The issue with atheism

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
before anyone can answer,


Can you explain why someone has to claim they worship nothing?

Technically this isn't even atheism. It's Nihilism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
before anyone can answer,


Can you explain why someone has to claim they worship nothing?

Technically this isn't even atheism. It's Nihilism.

Yeah but why does someone

as the OP asked what its like to "have" to claim to worship nothing.

asking that is also asking


Why does someone "have" to claim anything concerning their beliefs?

If it must be claimed by people, sorry OP I wasn't aware. I wasn't aware we "have to" make a claim about our belief or lack of.


Then the next question is where must one make these claims?

ON a street corner with a sign? The end is nigh?

On internet boards?


My issue was with one part of the sentence that makes the whole sentence ridiculous.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Well that's the thing. Atheism isn't claiming anything and that's where his reasoning is flawed. Atheism is just rejecting the claim that god exists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Because your evidence for your god isn't even close to the amount of evidence a scientific theory has backing it up.

What evidence? Your scientific theory is ever changing. Today your Theory is A, next your same theory became B. And you still want boast your not so 100% true theory? Science is based on fact, not pure assumption. So far your scientific theory become more confusing with the discover of quantum.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Evidence has been presented to you.

Your own link explicitly stated it is Unverified Theory. Since when unverified theory became scientific evidence?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can't make the horse drink from the water. It's easy to keep moving the goal posts around and pretend like evidence doesn't exist if you don't ever read it.

If I don't read it, then how do I know it explicitly admit it is just unverified theory? Not to mention a lot of conjuration involved, such as, could be, probable etc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0tFurthermore, if you find my evidence lacking then you can always look it up yourself. It's not my responsibility to make sure you are adequately satisfied on the evidence front.

Then you should not make any claim if you feel you can't back it up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's your responsibility to challenger your own thinking.

Oh I already proven consciousness link to soul to noonebutme. You may need to read previous pages.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I know you don't want to as we are having a typical Creationist v Evolution fallacy wrangle, but that's how it is.

I don't care what you think. You have not yet proven consciousness evolve as you claim earlier.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Why do you need all the pieces of a puzzle to tell what it is? If I'm assembling a puzzle and I can see gray hairs, a fuzzy tail, cat ears, cat pays, whiskers, and a cat h body with much of the surrounding pieces and some of the interior pieces missing wouldn't it reason that the puzzle contains a cat in it? According to your logic we wouldn't be able to define ANY process ever because no scientific theory has all the pieces yet.

Why? Because science is fact. Not opinion and faith like Theology. You want to deal with science, act like one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I literally have no idea what your opinion is because I highly doubt your scientific proficiency.

Still zero evidence. More dodging and ad hominem. Typical atheist.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
"Unverified theory" is an oxymoron. Scientific theories are all heavily proven. A scientific process doesn't get to the point of being labeled a theory without tons of evidence proving it. This is why I doubt your scientific proficiency. I'm going to wager a guess that you believe the phrase, "It's only just a theory" without seeing the flaw in that statement.

First you claim as evidence when it is not. Now you claim unverified theory based on a lot of guessing has tons evidence proving it. From your source of "evidence"

If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

We can take a good guess when selective signal enhancement first evolved by comparing different species

Selective enhancement therefore probably evolved

"If, good guest, probably etc" are not expression tons of evidences. Its pure conjuration.

Now stop playing with tons of "if". The article clearly stated it unproven theory.

You still can't admit your claim that consciousness evolution is based on a lot of assumption, do you?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Perhaps you should refrain from pretending you know how the scientific method works.

Still zero evidences. A lot of Ad hominem.

originally posted by: Krazysh0tThis thread is about Atheism!

So? Me and noonebutme try to prove and disprove the existence of God, through the origin of life. If God can be proven, then Atheist are wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You clearly don't know what the discussion is about. I'm just humoring your insanity.

Nope. You clearly do not understand my argument with noonebutme.

So how about you stay out just as I advised you for the third time this post?

Ypu are not contributing anything. You are derailing the topic and wasting a lot of my time already.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I've been harping on about this 'ad nauseam' and they still argue semantics.

Just like how EasternShadow is trying to imply that as scientific understanding evolves and adapts to new information, that somehow invalidates it as a viable explanation to an observable phenomenon.

Whereas, the religious explanation, one without evidence and simply based on 'faith', is somehow more plausible.

Why anyone would want to believe in something that has no means to even attempt to prove its validity, over a system, while no where near perfect, has a full paradigm that allows others to also test and repeat is baffling to say the least.

