Atheist Manifesto

[LuvRPgrl]

Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Proof points to the truth of a matter. Evidence may or may not point to the truth. I'm not sure why you keep trying to call a null (lack of proof or lack of evidence) something that it's not. The lack of something is a vacuum. If "lack of proof" and "lack of evidence" were beverages and you had an infinite amount of each, you'd die of thirst.

The negative reading on the geiger counter is evidence, not the lack of evidence.

Evidence is either equal to proof, or is a subset of proof. You can have evidence that doesnt prove something on its own, which makes it a subset of the proof, or you can have evidence that in and of its own, proves something, in which case evidence and proof are equal, one and the same.

If you have an apparently empty room, a vacuum, no oxygen or other floating gases, and you check it with a geiger counter to see if the walls are radiating radiation, and if then the geiger counter does not react, then that means there are no radiation particles present.
If there is nothing physical, no atoms or molecules whatsoever in the room, then how can you have any evidence? The only evidence that could be present to prove there is a condition we are seeking, is the radiation molecules. Evidence is either a physical object, or testimony. There is no testimony involved in this scenario, hence it is required that there either be evidence, radiation particles, or NO EVIDENCE at all, hence a lack of evidence proves something. It proves it is safe to enter the room. It proves there is no radiation present. It proves liberals are idiots (ha, just had to throw that in )

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Evidence is either equal to proof, or is a subset of proof. You can have evidence that doesnt prove something on its own, which makes it a subset of the proof, or you can have evidence that in and of its own, proves something, in which case evidence and proof are equal, one and the same.

If you have an apparently empty room, a vacuum, no oxygen or other floating gases, and you check it with a geiger counter to see if the walls are radiating radiation, and if then the geiger counter does not react, then that means there are no radiation particles present.
If there is nothing physical, no atoms or molecules whatsoever in the room, then how can you have any evidence? The only evidence that could be present to prove there is a condition we are seeking, is the radiation molecules. Evidence is either a physical object, or testimony. There is no testimony involved in this scenario, hence it is required that there either be evidence, radiation particles, or NO EVIDENCE at all, hence a lack of evidence proves something. It proves it is safe to enter the room. It proves there is no radiation present. It proves liberals are idiots (ha, just had to throw that in )

Give it up LuvRPGRL, you're arguing semantics. Essentially what youre calling NO EVIDENCE is evidence, just negative evidence. The lack of something existing is evidence that its not there. Its not a lack of evidence. By observing a situation, you are making an observation of the physical conditions at that time. That, by your own definition is evidence.

You owned yourself?

And if you want to get even trickier, figure out if you can prove anything at all. Philosophically speaking, its impossible.

 

[MissileMan]

Evidence is either equal to proof, or is a subset of proof. You can have evidence that doesnt prove something on its own, which makes it a subset of the proof, or you can have evidence that in and of its own, proves something, in which case evidence and proof are equal, one and the same.

If you have an apparently empty room, a vacuum, no oxygen or other floating gases, and you check it with a geiger counter to see if the walls are radiating radiation, and if then the geiger counter does not react, then that means there are no radiation particles present.

This would constitute evidence of a lack of radiation, not a lack of evidence of the presence of radiation.

If there is nothing physical, no atoms or molecules whatsoever in the room, then how can you have any evidence? The only evidence that could be present to prove there is a condition we are seeking, is the radiation molecules. Evidence is either a physical object, or testimony. There is no testimony involved in this scenario, hence it is required that there either be evidence, radiation particles, or NO EVIDENCE at all, hence a lack of evidence proves something. It proves it is safe to enter the room. It proves there is no radiation present. It proves liberals are idiots (ha, just had to throw that in )

Yo! Gomer! Radiation is energy, not matter. Radiation can exist in and travel through a vacuum. Try again.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Give it up LuvRPGRL, you're arguing semantics. Essentially what youre calling NO EVIDENCE is evidence, just negative evidence. The lack of something existing is evidence that its not there. Its not a lack of evidence. By observing a situation, you are making an observation of the physical conditions at that time. That, by your own definition is evidence.

You owned yourself?

And if you want to get even trickier, figure out if you can prove anything at all. Philosophically speaking, its impossible.

Negative evidence??? hahhaha, you're proving my point.!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This would constitute evidence of a lack of radiation, not a lack of evidence of the presence of radiation..

