Atheist

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm crushed.

You are the man that thinks the religion humanitarianism is being shoved down people's throats.

-I'm- crushed. You don't seem to have comprehended my explanation of why I compared humanitarianism to a religion. Reacting to shit other than what people have actually said seems to be a pattern with you.

If your insecurity is sated by pretending that I meant it literally even after I explained otherwise, though, then do carry on. I'll even let you pretend that your assumption, if correct, would negate the rest of my argument. Gotta do what makes you feel good

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

What’s nonsense is the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit toward those free from faith, and others who aren’t Christian, such as Muslims.

For those free from faith the issue has nothing to do with a ‘god,’ as it clearly doesn’t exist; it has to do with the arrogance common to a significant number of Christians.

This thread is proof of that ignorance, hate, and arrogance.

What exactly did I say that was hateful?

Calling atheist cowards because they choose to go after Christians and not Muslims? That wasn't hateful, that was a statement of fact.

Christians are some of the most tolerant people on earth.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For some reason you refuse to declare yourself a Christian.
What are you afraid or embarrassed of?
Jesus told me nothing about this.
You said it all.

Not afraid nor embarrassed about anything.

But you stated that "Jesus said that was an act of denial.". When and where did he tell you this?

I've haven't said it all because I don't know it all nor do you or anyone else.

I don't need to make any declarations pertaining to my faith. The ones that count know where my beliefs lie.

Jesus disagrees in scripture.
He that denies me i will deny in heaven.
They shor are gonna miss you.

So if I don't make a declaration about something that means I'm denying it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not afraid nor embarrassed about anything.

But you stated that "Jesus said that was an act of denial.". When and where did he tell you this?

I've haven't said it all because I don't know it all nor do you or anyone else.

I don't need to make any declarations pertaining to my faith. The ones that count know where my beliefs lie.

Jesus disagrees in scripture.
He that denies me i will deny in heaven.
They shor are gonna miss you.

So if I don't make a declaration about something that means I'm denying it.

Not declaring it when asked directly sure is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Jesus disagrees in scripture.
He that denies me i will deny in heaven.
They shor are gonna miss you.

So if I don't make a declaration about something that means I'm denying it.

Not declaring it when asked directly sure is.

Which post was I asked directly?

I don't believe I ever was asked but if I was what makes you think I owe you an answer.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So if I don't make a declaration about something that means I'm denying it.

Not declaring it when asked directly sure is.

Which post was I asked directly?

I don't believe I ever was asked but if I was what makes you think I owe you an answer.

According to scripture you would owe it to Christ to answer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not declaring it when asked directly sure is.

Which post was I asked directly?

I don't believe I ever was asked but if I was what makes you think I owe you an answer.

According to scripture you would owe it to Christ to answer.

When He asks me, I will answer.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Which post was I asked directly?

I don't believe I ever was asked but if I was what makes you think I owe you an answer.

According to scripture you would owe it to Christ to answer.

When He asks me, I will answer.

But that isn't what Jesus says, is it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

According to scripture you would owe it to Christ to answer.

When He asks me, I will answer.

But that isn't what Jesus says, is it?

Jesus has said a lot of things. Exactly what is it that you're suggesting He said?

 

[Disir]

I'm crushed.

You are the man that thinks the religion humanitarianism is being shoved down people's throats.

-I'm- crushed. You don't seem to have comprehended my explanation of why I compared humanitarianism to a religion. Reacting to shit other than what people have actually said seems to be a pattern with you.

If your insecurity is sated by pretending that I meant it literally even after I explained otherwise, though, then do carry on. I'll even let you pretend that your assumption, if correct, would negate the rest of my argument. Gotta do what makes you feel good

Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738

Most atheists are agnostic when you get down to it. They prefer the atheist word since it has an anti-Christian implication to it, culturally speaking and opposing Christianity is the main goal. They try to play semantics when justifying the use of the term but either you don't believe God exists, you do or you don't know. I can understand those that say they aren't convinced, falling into the 'I don't know' camp but to claim God doesn't exist means that you have access to all known and unknown aspects of the universe, which is nutty.