The big difference in this thread is: science doesn't care if you're offended by the facts and welcomes criticism and challenge. Religion does not.

a reply to: noonebutme

Haha, star from me for still bothering to slug it out in this thread!
I got bored repeating myself, and then some of the religious types started getting grumpy so I couldn't be arsed anymore. The faith lot are quite the sensitive ones aren't they, and strange if they 'know' their god exists why bother arguing with silly science types...maybe they feel threatened as less people belive their myths by the year.
There is an Anglican chuch near my house, few hundred years old, beautiful building, but on a sunday you'll see maybe half a dozen pensioners shuffling out. How the place survives I've no idea. There used to be loads of churches around but they've mostly been converted to apartments, offices, nightclubs, gyms, climbing and soft play centres these days.
Beautiful buildings although built on the backs of poor peasants.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
What evidence? Your scientific theory is ever changing. Today your Theory is A, next your same theory became B. And you still want boast your not so 100% true theory? Science is based on fact, not pure assumption. So far your scientific theory become more confusing with the discover of quantum.

That's because theories change with new evidence collected. It puzzles me why people such as yourself try to argue that as a negative.

Your own link explicitly stated it is Unverified Theory. Since when unverified theory became scientific evidence?

What are you talking about? Where did my link even USE the term "unverified theory" let alone describe a scientific theory as one? Quote the text.

If I don't read it, then how do I know it explicitly admit it is just unverified theory? Not to mention a lot of conjuration involved, such as, could be, probable etc.

That's your problem. I can't make you open your mind to new ideas. If you want to bury your head in the sand then that is your prerogative.

Then you should not make any claim if you feel you can't back it up.

I CAN back it up. I just don't want to go through the effort of someone who has anchored the goal posts to the back of a rocket.

Oh I already proven consciousness link to soul to noonebutme. You may need to read previous pages.

No you haven't. Souls can't even be proven to exist; let alone a link between them and consciousness.

Why? Because science is fact. Not opinion and faith like Theology. You want to deal with science, act like one.

Science is a methodology to collect evidence and then use the evidence to describe a process. Once the process is described, it is put up for peer review and cross checked for validity. Then as time goes on more evidence is collected and added to the original research. This evidence is used to update the process further. Then peer review kicks in to cross check for validity. Then the process repeats itself.

Obviously you don't know how the scientific method works if you are telling me that one needs the answers to every question in order to describe a process. That's a strawman argument.

First you claim as evidence when it is not. Now you claim unverified theory based on a lot of guessing has tons evidence proving it. From your source of "evidence"

"If, good guest, probably etc" are not expression tons of evidences. Its pure conjuration.

Now stop playing with tons of "if". The article clearly stated it unproven theory.

You still can't admit your claim that consciousness evolution is based on a lot of assumption, do you?

Damn you have a thick head! Read this slowly: ALL scientific theories aren't completely verified! That's why they are able to be changed over time. It doesn't make them wrong. It is just recognizing that we don't have the full picture yet.

Sheesh... It's amazing you don't apply this idiotic line of reasoning to the bible. The great flood couldn't have happened; therefore the whole bible is a lie.

So? Me and noonebutme try to prove and disprove the existence of God, through the origin of life. If God can be proven, then Atheist are wrong.

But god can't be proven. If you god could be proven then people much smarter than you or I would have done it already. Furthermore, if god exists he can prove his own existence his damn self. If he's as great and powerful as you guys claim then he should know how to prove his existence to a doubter to remove the doubts.

Ypu are not contributing anything. You are derailing the topic and wasting a lot of my time already.

The topic is already derailed with you not talking about "The issue with atheism". So just stop trying to dictate who can and cannot respond in a public forum.

a reply to: noonebutme

I mean science and atheism aren't even required beliefs. You don't need one to be the other is what I'm saying. You can be an atheist and come to an atheistic worldview without science and you can be a scientist and be religious. There is a lot of science that has a tendency to lead one to believe that god doesn't exist, but none of that is verified and an atheist can't technically say you are wrong for believing in a god using science as a guide.

So the idea that we even need to talk about ANY science in a discussion about atheism is a red herring. Furthermore the discussion of evolution is not the domain of atheism. There are many Christians that accept evolution as factual. Far Eastern religions accept it at a near 90+% acceptance rate.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

look CornishCeltGuy, he's having a chat

hilarious

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But god can't be proven

And that has no bareing at all on
whether or not he does exist.
It's odd because trying to prove the
existence of God in his absence? Is the
same as trying to prove he doesn't exist.
As a believer it seems to me that atheism is
is far to opportunistic.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
back on topic, what's it like to have to claim to worship nothing?

This makes absolutely no sense. Nobody HAS to claim anything. The majority of agnostics and atheists could care less what god or gods you talk to and go about their daily lives perfectly fine. The only difference for me is that I've got an extra hour or so every week because I'm not attending mass.

It's pretty clownish to claim the inexistence of God since science claims to haven't find any proof.

It's more clownish to sit on your high horse and look down on people who have different views than you do. It's the height of arrogance.

Don't all people worship something in their lives?

No, why should they have to?

"I worship nothing" is as easily said as I can say "I have 20 legs and 70 eyes", it doesn't make it true either.

That might be the dumbest analogy I've seen so far. The claims aren't even close. Why do other peoples beliefs bother you so much? Do you run around making threads to attack Hindu's or Ba Ha'i or Muslims or Jews? What about the hundreds of sects of Christianity that interpret scripture differently than you or use a different translation of scripture than the one you use?