If you wanted evidence that radiation was there, you would produce proof of its existence. The radiation IS the evidence. Lack of radiation is LACK OF EVIDENCE since radiation = the evidence.

Yo! Gomer! Radiation is energy, not matter. Radiation can exist in and travel through a vacuum. Try again.

Oh, senor dense one, energy is composed of matter also. Of course radiation can travel through a vacum, anything can. Who said it cant. Cmon, I challenge you, show where I posted anything saying radiation cant go through a vacuum. Are you arguing with yourself or something???

Just one last time. Lack of evidence proves things all the time.
Looking for a tumor, the Doctor states, "nothing showed up on the tests" thats a lack of evidence, proves the person doesnt have cancer.

Nothing showing up on the screening xrays at the airport, proves the person isnt laden with bombs

etc, etc, etc...

 

[Dr Grump]

you call me lazy for not looking up my "original message", which is indicating you were tooo vague in your accusation.

No, it is indicating your were too lazy to look it up. If you following the posts, and the links in each, it would have taken you back to the original post.

You are using examples of needing an intelligent creator to prove that something else doesnt need one?.

No, I am using examples of where people thought Gods (well, the roof example ain't one) were responsible for complicated things that in the end turned out not being that complicated and were easily explained over time.

As for the amount of complexity of the single cell, it doesnt matter how complicated it "seems" or how complicated it is in comparision to other complexities, all that matters is, if it is complicated enough to not be able to evolve on its own..

And if you believe that, fine. I don't.

The chemicals or molecues involved would have ALL had to float together at the exact same precise time and in the exact same precise location to each and individually form them.

And why wouldn't that happen? Things like that happen all the time. Accidents of nature. How do you know these things tried floating together over millions and years and failed, and one time it worked. The right combination happened upon. You have no idea. Neither do I, but I believe that science has won out in the end in most cases.

It would be akin to throwing the parts of a house into a lake and expecting them to, given enough time, float together and make a house. Although you cant prove it cant happen, anyone with any common sense knows it cant. Anyone who would honestly and seriously think or claim it could happen is simply delusional and agenda driven..

A house is not an evolving thing, so it is a real bad example. In saying that, if you threw millions of houses in lakes over millions of years, the chances of at least one of them floating together might be reasonably high...

Anyone who would honestly and seriously think or claim it could happen is simply delusional and agenda driven..

So which are you re your opinion?

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Negative evidence??? hahhaha, you're proving my point.!!

Whats your point? Evertyime you make an observation you are taking evidence as to the situation at that particular time. A lack of evidence only occurs when you are unable to measure a particular phenomena. For example, in the 1700s humans were unaware/unable to measure radioactive phenomena. Since there was a lack of evidence to support its existence it didnt exist right? Huh?

Here's the real kicker:

There is absolutely, zero evidence to support a supreme deity's existance. Therefore one must not exist. Right?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It is if you have a situation where we know for a fact that the person wants to provide proof. For example, if the IRS wants to charge you $1000 and you dont want to pay it, and you need proof of, lets say a purchase, to eliminate the $1000 charge, then by providing no proof, it has been proven the person has no proof.

No it hasn't. The person may have proof but just not know where it is. The person might not submit proof for a host of other reasons. Besides, you've already tacked on the "knowing the person wants to provide proof" to render the absolute statement you previously made irrelevant.

 

[Dr Grump]

(pin drops)

 

[RyzinEnagy]

(pin drops)

(cough)

 

[MissileMan]

energy is composed of matter also.

If energy were composed of matter, we would call it matter.

 

[Matrixx8]

If energy were composed of matter, we would call it matter.

LOL!

 

[MissileMan]

LOL!

Yeah, I've no idea where LuvRPgrl went to school, but I'm leaning towards Kansas.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yeah, I've no idea where LuvRPgrl went to school, but I'm leaning towards Kansas.

Only if he learned that in grammar class.

 

[jillian]

If energy were composed of matter, we would call it matter.

Oh my! lol...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, it is indicating your were too lazy to look it up. If you following the posts, and the links in each, it would have taken you back to the original post.



No, I am using examples of where people thought Gods (well, the roof example ain't one) were responsible for complicated things that in the end turned out not being that complicated and were easily explained over time.]?

go back and read your examples. They were events that occured because of an intelligent being. If you want to show events that occured to prove evolution, you need events that didnt use an intelligent being.