Posts where Iceweasel uses the colloquial faith instead of reasoning, or deductive reasoning to be more specific, which in turn undermines science as a whole. This is important.

He's right. You believe nothing exploded and everything happened. And on its' own. That's more faith than I can ever muster up. Regardless, it takes faith to believe in theism or an unknown secular cause so you do have faith but for some reason atheists can't accept that. What's wrong with saying you have faith that it's all natural?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-7.html#post8881090

Also in the above, please note the argument from first cause phrase. It is an argument widely used by theists. The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with a first cause. It's why I left the wiki link. Because yes when attempting to put the Big Bang into a first cause argument........you do sound insane.

It is also found here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-8.html#post8881229

Which you haven't done. What book do I use anyway? The bottom line is that if you say there is no God you have to demonstrate a secular cause. If you can't then you are making a statement of faith.

Your posts that indicate the same regarding the colloquial faith instead of deductive reasoning AND this will explain why you are so damned baffled. We are, in fact, carrying on two different conversations. Note that I repeatedly state from the get go that there is no evidence.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883964

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883980

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8884015

Which brings us to this post by Iceweasel:

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

1. Others believe the proof is everywhere. Doesn't bother me a bit, again. Don't care.
2. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. We are now entering the irreducible complexity zone: Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design demands a designer. It is also a pseudo science
3. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.I have already pointed out the term proof and have consistently stated evidence. But, now we have special considerations meaning that it cannot be determined from a scientific method.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

4. There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Removal from science all together.
5.Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. Repeatedly addressed this.
6. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith. The Bible is the source for the theists. It is historically inaccurate. Not all ID people are Christian but the vast majority of them are. So, yes, that history (or the lack there of) comes into play.

 

[Newby]

Religious people in government can't pray and worship? I'm not sure what part of "congress shall make no law" refers to ground level Federal, State, Municipal etc employees practicing their religion.

The entire concept of the separation of Church and State was that the State never adopt an official religion and force it on the people. Some dude praying at work doesn't force shit on anyone. There's nothing in the Constitution that ever gave me the idea that the Founders were really just trying to make sure nonbelievers weren't -offended-. I believe oppression is what they were avoiding, and some dude praying at work doesn't equal oppression.

You're really not very tolerant.

On top of that, I'm gathering by your reference to humanitarianism that you have no problem with that religion being forced down our throats. As long as there's no God at its head, right? Then it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings, and that is of paramount importance! Moral oppression is okay as long as the moral particulars aren't offensive.

Sorry. I should've been more specific: government officials shouldn't pray in an official act. They can pray all the want unofficially.

Humanitarian-ism is a religion I've never heard of. If you mean humanism, that is just a philosophy that religious people can adopt along with their religious philosophy, if they so wished. Humanitarian morality is a term I was using that would base itself on human rights. I wouldn't think anyone is against human rights, right?

I gather that neither of things qualify under the basic definition of a religion. WHat I meant to imply is that your humanitarian morality is just as objective as any religion, so forcing Christianity down my throat or forcing humanitarianism down my throat are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another. After all, if I'm forced to live by a set of standards other than my own, it doesn't matter if the one forcing me calls himself God or government, the result is the same: I'm being forced to live by morals that can't be proven correct. If they can't be proven correct, why force others to abide by them?

As for your question, I suppose it depends on what you view as a human right. I'm opposed to a great many "rights" that I've heard proposed as human rights.

The "right" to housing.

The "right" to medical care.

The "right" to food.

Essentially, I oppose any "right" to have any physical object. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, these rights I agree with because they're something that everyone would have in a vacuum. Nobody else's consent is required for me to continue to be alive. Nobody else's help is required for me to act according to my own conscience.

