Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What evidence does one need to simply say "I have considered your claim and find it to be unsubstantiated?". Because that is all "atheism" is.... a simple acknowledgement of the fact that those people claiming there is a god.... have provided literally no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate that claim in even the smallest fashion.
But we can not sit here and pretend that atheists and theists are equal in lacking any evidence for their positions. What we both lack is 100% complete evidence for our positions. No one has that. And in places like science we neither have it, nor seek or expect it.
What we CAN do is observe the evidence we DO have and see where it points. Take, for example, the claim that human consciousness and subjective awareness can survive the death of the brain. Can we evidence that claim? No we can not. Can we "prove the negative" of it? No we also can not.
But what we CAN do is point out that we do have MUCH evidence and data related to human consciousness and 100% of it at this time shows it is linked to the brain. 0% of it at this time.... that is to say NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.... shows a disconnect or a possibility of a disconnect between the two. So ALL the evidence at this time points AWAY, not towards, a claim of human consciousness surviving death or an after life.
The same is true of claims about the existence of a god. We have no 100% conclusive proof in either direction. But 100% of what we do have shows a naturalistic mechanical universe with no design behind it. No evidence of any sort that we do have substantiates any claims of a god behind it, a plan, a design, intention, conscious control or intervention, or anything else at all.
So can people prove there is no god, no after life or any of those other claims? No, but we CAN acknowledge that all the evidence we do have, the complete dataset, points away from, not towards, the verification of such fantasies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
I have the complexity of RNA and DNA
Complexity is not evidence of anything theistic. It is a measure of the capabilities of the observer. Subjective. Calculus is "complex" for many people for example. It is entirely simple for me. Calculus does not change between me and those people. The observer changes. "Complexity" is a measure of subjectivity and capability to understand.
"DNA is complex" therefore is not evidence of design, a god, or anything else. It is merely a measure of the human capability to understand it. Complexity is not a "thing". It certainly is not evidence that can be mangled into the mis-service for which you require it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
I have the universe itself being sufficiently complicated not to have arisen by chance, probability math (to back up the assertion of it not arriving by chance)
Then show your workings. To declare something as "improbable" one much have actual numbers. If I tell you it is improbable that you could randomly shuffle two decks of cards, deal them out randomly, and for both decks to come out identical.......... I could show you actual workings for that. I have all the variables.
People like you however throw the word "probability" out merely as a knee jerk yet have no workings to show, let alone understanding of what you mean when you use those words. You simply do not know what the probabilities even ARE, so you have no basis on which to comment what is probably or improbable. You are, transparently so, simply making it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Cause and Effect, Laws of Thermodynamics, archaeological records, firsthand accounts
Now you are simply throwing out words without qualifying them. Shot gun tactics at their most desperate from you I fear. Simply saying words like "thermodynamics" does not serve your cause, position or agenda. You have to show exactly what arguments exist that press those terms into service for your mis-use of them. You have to show at least you understand what those terms even mean, and then show exactly how those terms are relevant to your claims.
You have done none of this. It is about as meaningful therefore as me saying "There is no god because bananas, safety pins, Montessori schools, reality TV shows and Peppa Pig". I would be just listing stuff randomly without qualifying their use or relevance in even the smallest way. I would not be so futile, yet you do so almost as a matter of course.
You realized you didn't actually contradict any of the assertions made by the meme? That you just countered one meme with a dumber one?
This thread btw has officially hit 4chan levels of toxic stupidity.
Where is the verifiable evidence of atheism?
I have the complexity of RNA and DNA (pretty clearly patterned and defined), I have the universe itself being sufficiently complicated not to have arisen by chance, probability math (to back up the assertion of it not arriving by chance), Cause and Effect, Laws of Thermodynamics, archaeological records, firsthand accounts (these scriptures? they were testimonies of people seeing something out of the norm), and a **** ton of other stuff. How exactly is this retarded?
Oh wait. You don't know! Where is your verifiable proof?
"Atheists don't have to present proof because the burden of proof is not on them." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, keep telling yourself that. In the mean time, I will continue to be pissed and bitter that I'm getting the shaft with legal rights in my state.
I don't really need to. All I have ever said is, "I don't currently believe that there is a god." I have never said it was impossible. All of the science you mention as some sort of "proof" of God is nothing of the sort. When you have confirmation bias however, anything you find will match your theory.
Provide evidence that your god actually exists, not that the world or complex organisms or DNA exist, and we'll talk. But to say atheism is circular logic is just stupid.
In short, I don't make the claim God exists, and I don't claim to KNOW he doesn't. I simply do not think there is currently enough reason for me to believe he does. Sorry if being logical and rational are foreign to you.
That's great! Tomorrow I'm going to head on down to our local zoo to witness this. Is there any particular species (I mean kind) of snake that God prefers to do this with? Have you seen this happen? Was it a donkey or a snake?