And if you believe that, fine. I don't..]?

no, its just common sense. If you were on a trail and saw a very complicated (although it wouldnt be nearly so complicated as the single cell) stick house built with twigs and twine which was obviously tied into knots (just as the single cells DNA is in a twisting fashion) and you said, HEY LOOK, that is pretty cool how that thing evolved. Everyone would think your nuts.

And why wouldn't that happen? Things like that happen all the time. Accidents of nature. How do you know these things tried floating together over millions and years and failed, and one time it worked. The right combination happened upon. You have no idea. Neither do I, but I believe that science has won out in the end in most cases..]?

mathematically its just impossible for that many random event to all occur at the same time and same place. It would be similiar to waiting and expecting a fairly busy intersection in a city to have a moment when 50 different accidents all occured at the same time (as there is a need for over 50 different chemicals to have reacted with other chemicals all in the same place, same time). Those who want to believe in evolution are just stone headed about this and refuse to admit the obvious, and just make callous claims such as "well if thats what you want to believe", just like some still believe landing on the moon was orchastrated in Hollywood, you too believe a single cell could have evolved on its own.
Basic problem is, even some athestic scientists agree it couldnt have. One is an author of a book about the reasons why we should seek to stretch our space exploration to mars. I heard this person interviewed and they proved to be highly intelligent, rational, calm and informed.

A house is not an evolving thing, so it is a real bad example. In saying that, if you threw millions of houses in lakes over millions of years, the chances of at least one of them floating together might be reasonably high....]?

The "creation" of the single cell wasnt a matter of evolution either, it was suppose to be a chance accident. Evolution is another matter, so a non evolving item like a house certainly fills the bill.

So which are you re your opinion?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Whats your point? Evertyime you make an observation you are taking evidence as to the situation at that particular time.?

Nope. You are making an observation, not taking evidence. The room is empty, devoid of anything physical. Hence it has to be a lack of evidence that is there. If the room is empty, what can you take out? If you are observing it, and someone asked you, did you get any evidence, they would reply, no, there was no evidence, the room was empty.
By your definition, you cant have a lack of evidence, plain and simple, in which case you arguing the point is ridiculous.

A lack of evidence only occurs when you are unable to measure a particular phenomena. For example, in the 1700s humans were unaware/unable to measure radioactive phenomena. Since there was a lack of evidence to support its existence it didnt exist right? Huh??

NOPE, you got it wrong as usual. The only time a lack of evidence will prove something is if you have an absolute sure ability to measure or detect the object(s) your are looking for.

Here's the real kicker:

There is absolutely, zero evidence to support a supreme deity's existance. Therefore one must not exist. Right?

What would you consider as evidence that a supreme being exists?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No it hasn't. The person may have proof but just not know where it is. The person might not submit proof for a host of other reasons. Besides, you've already tacked on the "knowing the person wants to provide proof" to render the absolute statement you previously made irrelevant.

Then you simply have to render the example to be a house. If the person claimed the purchase of a house, there is no way you can lose that receipt or not know where it is.

And we are in a situation where the person definately wants to show the proof. So, lack of proof proves he is lying.

Giving the qualification of "knowing the person wants to provide proof" doesnt render it irrelevant, because it is a possibility, and I only need ONE EXAMPLE of it occuring to prove my posistion correct. But unfortunately for you guys, I have given many examples, as there are literally thousands upon thousands of examples.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If energy were composed of matter, we would call it matter.

You used radiation as an example.

Check out the dictionary definition :

"ra·di·o·ac·tiv·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd--k-tv-t)
n.
Spontaneous emission of radiation, either directly from unstable atomic nuclei or as a consequence of a nuclear reaction.
The radiation, including alpha particles, nucleons, electrons, and gamma rays, emitted by a radioactive substance. ""

OUCH !! Hurts to be proven wrong, eh my man?? !

 

[MissileMan]

You used radiation as an example.

Check out the dictionary definition :

"ra·di·o·ac·tiv·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd--k-tv-t)
n.
Spontaneous emission of radiation, either directly from unstable atomic nuclei or as a consequence of a nuclear reaction.
The radiation, including alpha particles, nucleons, electrons, and gamma rays, emitted by a radioactive substance. ""

OUCH !! Hurts to be proven wrong, eh my man?? !

Yes, let's check out the dictionary.

Radiation:
Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays or waves.

Now, provide your source that energy is composed of matter as you said.