Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Czernobog]

The difference between us, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that my belief is a premise, while your is a conclusion. With sufficient evidence I am willing to be convinced. You, on the other hand, insist on your believe with nothing but your personal experience. Further, I don't ridicule you for your beliefs. I do point out that your expectation that anyone else believe what you believe sans evidence is irrational. At best, you statement, "You have no more basis in which to believe God doesn't exist than I have to believe God does exist," is an advocation for agnosticism, not for theism.

Well no... it's certainly NOT a "premise" to state that God doesn't exist. That is a conclusion that God doesn't exist. If you said "I don't think God exists" that would be a premise but that isn't what you say.

No it's not. Now you're just lying. My premise is God does not exist. I am more than willing to abandon this position, as soon as i am provided with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary. You just want to pretend that it's a conclusion, so that you don't seem as close-minded by continuing to keep your death grip on your conclusion.

My position doesn't require you to acknowledge my beliefs. My personal experience is all that I require for my beliefs and it doesn't rely on your acceptance or evaluation of my evidence. I have no problem with you saying you don't believe God exists, it's when you state that God doesn't exist because I can't give you physical proof that God exists, that I have a problem with your position. That's an irrational and illogical position.

No, it's not. There is no evidence of anything other than the physical universe. If you cannot provide objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of a thing, I have no compelling reason to believe that thing exists. That is not irrational, it is the very definition of rational, reasonable thought.

As for philosophical agnosticism, I believe we are all agnostic because no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. In essence, it all relies on our faith and that goes for both sides. You have just as much faith that God doesn't exist as I have that God does exist. Neither of us can prove the other wrong... yet we continue this endless and pointless debate.

You are not an agnostic. When you say "God exists" you have taken a position, just as I have when I state God does not exist. Agnosticism, by definition, takes no position on the existence, or non-existence of God. Again, the difference is that your position is that of a conclusion from which you are unwilling to ever budge, whereas mine is a premise which I will gladly abandon, just as soon as I am presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary.

 

[Boss]

No it's not. Now you're just lying. My premise is God does not exist. I am more than willing to abandon this position, as soon as i am provided with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary. You just want to pretend that it's a conclusion, so that you don't seem as close-minded by continuing to keep your death grip on your conclusion.

A premise is a presupposition in support of a conclusive argument and you're making a statement of conclusion. I don't understand the hair splitting but you are definitely making the conclusive argument that God does not exist. Furthermore, you are demanding that if someone could simply show you physical evidence for God (thus refuting a spiritual God) then you are prepared to believe in it's existence.

No, it's not. There is no evidence of anything other than the physical universe. If you cannot provide objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of a thing, I have no compelling reason to believe that thing exists. That is not irrational, it is the very definition of rational, reasonable thought.

And that is where you are wrong. We already know of numerous things that exist in a physical universe which have no material value in a physical sense. I cannot provide you with objective, verifiable physical evidence of dark matter, yet it has to exist or mathematics and physics are totally wrong. Since we are certain math and physics are not wrong, then dark matter must exist... even though we cannot interact with it physically. So... BOOM... there goes your theory of only physical things can exist.

 

[Boss]

You are not an agnostic. When you say "God exists" you have taken a position, just as I have when I state God does not exist. Agnosticism, by definition, takes no position on the existence, or non-existence of God. Again, the difference is that your position is that of a conclusion from which you are unwilling to ever budge, whereas mine is a premise which I will gladly abandon, just as soon as I am presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary.

And that's why I prefaced my statement with "philosophical agnosticism". I didn't claim to be an Agnostic... I am a Spiritualist. I am making the argument from a philosophical perspective... try opening your mind... In the context that no one can prove or disprove God, then we cannot possibly know whether or not God exists, therefore, whether we like it or not, we are effectively all (philosophically) agnostics because we do not know for certain. Perhaps that flies over your empty head?

 

[Czernobog]

No it's not. Now you're just lying. My premise is God does not exist. I am more than willing to abandon this position, as soon as i am provided with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary. You just want to pretend that it's a conclusion, so that you don't seem as close-minded by continuing to keep your death grip on your conclusion.

