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.

 

Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Drezden
 


I, personally, don't know - That's where my Agnostic Atheism position comes from.


I can respect Agnosticism, Atheism is illogical and an impossible position to believe in.


I think Gnostic Atheism AND the Gnostic Theism are both irrational positions.


Gnostic Atheism surely is, because one would need the attributes of God to know that God doesn't exist. Gnostic Theism technically only needs one piece of evidence for the existence of God.


Not for me, Vicarious redemption is immoral preaching.


Sorry, but that is a "prejudicial conjecture", a form of arbitrariness. Secondly, the use of the term "immoral" is assuming there exists an absolute moral standard which is a presupposition based upon the Christian worldview. You're standing upon the Christian worldview to argue against it.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Golden Boy
 




No. It doesn't work. It is very much possible to know that a certain god does not exist.


I certainly agree with what you've stated above. However, to "know" the God of the Bible is non existent would take the attributes of the God of the Bible. Omniscience and omnipresence.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

You have not described your God.


Why do I need to define MY God for YOU to state your beliefs?


I am not playing games with you.


This certainly isn't a game.


What you read and what you interpret is your own business, the fact is that Atheism is lack of belief in God.


Okay fine, then I'll define Theism as "lack of belief in the non-existence of God".


An atheist is someone who does not think there is a God.


I realize this, and am trying to show you this knowledge an Atheist claims to have is quite irrational without the attributes of God Himself, omniscience and omnipresence. There is no rational basis for holding the belief with such a limited knowledge.


Because there is no evidence for God.


You're making the mistake of thinking that rational evidence must persuade. Persuasion is not a prerequisite for evidence. Logical evidence exists on it's own merits even if it persuades no one.


But mostly, the proposed evidence is speculative, insufficient, and self-contradictory.


Again, this statement is prejudicial conjecture, it's arbitrary. Are we to just take your word for this?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Why do I need to define MY God for YOU to state your beliefs?


How can I argue against the existence of an entity whose attributes are only known to you?

Here is a comprehensive list of Gods
www.godchecker.com...


Okay fine, then I'll define Theism as "lack of belief in the non-existence of God".


Kool, and what has that achieved?

What's the difference between a God who does nothing observable... and nothing?


You're making the mistake of thinking that rational evidence must persuade. Persuasion is not a prerequisite for evidence. Logical evidence exists on it's own merits even if it persuades no one.


Believing is not the same as knowing.
Believing is second hand knowledge, knowing is first-hand experience.

People believed 'on logic' that the Earth was flat and the centre of the Universe

Truth is quality of reality, not of logic.

.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


And you're being dishonest by attempting to force me to put forth my negative position as a positive declaration so you can win semantics points.

Exodus 20:16


How am I being dishonest? That's quite rude to assert.


Of course every statement of the sort I made is under the obvious assumption, as is pretty much any other statement made by an individual in this manner, that there is the implied addendum "That I am aware of".


You cannot speak for others Madness, but if you hold the belief that your knowledge is limited on the issue I can agree with that.


Stop being childish with such silly questions.


I don't consider the question childish. You and anyone else is capable of saying whether or not God exists. And to purposefully word the reply as a negative position lacks integrity IMHO because the person making the statement knows full well for them to claim the positive means their belief would be illogical.


You do realize that I actively seek the possibility of evidence of the existence of deities, right?


Actually no I don't, it's been my experience with you that you routinely refuse to review presented materials. Your common response is that you don't have the time in your schedule to do so. The idea sounds nice when you make the statement, but I have yet seen you demonstrate it when I've presented you with materials to actually review.


I'm actually going out there and asking other people to show me that my atheism is incorrect.


That's shifting the burden of proof. But then again, since you refuse to affirm the positive then you really don't need to supply proof now do you? You can word your response in the negative to make it free from you having to do so, how convenient.


Exodus 20:16 again. The straw man argument is a grave sin according to your own religious text. All statements of the sort I made obviously imply 'to the best of my knowledge'. Stop splitting hairs to create straw men.


I'm not. And furthermore, you haven't shown that I have done so, just asserted I have.


Of course, it's not the most limited knowledge.


It certainly is limited knowledge compared to omniscience, which is one attribute required to assert the non-existence of God. The point I'm making actually.


I've examined every Earthly claim that I've come across and there has yet to be a verifiable claim of the existence of any deity.


Again, evidence doesn't need to persuade to be logically sound. You know this Madness. If persuasion was the litmus test for evidence to be sound logically then I can immediately state Evolution has zero evidence since I have not been persuaded by it.


You were repeating yourself and Exodus 20:16. Dishonesty doesn't become you.


