Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

Most americans! Backwards countries are like that.

 

Sure, sure you see the greatest civilization in the history of mankind as "backwards".....what does that say bout you?

 

Still in denial that atheists are as if not more religious than G/god believers I see.

thats one of the problems with counterfeit atheists that call themselves lackers. They have no problem attacking anyone who labels their beliefs God demanding proof when its none of their business in the first place and on the other hand when anyone demands proof from lackers God does not exist they hide under the table demanding the dont have to prove anything.

So in your estimation what percentage of almost a atheist is a devout jew? catholic? protestant? baptist and so forth?

So believers in God are also lackers then? How about agnostics? What slot do they fall in, in the lacker definitions?

Russians too, stalin taught them a good lesson!

 

No, you said they would trust a rapist more than an atheist, you are the one SHOWING how backward they are!

 

They would.

 

You probably are confusing latest with greatest.

 

No I am not.

 

Then you are showing how backward they are, not me.

 

Lol, that's the second most disappointing thing in this post. Glad to hear you are working through that fundamentalism though.

lol, that isn't going to happen. So, this is a good example of what we are talking about. You are claiming to have something that is impossible. I have no evidence to believe you do, so I will continue to believe and act as if you don't. That is the logical path.

It will be good to review a few logical fallacies here. In particular, ad populum, and ad antiquitatum.

Now, first of all, you are right that attacking one theory doesn't strengthen another. For example, even if evolution were proven wrong, that still isn't evidence for creationism.

That being said, many theists demand 100% proof that a god doesn't exist. It doesn't work that way. First of all, you cannot prove 100% anything... I mean anything. Second, the extraordinary claim is that a god does exist since that existence is outside of the realm of all evidence ever collected and all experience. So that is where the burden lies. But, we can break it down further.

We start with the set of all possible claims and consider them equal. That includes all claims ever made, all claims that could be made, and all claims that we haven't even thought of. From there, we elevate all of the claims that have evidence for them, and the stronger the evidence, the more we believe in them. There is no evidence for a god. The 'evidence' you propose are ad populum, and ad antiquitatum fallacies. Neither of these move the needle more than an infinitesimal amount, leaving the claim that a god exists close enough to 0 as to be safely ignored.

So, despite having explained it to you before, what is wrong with the evidence you supply?

Ad antiquitatum: The notion that because something is old, it must be true. What belief that is old has ever turned out to be true? Almost everything we believed a few thousand years ago turned out to be wrong, because we continue to mature and learn new things about the world. The geocentric universe has been around since antiquity, acupuncture, sacrifice. Now, the idea that because something is old it has to be wrong is also a fallacy, (although it is much more likely to be true). But neither is evidence one way or the other by itself.

Ad populum: The idea that because a lot of people believe it, it must be true. This requires that belief have some power to change reality. I can give many many examples where belief did not change reality. My example of a world-ending dragon on the moon that has that koko coo-coo so stymied is an example. If we were able to convince 1/3 of the world that there was a dragon there, it still wouldn't change anything about there being a dragon on the moon. Only a tiny tiny portion of all mankind has believed that time is not constant, yet it was always true. Moreover, if this had any weight, then the power of the god would be limited by who believed in it. Since we have convinced 1/4 of the population that it doesn't exist, then that god is only 3/4 as powerful as it used to be. And, we could snuff it out of existence by expanding that number to 100%. That doesn't sound like much of a god. And, let me add that the existence of a god would be a terrible thing, so snuffing it out would be a good thing to do anyway.

So, the reasons to believe that there is a god are close enough to 0 so as to ignore that possibility. And, to think or live your life as if there were a god is as irrational as acting as if there is a dragon on the moon.

 

lol, rock solid logic there buddy.

 

Have you seen a god? But more appropriately, I also believe in electrons, but nobody has ever seen one. Just the evidence.

 

What is the difference? Helium for sure we can create. The others I'm not sure about. I'm sure a particle physicist could tell you. I can imagine ways to do it in high energy collisions, and fission and fusion. But again, none of this really has any bearing on anything. We know how stars are formed even if we can't do it in a lab. Can you prove a god exists by creating a six-legged winged goat?

 

As I pointed out to the other atheist in here, there's plenty of evidence of God's existence, if you believe. That you don't find it convincing doesn't mean it isn't evidence. You dismiss all evidence of God's existence as fraudulent and then claim there isn't any. That's stacking the deck. As for my proof that you say I don't have and won't look at, ask Koko, he has a copy of it.

What's irrational is thinking that your doubt equals proof. I'm typing on the phone, so I won't try to debunk each of your points, but know that your assumptions are all wrong, so your conclusions are also wrong. And you fail to consider that atheism is itself a claim. No matter how much you debunk theistic claims, you still haven't proven the atheistic case. I like to use the coelacanth as a counter-example to atheists' fanciful notions, because it's a creature that shouldn't exist but does. If you prove the 27 closest related species of the coelacanth died out millions of years ago, that doesn't prove the coelacanth did. If you point out all the reasons coelacanths should be extinct, it doesn't prove they are. That's essentially what you're doing with God.

