It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 34
31
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
god/goddess, right hand/left hand right brain/left brain... in one being?

perfect union.





posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Atheism is not an ideology, it isnt a dogma nor is it a world view. It is nothing more than a single position on a single issue.

If you believe that god/s exist your a theist. If you dont your an atheist.

Everything else that would be considered ideological is separate, which is why atheists can be libertarian, green party, republicans or democrat or whatever.

Its why atheists could be pro-life, pro-choice whatever. None of thoughs things derived from atheism. Atheism doesnt tell you anything at all about what you should do, it tells you what it is you do not believe! I do not believe the claims that god/s exist.

Im sorry some people cannot wrap their head around the burden of proof, epistemology, where and how we determine what evidence should or shouldnt be valid and useful.

By Matt Dillahunty.

I would also add for me, musician, basketball player, gamer, fantasy reader, that thing i do for work, empath, humanist and thousands more 'labels' that define me.

Coomba98
edit on 9-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
I was not trying to prove the existence of God to you. I was outlining that the case for atheism has no stronger grounding in science or reason than the opposite case. Many of the very weaknesses that atheists apply against Theism, are equally applicable to atheism. This doesn't mean that the arguments against Theism are invalid. The equation remains balanced, both sides are zero. To suggest a 'default' in such a situation implies unreasoned prejudice.


Sorry, I know you believe this but it's simply wrong. I've asked you this follow up several times and it has not been answered once:

Is it just as logical to believe that Zeus exists as to not believe?
Is it just as logical to believe in pixies than to not believe?

Based on your logic, it is just as logical to believe any possible thing exists as it is to reject it. Again, if this is how you rationalize things, how do you filter reality from fantasy?

Again, it boils down to one simple line:

It is rational and logical to reject a belief that does not have evidence to support it.

I have not heard a single response to this point, regardless of the philosophy and semantics being used to twist atheism into what you want it to be, rather than what it is.


If I could present evidence for God that would convince you, it would not alter the rationale that 'speaks' for atheism.


I can't agree with that. If the evidence was empirical, objective, and could be verified by anybody, then it would very much alter the rationality of atheism, because there would then be a reason TO BELIEVE, and rejection of this evidence would be irrational and illogical. THEN, one could analyze both sides and see that atheism is not logical since there would be tangible convincing evidence that suggests otherwise. To pretend that atheism is not directly connected to the claim of theism is where you are going wrong in your logic. Atheism is not it's own thing. It's the rejection of somebody's baseless claim.


So, I repeat, what it the reason that makes the atheist case the reasonable default? In the case of the claimed "logical default", what is the process of logical steps that makes it the default?


The fact that there is no evidence in favor of theism, which is the positive assertion or claim. You can keep pretending that burden of proof is not on theism, but you are just lying to yourself.


If the reason or logic can be equally applied, then they do not argue for one side or the other. To identify a 'reasonable' or 'logical' default, a person would have to supply a reason or logic which applies to one side ONLY.
Positive claims require positive evidence. "There is NO god" isn't even a positive claim, hence the word NO. And even still, nobody in this thread has claimed that "there is no god", they reject belief in god due to no evidence.


It is not rational to reject or accept a belief that does not have evidence to support it.

It IS reasonable to NEITHER believe nor disbelieve in the existence of Zeus, or in the existence of supernatural pixie beings, because of an absence of evidence.

However, in regard to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH, I do have subjective evidence that, to me validates my belief and this also stands to negate belief in both Zeus and Pixies. I'm not the only person to do so.

You have made the assumption that no-one has evidence for the existence of any god because you don't (or won't accept it). The truth is that the majority of humans believe and have believed in the existence of a god or gods.

The US Declaration of Indepenence states; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - No atheist can truthfully state that! Most of humanity see and understand the "self-evident" evidence spoken of in the Declaration.

From my point of view, there is voluminous, enourmous, stupendous evidence for the existence of God. All of existence speaks of its Creator. The implicate order, reasonability and interrelational complexity in everything does not speak of random action. Random doesn't 'do' order. Yes, the ample evidence can be doubted but it exists none the less.

The atheist case, that there is no evidence of the existence of God, falls apart entirely if there is the slightest evidence that disproves it. This is because even the slightest evidence falsifies the condition that 'there is no evidence'. Using Popper's words as a metaphor, "a single black swan falsifies the statement that all swans are white". In this case, a single piece of evidence falsifies the statement that 'there is no evidence'.

Even the smallest number has a greater magnitude than nothing. This holds in philosophy, science and mathematics, and shouldn't be too hard to understand. Atheism waves the 'nothing' flag. Theism upholds a thin, tattered and diaphanous 'evidence' flag but it has more substance than 'nothing' that atheism requires.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
If Our universe is flat... as it seams.

- It opens for the idea that Our universe can have been created out of nothingness...... A void of Space that is absolute empty and infinite.



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

You said:


'It is not rational to reject or accept a belief that does not have evidence to support it.'

I believe in ManBearPig, he talks to me and tells me how the universe works and tells me how to live my life in a moral way. Like slavery is ok or if i want a hot wife i just need to rape her, etc etc.