Anytime that your side brings up the talking donkey or snake which are extremely rare occurances in the Bible, it shows me a few things.
Let's examine the idea of a talking snake. You most likely find it asburd to the point of mockery for two reasons:
1. Snakes don't have vocal chords
2. Only humans talk!
But both positions really show the flaw of putting all your faith into science and limiting your perception. Of course a talking snake seems ridiculous to you because it never happens in our modern world. Well, how do you know that it never happened in the ancient world? How do you know that snakes DID NOT have vocal chords? How do you know that the laws of science operated the exact same way 3000 years ago as today?
Answer is that you don't and it is intellectually dishonest to assume as fact such things. You can't envision a world operating outside of what you perceive in this current world.
But the second position is even more revealing. Only human beings can talk. That shows me that even in the mind of the most harden atheist accepting evolution as the gospel truth, they still see human beings as being different than animals. Wait, I thought evolution meant that I'm just another species of animals! There is no difference So the idea of another species talking shouldn't be absurd. In fact, logic tells me that out of all the thousands of species line, surely at least another line should have evolved vocal chords. Oh wait, guess we just have to give it another million years!
Last edited by jeffbase40; 02-05-2016 at 08:04 AM..
How do you know that snakes DID NOT have vocal chords? How do you know that the laws of science operated the exact same way 3000 years ago as today?
So basically you are admitting that your whole position is supported by nothing but "whatiffery" and the use of lack of evidence AS evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Answer is that you don't and it is intellectually dishonest to assume as fact such things. You can't envision a world operating outside of what you perceive in this current world.
Except that is a lie, and we CAN envision it perfectly well. Better than you in fact. The other difference however is that we can envision fantasies without thinking them true. And just because we can envision such alternate realities does NOT mean we have any evidence that those realities exist or existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
That shows me that even in the mind of the most harden atheist accepting evolution as the gospel truth, they still see human beings as being different than animals. Wait, I thought evolution meant that I'm just another species of animals!
Why do you pretend that the two are mutually exclusive? No one here but you thinks they are. The science certainly does not suggest they are. It is merely something you just made up.
"Just another species of animal" does not preclude one species from having different characteristics from another. Quite the opposite in fact. So you can stop pretending that us acknowledging our differences from other animals somehow negates us pointing out we are just another animal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
There is no difference
Says YOU. No one here, and the science world, has said it. You simply made it up. Like you always do. But of course we all know you are just going to read this post, ignore it, and pretend you were never rebutted.
It is possible that snakes could talk 10,000 years ago. But there's no evidence for it. So there's no reason to take the idea seriously.
I started a whole thread about why mere possibility is a bad reason for believing in something. There are an infinite number of things which are possible, but with zero evidence to support them.
"It's possible, therefore it's true" seems to be a common thought process among the religious.
Anytime that your side brings up the talking donkey or snake which are extremely rare occurances in the Bible, it shows me a few things.
Let's examine the idea of a talking snake. You most likely find it asburd to the point of mockery for two reasons:
1. Snakes don't have vocal chords
2. Only humans talk!
But both positions really show the flaw of putting all your faith into science and limiting your perception. Of course a talking snake seems ridiculous to you because it never happens in our modern world. Well, how do you know that it never happened in the ancient world? How do you know that snakes DID NOT have vocal chords? How do you know that the laws of science operated the exact same way 3000 years ago as today?
Answer is that you don't and it is intellectually dishonest to assume as fact such things. You can't envision a world operating outside of what you perceive in this current world.
But the second position is even more revealing. Only human beings can talk. That shows me that even in the mind of the most harden atheist accepting evolution as the gospel truth, they still see human beings as being different than animals. Wait, I thought evolution meant that I'm just another species of animals! There is no difference So the idea of another species talking shouldn't be absurd. In fact, logic tells me that out of all the thousands of species line, surely at least another line should have evolved vocal chords. Oh wait, guess we just have to give it another million years!
It is also possible that the Iliad and the Odyssey are factual too. That there were indeed giants, sirens, Cyclops, Greek gods.....
It is also possible that that Jesus had 3 heads and walked on all fours, or that the Bible was written by the Devil, or that dogs used to talk and walk on two legs, or that aliens poofed us into existence, or that Bigfoot is real, or that Obama is an alien lizard overlord, or.... well... anyone with a brain gets the picture...
Ah yes, using the Bible to say the Bible is true! Circular logic at its finest. Also why talking to you is a waste of time.... unless of course, you do so just to make you look like a fool to the bystanders.
So, you are saying all those things I mentioned are perfectly sane and logical? Well..... I guess we all know your state of mind.
I can use your same illogic: "saying the Bible is not true is illogical since you have no proof God did not Create the heavens and earth, mankind without evolution, etc. etc.
