Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[RWS]

Christians claim that the universe is 6000 years old.

Logic says no. And science backs that up in every way. Yet they continue to believe that based on false science provided by lunatic websites run by fanatics that simply cannot let it go, and cannot accept reality.

The fact that we can see the amount of stars visible to us, plus all the galaxies, of which almost all are over 6000 light years away (and some millions and billions of light years away), means that the universe has to be over 6000 years old.

There's simply no way around that, except for pure ignorance and denial.

The fanatics will say that God created it that way to fool us.

Why does God need to fool us?

Why not accept reality as an alternative to magic?

 

[RWS]

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.

 

[hobelim]

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

To crap in their pants in public would be the worst thing that could ever happen to a person who prides themselves on being toilet trained.

If a person is brainwashed since birth to accept irrational beliefs and trained to reject every rational thought that questions or denies that belief as pure evil they are effectively trapped in their own mind and held hostage to a lie in an endless loop of a thought disorder that effectively renders the rational potential of their mind useless.

A person who cannot think rationally cannot follow logic or accept rational conclusions that contradict the faith that they were taught to believe is the highest ideal.

They are not being stubborn, they are not being stupid, they are not being dishonest, they are truly sick.

Thats why it was considered a miraculous sign from God by some and threat to world order by others that amounted to the dead being brought back to life when cult members being held hostage to the lies of fundamentalist religious lunatics were freed from captivity and restored to a rational and sober mind after having one brief conversation with Jesus...

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Can't wait for his reply

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Can't wait for his reply

Are we really still waiting? I think you freaked him the fuck out with those questions. I think cognitive dissonance is kicking in and he's trying to think of a way to answer you that won't sound like he believes in magical sky fairies.

It comes down to this. Do you believe god poofed full grown animals onto land or do you believe in evolution. If the person believes god poofed, our serious discussion is over. Anyways, still waiting for this guy to reply.

 

[Czernobog]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Can't wait for his reply

Are we really still waiting? I think you freaked him the fuck out with those questions. I think cognitive dissonance is kicking in and he's trying to think of a way to answer you that won't sound like he believes in magical sky fairies.

It comes down to this. Do you believe god poofed full grown animals onto land or do you believe in evolution. If the person believes god poofed, our serious discussion is over. Anyways, still waiting for this guy to reply.

I can't wait to see the logical gymnastics he intends to twist himself into in order to turn a negative refutation of a claim into a positive claim requiring evidence to support.

See, that's the problem I have with that cat who keeps saying "There is no evidence that God is not possible" so you can't say there is no God. He is missing the principle of presumed null condition. A condition is presumed to not exist, until evidence is presented that it does. Thus, I am not required to "show evidence" that God "is not possible"; God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Can't wait for his reply

Are we really still waiting? I think you freaked him the fuck out with those questions. I think cognitive dissonance is kicking in and he's trying to think of a way to answer you that won't sound like he believes in magical sky fairies.

It comes down to this. Do you believe god poofed full grown animals onto land or do you believe in evolution. If the person believes god poofed, our serious discussion is over. Anyways, still waiting for this guy to reply.

I can't wait to see the logical gymnastics he intends to twist himself into in order to turn a negative refutation of a claim into a positive claim requiring evidence to support.

See, that's the problem I have with that cat who keeps saying "There is no evidence that God is not possible" so you can't say there is no God. He is missing the principle of presumed null condition. A condition is presumed to not exist, until evidence is presented that it does. Thus, I am not required to "show evidence" that God "is not possible"; God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're talking about Mudda. Agnostics are pussies who refuse to take the logical next step mentally. I bet deep down he doesn't want to offend god just in case god exists. I figure if god exists it's not the one theists talk about so I'm ok denying god. If there is a god he certainly doesn't care if I believe and didn't make himself known. Not in my lifetime.

Did you hear we just found a 9th planet in our solar system. We know so very little about who we are and where we came from I find it laughable that people believe ancient religions.