If I am unable to provide myself a house, how could it be said that I have a right to it? If someone else would theoretically have to provide it for me, then the "right" to housing is essentially the "right" to subjugate my fellow man to give me a house. The right to force someone who is capable to provide for me.

If your human rights interfere with any individual's right to self determination, then yes, I absolutely oppose "human rights". Since most self-described humanitarians do tend to believe that people have a "right" to some physical thing or another (usually all three of those that I listed), I generally find myself opposed to humanitarians' morals.

I've said the same thing many times, forcing morals is forcing morals, the origination of the morals is irrelevant. They of course like the distinction so that they can stop you from imposing your morals yet you would hold no ground opposing theirs. It's an intellectually dishonest position on their part.

Your posts cry out for repeating, excellent job!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Sorry. I should've been more specific: government officials shouldn't pray in an official act. They can pray all the want unofficially.

Humanitarian-ism is a religion I've never heard of. If you mean humanism, that is just a philosophy that religious people can adopt along with their religious philosophy, if they so wished. Humanitarian morality is a term I was using that would base itself on human rights. I wouldn't think anyone is against human rights, right?

I gather that neither of things qualify under the basic definition of a religion. WHat I meant to imply is that your humanitarian morality is just as objective as any religion, so forcing Christianity down my throat or forcing humanitarianism down my throat are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another. After all, if I'm forced to live by a set of standards other than my own, it doesn't matter if the one forcing me calls himself God or government, the result is the same: I'm being forced to live by morals that can't be proven correct. If they can't be proven correct, why force others to abide by them?

As for your question, I suppose it depends on what you view as a human right. I'm opposed to a great many "rights" that I've heard proposed as human rights.

The "right" to housing.

The "right" to medical care.

The "right" to food.

Essentially, I oppose any "right" to have any physical object. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, these rights I agree with because they're something that everyone would have in a vacuum. Nobody else's consent is required for me to continue to be alive. Nobody else's help is required for me to act according to my own conscience.

If I am unable to provide myself a house, how could it be said that I have a right to it? If someone else would theoretically have to provide it for me, then the "right" to housing is essentially the "right" to subjugate my fellow man to give me a house. The right to force someone who is capable to provide for me.

If your human rights interfere with any individual's right to self determination, then yes, I absolutely oppose "human rights". Since most self-described humanitarians do tend to believe that people have a "right" to some physical thing or another (usually all three of those that I listed), I generally find myself opposed to humanitarians' morals.

I've said the same thing many times, forcing morals is forcing morals, the origination of the morals is irrelevant. They of course like the distinction so that they can stop you from imposing your morals yet you would hold no ground opposing theirs. It's an intellectually dishonest position on their part.

Your posts cry out for repeating, excellent job!

Human Rights. Your rights end where mine begin. Where have you a problem with that, Newby? Whose forcing their morality on you? I said nothing about the right to housing, health care, or any of the other things he brought up.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I gather that neither of things qualify under the basic definition of a religion. WHat I meant to imply is that your humanitarian morality is just as objective as any religion, so forcing Christianity down my throat or forcing humanitarianism down my throat are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another. After all, if I'm forced to live by a set of standards other than my own, it doesn't matter if the one forcing me calls himself God or government, the result is the same: I'm being forced to live by morals that can't be proven correct. If they can't be proven correct, why force others to abide by them?

As for your question, I suppose it depends on what you view as a human right. I'm opposed to a great many "rights" that I've heard proposed as human rights.

The "right" to housing.

The "right" to medical care.

The "right" to food.

Essentially, I oppose any "right" to have any physical object. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, these rights I agree with because they're something that everyone would have in a vacuum. Nobody else's consent is required for me to continue to be alive. Nobody else's help is required for me to act according to my own conscience.

If I am unable to provide myself a house, how could it be said that I have a right to it? If someone else would theoretically have to provide it for me, then the "right" to housing is essentially the "right" to subjugate my fellow man to give me a house. The right to force someone who is capable to provide for me.

