Answers To Atheism

[Eudaimonist]

Reality disagrees with this idea - Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.

Reality gets in the way of all of the best ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

This is IMO is the main reason people believe in god. It's a coping mechanism.

Is in not comforting to believe that you will live an a great place with your loved one?

And it's just like what you said about Stalin or Hitler. Is it not comforting to believe that, say for example, this Holmes guy who massacred people at the "Batman" movie is going to burn in hell?

Being scared of reality is no reason to make up fiction. But if you need it, I truly understand.

Ultimately, just be a good person. Condone good qualities and teach them.

Atheism isn't for everybody. If you are a better person due to religion then be a better person.

this.

this.

I find it ironic that the charge of making up "fiction" because of "fearfulness" is brought against a person for believing in God when atheists are all too readily willing to accept explanations for the existence of the universe that are at best, groundless, unscientific, imaginitive and fictitious, which are birthed in the minds of men and women who are afraid of acknowledging that they are not autonomous but that they owe their existence to One greater than them in all respects.

Who really is so foolish sir: the one who believes that "someone" created the universe, or the one who believes that "nothing" created the universe?

Did you type your post sir, or did it type itself?

Did you create your post from your thoughts and ideas about the the topic, or did the post bring you into existence?

The fact that you would even consider your position to be an intellectual position demonstrates what your idea of "intellectual" is. It is synonymous with absurdity or any other adjective of like fashion.

You sir, and anyone else who shares your view, is doing so with greater faith than any theist who believes in God.

 

[Gadarene]

I find it ironic that the charge of making up "fiction" because of "fearfulness" is brought against a person for believing in God when atheists are all too readily willing to accept explanations for the existence of the universe that are at best, groundless, unscientific, imaginitive and fictitious, which are birthed in the minds of men and women who are afraid of acknowledging that they are not autonomous but that they owe their existence to One greater than them in all respects.

Who really is so foolish sir: the one who believes that "someone" created the universe, or the one who believes that "nothing" created the universe?

Did you type your post sir, or did it type itself?

Did you create your post from your thoughts and ideas about the the topic, or did the post bring you into existence?

The fact that you would even consider your position to be an intellectual position demonstrates what your idea of "intellectual" is. It is synonymous with absurdity or any other adjective of like fashion.

You sir, and anyone else who shares your view, is doing so with greater faith than any theist who believes in God.

So when Craig's arguments fail, you patter his smug tone instead.

That's not really a winning tactic.

Let us know when typing a post becomes analogous to a naturalistic process, till then, ta-ta.

 

[jayem]

So when Craig's arguments fail, you patter his smug tone instead.

That's not really a winning tactic.

Let us know when typing a post becomes analogous to a naturalistic process, till then, ta-ta.

He's using the argument from incredulity. Which is one of the informal logical fallacies. (Though it's true that we all have our cognitive biases.)

I would respond that the typing analogy actually refutes his argument. Typing on a keyboard is a completely natural event. Forming an idea in the brain, and expressing it in language is a function of neural circuitry. Transmitting it to the hands to be typed out is accomplished by well-known neurophysiologic mechanisms. Even though we don't fully understand how the brain works, it's absolutely unsupportable to claim that supernatural forces are involved. Which segues into my argument for non-theistic naturalism. Many things--like weather, and disease, and astronomic events--were once thought to be so mysterious and inexplicable that they must be supernaturally caused. We now know that they are all completely natural phenomena. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. Ergo, by simple a posteriori reasoning, why should I believe that anything is supernatural? I admit that induction doesn't provide infallible proof. But it is a firmer logical basis than than the arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

 

[Elgibbor]

Have you read Dawkins's book?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes. I read it a couple of years ago. Along with Hitchens, Dennett & co. I saw no proof that God doesn't exist. No actual proof.

 

[Genersis]

Yes. I read it a couple of years ago. Along with Hitchens, Dennett & co. I saw no proof that God doesn't exist. No actual proof.

Of course not.
You can't prove the non-existence of something.

 

[Elioenai26]

He's using the argument from incredulity. Which is one of the informal logical fallacies. (Though it's true that we all have our cognitive biases.)

I would respond that the typing analogy actually refutes his argument. Typing on a keyboard is a completely natural event. Forming an idea in the brain, and expressing it in language is a function of neural circuitry. Transmitting it to the hands to be typed out is accomplished by well-known neurophysiologic mechanisms. Even though we don't fully understand how the brain works, it's absolutely unsupportable to claim that supernatural forces are involved. Which segues into my argument for non-theistic naturalism. Many things--like weather, and disease, and astronomic events--were once thought to be so mysterious and inexplicable that they must be supernaturally caused. We now know that they are all completely natural phenomena. In the entire history of human knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. Ergo, by simple a posteriori reasoning, why should I believe that anything is supernatural? I admit that induction doesn't provide infallible proof. But it is a firmer logical basis than than the arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity.

So you would consider yourself to be simply a collection of natural processes functioning autonomously on their own. That jayem is'nt really a person in the sense that he has a mind, will, or emotions. But rather he is just a robot that has somehow been assembled by blind, naturalistic processes. Is this what you are trying to say?

 

[Redac]

Yes. I read it a couple of years ago. Along with Hitchens, Dennett & co. I saw no proof that God doesn't exist. No actual proof.

Did you not learn in all that time that it's impossible to prove a negative?

 

[Redac]

So you would consider yourself to be simply a collection of natural processes functioning autonomously on their own. That jayem is'nt really a person in the sense that he has a mind, will, or emotions. But rather he is just a robot that has somehow been assembled by blind, naturalistic processes. Is this what you are trying to say?