Would you believe me? Or that ManBearPig exists?

And the Zeus claim, why dont you believe in or worship him instead of the Christian god? Or Horus?

To me subjective evidence is a cope out to explain a belief.

All humans are not created equal!! This is asinine thinking. Speaking of white people only, im a better musician than most, but not all. And the number of things we do or are is massive. Is everyone of hight intelligents? Athletic? Etc etc.

What your refering to there is that 'all humans should be treated equally!!'

You also said:

The atheist case, that there is no evidence of the existence of God, falls apart entirely if there is the slightest evidence that disproves it. This is because even the slightest evidence falsifies the condition that 'there is no evidence'.

Is this the same with alien visitation and abductions? Or the ancient alien theory?

Digger, your a smart man. Why argue nonsensical things?

Coomba98
edit on 9-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger,

You said:


'It is not rational to reject or accept a belief that does not have evidence to support it.'

I believe in ManBearPig, he talks to me and tells me how the universe works and tells me how to live my life in a moral way. Like slavery is ok or if i want a hot wife i just need to rape her, etc etc.

Would you believe me? Or that ManBearPig exists?

And the Zeus claim, why dont you believe in or worship him instead of the Christian god? Or Horus?

To me subjective evidence is a cope out to explain a belief.

All humans are not created equal!! This is asinine thinking. Speaking of white people only, im a better musician than most, but not all. And the number of things we do or are is massive. Is everyone of hight intelligents? Athletic? Etc etc.

What your refering to there is that 'all humans should be treated equally!!'

You also said:

The atheist case, that there is no evidence of the existence of God, falls apart entirely if there is the slightest evidence that disproves it. This is because even the slightest evidence falsifies the condition that 'there is no evidence'.

Is this the same with alien visitation and abductions? Or the ancient alien theory?

Digger, your a smart man. Why argue nonsensical things?

Coomba98


In every case you have used the agnostic argument and called it atheism. The word and its definition exists and is more applicable.

In the absence of evidence, one simply cannot make a decision for one side or the other and then call it rational, reasonable or logical. If there is no evidence for such a decision, you shouldn't make a decision because there is nothing to base it upon. That is the true "default".

In your manbearpig (or Zeus, or pixies) example, a rationalist cannot draw a conclusion one way or another without evidence.

Subjective evidence is quite real. An example might be someone who has severe back pain. Usually, medicine cannot see an objective reason for the source of such pain but it would be irrational and unethical to refuse treatment because there is no objective evidence. It is well established that large numbers of people are affected by such symptoms and it is not psychosomatic. The limitation is our poor objective data gathering capability. Subjective evidence is not a cop out, it is real evidence.

Are you are so stuck in your 'belief in disbelief' that you are in denial about the wording of the Declaration of Independence? I doubt it. It says what it says.

And finally, in regard to alien visitation, alien abduction and ancient aliens hypotheses, if there is evidence, it gives more justification to make a rational decision than the nothing of 'an absence of evidence'. Many people are on ATS for just those reasons because they cannot rule out the possibilities of such things. It is rational to look for evidence where it is either absent or doubted.

I am arguing sensible things.

edit on 9/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

Why do you think im using agnostic definition of atheist?

Given demonstrable evidence would make everyone a believer. Something that can be varified independently and by science.

Atheists just dont see the evidence that is collaborated by science.

You shouldnt believe something that has no varafiable proof.

Im sure you dont believe ManBearPig is real.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

Why do you think im using agnostic definition of atheist?


The reasoning goes like this:
No evidence of God's existence = there is nothing to know.
Knowing = gnosis.
Not knowing = agnosis.


Given demonstrable evidence would make everyone a believer. Something that can be verified independently and by science.


I'm pretty sure that no one would suddenly change their stance if science were to come up with some new evidence. They would do the usual and deny the evidence totally or suggest that there was a deeper, as yet unfound explanation. I have already spoken of the apparent absence of a line of reasoning or logical process from atheist argument.

I mean, if the whole of existence, the universe and everything doesn't trigger at least some sort of speculation, then I can't see how any other evidence would have the slightest impact.


Atheists just dont see the evidence that is collaborated by science.


The atheist argument is that there is nothing to see, despite the order and complexity of the universe demonstrated by science, despite the finite nature of the universe in every concievable way science might measure it (for instance, it couldn't be something that 'always was', it had a beginning - just like it will have an end). The confusion atheism seems to have is an inability to separate concepts of 'evidence' and 'conclusions drawn from that evidence'. The evidence exists but atheists choose to disregard or not consider the conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence.

Atheists ignore evidence in the same way that they 'believe in' their unbelief, unthinkingly and uncritically.

Statements such as "I don't know", "there is no evidence" and "it just is" do not demonstrate consideration of the facts (by process of reasoning, a weighing of the possibilities raised by conclusions that may be drawn).


You shouldnt believe something that has no verifiable proof.


I agree, but nor should you disbelieve, that is equally invalid. The wisest position, if there is no evidence, is to not come to a conclusion because no conclusion can be reached. This is the agnostic argument.


Im sure you dont believe ManBearPig is real.

