Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Czernobog]

I can only speak for myself, but I have, numerous times, stated that my goal is the advancement of knowledge, and reason over faith. All you are attempting to do is advance a different kind of faith-based belief.

But reasoning that something doesn't and can't exist is not advancing knowledge. If anything, it's the opposite of that. And I've said that what myself and others who have a specific belief are doing is arguing in favor of what we believe. Atheists have no belief... so what are you arguing in favor of?

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

 

[BreezeWood]

This life is what we have, nothing more.

Translation: "Just tell yourself it's real, even though there's no evidence,"

... even though there's no evidence.


the two above simply skirt the origin of their existence by claiming "what we have" is somehow definitive for whence they came and answers when they haven't.

for which - "Just tell yourself it's real" - is the entirety of their summation not knowing by their ignorance even what they have.

 

[Boss]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

 

[BreezeWood]

the spiritual would be physical.

the metaphysical creates physiology to provide its physical presence.

 

[Czernobog]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

physiology is not natural to planet earth, it is the physical proof of the metaphysical axioms and their collective properties that create living beings where environmental conditions are conducive.

 

[Boss]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Atheism is a conclusion. If it weren't a conclusion you wouldn't be an atheist, you'd be a non-believer.

Definition of ATHEIST

"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods :"


Atheist definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. Compare agnostic."

Agnostic definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Agnostic

"An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not."

So, you're telling me that an atheist is an agnostic. Er.... why?

Not one of your definitions contradicts what I said.

Guess what? I believe there is no God. I believe this, because I have seen no objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence to the contrary. Present me with that evidence, and I will alter my position. I have yet to be presented with that evidence, so you'll forgive me if I feel fairly confident in my position: There is not God.

Yes, this is the point. If you BELIEVE there is no God, you're atheist. If you don't bother believing and KEEP AN OPEN MIND, then you're agnostic. Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists is not a ‘belief’ – it’s acknowledging the fact that there is not ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

A fact huh? Sounds like belief to me.

The problem is your very narrow understanding of the word "belief".

• There are rational beliefs - those beliefs that are reasonable, based on objective, verifiable evidence, or lack thereof, and/or historical precedence: "I believe the sun will rise in the morning,"
• Then, there are irrational beliefs - those beliefs held, by "faith", with no objective, observable evidence, nor historical precedence - "I believe in fairies, and unicorns,"

I have a rational belief that there Is no God, as there has been no objective, observable evidence to support the existence such. This belief is subject to change, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. This is not agnosticism, as I am not saying "I don't know," I am expressing my proposed position. Now, you want me to change that position, present me with evidence.

Theists have an irrational belief that God exists, in spite of absolutely no objective, verifiable evidence to support the belief. Evidence is not necessary for their irrational conclusion, as they have already decided, on faith, that they are correct.

Oh, is it now?

I don't believe the sun will rise in the morning. This isn't a belief at all. It's knowledge. Potentially it might not happen, but that would only be in circumstances where it doesn't really matter, because we'd all be dead if it didn't happen. I KNOW the sun will rise in the morning.

Also the problem is you say God doesn't exist.

Well, I can prove you wrong. So... it's believing.

Try this. "God is everything". Are you telling me that everything doesn't exist?

God as a term is so loose, people believe in a God, or gods, and what that is depends on their definition of what they think God is. If God is some bearded man who lives up in the sky, then probably God doesn't exist. We still don't know.

However if someone says "God is everything" then really, we can't disprove this. If chemical reactions are deemed to be the work of God, you can't disprove it.

Also, you're thinking only in terms of what human beings know. Take the scenario that has been used in films and the Simpson, that our world, our universe, is but one thing, and outside of this we're simply a little project of some kid in another world.

Our universe could, potentially, be just an atom in another, much larger world.

Or we could be a computer program that some kid wrote for a science experiment.

Possibilities. You don't know any of this. You choose to BELIEVE that God doesn't exist.

Believing is believing. I don't believe things. Either I know them, or I don't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seriously, you can't be opened minded and BELIEVE things.

Huh? Why not?

Because believing is the opposite of being open minded.

Believing is saying "I don't know this, but I'm going to say it's true anyway". Being open minded is saying "I don't know this, so I'm going to accept I don't know this".

 

[Czernobog]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

It's equally irrational to insist that spiritual nature exists without evidence. And your "you get personal evidence" is not sufficient evidence. I am completely open minded. I will believe anything, no matter how wild, and outrageous, given sufficient evidence. However, the more wild, and outrageous something is, the more firm, and more solid the evidence must be. Anecdotal, unverifiable evidence is the least firm, and least solid evidence possible.