If your human rights interfere with any individual's right to self determination, then yes, I absolutely oppose "human rights". Since most self-described humanitarians do tend to believe that people have a "right" to some physical thing or another (usually all three of those that I listed), I generally find myself opposed to humanitarians' morals.

I've said the same thing many times, forcing morals is forcing morals, the origination of the morals is irrelevant. They of course like the distinction so that they can stop you from imposing your morals yet you would hold no ground opposing theirs. It's an intellectually dishonest position on their part.

Your posts cry out for repeating, excellent job!

Human Rights. Your rights end where mine begin. Where have you a problem with that, Newby? Whose forcing their morality on you? I said nothing about the right to housing, health care, or any of the other things he brought up.

To your credit, Mountain Man, you didn't list any of those three things that I listed as typical humanitarian rights, and if I gave the impression that I was attributing those to your personal philosophy, please know that it wasn't intended.

Just describing what I generally find to be the position of self-described humanitarians with whom I've had this discussion.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm crushed.

You are the man that thinks the religion humanitarianism is being shoved down people's throats.

-I'm- crushed. You don't seem to have comprehended my explanation of why I compared humanitarianism to a religion. Reacting to shit other than what people have actually said seems to be a pattern with you.

If your insecurity is sated by pretending that I meant it literally even after I explained otherwise, though, then do carry on. I'll even let you pretend that your assumption, if correct, would negate the rest of my argument. Gotta do what makes you feel good

Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738



Posts where Iceweasel uses the colloquial faith instead of reasoning, or deductive reasoning to be more specific, which in turn undermines science as a whole. This is important.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-7.html#post8881090

Also in the above, please note the argument from first cause phrase. It is an argument widely used by theists. The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with a first cause. It's why I left the wiki link. Because yes when attempting to put the Big Bang into a first cause argument........you do sound insane.

It is also found here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-8.html#post8881229


Your posts that indicate the same regarding the colloquial faith instead of deductive reasoning AND this will explain why you are so damned baffled. We are, in fact, carrying on two different conversations. Note that I repeatedly state from the get go that there is no evidence.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883964

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883980

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8884015

Which brings us to this post by Iceweasel:

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

1. Others believe the proof is everywhere. Doesn't bother me a bit, again. Don't care.
2. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. We are now entering the irreducible complexity zone: Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design demands a designer. It is also a pseudo science
3. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.I have already pointed out the term proof and have consistently stated evidence. But, now we have special considerations meaning that it cannot be determined from a scientific method.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

4. There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Removal from science all together.
5.Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. Repeatedly addressed this.
6. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith. The Bible is the source for the theists. It is historically inaccurate. Not all ID people are Christian but the vast majority of them are. So, yes, that history (or the lack there of) comes into play.

First and foremost, I'll concede point 4 to you. Honestly missed what you meant by that when I responded. Good point.

I do agree with Iceweasel to the degree that our current level of technology and knowledge of the universe doesn't even give us terms by which to conceive of such a test. That said, I accept that it's possible that, at some point, human knowledge and technology will advance to the point that proving or disproving God via experimentation may be possible (at least to the degree that you can prove or disprove anything. Socratic standards will never quite be satisfied).

Now, as far as not understanding Atheists, come on. . . look at this board. I've had arguments with a lot of "atheists" who, after about 4 posts, have to correct me that they don't believe there is no God, they just aren't convinced that there -is- a God. That's agnosticism, not atheism, yet many of these agnostics identify themselves as atheists. Sorry, but what Iceweasel said there is pretty accurate, though whether or not it's -most- atheists isn't something I'll claim to be able to confirm or deny. It's a fuckin -lot- of 'em, though, I will say that.

Past that, if you think that admitting that there is no proof for or against the existence of a God ignores deductive reasoning, I'd have to say the one lacking the deductive reasoning is you. "There is no God" has never been proven. To accept that as fact is faith, not the other way around.

Now, then.