 

That's the problem. You have to believe first rather than examine reality and then believe what the evidence says. So, if you do it that way, you have no way of discerning any claim from any other. If you believe anything first, you can then rationalize it.

Well, it's stacking the deck against bad ideas. There is a standard of evidence, if something isn't evidence, then it isn't evidence. It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to true results.

I uh... I don't know that at all lol.

So.. how does the complete lack of any reason to think that a god exists not lead to the conclusion that there is not god?

But, you should in no way assume that coelacanth exists and has not died out unless you have evidence. We have evidence that it exists so, evidence has been provided, you should now update your beliefs and act as if they do exist.

 

The irony of course is that people who believe in God say the same identical thing.

 

which is dumb, since there is absolutely no evidence what so ever of any god or gods.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

 

That's actually a great example. Let's examine the claim that the existence of an electron is equivalent to the claim that there is a god.

So for the electron, we have experiments that demonstrate it's existence, we have a rigorous mathematical framework to describe an electron and predict it's behavior. We can even use it to do work, in fact, it's discovery and exploitation has revolutionized human society, it has lead to new discoveries and branches of physics. It has been used to improve quality of life, decrease and cure disease and increase food production, it has literally changed the entire world. And, I'm not even scratching the surface. The very fact that you are reading this message from me is overwhelming evidence that it exists.

For god: well.. some people say it exists.

Obviously those two claims are in no way shape or form equivalent or even in the same galaxy. To claim they are is clearly highly irrational.

 

However theists can argue they have as much or more evidence than you with your electron. For instance, murder, a moral imperative, adopted into secular law, now you may claim thats not proof of God but in the realm of metaphysics thats all you have. Many theist dogmatic issues were adopted into law, which is possibly stronger evidence than you can provide for an electron.

 

Not only is it not proof, it isn't even evidence, or even a reason to make someone think about it. If you want to use metaphysical evidence, then you can have metaphysical belief. The realm we are operating in is real life. What you have is evidence for religion. Religion exists, there is evidence that it exists, an atheist believes religion exists.

 

Holy cow. If I showed you a cow and said it produces milk, would you still act this way?

You are not persuaded GOD exists. Can you close your eyes and come to grips with there not being a thing in the universe? All of it was created. I hope by GOD you mean creator.

Two states are possible though one is extremely not probable.
1. The universe self created. Not probable at all.
2. God created the universe. Extremely probable.

Nothing so far done by science can explain the spontaneous creation of stars nor planets nor all other things found in the universe.

It relies on the concept nothing becomes something.

 

I am no stranger to physics nor chemistry given they were courses I studied in college.
Though it was only 1957, I had read Einsteins books. I have closely followed science since around 1952. It was in 51 or 52 when in the 8th grade I postulated that to exceed the speed of light, you needed to either warp space or locate a warp and like you jetted through, you were located well distant in space and perhaps time. I would say this fits well with Einstein but in the 8th grade I don't recall hearing of him. I recall him discussed in high school physics but that was in 1955.

I once worked out a design for a small machine to lift itself off the ground but never tried to build one though later I did own a machine shop and could have made one. I did not blow money on that design due to my innate belief it was not going to work anyway.

I don't construct GOD. I look at evidence that is easily explained by saying GOD created it ... it is the universe ... and let it stand there. We do know the universe exists. This is not in dispute. To think it self created for me is to think the tires on your car self created. That makes no sense.

 

Lol, what?

Rambling

You are actually missing a few:

The universe always existed, say as an harmonic oscillator.
There are infinite universes.
There's a multiverse.
A sea slug created the universe accidentally.
A six legged winged goat created the universe.
A turtle grew it on it's back.
And probably an infinite number of possibilities I can't think of.

Now, what is more likely? The spontaneous creation of a handful of energy and a couple constants, or the spontaneous creation of an infinitely powerful super intelligence?

Quantum physics actually allows for the former, even within the confines of this universe.

Science actually very thoroughly explains everything up to the first 10^-43 seconds of everything. And, quantum mechanics does allow for something from nothing.

 

lol! Yes, you clearly are an Einstein level genius.

No, someone told you god existed and you focus on your thoughts on things that confirm that. Not understanding something is not evidence against it.

 

I believe Einstein had a bit higher IQ but so what?
While I had been told of GOD as a pre teen, I loathed my cousins church and only went the one time. I saw it as a scam to bilk people out of their cash.

I did not say not understanding proves a thing. Did you prove the universe self created?

Give that a shot. If you claim it has a cause, name the cause.