A premise is a presupposition in support of a conclusive argument and you're making a statement of conclusion. I don't understand the hair splitting but you are definitely making the conclusive argument that God does not exist. Furthermore, you are demanding that if someone could simply show you physical evidence for God (thus refuting a spiritual God) then you are prepared to believe in it's existence

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

No, it's not. There is no evidence of anything other than the physical universe. If you cannot provide objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of a thing, I have no compelling reason to believe that thing exists. That is not irrational, it is the very definition of rational, reasonable thought.

And that is where you are wrong. We already know of numerous things that exist in a physical universe which have no material value in a physical sense. I cannot provide you with objective, verifiable physical evidence of dark matter, yet it has to exist or mathematics and physics are totally wrong. Since we are certain math and physics are not wrong, then dark matter must exist... even though we cannot interact with it physically. So... BOOM... there goes your theory of only physical things can exist.

We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. In other words, dark matter, and dark energy has a measurable, verifiable affect on the universe. I await your measurable, verifiable affect that the "spiritual universe" has on the physical universe.

 

[Boss]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

 

[Czernobog]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

mmm...I could respond to that, but I think I'll just go with...

...Okay.

 

[Boss]

We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. In other words, dark matter, and dark energy has a measurable, verifiable affect on the universe. I await your measurable, verifiable affect that the "spiritual universe" has on the physical universe.

We only know how much dark matter there is because mathematics calculates it's gravity. Other than that, we have zero physical evidence it exists.

We don't know what effect spiritual nature has on the physical universe, for all we know it enables physical reality in it's entirety. In other words, all that you are aware of as physical reality is made possible by spiritual nature. Can you disprove that?

 

[Czernobog]

We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. In other words, dark matter, and dark energy has a measurable, verifiable affect on the universe. I await your measurable, verifiable affect that the "spiritual universe" has on the physical universe.

We only know how much dark matter there is because mathematics calculates it's gravity. Other than that, we have zero physical evidence it exists.

We don't know what effect spiritual nature has on the physical universe, for all we know it enables physical reality in it's entirety. In other words, all that you are aware of as physical reality is made possible by spiritual nature. Can you disprove that?

"For all we know" is not observable, verifiable evidence. You can't even provide the mathematical evidence that we have for the affects of dark matter, and dark energy on the physical universe. I'll keep waiting...

 

[Boss]

"For all we know" is not observable, verifiable evidence. You can't even provide the mathematical evidence that we have for the affects of dark matter, and dark energy on the physical universe. I'll keep waiting...

Again, the only reason we know there is a thing called "dark matter" is because of mathematics and the gravity produced. We don't know what effects it has on the physical universe at this time but that does not mean it doesn't have any. And that is the point I've been trying to get you to comprehend... the absence of explanation doesn't equal a conclusion. Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know something doesn't mean there is nothing to know. Nuclear fission was possible when the cave men were harnessing fire, the fact they didn't know about nuclear fission never meant that it wasn't possible.

 

[Czernobog]

"For all we know" is not observable, verifiable evidence. You can't even provide the mathematical evidence that we have for the affects of dark matter, and dark energy on the physical universe. I'll keep waiting...

Again, the only reason we know there is a thing called "dark matter" is because of mathematics and the gravity produced. We don't know what effects it has on the physical universe at this time but that does not mean it doesn't have any. And that is the point I've been trying to get you to comprehend... the absence of explanation doesn't equal a conclusion. Quite the contrary. The fact that you don't know something doesn't mean there is nothing to know. Nuclear fission was possible when the cave men were harnessing fire, the fact they didn't know about nuclear fission never meant that it wasn't possible.

And what I am trying to get you to understand is that even without knowing the exact affect, we can demonstrate that it does have an affect, with, as you pointed out, mathematical proofs. There's a difference between not having a complete understanding, and having no evidence of the existence of a thing. And I am more than willing to acknowledge the possibility of your "spiritual reality". However, without evidence, I see no reason to concede the certainty of such. When presented with objective, verifiable evidence, I will gladly alter my position.

You see, reason is not about the possible, it is about the provably probable. Since, as you have conceded, repeatedly, there is no observable, verifiable evidence, I will continue to doubt the probability.