Demonstrate my dishonesty then Madness. That's pretty offensive and rude.


It's an unanswerable question.


No, it's not unanswerable. You can certainly tell me your belief on the matter.


One must be omniscient to answer such a question with definitive epistemological certainty.


No objection there.


My personal answer would be irrational and I am not prepared to make a purely irrational statement on the nature of reality.


No objections again, so ask yourself why you purposefully claim the negative position to avoid the obviously irrational stance on God's non-existence.


I do not believe in any deity,..


Finally, so your belief is that no deities exist. Thank you.


but I would gladly do so if presented with the evidence for the existence of any one.


I disagree, you can always fall back on a rescuing device. Persuasion is relative, there are people walking the Earth today who have not been persuaded the Earth revolves the Sun.


I'm going to restate this again in another form: Though I have ventured to seek it, I have yet to encounter sufficient evidence for the existence of any deity.


That's because persuasion is relative. One either has a rational standard or an irrational one.


Do I think your deity exists?


I have a lack of belief in His non-existence.


Well, I have no good reason to accept your positive claim that it does.


No, don't you see that I refuse to make a positive claim, therefore I'm free from providing evidence for my beliefs?


And why are you singling out your deity?


Only my deity can account for the preconditions of intelligibility and the uniformity of nature. Others cannot because their natures are not presented as such.


There are millions of others that I'm rejecting as well, most far older than your desert deity.


What is your rational reason for rejecting the others? Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if you're an omniscient and omnipresent entity.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ersatz
 



Here is a comprehensive list of Gods


So pick one from the list.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Why do I need to define MY God for YOU to state your beliefs?


How can I argue against the existence of an entity whose attributes are only known to you?


I'll make it easy for you, Ace. Disprove the existence of any god, even one that you make up yourself, right at this moment.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


Disclaimer: That is also the point of this thread. Good to see that even someone I routinely disagree with gets it.

I mean, the point of this thread is that you can't really attack atheism, you can only prove that your point is right. Skepticism shouldn't be attacked by any means other than proving the point that others are skeptical of. Now, if the skepticism were demonstrably irrational or unreasonable, that would be an entirely different thing and you'd have to demonstrate how it's irrational or unreasonable.

Of course, attacking atheists, just like attacking any other group of people, is stupid unless you're making a specific claim that can be backed up by evidence. If you say "atheists are ignorant of that which they don't believe" and can provide evidence for it, that's a separate thing. Again, there are exceptions, but those exceptions all are found in reasonable claims.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Clarification as to what 'spirit' and 'inter-dimensional' mean is required.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Drezden
 


I, personally, don't know - That's where my Agnostic Atheism position comes from.


I can respect Agnosticism, Atheism is illogical and an impossible position to believe in.


No, it isn't. That you entirely ignore the actual definition of "atheism" in order to support your prejudice is quite telling, especially since I have already given you said definition.


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Golden Boy
 




No. It doesn't work. It is very much possible to know that a certain god does not exist.


I certainly agree with what you've stated above. However, to "know" the God of the Bible is non existent would take the attributes of the God of the Bible. Omniscience and omnipresence.


No. It just takes the examination of one of the claims made by the Bible.

- There was no Noachian flood
- There was no six-day creation
- There was no Garden
- The walls of Jericho were not destroyed
- The Red Sea was never parted

And so on.

All of these are claims which disprove the Biblical account of God. The Biblical God is the god which performed all of the above actions, and we know - not believe, not think, know - that these things never happened.

We know that the Bible is false. We know that the Biblical god does not exist.
edit on 2/15/2011 by Golden Boy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Ersatz

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Why do I need to define MY God for YOU to state your beliefs?


How can I argue against the existence of an entity whose attributes are only known to you?


I'll make it easy for you, Ace. Disprove the existence of any god, even one that you make up yourself, right at this moment.


I define my god, "Bob", as having the qualities of omnipotence and omnipresence, as well as the property of being entirely visible - as in, detectable via my eyes, and in a position where I can see him - to me at the point in time one minute from when I type this.

It has been one minute since I typed that sentence. No Bob.

Bob's existence is disproven.

It's the same thing for any other given god. The god is defined by the believers; the Biblical god is defined as "the god which performed the actions described in the Bible". If we know that these actions never occurred, we know that the Biblically-defined god does not exist.

edit on 2/15/2011 by Golden Boy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
It has been one minute since I typed that sentence. No Bob.

Bob's existence is disproven.


But Bob, being omniscient, knew that you needed him to not show up, in order to make your point. Hence, he did not.