And then on top of it they claim to be gods themselves. They really believe their spirits never die. So they aren't just telling you they believe in god. They're telling you when they die they become gods themselves. Live in paradise for eternity. Sounds like a god to me.

The Hunt for Planet Nine

 

[Czernobog]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

 

[sealybobo]

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, it's more likely than not that God exists. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to - the null condition. The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence. To assert that it is more likely that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is. You are engaing in the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim. "Thing 'A' exists" is the positive claim. Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim. Sorry pal. The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Why? This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence must have a purpose. What evidence do you have to support this claim?

He did admit theists aren't absolutely certain.

Can you believe he starts his crazy argument that God is more likely real. You can't do that!

Then he says, "given the current data. What data? Can we see it?

Then he says its the most rational worldview to adhere to. What does that mean? Sounds like he's going with the group think. But interesting how he put that. He sounds like an apologist.

I also find it odd they insist that atheism means certain no God exists. See this is technically true but then if there's no atheist then there's no theist. Then we are all on the agnostic spectrum. Us agnostic atheists and them agnostic theists, will they agree to this?

And this guy doesn't sound like he believes the bible stories. Maybe we should find out what God he's talking about because generic creator doesn't care we are having this conversation. The only people who care are people who think they themselves are gods. They're going to live forever in paradise. Never get sick never unhappy. Isn't that a God?

 

[sealybobo]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

Sure anything is possible. What other things besides God do you accept without real evidence?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.

matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.

 

[Czernobog]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.

matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.

What "Triumph of Good vs Evil"? I don't know what universe you live in, but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.

matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.

What "Triumph of Good vs Evil"? I don't know what universe you live in, but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.

.

but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

I agree, it should not matter but for one the 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, christianity has derailed the focus for humanities survival as an example.

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.

are subjective terms ...

they haven't an equation but are no less in existence than gravity ... without one there is the purity of the other an accomplishment similar to the moment of Singularity at its Triumph.

The presumption would be you would rather the gnome for our species not be manipulated by Adolf Hitler as the reason for the religion of who's Spirits are set free in the Everlasting.

 

[Czernobog]

are subjective terms ...

they haven't an equation but are no less in existence than gravity ... without one there is the purity of the other an accomplishment similar to the moment of Singularity at its Triumph

Which is what subjective means.

The presumption would be you would rather the gnome for our species not be manipulated by Adolf Hitler as the reason for the religion of who's Spirits are set free in the Everlasting.

I...don't even know what that word salad is supposed to mean...

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I...don't even know what that word salad is supposed to mean...

is English your native language ....


In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.


are you personally responsible for your genome.

 

[sealybobo]

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.

matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.

What "Triumph of Good vs Evil"? I don't know what universe you live in, but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.

To other animals humans are ruining the pl

.

God is presumed to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.

the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real. You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right? You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim. It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

.

You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.

matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.

The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.

the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.

What "Triumph of Good vs Evil"? I don't know what universe you live in, but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.

We are destroying this planet. If we wiped ourselves out with nukes it's very possible dolphins might view those bombs as sent from god to wipe out us evil humans and save the good dolphins and their cousins the whales and sharks.

Now those sharks are the devil fish. Pure evil. Indolphin

 

[sealybobo]

.

I...don't even know what that word salad is supposed to mean...

is English your native language ....


In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.


are you personally responsible for your genome.

No.

 

[ding]

Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars: Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations. How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?

That would indeed be the $64 thousand dollar question.

It does go to the core.

 

[ding]

We are destroying this planet. If we wiped ourselves out with nukes it's very possible dolphins might view those bombs as sent from god to wipe out us evil humans and save the good dolphins and their cousins the whales and sharks.

Now those sharks are the devil fish. Pure evil. Indolphin

The planet will be just fine. There's ton of scientific evidence for that. You don't need to be agnostic on the fate of the planet. All hail science.