 

[Boss]

And what I am trying to get you to understand is that even without knowing the exact affect, we can demonstrate that it does have an affect, with, as you pointed out, mathematical proofs. There's a difference between not having a complete understanding, and having no evidence of the existence of a thing. And I am more than willing to acknowledge the possibility of your "spiritual reality". However, without evidence, I see no reason to concede the certainty of such. When presented with objective, verifiable evidence, I will gladly alter my position.

You see, reason is not about the possible, it is about the provably probable. Since, as you have conceded, repeatedly, there is no observable, verifiable evidence, I will continue to doubt the probability.

Well okay... I would say the FIRST piece of evidence is the logical paradox that a physical nature could not have created itself. It does exist, therefore it either always existed or it was created. If it always existed, that is the definition of divinity... the physical universe is God. If it was created, something other than the physical created it. Because Logic.

 

[Czernobog]

And what I am trying to get you to understand is that even without knowing the exact affect, we can demonstrate that it does have an affect, with, as you pointed out, mathematical proofs. There's a difference between not having a complete understanding, and having no evidence of the existence of a thing. And I am more than willing to acknowledge the possibility of your "spiritual reality". However, without evidence, I see no reason to concede the certainty of such. When presented with objective, verifiable evidence, I will gladly alter my position.

You see, reason is not about the possible, it is about the provably probable. Since, as you have conceded, repeatedly, there is no observable, verifiable evidence, I will continue to doubt the probability.

Well okay... I would say the FIRST piece of evidence is the logical paradox that a physical nature could not have created itself. It does exist, therefore it either always existed or it was created. If it always existed, that is the definition of divinity... the physical universe is God. If it was created, something other than the physical created it. Because Logic.

Two problems with that. First, There are several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate that the physical universe actually could form from apparent nothingness. Second, unless you are going to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading, then your "something must have created the universe" also requires that something must have created the creator, ad infinitum, which leads to infinite regression - also a paradox.

 

[Boss]

Two problems with that. First, There are several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate that the physical universe actually could form from apparent nothingness. Second, unless you are going to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading, then your "something must have created the universe" also requires that something must have created the creator, ad infinitum, which leads to infinite regression - also a paradox.

...several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate...
uhm.... theories do not demonstrate.

Quantum mechanics also doesn't refute physics... but IF it does, then you are now tinkering about in the metaphysical "realm" to use your terminology.

Something doesn't have to create a spiritual Creator because "create" applies to the physical. It's not "special pleading" but rather, contextual definitions.

 

[Czernobog]

Two problems with that. First, There are several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate that the physical universe actually could form from apparent nothingness. Second, unless you are going to employ the logical fallacy of special pleading, then your "something must have created the universe" also requires that something must have created the creator, ad infinitum, which leads to infinite regression - also a paradox.

...several theories in Quantum mechanics that demonstrate...
uhm.... theories do not demonstrate.

Quantum mechanics also doesn't refute physics... but IF it does, then you are now tinkering about in the metaphysical "realm" to use your terminology.

Something doesn't have to create a spiritual Creator because "create" applies to the physical. It's not "special pleading" but rather, contextual definitions.

LOL! "God is 'special'. He doesn't need creating..."

 

[Spare_change]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

I would suggest that there is, in fact, a plethora of physical evidence that God exists. It is the ignorance of the "non-believer" that creates the supposed conundrum.

"A middle aged lady with the classic symptoms of heart failure, which is confirmed by echocardiogram. The lady is scheduled for a left heart catheterisation to further evaluate the cause. This was done the following day, and to everyone’s astonishment, the heart function was completely normal! Puzzled, a repeat echocardiogram was performed the same day, and was completely normal."

"A child in remote Mexico who is diagnosed with an obstructing tumor called nasopharyngeal cancer. These are universally fatal if not treated aggressively, and with the physician’s vast experience, he was certain this was the diagnosis even without a biopsy. The parents were instructed to bring the child back the next day for surgery.