1 and 2: You and I agree there, mostly, though calling irreducible complexity a pseudo-science is a little generous, by my standards. There's actually been lab tests where pure impact has caused amino acids to form more complex proteins, these tests done in response to the theory that comet and asteroid impacts in the Earth's early stages were responsible for life on our rock. The fact that pure impact could cause increases in complexity is evidence (not proof, mind you) that life might -could- spring forth from matter without help from a conscious entity. If the only evidence out there one way or another on irreducible complexity is evidence to the contrary, staying on board that theory isn't scientific in the least. It's just giving into untested preconceptions.

3: This statement, on its own, I agree with. Though there might be evidence that suggests that any of the popular explanations of God are false, this evidence is by no means conclusive, and for literally EVERYONE who wasn't a part of gathering and testing this evidence, it is a matter of faith to say that this evidence even exists.

To say this doesn't remove anything from the scientific method. It simply says that if your experiment didn't yield conclusive proof (which none have, yet), then saying that you have proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That isn't just true, it's undisputable. You simply don't consider evidence conclusive proof just because the theory you're pointing that evidence at hasn't been disproven. If your evidence leaves room for multiple explanations, you haven't proven anything.

5. Yes, you have repeatedly addressed this, but not in a manner adequate to prove your point, and I have repeatedly addressed -that-

6. The bible might come into play depending on whose theory you're arguing against, but to say that disproving the bible does -anything- to disprove the existence of a deity is simply dishonest. Knocking out one of infinite potential explanations still leaves infinite potential explanations.

On top of that, even if you can find inconsistencies and untruths in the bible, you still haven't disproven the book as a whole. After all, as those arguing against the bible like to remind everyone, that book has been translated and retranslated umpteen times. The likelihood that a lot was lost, confused, or intentionally changed is almost certain, allowing for the possibility that translations led to a lot of mistakes throughout modern bibles, but that the gist is still correct.

I don't believe this, mind you, but I must admit that the possibility's never been disproven.

Thanks for breaking your argument down thusly. This sort of debate is much more enjoyable to me than trying to discredit each other.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

What’s nonsense is the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit toward those free from faith, and others who aren’t Christian, such as Muslims.

For those free from faith the issue has nothing to do with a ‘god,’ as it clearly doesn’t exist; it has to do with the arrogance common to a significant number of Christians.

This thread is proof of that ignorance, hate, and arrogance.

If it doesn't exist, why do you care?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

not really....

I think they just need to speak up to shut the theists up

"....up to shut the theists up."

Typical wish of a Liberal.

 

[amrchaos]

You sure have that wrong.

Christians put alot of time and money into evangelizing. When they are not doing that, they are trying to force you to convert. When they are not doing that, they are killing folks that don't.

And when they are not doing that? They are claiming to be the victim.

Forcing? Forcing someone to do something would be like telling you that you need to convert or be fined, you know, like they do health care.

Conversely, evangelizing is simply telling people that you have found a better way to live. No one is forcing you to do anything.

"The profession of shaman ( preacher priest etc) has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man."

Then what are you suggesting? That the shaman get his provisions from his god? Are you kidding? Their god is not going to do a damn thing for them!! What you suggest is a test of their god!! That is blasphemy!! You can't test God!!

I don't know why you can't test (or test for) god, but you just can't!! Accept that and move on!!

 

[Disir]

-I'm- crushed. You don't seem to have comprehended my explanation of why I compared humanitarianism to a religion. Reacting to shit other than what people have actually said seems to be a pattern with you.

If your insecurity is sated by pretending that I meant it literally even after I explained otherwise, though, then do carry on. I'll even let you pretend that your assumption, if correct, would negate the rest of my argument. Gotta do what makes you feel good

Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738



Posts where Iceweasel uses the colloquial faith instead of reasoning, or deductive reasoning to be more specific, which in turn undermines science as a whole. This is important.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-7.html#post8881090

Also in the above, please note the argument from first cause phrase. It is an argument widely used by theists. The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with a first cause. It's why I left the wiki link. Because yes when attempting to put the Big Bang into a first cause argument........you do sound insane.

