christian Europe, the main religion was Paganism, worshiping the sun, a massive ball of gas which brings life to everything. Without which all life would die, nothing would grow and the earth would simply freeze over.
These days, the majority of these "religious types" worship a 2000 year old carpenter. Good to see we have come to our senses.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
Sep 29, 2012
 
Christians to this day are polytheistic even though they will cry foul. Even non trinity worshipping Christians and Jew believe in God and then the Devil Satan is the bad god. They don't worship the bad God satan but they believe in him. Just as ancient Greeks didn't worship or pray to Hades but they believed in him.
swerty wrote:
Years ago in pre-christian Europe, the main religion was Paganism, worshiping the sun, a massive ball of gas which brings life to everything. Without which all life would die, nothing would grow and the earth would simply freeze over.
These days, the majority of these "religious types" worship a 2000 year old carpenter. Good to see we have come to our senses.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••