Usually when people resort to the type of putting people down such as you do above shows a distinct lack of forming a rational argument to prove your side of the argument. Of course I can understand your frustration and attacking those who don't agree with you. It is normal human nature.
I am not sure someone who fails to understand, or at least contrives to pretend to fail to understand, the concepts of "Burden of Proof" and "Proof of an unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable negative".... is in any position whatsoever to admonish others on "failures to form a rational argument". Because such a person has not only not formed one themselves, they lack the philosophy 101 basic training to even understand what one is.
But by all means if such a person wants to form a rational arguments showing even a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that a non-human intelligent and intentional agency is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.... I am all ears. The fact is however no such person ever has. And my expectations are low as to whether such people ever will.
I can use your same illogic: "saying the Bible is not true is illogical since you have no proof God did not Create the heavens and earth, mankind without evolution, etc. etc.
Usually when people resort to the type of putting people down such as you do above shows a distinct lack of forming a rational argument to prove your side of the argument. Of course I can understand your frustration and attacking those who don't agree with you. It is normal human nature.
I have no proof there isn't a golden teapot buried under my house either. No reason to think there is. I have no proof that Bigfoot exists. No reason to think he does. I have no proof that Krishna isn't real. No reason to think he is. I have no proof cats are not just alien overlords sent here to screw with us. No reason to think they are. I have no proof I am not an Asgardian. No reason to think I am though.
In other words, your argument that, "There is no proof, therefore it is", is dumber than Ray Comfort.
This thread btw has officially hit 4chan levels of toxic stupidity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Where is the verifiable evidence of atheism?
Well ... I suppose that's better than officially hitting levels of Romper Room intellectual stupidity which this thread just did by actually asking for verifiable evidence for a negative assertion.
What this means is that you now have to supply verifiable evidence for all of the gods YOU don't believe in.
You DO understand that, right?
Tsk tsk ... gotta be careful that your own arguments don't backfire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
I have the complexity of RNA and DNA (pretty clearly patterned and defined), I have the universe itself being sufficiently complicated not to have arisen by chance, probability math (to back up the assertion of it not arriving by chance), Cause and Effect, Laws of Thermodynamics, archaeological records, firsthand accounts (these scriptures? they were testimonies of people seeing something out of the norm), and a **** ton of other stuff. How exactly is this retarded?
It's "retarded" for two reasons:
First, there's really no way to calculate a truly accurate probability using real mathematics. The reason is because we have no idea how many chances the universe had in getting it right.
It would be like trying to calculate the odds of someone winning the jackpot at the slot machines without knowing how many quarters the person has.
The second reason why it's "retarded" is because you people have made this HUGE leap by claiming that if the universe was created by an intelligent designer, it means the Bible is true, Christianity is the One True religion, and that your beliefs were right all along.
Which is all patent nonsense. An intelligently designed universe tells us absolutely NOTHING about the designer. Yet you'll still insist that this proves your religion to be true.
I've said it before: I honestly hope that science never proves that the universe was intelligently designed because the two Abrahamic religions will both try to lay claim to the creator -- and I wouldn't want to be anywhere on this planet when that happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Oh wait. You don't know! Where is your verifiable proof?
It's simply called "not knowing," something we atheists are comfortable with. We don't need to know everything right now, right this very minute. We're not the kind of people who are so impatient that we're screaming at the microwave telling it to hurry up. We're more than willing to wait for science to come up with the answers -- which it invariably will -- just like it always has.
Religion has always had to move aside for science. There's absolutely no reason to think that this time will be any different. Religion is like a horse that hasn't won a race in the last 200,000 years. I can only shake my head in mild rebuke towards anyone who continues to bet on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
"Atheists don't have to present proof because the burden of proof is not on them." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, keep telling yourself that.
Not only will I keep telling myself that, I'll keep telling YOU that. Because it's the truth. It's not up to me or any other atheists to prove to you that God doesn't exist. If you actually took the time to think about it in a different context, you'd realize that we're right.
For instance, in a criminal trial, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. It's not up to the accused to prove that he DIDN'T commit the crime. If I accused you of stealing $50 and the burden of proof was on you, how would you go about clearing your name? The sad fact is -- you couldn't.
That is why the person with the POSITIVE assertion always has the burden of proof. That's YOU because you're the one making the claim that God exists. Making a claim that God doesn't exist is a negative assertion and cannot be proved or disproved -- something we atheists openly and freely admit (which is why almost all atheists are actually agnostic atheists).
Why I'm wasting my keystrokes explaining this to you ... I don't know since you'll be back here later demanding we continue to prove a null hypothesis anyway, but at least I can go to bed tonight knowing I tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
In the mean time, I will continue to be pissed and bitter that I'm getting the shaft with legal rights in my state.
How so? Is the state refusing to allow you to oppress someone the Bible commands you to hate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