It is also found here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-8.html#post8881229


Your posts that indicate the same regarding the colloquial faith instead of deductive reasoning AND this will explain why you are so damned baffled. We are, in fact, carrying on two different conversations. Note that I repeatedly state from the get go that there is no evidence.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883964

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883980

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8884015

Which brings us to this post by Iceweasel:


1. Others believe the proof is everywhere. Doesn't bother me a bit, again. Don't care.
2. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. We are now entering the irreducible complexity zone: Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design demands a designer. It is also a pseudo science
3. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.I have already pointed out the term proof and have consistently stated evidence. But, now we have special considerations meaning that it cannot be determined from a scientific method.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

4. There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Removal from science all together.
5.Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. Repeatedly addressed this.
6. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith. The Bible is the source for the theists. It is historically inaccurate. Not all ID people are Christian but the vast majority of them are. So, yes, that history (or the lack there of) comes into play.

First and foremost, I'll concede point 4 to you. Honestly missed what you meant by that when I responded. Good point.

I do agree with Iceweasel to the degree that our current level of technology and knowledge of the universe doesn't even give us terms by which to conceive of such a test. That said, I accept that it's possible that, at some point, human knowledge and technology will advance to the point that proving or disproving God via experimentation may be possible (at least to the degree that you can prove or disprove anything. Socratic standards will never quite be satisfied).

Now, as far as not understanding Atheists, come on. . . look at this board. I've had arguments with a lot of "atheists" who, after about 4 posts, have to correct me that they don't believe there is no God, they just aren't convinced that there -is- a God. That's agnosticism, not atheism, yet many of these agnostics identify themselves as atheists. Sorry, but what Iceweasel said there is pretty accurate, though whether or not it's -most- atheists isn't something I'll claim to be able to confirm or deny. It's a fuckin -lot- of 'em, though, I will say that.

Past that, if you think that admitting that there is no proof for or against the existence of a God ignores deductive reasoning, I'd have to say the one lacking the deductive reasoning is you. "There is no God" has never been proven. To accept that as fact is faith, not the other way around.

Now, then.

1 and 2: You and I agree there, mostly, though calling irreducible complexity a pseudo-science is a little generous, by my standards. There's actually been lab tests where pure impact has caused amino acids to form more complex proteins, these tests done in response to the theory that comet and asteroid impacts in the Earth's early stages were responsible for life on our rock. The fact that pure impact could cause increases in complexity is evidence (not proof, mind you) that life might -could- spring forth from matter without help from a conscious entity. If the only evidence out there one way or another on irreducible complexity is evidence to the contrary, staying on board that theory isn't scientific in the least. It's just giving into untested preconceptions.

3: This statement, on its own, I agree with. Though there might be evidence that suggests that any of the popular explanations of God are false, this evidence is by no means conclusive, and for literally EVERYONE who wasn't a part of gathering and testing this evidence, it is a matter of faith to say that this evidence even exists.

To say this doesn't remove anything from the scientific method. It simply says that if your experiment didn't yield conclusive proof (which none have, yet), then saying that you have proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That isn't just true, it's undisputable. You simply don't consider evidence conclusive proof just because the theory you're pointing that evidence at hasn't been disproven. If your evidence leaves room for multiple explanations, you haven't proven anything.

5. Yes, you have repeatedly addressed this, but not in a manner adequate to prove your point, and I have repeatedly addressed -that-

6. The bible might come into play depending on whose theory you're arguing against, but to say that disproving the bible does -anything- to disprove the existence of a deity is simply dishonest. Knocking out one of infinite potential explanations still leaves infinite potential explanations.