Why do you serve man? Because of man or because of God? You don't need to tell me.

Then why ask?

But atheism, where did this little critter came from?

It's been documented since at least the 6th century BCE when Jainism, Buddhism. some sects of Hinduism and Taoists. It's got nothing to do with people thumbing their noses at Christianity if that's what you're trying to imply.

Perhaps too many scientific proof turned some people ignorant.

Apparently you don't actually understand what ignorance is, which ironically, makes you ignorant.

What science assembles through studies of the environment the scientist finds himself to be in is called an invention.

No, no it isn't

Modifying and abusing the earth and its properties comes with a cost.

That holds true wither there are no gods, your god or some other god or gods.

The morals of the scientist define the nature of his/her inventions.

You do realize that inventions are completely separate from scientific inquiry right? Please, tell us how the electric lightbulb would be different if Edison had a different set of morals.

I'm not saying morals come from God, but some do.

Nice way to contradict yourself in the scope of a single sentence.

Scientist, why do you serve man? Because of man or God?

Why ask this twice when you earlier said that it didn't have to be answered? Do you always use such broad and sweeping generalizations when addressing people? Science isn't some big clubhouse where we congregate to mock fundamentalists. Each discipline works on the specifics of their field. People typically go into science related fields because they want to expand the scope of their knowledge and share it with others. The way you put it, you make it sounds as if everyone with a degree is out to stomp on the neck of the religious.

Maybe someday when there aren't dozens and dozens of contradicting beliefs and values in Christianity alone and that doesn't touch on the other 6 billion people on Earth who have different faiths, you might have a leg to stand on. The fact of the matter is though, that when those of you who feel so threatened by agnostics and atheists don't have us to poke with a stick, you immediately turn on each other. Protestants hate the Catholics, The Baptists hate the Lutherans, you all hate the Westboro Baptist Church aqnd on and on... it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

originally posted by: randyvs
RE: God
And that has no bearing at all on
whether or not he does exist.

That is completely true. Just because you cannot prove something, does not mean it does not exist. I cannot prove (convincingly to you) my love for my wife or kids, but it's real.

The difference, in my opinion, is when you (impersonally speaking) are trying to convince someone, or counter a position by using the existence of God as an argument. You cannot prove it, therefore you cannot expect someone to accept your position. Subjective opinion is not a good way to prove a point.

Hence why I bleat on and on about science: it's impartial and relies on fact.

It's odd because trying to prove the
existence of God in his absence? Is the
same as trying to prove he doesn't exist.

I agree. I think you're right. But atheists (i hate that term) or let's say, people who don't share your belief, aren't trying to 'prove' his non-existence. Ideally all they are saying is, "I don't believe your claim".

Sure, some go really over the top, wear fedoras and trenchcoats and post amusing memes. That is... well. I have my own views on that behaviour.

As a believer it seems to me that atheism is is far to opportunistic.

Opportunistic because your position leads itself to that, or are you saying non-belief is just being 'lazy' ?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Very true. I always found the architecture very inspiring. There's a few really nice, old churches round the Surrey way that I quite enjoy. Just going for a walk with the missus and enjoying the serenity. I used to draw them in pen & ink when I was younger.

For me, supernatural belief isn't needed to enjoy the context. But yes. I don't disagree about the methods and costs involved in their construction.

a reply to: randyvs

True, but Occam's Razor is a good logical device to live by. If you can't prove he can exist then there is no need for me to prove non-existence. I just disbelieve until you can produce the evidence of existence.

a reply to: noonebutme

No it's pretty obvious lazy is not the case. We
been at this for daaaaays !

a reply to: Krazysh0t

the point is not to believe in his existence, but to have faith

yes, faith, that which a lot of those who claim to be atheist ridicule as blind belief, but in reality is evidence of things unseen

you can believe in God's existence and be loyal to the devil, that would still be natural, but to totally discard anything supernatural as inexistent is bluntly fooling yourself and others.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the point is not to believe in his existence, but to have faith

What's the difference?

yes, faith, that which a lot of those who claim to be atheist ridicule as blind belief, but in reality is evidence of things unseen

How is faith "evidence of things unseen"? The definition of faith contradicts everything you are saying by the way.

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

(2) : complete trust

you can believe in God's existence and be loyal to the devil, that would still be natural, but to totally discard anything supernatural as inexistent is bluntly fooling yourself and others.

The idea of the supernatural is redundant. If something exists or a process is possible then it is every bit natural. Including the unseen such as ghosts or even god. Furthermore, if it exists then it leaves tangible evidence of its existence we can detect and quantify. So I don't see a reason to trust to things that cannot be proven.

a reply to: randyvs

Ok. That made me genuinely lol.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

you can believe in God's existence and be loyal to the devil, that would still be natural, but to totally discard anything supernatural as inexistent is bluntly fooling yourself and others.

You can't convince them of that with
something they don't believe.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: randyvs

Ok. That made me genuinely lol.

I really need a life!