Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Iceweasel]

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

You're right, there are no facts regarding origins. Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else. God is just a theory. So? Your point?

I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.

Wrong. Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof. "There is no God". Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually do exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist. Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative? Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?

There's no evidence showing that God doesn't exist, unless atheists try to base their evidence on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?

BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.

There is no evidence showing that pink unicorns don't exist. Would you take someone seriously who insisted that it should be treated as fact that they do until definitive proof that they don't is presented?

If they said it was a statement of faith, which is what theists do.

You claim the intellectual high ground by making statements of faith and calling it science. That's a stupid lie.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

What are you really saying? That you are more fanatical ?!

Me? I would say less so, as atheists behave so much like religious fundamentalists.

Painting a group of people with such a broad brush is a mistake. I guess theists do not think.

IRONY ALERT

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

 

[rightwinger]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky

There may be no magic man in the sky, but what kind of idiot imagines he knows what really does or doesn't exist? Is the human brain the perfect perceptor of everything?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

There is little evidence to suggest that humans even have the capacity to perceive, let alone understand, what makes a universe or what makes reality real.

There is some -though scant- evidence.

Quantum physicists like Michiu Kaku and Fred Alan Wolfe are on the side of a higher "creator".

Also, the idea of being able to affect the quantum field and benefit from it is slllooowly making its way into the mainstream.

https://www.amazon.com/E-Squared-Do...3030178&sr=8-1&keywords=e2+book&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky

You have to be an idiot to believe that all you perceive is all that is, and that you are just some giant cosmic accident.

 

[the_human_being]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky

I'm happy we agree.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious 'people just go through the motions

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.

Stronger? How would you measure that?

Some 'religious' people just go through the motions and are not spiritual. Some non believers are not spiritual either.

You aren't exactly making a case for the intellectual foundation of atheism here.

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

 

[rightwinger]

The common term for atheist is "idiot".

You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky

There may be no magic man in the sky, but what kind of idiot imagines he knows what really does or doesn't exist? Is the human brain the perfect perceptor of everything?

The human brain is capable of predicting probabilities based on available evidence

My brain has looked at the available evidence of leprechauns and deduced they probably do not exist

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard. Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith". Yet somehow I keep saying it. You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either. The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith. Doesn't it.

 

[yiostheoy]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.

"It had to happen eventually" is a fallacy of Argument From Ignorance.

See the list below and look it up:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

So what if atheism is an intellectual dead end. maybe that's all there is.

Atheism is simply a belief system.

It is no better or worse than any other belief system.

It has its pro's and its con's over other belief systems.

It was not an intellectual dead end for Bertrand Russell because he was an atheist and yet also a great philosopher.

Atheism worked for him.

If it works for you too then fine. If not then you need to seek and find another belief system.

 

[yiostheoy]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

 

[Muhammed]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.

"It had to happen eventually" is a fallacy of Argument From Ignorance.

See the list below and look it up:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia

You can accuse me of a spewing a logical fallacy all you want. I don't care. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[yiostheoy]

I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what.

I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.

The existence of God/Gods or not is an ancient philosophical issue which originated with Socrates and reached its richest development with San Tomas Aquinas. Subsequent to San Tomas the philosophers Descartes and Leibniz took it a few steps further.

Religion is ancient and wicked on the other hand.

What you worship is mostly a matter of Religion, although a good philosopher can come up with a philosophical God like Descartes did and worship that Deist Being with a strong ethical code that Philosophy can also provide him/her with as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

You can accuse me of a spewing a logical fallacy all you want. I don't care. The proof is in the pudding.

For anyone who is experienced in logic and evidence, it is an a-priori self evident truth that you Muhammed believe in a fallacy from the fallacy list.

It is not merely my accusation thereof.

If you can't see it then you have a huge blind spot.

If you can't understand it then you are simply not in the top 10% of intellects. They would have told you if you were back in high school when you went through the rigorous testing.

Suffice it to say you would therefore never have gotten into MIT.

 

[Dr Grump]

Atheism is simply a belief system.

It is no better or worse than any other belief system.

It has its pro's and its con's over other belief systems.

It was not an intellectual dead end for Bertrand Russell because he was an atheist and yet also a great philosopher.

Atheism worked for him.

If it works for you too then fine. If not then you need to seek and find another belief system.

I don't really have a belief system.

 

[Skull Pilot]

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine. So be it.

Sorry but no. Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't