Bob has no need to prove his existence to you, but he can serve as an argument for you by not showing up. To that end, you have failed to prove that Bob does not exist. You have, in fact, given some small amount of evidence for the argument that Bob does actually exist.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Exton is the deity of nonexistence. It doesn't exist or else it wouldn't serve its function.

Zing!

You can't disprove any deity. Hell, I can't disprove the existence of Helios even though we know for a fact that Helios' chariot doesn't exist and that the sun isn't dragged through the sky.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Golden Boy
It has been one minute since I typed that sentence. No Bob.

Bob's existence is disproven.


But Bob, being omniscient, knew that you needed him to not show up, in order to make your point. Hence, he did not


Re-read my post.

Bob is defined as being visible to me at that point. That is the property that that god has. It's as intrinsic to his being as omniscience and omnipotence. There may be some god which is very similar to Bob which did as you described, but that god is not Bob. In the same way, a god with all the attributes of the Biblical God, but which did not create the Earth in six days, part the Red Sea, or destroy the walls of Jericho may very well exist, but it is not the Biblical God.

We know that Bob - and the Biblical God - do not exist.

You don't get too ignore parts of my definition, particularly after you yourself said that I could make one up.


Bob has no need to prove his existence to you, but he can serve as an argument for you by not showing up. To that end, you have failed to prove that Bob does not exist. You have, in fact, given some small amount of evidence for the argument that Bob does actually exist.


You do not understand logic.

That's really all that can be said. That Bob did not appear is in no way evidence of his existence. Not even a little bit.

Go learn what "evidence" means.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Except when that evidence is absent in a situation where one would expect it to be present.

CLAIM: There is a cheeseburger on the table in front of me.
EVIDENCE AGAINST: Empty table.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a catchy sound bite, but it's often hijacked by people who don't understand that it wasn't meant to be a be-all, end-all summary of how logic works. It would seem that this is one of those times.
edit on 2/15/2011 by Golden Boy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Golden Boy
 


To add to your list:

-The prescribed cure for leprosy doesn't work.
-The Sun doesn't go around the Earth.
-The Sun and Moon existed well before plants.
-The Earth is a oblate spheroid, not a disc.
-Bats aren't birds.
-The mustard family doesn't include trees.
-The smallest seed in the plant kingdom doesn't belong to the mustard family.
-There is no way the ship described in the Noah myth (and it is purely mythical) could have held together or fit the number of animals it was supposed to contain.
-Beating your slave to near death but not death is still wrong.

These are just off the top, I could come up with more if I just went through the Bible and started highlighting the things it got wrong.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Bob is defined as being visible to me at that point. That is the property that that god has. It's as intrinsic to his being as omniscience and omnipotence.


So your definition of a god is one who is subject to the whims of a meat based mortal, such as yourself? What makes them a god, then?

To make your point, you didn't want Bob to show up, and he did not, in compliance with your expectations.



"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Except when that evidence is absent in a situation where one would expect it to be present.

CLAIM: There is a cheeseburger on the table in front of me.
EVIDENCE AGAINST: Empty table.


A cheeseburger does not have omnipotence, omniscience, free will, or any other ability attributed to God, so this is a fallacious argument. Claiming that God (or Bob) doesn't exist because you haven't seen him requires you to have omniscience yourself.

You appear to have swapped the qualities of the mortal and the divine as part of your argument.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Bob is defined as being visible to me at that point. That is the property that that god has. It's as intrinsic to his being as omniscience and omnipotence.


So your definition of a god is one who is subject to the whims of a meat based mortal, such as yourself? What makes them a god, then?


Way to miss the point.

The point isn't that Bob is subject to my whims. It is that Bob is defined as the god which performs a certain action, in the same way that the Biblical God is defined as the god which performs actions like the parting of the Red Sea. If we know that those actions were not performed, we know that that god does not exist.




"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Except when that evidence is absent in a situation where one would expect it to be present.

CLAIM: There is a cheeseburger on the table in front of me.
EVIDENCE AGAINST: Empty table.


A cheeseburger does not have omnipotence, omniscience, free will, or any other ability attributed to God, so this is a fallacious argument.


No. Omnipotence, omniscience, and free will are all absolutely irrelevant. It does not change the fact that a lack of evidence when evidence is expected is evidence of nonexistence.


Claiming that God (or Bob) doesn't exist because you haven't seen him requires you to have omniscience yourself.


No, it doesn't, because I know that the actions attributed to Bob and the Biblical God never happened, and Bob and the Biblical God are defined as the gods which performed these actions.

It's the same thing as me knowing that "the man who murdered me this morning" does not exist because I was not murdered.