A group of people prayed with the family. The following morning they showed up with the child. Pre-operative checklists were done, and just before the child underwent anesthesia, the surgeon took one last look. There was no tumor. They summoned the parents, and told them they had brought the wrong child, but they insisted it was the same one. There was a great deal of conversation among our team, translators, and the family, but in the end we all bore witness that this was the same child. There was no rational or medical explanation for this; these tumors simply do not disappear overnight." Derren Brown wants to see objective evidence for miracles? Challenge accepted - Premier Christianity

"Fatima, Portugal - In the Cova da Iria fields near Fatima, Portugal, a miracle occurred with the sun in October of 1917. According to legend, three shepherd children reported that the Virgin Mary told them a miracle would occur on a certain date and time, and thousands of people gathered to witness it. At high noon, after a patch of rain and clouds, the sun suddenly appeared in the sky as a spinning disk. According to witnesses, the sun then zig-zagged towards the Earth. This miracle was officially sanctioned by the church in 1930."

"One of the more recent miracles, this episode tool place in Clearwater, Florida beginning in late 1996. Suddenly and without explanation, an image of the Virgin mother appeared on the side of the Seminole Finance Building, which is outfitted in large panes of black glass. The rainbow colored image stood two stories tall, and withstood vandals throwing liquid on the side of the building. More than 500,000 faithful people went to visit this unexplained vision."

There are literally thousands of instances throughout history where prayer has resulted in unexplainable results. Whether they be medical cures, or simultaneous beeding of statues, unexplained appearance, unfathomable physical activities, or any of a myriad of happenings, those things cannot be explained by science or theory.

The unbelieving, of course, will deny these - offering alternative theories, all of which have been disproven. So, the question remains - if not God, then what or Who? Should I deny the presence of science simply because I can't understand how it applies?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Yup another confirmation that atheism is a religion.

 

[Czernobog]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

I would suggest that there is, in fact, a plethora of physical evidence that God exists. It is the ignorance of the "non-believer" that creates the supposed conundrum.

"A middle aged lady with the classic symptoms of heart failure, which is confirmed by echocardiogram. The lady is scheduled for a left heart catheterisation to further evaluate the cause. This was done the following day, and to everyone’s astonishment, the heart function was completely normal! Puzzled, a repeat echocardiogram was performed the same day, and was completely normal."

"A child in remote Mexico who is diagnosed with an obstructing tumor called nasopharyngeal cancer. These are universally fatal if not treated aggressively, and with the physician’s vast experience, he was certain this was the diagnosis even without a biopsy. The parents were instructed to bring the child back the next day for surgery.

A group of people prayed with the family. The following morning they showed up with the child. Pre-operative checklists were done, and just before the child underwent anesthesia, the surgeon took one last look. There was no tumor. They summoned the parents, and told them they had brought the wrong child, but they insisted it was the same one. There was a great deal of conversation among our team, translators, and the family, but in the end we all bore witness that this was the same child. There was no rational or medical explanation for this; these tumors simply do not disappear overnight." Derren Brown wants to see objective evidence for miracles? Challenge accepted - Premier Christianity

"Fatima, Portugal - In the Cova da Iria fields near Fatima, Portugal, a miracle occurred with the sun in October of 1917. According to legend, three shepherd children reported that the Virgin Mary told them a miracle would occur on a certain date and time, and thousands of people gathered to witness it. At high noon, after a patch of rain and clouds, the sun suddenly appeared in the sky as a spinning disk. According to witnesses, the sun then zig-zagged towards the Earth. This miracle was officially sanctioned by the church in 1930."

"One of the more recent miracles, this episode tool place in Clearwater, Florida beginning in late 1996. Suddenly and without explanation, an image of the Virgin mother appeared on the side of the Seminole Finance Building, which is outfitted in large panes of black glass. The rainbow colored image stood two stories tall, and withstood vandals throwing liquid on the side of the building. More than 500,000 faithful people went to visit this unexplained vision."

There are literally thousands of instances throughout history where prayer has resulted in unexplainable results. Whether they be medical cures, or simultaneous beeding of statues, unexplained appearance, unfathomable physical activities, or any of a myriad of happenings, those things cannot be explained by science or theory.

The unbelieving, of course, will deny these - offering alternative theories, all of which have been disproven. So, the question remains - if not God, then what or Who? Should I deny the presence of science simply because I can't understand how it applies?

Of course we deny these. These are called anecdotal experiences. I'll let you go back, and reread the thread, to catch up, and understand why anecdotal experiences are useless to rational, objective observation.

