Reality vs Atheism?

[Bungle_Bear]

Prediction can be made based on what we do know. Atheists do. Right a negative belief about God, Not a lack belief. Since outhouses lack belief. In that sense, it is a negative truth claim about all of reality. It is denial. How could it not be? No you would not. No they would not. Their mind is slammed shut. The problem is not with the evidence.
Agree. Many atheists rely on atheistic creation myths about imaginary creatures etc. The misuse of science as a ruse to validate their atheistic convictions. It is a position that comes with consequences.

So much twisting, misrepresentation and strawman argumentation in a single post is, in its way, sadly impressive.

 

[Spikey]

.

The problem is not with the evidence.

This is exactly the problem, the evidence presented to me has not been sufficient to convince me that a God exists, I am open to any evidence that you may have, feel free to share it with me.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not really sure what exactly the OP is getting at, but I have to give him props for posting a clip of one of the funniest scenes from Star Trek TOS.

 

[Paulos23]

Don't be liar: watch videos.

I did. It boils down to not knowing is rejecting reality, which is not true. Then they try to inject good as the explanation without good evidence.

Please point out what I have gotten wrong.

 

[xianghua]

This is exactly the problem, the evidence presented to me has not been sufficient to convince me that a God exists, I am open to any evidence that you may have, feel free to share it with me.

check out this one:My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[bhsmte]

check out this one:My favorite argument for the existence of God

We are all happy, you have a favorite.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

check out this one:My favorite argument for the existence of God

As Spikey said, "the evidence presented.... has not been sufficient". One wonders if you've actually read your own thread - your favourite argument is destroyed yet you still cling to it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Athiests who believe in evolution can't answer the following questions I will give.

If we evolved from other organisms what type of organisms will be become in the future?

How can organisms evolve overtime yet wouldn't that violate the whole concepts of Domains, Phylums, kingdoms, class, order, and species. Athiesm can't answer the question of the universe aswell because if I say what was before the big bang the Atheists or anyone wouldn't really be able to reply or give a real answer for that. Wo atheism is basically just a denial of God but not exactly logical.

You're assuming that the problem is with atheists. The actual problem is with your question.

The first question is easy to answer. Either we will go extinct, or we will become something different in the future.

The second 'question' is a paragraph which seems to be word soup. If you write out your questions in a straightforward unambiguous manner, then you might actually get answers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Athiests who believe in evolution can't answer the following questions I will give.

As an atheist who accepts evolution, I'll try and answer your questions.

If we evolved from other organisms what type of organisms will be become in the future?

We'll either go extinct or become a sub-species of homo sapiens. What that means exactly, is relatively unpredictable, since it depends on future conditions of the overall environment and we don't know what the future has in store for us.

How can organisms evolve overtime yet wouldn't that violate the whole concepts of Domains, Phylums, kingdoms, class, order, and species.

No, not at all. Since evolution is a vertical process, not a horizontal one.
All descendends of mammals, for example, will stay within that qualification.

Mammals will not become non-mammals.

Athiesm can't answer the question of the universe aswell because if I say what was before the big bang the Atheists or anyone wouldn't really be able to reply or give a real answer for that.

Because it is unknown. To everyone - not just atheists.
We don't know what we don't know. I don't see why that is somehow a problem.

Wo atheism is basically just a denial of God but not exactly logical.

Atheism is the position of not accepting the claims of theism and that's about it.
And no, there's nothing "illogical" about not accepting claims that have no supportive evidence.



It seems as if your claim that atheists wouldn't be able to answer your questions, was wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is better: to accept God or reject Reality?

Kind of sounds like flipping a coin and then saying "heads I win, tails you lose!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Prediction can be made based on what we do know.

How accurate the prediction will be, will be dependend on how much we know and how accurate that knowledge is.

Atheists do

This atheist doesn't.

Right a negative belief about God, Not a lack belief.

No.
"not believing claim x is true"
is NOT the same as
"believe the opposite of claim x is true".

Let's illustrate to make it clear.
You flip a coin. The result is either heads or tails.
But the result is kept secret. You catched it in your hand and closed it immediatly, not sharing the result and not even looking at it yourself either.

You then say: "it is heads! do you accept that as a true statement?"
My answer is "no, I don't accept that as a true statement."

In your opinion, by giving that answer, did I actually just say that I WOULD agree that "it is tails!" is a true statement?

(hint: the correct answer is "no").

Lack of belief in X is thus NOT the same thing as positive belief in 'not X'.

Since outhouses lack belief.

An outhouse isn't capable of belief.
That is a nonsensical statement.
It's like saying that the color purple is "tasteless". It's a nonsensical description, because it implies that colors can have a taste.

In that sense, it is a negative truth claim about all of reality.

It is not.

It is denial. How could it not be?

I'll refer back to the coin toss example.
Did my answer DENY that it is tails? NOPE!
It COULD be tails. I just have insufficient reason to commit to the idea that it IS tails.
I have not been given a rational reason to accept "it is tails" as a true statement.
That does NOT mean I think the statement is false.

But it DOES mean that I'll answer "no" to the question "do you believe it is tails?".
Is it sinking in yet?

No you would not

You don't know better then him, what his thoughts are.

No they would not. Their mind is slammed shut.

Unlike religious fundamentalists, atheists don't have any dogma to adhere to.

The problem is not with the evidence.

It is the very center of the problem.

Agree. Many atheists rely on atheistic creation myths about imaginary creatures etc.

No.

The misuse of science as a ruse to validate their atheistic convictions. It is a position that comes with consequences.

Are you trying to refer to evolution here?
Because, perhaps you are not aware, but most christians actually have no issues with mainstream biology.

 

[Barney2.0]

You're assuming that the problem is with atheists. The actual problem is with your question.

The first question is easy to answer. Either we will go extinct, or we will become something different in the future.

The second 'question' is a paragraph which seems to be word soup. If you write out your questions in a straightforward unambiguous manner, then you might actually get answers.

I'm not so knowledgeable it seems on the concept of refuting Athiesm I'll leave it to someone else I usually tend to focus a lot on theists more then Athiests but anyways God bless you.