 

[Spare_change]

But you made a definitive statement as if it were fact

It is my opinion. You are free to believe otherwise.

You speak from both sides of your mouth.

"You are free to believe otherwise" ... and you spend 300 posts attacking those who do not believe as you do. You don't offer proof - you only attack. You don't offer arguments - you only attack.

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet --- we "believers", in addition to believing in God, also believe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Boss]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

It's equally irrational to insist that spiritual nature exists without evidence. And your "you get personal evidence" is not sufficient evidence. I am completely open minded. I will believe anything, no matter how wild, and outrageous, given sufficient evidence. However, the more wild, and outrageous something is, the more firm, and more solid the evidence must be. Anecdotal, unverifiable evidence is the least firm, and least solid evidence possible.

Whether it's due to ignorant lack of comprehension or intentional smug cleverness, you continue to cling to an irrational and illogical argument here. You are literally demanding that I disprove Spiritual Nature in order to prove it. If I could give you clear and definitive physical evidence for Spiritual Nature, then it would cease to be Spiritual Nature and, by definition, become something physically explained or physical in nature.

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for Spiritual Nature... it's just spiritual and not physical and you have to believe in Spiritual Nature to realize it. There is also physical evidence but it will forever remain anecdotal or circumstantial because if it wasn't, then whatever is spiritual would become physical, thereby disproving Spiritual Nature.

 

[Czernobog]

I never said can't; that was your word. Clearly I acknowledge that it can; which is why my position is a premise. All you need do is present me with objective, verifiable evidence to support its existence.

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

It's equally irrational to insist that spiritual nature exists without evidence. And your "you get personal evidence" is not sufficient evidence. I am completely open minded. I will believe anything, no matter how wild, and outrageous, given sufficient evidence. However, the more wild, and outrageous something is, the more firm, and more solid the evidence must be. Anecdotal, unverifiable evidence is the least firm, and least solid evidence possible.

Whether it's due to ignorant lack of comprehension or intentional smug cleverness, you continue to cling to an irrational and illogical argument here. You are literally demanding that I disprove Spiritual Nature in order to prove it. If I could give you clear and definitive physical evidence for Spiritual Nature, then it would cease to be Spiritual Nature and, by definition, become something physically explained or physical in nature.

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for Spiritual Nature... it's just spiritual and not physical and you have to believe in Spiritual Nature to realize it. There is also physical evidence but it will forever remain anecdotal or circumstantial because if it wasn't, then whatever is spiritual would become physical, thereby disproving Spiritual Nature.

And, therein lies your problem. While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence. This is because anecdotes only ever apply to individuals or individual experiences and are subject to the biases that this brings with it. It is impossible to say that an individual anecdote is representative and it is also impossible to actually detect the real cause of the anecdote.

For instance, with life-saving medical treatments (say, pills that reduce heart-disease and subsequently lower the death rate), there are some deaths that occur whether or not the medication was taken. Therefore, if someone who is on the medication dies, you cannot tell if they would have died anyway without it — you can't prove that the medical intervention worked, or not, from the one case study.

It is very rare for an intervention to be, by itself, a sufficient cause of something. Rather, they tend to change the probability of a given event occurring. This means, obviously, that one can cherry pick examples that show something does or does not work, regardless of what effect it actually has. For instance, if the municipal government of some city enacts a law to reduce crime, one can find anecdotes "demonstrating" the exact opposite of the law's actual effect, whatever it may be. If it's effective: "Before the law I never had any problems with crime, but since its enactment I've been mugged once and had my house burglarised! This law is useless!" If it's not: "Before the law, I was robbed twice, but ever since the law, I haven't been robbed once! It must be working!"

Ultimately, anecdotal evidence is very prone to false positives.

 

[Boss]

But if you had objective, verifiable, physical evidence, the spiritual would be physical. Do you not see the paradox?

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

It's equally irrational to insist that spiritual nature exists without evidence. And your "you get personal evidence" is not sufficient evidence. I am completely open minded. I will believe anything, no matter how wild, and outrageous, given sufficient evidence. However, the more wild, and outrageous something is, the more firm, and more solid the evidence must be. Anecdotal, unverifiable evidence is the least firm, and least solid evidence possible.

Whether it's due to ignorant lack of comprehension or intentional smug cleverness, you continue to cling to an irrational and illogical argument here. You are literally demanding that I disprove Spiritual Nature in order to prove it. If I could give you clear and definitive physical evidence for Spiritual Nature, then it would cease to be Spiritual Nature and, by definition, become something physically explained or physical in nature.