 

[Czernobog]

1. Be open minded and willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not believe what you want to be true.
3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4. Every person has the right to control their own body.
5. God is not necessary to be a good person, or to live a full and meaningful life.
6. Be mindful of the consequences of all of your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect they want to be treated.
8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations - which is not to be confused with unborn non-viable fetuses.
9. There is no right way to live.
10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are rational positions by which to live one's life; unlike certain "commandments" of an irrational mythology one might mention.

Yup another confirmation that atheism is a religion.

Yes. Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position. For fuck's sake! Do all you stupid fucks read from the same fucking playbook?!?! I'm gonna quit bothering to post any responses with any thought put into it. I'm just gonna type out a bunch of canned answers in word pad, and copy and past the same responses over, and over, since all of you, inevitably post the same stupid shit!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The lie that being free form faith is ‘religion’ is predicated on the arrogant, wrongheaded notion that a given religion is ‘true’ and that to acknowledge the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists manifests as a ‘belief.’

 

[Spare_change]

Based on the premise that there is no evidence to support the existence of such. Guess what? Provide objective, verifiable evidence, and that premise is proven false, and the equation changes. I am willing to concede that it is possible to change my position. Are you?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence but why would there be?

My belief is based on my life experience. I have witnessed evidence of spiritual nature in action many times. I can't ignore these experiences or pretend they were something else.

I would suggest that there is, in fact, a plethora of physical evidence that God exists. It is the ignorance of the "non-believer" that creates the supposed conundrum.

"A middle aged lady with the classic symptoms of heart failure, which is confirmed by echocardiogram. The lady is scheduled for a left heart catheterisation to further evaluate the cause. This was done the following day, and to everyone’s astonishment, the heart function was completely normal! Puzzled, a repeat echocardiogram was performed the same day, and was completely normal."

"A child in remote Mexico who is diagnosed with an obstructing tumor called nasopharyngeal cancer. These are universally fatal if not treated aggressively, and with the physician’s vast experience, he was certain this was the diagnosis even without a biopsy. The parents were instructed to bring the child back the next day for surgery.

A group of people prayed with the family. The following morning they showed up with the child. Pre-operative checklists were done, and just before the child underwent anesthesia, the surgeon took one last look. There was no tumor. They summoned the parents, and told them they had brought the wrong child, but they insisted it was the same one. There was a great deal of conversation among our team, translators, and the family, but in the end we all bore witness that this was the same child. There was no rational or medical explanation for this; these tumors simply do not disappear overnight." Derren Brown wants to see objective evidence for miracles? Challenge accepted - Premier Christianity

"Fatima, Portugal - In the Cova da Iria fields near Fatima, Portugal, a miracle occurred with the sun in October of 1917. According to legend, three shepherd children reported that the Virgin Mary told them a miracle would occur on a certain date and time, and thousands of people gathered to witness it. At high noon, after a patch of rain and clouds, the sun suddenly appeared in the sky as a spinning disk. According to witnesses, the sun then zig-zagged towards the Earth. This miracle was officially sanctioned by the church in 1930."

"One of the more recent miracles, this episode tool place in Clearwater, Florida beginning in late 1996. Suddenly and without explanation, an image of the Virgin mother appeared on the side of the Seminole Finance Building, which is outfitted in large panes of black glass. The rainbow colored image stood two stories tall, and withstood vandals throwing liquid on the side of the building. More than 500,000 faithful people went to visit this unexplained vision."

There are literally thousands of instances throughout history where prayer has resulted in unexplainable results. Whether they be medical cures, or simultaneous beeding of statues, unexplained appearance, unfathomable physical activities, or any of a myriad of happenings, those things cannot be explained by science or theory.

The unbelieving, of course, will deny these - offering alternative theories, all of which have been disproven. So, the question remains - if not God, then what or Who? Should I deny the presence of science simply because I can't understand how it applies?

Of course we deny these. These are called anecdotal experiences. I'll let you go back, and reread the thread, to catch up, and understand why anecdotal experiences are useless to rational, objective observation.

As I suspected ----- you asked for definitive proof, and then when presented with instances of proof, you smugly deny them as proof. I note that you did NOT disprove them.

An event witnessed by 500,000 people is an "anecdotal event"? Seriously?

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that you aren't interested in proof - you are only interested in a platform to pontificate your personal views.

As such, I can think of no viable reason to continue to provide you that platform.

May God bless you and yours .... given your narrow mindedness, you're going to need it.