Atheism

[createdtoworship]

There is no math on that link to support your claim of causation.

How would you demonstrate that such a thing exits?

That was just apologetics.

The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.

well you win, I don't have any more info. Just probable cause. and you don't either so... I guess you don't win. But there is no more on this issue to talk about.

 

[Non sequitur]

well you win, I don't have any more info. Just probable cause. and you don't either so... I guess you don't win. But there is no more on this issue to talk about.

It's not a draw when the person who asserted a claim can't substantiate it.

It goes back to the default state, prior to the claim.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not a draw when the person who asserted a claim can't substantiate it.

It goes back to the default state, prior to the claim.

Truth always outlives everything else.

 

[KCfromNC]

possible, but that is saying something is eternal with no evidence.

OK, so neither god nor the universe is eternal since we don't have conclusive evidence for either idea. Now what?

 

[KCfromNC]

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

I think there's supposed to be a turtle or two in there somewhere.

 

[Davian]

Truth always outlives everything else.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

 

[Davian]

well you win, I don't have any more info. Just probable cause.

No, you don't even have that.

and you don't either so... I guess you don't win. But there is no more on this issue to talk about.

I'm not the one making the claims. I have taken the neutral, or to be more accurate, the ignostic position.

 

[Davian]

funny thing is if all the agents we see have a mind of their own....should not the cause of the universe have a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

I think there's supposed to be a turtle or two in there somewhere.

It's turtles all the way down...

 

[Non sequitur]

Truth always outlives everything else.

It's very telling that, almost all Christians posit something to be "how it is", giving "evidence" and "proof" for it, yet when it finally putters out, THEY ALWAYS END UP SAYING PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO JUMBO?

Have you any idea how incredibly annoying, unproductive and disingenuous atheist arguments would be, if we did that?

Why bother with applying all this "logic" and "facts" to your claims, to end up having to sound like Deepak Chopra, in order to save face?


I think I'm going to start approaching all arguments, for anything, like this and see how it goes.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

 

[TScott]

It's very telling that, almost all Christians posit something to be "how it is", giving "evidence" and "proof" for it, yet when it finally putters out, THEY ALWAYS END UP SAYING PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO JUMBO?

Have you any idea how incredibly annoying, unproductive and disingenuous atheist arguments would be, if we did that?

What do you expect? This is a philosophy board in a Christian Forum.

As far as the philosophy of Atheism goes, technically an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. Now as far as strong atheists and weak atheists and everything in between, I suppose everyone can identify their own beliefs or non-beliefs, however I have always found it curious that there seems to be a little hypocisy involved in an atheist who says it is his belief that there are no gods. He will demand proof from theists to back up their beliefs, yet offer none for his own. Yes, I'm aware in the difficulty in proving a negative, however the hypocrisy still stands.

Atheists would be better off if they stick to what atheism really is. It is not a belief, in fact it is an absence of belief.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists would be better off if they stick to what atheism really is. It is not a belief, in fact it is an absence of belief.

Yup. Agreed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Non sequitur]

What do you expect? This is a philosophy board in a Christian Forum.

As far as the philosophy of Atheism goes, technically an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. Now as far as strong atheists and weak atheists and everything in between, I suppose everyone can identify their own beliefs or non-beliefs, however I have always found it curious that there seems to be a little hypocisy involved in an atheist who says it is his belief that there are no gods. He will demand proof from theists to back up their beliefs, yet offer none for his own. Yes, I'm aware in the difficulty in proving a negative, however the hypocrisy still stands.

Atheists would be better off if they stick to what atheism really is. It is not a belief, in fact it is an absence of belief.

It starts as a null hypothesis, so it's not hypocritical to not offer data or proof to get back there.

"Truth always outlives everything else" does not establish help anything or help any cause, in any way.

It's a given and, in arguments like these, it's the most absolute hollow statement said, as a way to still act like you have a any sort of valid argument.

 

[TScott]

It starts as a null hypothesis, so it's not hypocritical to not offer data or proof to get back there.

The atheist position is the null position. If you believe there are no gods then you are the same, in that you both believe a certain thing is true.

"Truth always outlives everything else" does not establish help anything or help any cause, in any way.

It's a given and, in arguments like these, it's the most absolute hollow statement said, as a way to still act like you have a any sort of valid argument.

While I agree that in this case the poster made it clear that he had nothing more to say on the subject, it makes two things curious; 1. what did he think he was going to gain having this exchange with you, and 2. what did you think you were going to gain having that exchange with him?

 

[createdtoworship]

It's very telling that, almost all Christians posit something to be "how it is", giving "evidence" and "proof" for it, yet when it finally putters out, THEY ALWAYS END UP SAYING PHILOSOPHICAL MUMBO JUMBO?

Have you any idea how incredibly annoying, unproductive and disingenuous atheist arguments would be, if we did that?

Why bother with applying all this "logic" and "facts" to your claims, to end up having to sound like Deepak Chopra, in order to save face?


I think I'm going to start approaching all arguments, for anything, like this and see how it goes.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...

Your just finding fault and not contributing your own views for criticism.

 

[Non sequitur]

The atheist position is the null position. If you believe there are no gods then you are the same, in that you both believe a certain thing is true.

That made no sense, because there is no "believe"; it's the default position.

The null hypothesis can never be proven.

While I agree that in this case the poster made it clear that he had nothing more to say on the subject, it makes two things curious; 1. what did he think he was going to gain having this exchange with you, and 2. what did you think you were going to gain having that exchange with him?

1) Stop making those silly statements.

2) That someone would learn to stop making those silly statements.

 

[Non sequitur]

Your just finding fault and not contributing your own views for criticism.

Finding fault was the criticism.

My views are fault is no beuno.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What do you expect? This is a philosophy board in a Christian Forum.

As far as the philosophy of Atheism goes, technically an atheist is one who does not believe in a deity. Now as far as strong atheists and weak atheists and everything in between, I suppose everyone can identify their own beliefs or non-beliefs, however I have always found it curious that there seems to be a little hypocisy involved in an atheist who says it is his belief that there are no gods. He will demand proof from theists to back up their beliefs, yet offer none for his own. Yes, I'm aware in the difficulty in proving a negative, however the hypocrisy still stands.

Atheists would be better off if they stick to what atheism really is. It is not a belief, in fact it is an absence of belief.

I've seen very few atheists on CF say they believe there are no gods. We're always having to clarify that our position is non-belief, not belief.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That made no sense, because there is no "believe"; it's the default position.

To believe in something is to affirm it as true. To say "I believe there are no gods" is to affirm the truth of the claim, "There are no gods". This is a position which requires evidence, exactly the same as the claim "There are gods" requires evidence.

In the absence of evidence, we affirm neither statement. The weak atheist rejects both claims, until such time that evidence is presented.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Truth always outlives everything else.

Indeed However, in the absence of evidence, we don't know what the truth actually is. That's what science is for.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there such a thing as an unfalsifiable experiment? Believe in God, which is not an empirical concept, and be changed?