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for Spiritual Nature... it's just spiritual and not physical and you have to believe in Spiritual Nature to realize it. There is also physical evidence but it will forever remain anecdotal or circumstantial because if it wasn't, then whatever is spiritual would become physical, thereby disproving Spiritual Nature.

And, therein lies your problem. While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence. This is because anecdotes only ever apply to individuals or individual experiences and are subject to the biases that this brings with it. It is impossible to say that an individual anecdote is representative and it is also impossible to actually detect the real cause of the anecdote.

For instance, with life-saving medical treatments (say, pills that reduce heart-disease and subsequently lower the death rate), there are some deaths that occur whether or not the medication was taken. Therefore, if someone who is on the medication dies, you cannot tell if they would have died anyway without it — you can't prove that the medical intervention worked, or not, from the one case study.

It is very rare for an intervention to be, by itself, a sufficient cause of something. Rather, they tend to change the probability of a given event occurring. This means, obviously, that one can cherry pick examples that show something does or does not work, regardless of what effect it actually has. For instance, if the municipal government of some city enacts a law to reduce crime, one can find anecdotes "demonstrating" the exact opposite of the law's actual effect, whatever it may be. If it's effective: "Before the law I never had any problems with crime, but since its enactment I've been mugged once and had my house burglarised! This law is useless!" If it's not: "Before the law, I was robbed twice, but ever since the law, I haven't been robbed once! It must be working!"

Ultimately, anecdotal evidence is very prone to false positives.

We're now going in circles. Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence most certainly IS evidence, it's just not as compelling. Again, if I could give you compelling and irrefutable physical evidence of anything spiritual, it would forever become non-spiritual because it would become physically proven. So you are literally demanding that spiritual nature be disproved in order to prove it... a highly illogical demand.

 

[Czernobog]

And we're back to ridiculing your claim that your belief is "rational". By your own admission you believe a thing not only for which there is no objective, verifiable evidence, but for which there can be no objective, ve3rifiable evidence.

Sorry, that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's irrational to expect physical evidence for spiritual nature.

It's equally irrational to insist that spiritual nature exists without evidence. And your "you get personal evidence" is not sufficient evidence. I am completely open minded. I will believe anything, no matter how wild, and outrageous, given sufficient evidence. However, the more wild, and outrageous something is, the more firm, and more solid the evidence must be. Anecdotal, unverifiable evidence is the least firm, and least solid evidence possible.

Whether it's due to ignorant lack of comprehension or intentional smug cleverness, you continue to cling to an irrational and illogical argument here. You are literally demanding that I disprove Spiritual Nature in order to prove it. If I could give you clear and definitive physical evidence for Spiritual Nature, then it would cease to be Spiritual Nature and, by definition, become something physically explained or physical in nature.

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for Spiritual Nature... it's just spiritual and not physical and you have to believe in Spiritual Nature to realize it. There is also physical evidence but it will forever remain anecdotal or circumstantial because if it wasn't, then whatever is spiritual would become physical, thereby disproving Spiritual Nature.

And, therein lies your problem. While anecdotes — when true, at least — are nice illustrative stories, they do not constitute evidence. This is because anecdotes only ever apply to individuals or individual experiences and are subject to the biases that this brings with it. It is impossible to say that an individual anecdote is representative and it is also impossible to actually detect the real cause of the anecdote.

For instance, with life-saving medical treatments (say, pills that reduce heart-disease and subsequently lower the death rate), there are some deaths that occur whether or not the medication was taken. Therefore, if someone who is on the medication dies, you cannot tell if they would have died anyway without it — you can't prove that the medical intervention worked, or not, from the one case study.

It is very rare for an intervention to be, by itself, a sufficient cause of something. Rather, they tend to change the probability of a given event occurring. This means, obviously, that one can cherry pick examples that show something does or does not work, regardless of what effect it actually has. For instance, if the municipal government of some city enacts a law to reduce crime, one can find anecdotes "demonstrating" the exact opposite of the law's actual effect, whatever it may be. If it's effective: "Before the law I never had any problems with crime, but since its enactment I've been mugged once and had my house burglarised! This law is useless!" If it's not: "Before the law, I was robbed twice, but ever since the law, I haven't been robbed once! It must be working!"

Ultimately, anecdotal evidence is very prone to false positives.

We're now going in circles. Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence most certainly IS evidence, it's just not as compelling. Again, if I could give you compelling and irrefutable physical evidence of anything spiritual, it would forever become non-spiritual because it would become physically proven. So you are literally demanding that spiritual nature be disproved in order to prove it... a highly illogical demand.