Coomba98


The concept is real, you wrote about it (but I'm just nitpicking).

No, I don't have a belief that manbearpig is a living entity, this is partly because:

1.) I am cognisant that manbearpig was a fiction from the outset, invented to prove a point by argument of absurdity.
2.) I have no objective evidence of the existence of manbearpig (beyond our little bit of fiction).
3.) Manbearpig as a combination of genetic attributes, conflicts with what I know about interbreeding and bio-incompatibility.
4.) The existence of manbearpig conflicts with my existing beliefs, both personal and scientific.

The situation is more complex than an 'objective evidence only = reality' argument.

Point 2 alone is insufficient to prove the nonexistence of manbearpig. An absence of evidence in regard to the existence of a god is similarly insufficient to prove non-existence.

It is true that to hold a belief, that has no evidence at all, is irrational. Atheism must have no evidence, so it fits the definition of 'irrational'. The evidence for thesim on the other hand is numinous (although like all things provable, the conclusions drawn from the evidence can be challenged).

edit on 10/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

Its an argument from ignorance claim to say things like 'look how complex the universe is, therefore god/s'

I or science dont understand the full workings of the universe, therefore god/s.

How many things in the past wss attributed to god/s when now perched up in the 21st century science has explained said natural phenomena. Like the tides as one of thousands of examples.

I dont know therefore god/s is also being intellectually dishonest to yourself.

Why doesnt the god/s walk amungst us and talk and physically interact with man like in the stories of old? This would eradicate the atheists stance 100%.

It would be demonstrable evidence everyone would accept completely.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Sadly it is an ancient human knee jerk to say "therefore Deity" to things which they can not explain. Though this has morphed into "therefore quantum mechanics" these days, which is usually equally said from a point of ignorance


Even people who claim to be "logical" and "well educated" will fall into that. I know people do not understand my spiritual path given my day job. I will always admit, it is not a place of logic, but of gnosis for my faith.

What causes problems is when people delve into science to prove their faith, or use science to explain bits in their holy texts.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: coomba98

Sadly it is an ancient human knee jerk to say "therefore Deity" to things which they can not explain. Though this has morphed into "therefore quantum mechanics" these days, which is usually equally said from a point of ignorance


Even people who claim to be "logical" and "well educated" will fall into that. I know people do not understand my spiritual path given my day job. I will always admit, it is not a place of logic, but of gnosis for my faith.

What causes problems is when people delve into science to prove their faith, or use science to explain bits in their holy texts.


Noinden,

I dont mind people using science to explain god/s. In fact its the only way to actually prove the existence of god/s or anything. There is no other way.

The only problem is there is no scientific evidence to confirm the existence of god/s.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

I could not agree more, yet it does not stop them using the wrong sort of "evidence". By this I mean the "we can not explain it, therefore its Gods/God/Holy Pasta/Aliens/Quantum flux.... wait not the last one, reverse the neutron flow.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



That would involve some maturity on the part of the people involved
About 3:40 for the punch line ....
edit on 10-10-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Isn't Allah supposed to be another name for Yahweh?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

OOo that will start a fight with some folk here. But yes, it is the same deity ()the God of Abraham)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
double post .... again
edit on 10-10-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
Hay digger.

Its an argument from ignorance claim to say things like 'look how complex the universe is, therefore god/s'

I or science dont understand the full workings of the universe, therefore god/s.


It is not an argument from ignorance to find objective data showing complexity counter to entropy (chaos) and hypothesize as to how it may have come into being. A god hypothesis may provide a possible answer, until disproven and eliminated by test, it remains possibile. You can't discard scientific method and claim 'science'. The formation of hypotheses and theories does not represent ignorance, as they may be correct. Hypotheses and theories are part of the process toward knowledge.

To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.



How many things in the past were attributed to god/s when now perched up in the 21st century science has explained said natural phenomena. Like the tides as one of thousands of examples.

I dont know therefore god/s is also being intellectually dishonest to yourself.

Why doesnt the god/s walk amungst us and talk and physically interact with man like in the stories of old? This would eradicate the atheists stance 100%.

It would be demonstrable evidence everyone would accept completely.

Coomba98


You seem to have the wrong ideas of religious history. Those "stories of old" seem to usually be about people doing their own thing regardless of the dictates of gods.

And God communicates today. A mute god would hardly be "god like"and many people attest that deep prayer is two-way, just like those prophets & priests in those stories of old.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay digger.

you said.
To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.


How long have people tried to prove god/s? Thousands of years no? What scientific evidence has been found? Zero.

Gotta bite the bullet at sometime and come to the conclusion that the god hypothesis is wrong.

you said.
You seem to have the wrong ideas of religious history. Those "stories of old" seem to usually be about people doing their own thing regardless of the dictates of gods.


Go read the stories. The god/s walked amongst humans at one point in the past. Even the christian god! Check out genesis and adam and eve.

Hell most god/s mated and procreated with us.

Coomba98
p.s. sorry about the lack of quotes im on my phone and its to much of a hassel if im quoting sections of a post.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.


Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.

I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.




top topics



 
31
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join