On top of that, even if you can find inconsistencies and untruths in the bible, you still haven't disproven the book as a whole. After all, as those arguing against the bible like to remind everyone, that book has been translated and retranslated umpteen times. The likelihood that a lot was lost, confused, or intentionally changed is almost certain, allowing for the possibility that translations led to a lot of mistakes throughout modern bibles, but that the gist is still correct.

I don't believe this, mind you, but I must admit that the possibility's never been disproven.

Thanks for breaking your argument down thusly. This sort of debate is much more enjoyable to me than trying to discredit each other.

I'm not ignoring you. I just don't have the time to address this post at the moment. I will come back to it.

 

[Disir]

-I'm- crushed. You don't seem to have comprehended my explanation of why I compared humanitarianism to a religion. Reacting to shit other than what people have actually said seems to be a pattern with you.

If your insecurity is sated by pretending that I meant it literally even after I explained otherwise, though, then do carry on. I'll even let you pretend that your assumption, if correct, would negate the rest of my argument. Gotta do what makes you feel good

Iceweasels posts that show that he doesn't quite grasp atheism. Please note the use of they and those.:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist.html#post8876738



Posts where Iceweasel uses the colloquial faith instead of reasoning, or deductive reasoning to be more specific, which in turn undermines science as a whole. This is important.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-7.html#post8881090

Also in the above, please note the argument from first cause phrase. It is an argument widely used by theists. The Big Bang theory doesn't deal with a first cause. It's why I left the wiki link. Because yes when attempting to put the Big Bang into a first cause argument........you do sound insane.

It is also found here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-8.html#post8881229


Your posts that indicate the same regarding the colloquial faith instead of deductive reasoning AND this will explain why you are so damned baffled. We are, in fact, carrying on two different conversations. Note that I repeatedly state from the get go that there is no evidence.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883964

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8883980

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348143-atheist-11.html#post8884015

Which brings us to this post by Iceweasel:


1. Others believe the proof is everywhere. Doesn't bother me a bit, again. Don't care.
2. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. We are now entering the irreducible complexity zone: Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design demands a designer. It is also a pseudo science
3. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.I have already pointed out the term proof and have consistently stated evidence. But, now we have special considerations meaning that it cannot be determined from a scientific method.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

4. There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Removal from science all together.
5.Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. Repeatedly addressed this.
6. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith. The Bible is the source for the theists. It is historically inaccurate. Not all ID people are Christian but the vast majority of them are. So, yes, that history (or the lack there of) comes into play.

First and foremost, I'll concede point 4 to you. Honestly missed what you meant by that when I responded. Good point.

I do agree with Iceweasel to the degree that our current level of technology and knowledge of the universe doesn't even give us terms by which to conceive of such a test. That said, I accept that it's possible that, at some point, human knowledge and technology will advance to the point that proving or disproving God via experimentation may be possible (at least to the degree that you can prove or disprove anything. Socratic standards will never quite be satisfied).

Now, as far as not understanding Atheists, come on. . . look at this board. I've had arguments with a lot of "atheists" who, after about 4 posts, have to correct me that they don't believe there is no God, they just aren't convinced that there -is- a God. That's agnosticism, not atheism, yet many of these agnostics identify themselves as atheists. Sorry, but what Iceweasel said there is pretty accurate, though whether or not it's -most- atheists isn't something I'll claim to be able to confirm or deny. It's a fuckin -lot- of 'em, though, I will say that.

Past that, if you think that admitting that there is no proof for or against the existence of a God ignores deductive reasoning, I'd have to say the one lacking the deductive reasoning is you. "There is no God" has never been proven. To accept that as fact is faith, not the other way around.

Now, then.

1 and 2: You and I agree there, mostly, though calling irreducible complexity a pseudo-science is a little generous, by my standards. There's actually been lab tests where pure impact has caused amino acids to form more complex proteins, these tests done in response to the theory that comet and asteroid impacts in the Earth's early stages were responsible for life on our rock. The fact that pure impact could cause increases in complexity is evidence (not proof, mind you) that life might -could- spring forth from matter without help from a conscious entity. If the only evidence out there one way or another on irreducible complexity is evidence to the contrary, staying on board that theory isn't scientific in the least. It's just giving into untested preconceptions.