No, it isn't. I notice that you never responded to the fact that I did allow for this possibility of which you speak. I did explore it, and look for the spiritual reality of which you speak. I found nothing. And this wasn't "I'm an atheist, let me prove you wrong" kind of searching. This was, "Christianity is wrong, but there must be something, so let me find it" kind of searching. And I. Found. Nothing. So, just as you have your anecdotal evidence of the existence of this spiritual reality, I have anecdotal evidence of its non-existence. Why is your anecdotal evidence more valid than mine?

Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be ignored without evidence.

 

[Boss]

No, it isn't. I notice that you never responded to the fact that I did allow for this possibility of which you speak. I did explore it, and look for the spiritual reality of which you speak. I found nothing. And this wasn't "I'm an atheist, let me prove you wrong" kind of searching. This was, "Christianity is wrong, but there must be something, so let me find it" kind of searching. And I. Found. Nothing. So, just as you have your anecdotal evidence of the existence of this spiritual reality, I have anecdotal evidence of its non-existence. Why is your anecdotal evidence more valid than mine?

Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be ignored without evidence.

Well I am the same except I did find something! Why is your anecdotal evidence more valid than mine? You say you don't believe in God, well I don't believe in Atheism. If you want to "prove" Atheism to me, show me spiritual evidence Atheism is real! What? You can't do that because it's illogical and irrational? Welcome to the club!

 

[Czernobog]

No, it isn't. I notice that you never responded to the fact that I did allow for this possibility of which you speak. I did explore it, and look for the spiritual reality of which you speak. I found nothing. And this wasn't "I'm an atheist, let me prove you wrong" kind of searching. This was, "Christianity is wrong, but there must be something, so let me find it" kind of searching. And I. Found. Nothing. So, just as you have your anecdotal evidence of the existence of this spiritual reality, I have anecdotal evidence of its non-existence. Why is your anecdotal evidence more valid than mine?

Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be ignored without evidence.

Well I am the same except I did find something! Why is your anecdotal evidence more valid than mine? You say you don't believe in God, well I don't believe in Atheism. If you want to "prove" Atheism to me, show me spiritual evidence Atheism is real! What? You can't do that because it's illogical and irrational? Welcome to the club!

On the contrary. Atheism isn't something you have to "believe" in. It isn't a religion, or a "spiritual" discipline. It is a simple theology. "God does not exist". That's it. It is a position on the existence of God. Nothing more, nothing less. However, our two very different anecdotal experiences with "spiritual reality" demonstrates why anecdotal experience is "evidence" of nothing. Because it only personally relevant, and can be affected by any of a number of pre-existing personal biases.

If you want to believe in your "spiritual reality" that's entirely up to you. However it is arrogant, and condescending to demean the intelligence or reason of others for not buying into your personal, unprovable belief.

 

[Boss]

On the contrary. Atheism isn't something you have to "believe" in. It isn't a religion, or a "spiritual" discipline. It is a simple theology. "God does not exist". That's it. It is a position on the existence of God. Nothing more, nothing less. However, our two very different anecdotal experiences with "spiritual reality" demonstrates why anecdotal experience is "evidence" of nothing. Because it only personally relevant, and can be affected by any of a number of pre-existing personal biases.

If you want to believe in your "spiritual reality" that's entirely up to you. However it is arrogant, and condescending to demean the intelligence or reason of others for not buying into your personal, unprovable belief.

However it is arrogant, and condescending to demean the intelligence or reason of others for not buying into your personal, unprovable belief.

So when do you plan to stop being arrogant and condescending?

Your "theology" (God doesn't exist) is not provable until you know everything in the universe there is to know, which is never going to happen. You have no more basis in which to believe God doesn't exist than I have to believe God does exist.

 

[Czernobog]

On the contrary. Atheism isn't something you have to "believe" in. It isn't a religion, or a "spiritual" discipline. It is a simple theology. "God does not exist". That's it. It is a position on the existence of God. Nothing more, nothing less. However, our two very different anecdotal experiences with "spiritual reality" demonstrates why anecdotal experience is "evidence" of nothing. Because it only personally relevant, and can be affected by any of a number of pre-existing personal biases.

If you want to believe in your "spiritual reality" that's entirely up to you. However it is arrogant, and condescending to demean the intelligence or reason of others for not buying into your personal, unprovable belief.

However it is arrogant, and condescending to demean the intelligence or reason of others for not buying into your personal, unprovable belief.

So when do you plan to stop being arrogant and condescending?

Your "theology" (God doesn't exist) is not provable until you know everything in the universe there is to know, which is never going to happen. You have no more basis in which to believe God doesn't exist than I have to believe God does exist.

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, or what you call "spirituality".

 

[Boss]

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.

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.

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.