Why is it impossible that our mind, will, and emotions are a result of naturalistic processes? Heck, you can alter all three of those things by physically altering certain parts of the brain.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why is it impossible that our mind, will, and emotions are a result of naturalistic processes? Heck, you can alter all three of those things by physically altering certain parts of the brain.

It is impossible because:

nonlife cannot produce life

nonintelligence cannot produce intelligence

impersonal cannot produce personal

chaos cannot produce order

If you were to pick up a watch and hold it in your hand, you would not say that it was produced as a result of natural processes (at least I hope you would not say that).

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is impossible because:

nonlife cannot produce life

nonintelligence cannot produce intelligence

impersonal cannot produce personal

chaos cannot produce order

All are silly claims.

If you were to pick up a watch and hold it in your hand, you would not say that it was produced as a result of natural processes (at least I hope you would not say that).

I would say that, if I saw that the watch mate with another watch and have children.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

All are silly claims.



I would say that, if I saw that the watch mate with another watch and have children.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you've witnessed something nonintelligent produce something intelligent? Where and when was this? You are a 45 year old man who no doubt thinks of himself as a smart man. How is it that you can maintain such a groundless position?

 

[Elgibbor]

Any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

 

[quatona]

Any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

I would be interested in the creative logic that leads you to the conclusion that the statement "I believe gods can´t exist" violates the disbelief in the existence of god.
Really. I have seen a lot of creative logic from theists here, but I´m sure this one must be an absolute highlight.

 

[quatona]

So you've witnessed something nonintelligent produce something intelligent?

Ok, since you think the question "Do you have witnessed...?" is a relevant question here (and since you are implying that the answer "no" invalidates the view that this unwitnessed process can have happened) let´s apply this line of reasoning to your own explanations...and they will all be blown out the window.

 

[quatona]

Yes. I read it a couple of years ago. Along with Hitchens, Dennett & co. I saw no proof that God doesn't exist. No actual proof.

Unfalsifiable claims are, well, unfalsibiable. That´s not really a forte.

I can make 10 unfalsibiable claims in 2 minutes. The impossibility to falsify them is not an argument for them (and I´m sure you won´t feel under any obligation whatsoever to disprove them) - it´s an argument for my ability and knowledge how to construct unfalsifiable claims. It´s the easiest thing in the world, but I´ll give you that Gods are the textbook examples.
The appropriate way to deal with unfalsifiable claims is to ignore them, particularly when those who have them made have the guts to demand from you to disprove them.

 

[Buy Bologna]

I find it ironic that the charge of making up "fiction" because of "fearfulness" is brought against a person for believing in God when atheists are all too readily willing to accept explanations for the existence of the universe that are at best, groundless, unscientific, imaginitive and fictitious, which are birthed in the minds of men and women who are afraid of acknowledging that they are not autonomous but that they owe their existence to One greater than them in all respects.

Who really is so foolish sir: the one who believes that "someone" created the universe, or the one who believes that "nothing" created the universe?

Did you type your post sir, or did it type itself?

Did you create your post from your thoughts and ideas about the the topic, or did the post bring you into existence?

The fact that you would even consider your position to be an intellectual position demonstrates what your idea of "intellectual" is. It is synonymous with absurdity or any other adjective of like fashion.

You sir, and anyone else who shares your view, is doing so with greater faith than any theist who believes in God.

I'm afraid you're way off base.

First off, I'm not sure if there is or isn't a intelligent design. I'm basing it off of probability. And since I doubt it, I'm an atheist.

And secondly, what I am sure of. Is that if there is a god, then you nor anybody haven't the slightest clue of who or even what he/it is...And this is where the fiction I was speaking about comes in.

Go ahead, flatter yourself and tell yourself that you have and idea about who this god is. via the bible, quran, book of mormon, paganism or whatever religion your particular belief is......(most likely it will depend on your geographical location and what time period you are in)......if it makes you feel better and makes you a better person.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm afraid you're way off base.

First off, I'm not sure if there is or isn't a intelligent design. I'm basing it off of probability. And since I doubt it, I'm an atheist.

And secondly, what I am sure of. Is that if there is a god, then you nor anybody haven't the slightest clue of who or even what he/it is...And this is where the fiction I was speaking about comes in.

Go ahead, flatter yourself and tell yourself that you have and idea about who this god is. via the bible, quran, book of mormon, paganism or whatever religion your particular belief is......(most likely it will depend on your geographical location and what time period you are in)......if it makes you feel better and makes you a better person.

It is actually very humbling that God should delight in me. So far from flattery, I am abased in my own sight.

 

[Paradoxum]

I find it ironic that the charge of making up "fiction" because of "fearfulness" is brought against a person for believing in God when atheists are all too readily willing to accept explanations for the existence of the universe that are at best, groundless, unscientific, imaginitive and fictitious,

Really, is that so?

which are birthed in the minds of men and women who are afraid of acknowledging that they are not autonomous but that they owe their existence to One greater than them in all respects.

I don't think that is totally true.

Who really is so foolish sir: the one who believes that "someone" created the universe, or the one who believes that "nothing" created the universe?

I don't think we really know how the universe was created. I think there must be 'something' timeless that exists, I just find it hard to believe it is God.

 

[Elgibbor]

I would be interested in the creative logic that leads you to the conclusion that the statement "I believe gods can´t exist" violates the disbelief in the existence of god.
Really. I have seen a lot of creative logic from theists here, but I´m sure this one must be an absolute highlight.

Do we agree that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago? Atheists believe all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation) observational evidence for either belief. Atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.