3: This statement, on its own, I agree with. Though there might be evidence that suggests that any of the popular explanations of God are false, this evidence is by no means conclusive, and for literally EVERYONE who wasn't a part of gathering and testing this evidence, it is a matter of faith to say that this evidence even exists.

To say this doesn't remove anything from the scientific method. It simply says that if your experiment didn't yield conclusive proof (which none have, yet), then saying that you have proof is a preponderance of the evidence. That isn't just true, it's undisputable. You simply don't consider evidence conclusive proof just because the theory you're pointing that evidence at hasn't been disproven. If your evidence leaves room for multiple explanations, you haven't proven anything.

5. Yes, you have repeatedly addressed this, but not in a manner adequate to prove your point, and I have repeatedly addressed -that-

6. The bible might come into play depending on whose theory you're arguing against, but to say that disproving the bible does -anything- to disprove the existence of a deity is simply dishonest. Knocking out one of infinite potential explanations still leaves infinite potential explanations.

On top of that, even if you can find inconsistencies and untruths in the bible, you still haven't disproven the book as a whole. After all, as those arguing against the bible like to remind everyone, that book has been translated and retranslated umpteen times. The likelihood that a lot was lost, confused, or intentionally changed is almost certain, allowing for the possibility that translations led to a lot of mistakes throughout modern bibles, but that the gist is still correct.

I don't believe this, mind you, but I must admit that the possibility's never been disproven.

Thanks for breaking your argument down thusly. This sort of debate is much more enjoyable to me than trying to discredit each other.

It's easier to keep up with this way. I am going to have to do this piece by piece simply because of time.

First of all, I want to set something straight so that I don't have to revisit it. I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic. Now, agnostics come in many flavors but I encounter three types. The first camp is made up those people who love philosophy. They enjoy questions such as "Why are we here?" and "What purpose do we or I serve?" and "Are men born good or evil?" and "Do we have free will?" These folks could do this all day long and this is how they get their rocks off. That's perfectly fine with me. Doesn't bother me a bit. I, personally, find philosophy to be a bunch of BS and mental masturbation but for some it makes them happy. It's as if they are driven.

The second group that I encounter are those that want to play just-in-case-y. Just-in-case-y it's all true then I can ride that fence. Included in this category are those that are afraid of being nailed as those horrible atheists. It's more a self defense. Some of these people also like philosophy but it's for a few hours with a glass of wine and they have other competing interests.

The third group that I frequently encounter are those that are too lazy to read the bible but have heard that somewhere out there are some issues with it. Their words not mine. They have zero interest in it or the history surrounding it or religion or history in general. They take pieces of what they have heard or read and create their own philosophy. This group is more spiritual and have a tendency to focus on how they feel. Nothing wrong with any of those folks.

Evidence for the existence of any God is: zero. Outside of that it is mental masturbation.


Not only can I nail what is in that bible, I can do so outside of it: historically. That's my preference simply because it is, to me, more fascinating. I can do it all day long and it's how I get my rocks off. Late antiquity (although I keep trying to leave this time period). Not looking for ways to slam the bible or any specific religion. That's just a perfect side dish. Frankly, it's inescapable.

Which leaves us with exactly where we were before to an extent.

 

[Steven_R]

'm agnostic. I've read the Bible and other religious texts. I simply see no data pointing towards or against the existence of any supernatural force (e.g., God).

That said, the archaeological, biological, astronomical, geological, and historical evidence suggests, strongly, I might add, that the whole Jehovah and Jesus story is a myth on par with Zeus and Ra and Odin.

There may or may not be a God, but if there is I suspect it is along the lines of the Deist conceptualization of God. But seeing as there is no data either way, I just can't make a judgment call and really just don't worry about it,