You appear to have swapped the qualities of the mortal and the divine as part of your argument.


The properties of the mortal and the divine are absolutely irrelevant to my argument.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Bob is defined as being visible to me at that point. That is the property that that god has. It's as intrinsic to his being as omniscience and omnipotence.


So your definition of a god is one who is subject to the whims of a meat based mortal, such as yourself? What makes them a god, then?


Way to miss the point.

The point isn't that Bob is subject to my whims. It is that Bob is defined as the god which performs a certain action, in the same way that the Biblical God is defined as the god which performs actions like the parting of the Red Sea. If we know that those actions were not performed, we know that that god does not exist.


That doesn't make any sense. If I decide that God is will blow down the tree in my back yard in five seconds (waits...) and he doesn't, all that means is that I was wrong, it doesn't prove or disprove God's existence. If you prove that the parting of the Red Sea never happened, or that it happened under circumstances that had nothing to do with divinity, all you've demonstrated is that the author of that text was mistaken, it has no bearing on anything's existence.


No. Omnipotence, omniscience, and free will are all absolutely irrelevant. It does not change the fact that a lack of evidence when evidence is expected is evidence of nonexistence.


But your cheeseburger claim is an absolute claim based on an absolute observation, when no such observation has been, or could be, made of a being who is not confined to absolute conditions.



You appear to have swapped the qualities of the mortal and the divine as part of your argument.


The properties of the mortal and the divine are absolutely irrelevant to my argument.


Then your argument is based on faulty assumptions, because you're attempting to use mortal qualities to assuage the divine.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
That doesn't make any sense. If I decide that God is will blow down the tree in my back yard in five seconds (waits...) and he doesn't, all that means is that I was wrong, it doesn't prove or disprove God's existence.


It doesn't disprove any god's existence except for the god which blew down that tree.

Maybe a better example would be combining my two examples: in the Scripture of Bob, it states that he murdered me this morning. I was not murdered this morning. Thus, Bob does not exist, because Bob is defined as "the god which performed action X".


If you prove that the parting of the Red Sea never happened, or that it happened under circumstances that had nothing to do with divinity, all you've demonstrated is that the author of that text was mistaken, it has no bearing on anything's existence.


Except in that is disproves the existence of any god which parted the Red Sea - i.e., it disproves the Biblical God. The god referred to as Yahweh does not exist. We know that he does not exist, because he is defined as a god which has performed actions which we know were never performed.

This isn't to say that there isn't any other god which is extraordinarily similar to the one commonly referred to as Yahweh, and who might actually be called Yahweh, but who never did these things, but it does disprove the god of the Bible.

That's the key, you see; "God" has been redefined as more and more of the actions attributed to him have been proven to have never taken place. So no, it is not possible to disprove the god that most Christians currently worship, because that god is a god who did not do the things described in the Bible. But it is possible to prove that the god described in the Bible does not exist.



No. Omnipotence, omniscience, and free will are all absolutely irrelevant. It does not change the fact that a lack of evidence when evidence is expected is evidence of nonexistence.


But your cheeseburger claim is an absolute claim based on an absolute observation, when no such observation has been, or could be, made of a being who is not confined to absolute conditions.


Except that its actions take place in absolute conditions. If an omnipotent god appeared in my backyard and vaporized a tree, I would be able to see him do so. I would have evidence that it was vaporized.

Again, the Biblical God is disproven in this way. Even though he is described as omnipresent and omnipotent, he does things. He floods the world, destroys the walls of Jericho, and parts the Red Sea. These things leave evidence. We know, by the lack of evidence, that these things did not happen, and thus the god described in the Bible does not exist.



The properties of the mortal and the divine are absolutely irrelevant to my argument.


Then your argument is based on faulty assumptions, because you're attempting to use mortal qualities to assuage the divine.


No. See above.
edit on 2/15/2011 by Golden Boy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Golden Boy
 


What you're failing to understand, in all of your arguments, is that you are extending the invalidation of a claim to invalidate something else.

Your observation that Bob didn't show up merely invalidated your claim that he would. Now, maybe he didn't show up because he doesn't exist, or because he's playing along with your attentions, or any number of other reasons, but the fact of the matter is that all you've shown is that your claim about Bob was wrong.

You can argue all day about one thing or another in scripture, but you're apparently oblivious of a glaring hole in your argument. God is not defined by anything in the Bible. God is what he is. If some aspect of the description of him isn't valid, that means nothing, apart from the description being wrong.

You cannot make an absolute conclusion which is based on non-absolute observations. I really don't understand why you don't get that.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join