why do you not believe in God?

430 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"RE-INCARNATION. this topic

"RE-INCARNATION. this topic is not only a fact, proven beyond any doubt,"

Have the mods advertised for every crackpot wack-job lunatic to come here and sill their guts or something? not only is it not a fact, or proven, there is absolutely no objective evidence to support this woo woo superstition.

So called near death experiences being used to assert anything are the very definition of argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and therefore the antithesis of logic, they are by definition irrational. If something can't be explained then nothing can be asserted from it, that is fundamental to logic.

"i would be interested in hearing what your explanation will be."

When his work is in a worthy peer reviewed journal and his conclusions are supported by a global scientific consensus as being supported by the preponderance of objective evidence I'll accept it, until then my explanation is not needed, as he has evidenced nothing. no book can rationally evidence it's own claims, and again this is axiomatic.

corsair leader's picture
it is amazing to me how

it is amazing to me how quickly one will refuse to even look at the evidence before stating it's utterly worthless. it reminds me of when louise pasture begged doctors to wash their hands before doing surgery. he was laffed out of the operating rooms. no doctor would admit something so small as bacteria could effect someones health. all i am asking is look at the evidence which was documented over a period of years concerning one subject, a four year old boy. if you refuse to at least look at this evidence, then whatever you bring to the table should not be taken as gospel. you refuse to expose yourself to other possibilities. perhaps you fear if this subject matter is true, then all you believe in now is false, thus, you must change course.
a small lesson in rocketry. a rocket is constantly being corrected, it flies a very erratic course. there is nothing wrong with changing course, if you learn from it. don't be afraid to learn something new. don't be like most religions, totally inflexible. they don't have the ability to correct course. think about the possibilities if i am rite. corsair leader.

arakish's picture
I already have.

I already have. Reincarnation is bullshit. NDE is bullshit. Need I say more?

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
It's amazing how low some

It's amazing how low some people set the bar for credulity in the most bizarre, and fantastic fantasies, just because they want them to be true, and how they never fail to make false grandiose claims for scientific validity, as if this kind of woo woo nonsense could be validated by science, and we'd hear about it first in an internet chatroom.

The rest of your post is just patronising nonsense sorry, claiming everyone who rejects your unevidenced claims is inflexible, and doesn't want to learn doesn't make it so. One book cannot rationally validate anything, and you have demonstrated no objective evidence for what you claimed was a proven fact.

corsair leader's picture
no no my friend. chatrooms do

no no my friend. chatrooms do not validate anything but to excite the mind to other possibilities. why do you refuse to even look at what is being presented?is it possible you have all the rite answers to all questions? you set yourself up as the all knowing oracle?
if that be the case, then perhaps someone other then you will explore, if not for others to learn from but for himself to make the decision if it is correct. is it not better to be a leader and not a follower? it would be one terrible world if we left all our decisions to be made by persons with mindless intellect that will prevent investigation. where do you see harm in investigating? are you that busy in spreading your own beliefs?
i was an alterboy at 9 yrs. old, a practicing catholic for many years, but had questions no one could answer. i have researched many years. i now practice no religion. i believe in nothing that cannot be proven. is it too much to ask to
read one chapter in a book?
if that be the case then i will depart. it matters not to me what course you follow. it just proves how f--ked up a lot of people are.
no investigation, no new possibilities, no discussions, no growth. how can you expect to advance in this dimension we exist if you have all the answers?
i will watch and see what transpires. if nothing? so be it . corsair leader.

Nyarlathotep's picture
corsair leader - is it too

corsair leader - is it too much to ask to read one chapter in a book?

If you provide the chapter, I'll read it.

arakish's picture
corsair leader: "why do you

corsair leader: "why do you refuse to even look at what is being presented?"

Because I have already seen all that bullshit. I am a reader. As me mom puts it, I don't just read books, I consume them.

If you are willing to give me the chapter you speak of free of charge, then I shall consume. However, don't be surprised if just shoots straight through and causes me to have the Hershey Squirts and the Heavey Jeavies.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
I never claimed chatroom

I never claimed chatroom validated anything, so that's a bizarre straw man argument to open with?

"why do you refuse to even look at what is being presented?"

I already explained why, twice, read my responses again as it couldn't have been made any clearer.

"is it possible you have all the rite answers to all questions? you set yourself up as the all knowing oracle?"

Right, not rite (sic), and that's a puerile and dishonest misrepresentation, as I made no such claim, I simply have no interest in wasting my time reading books about woo woo superstition you can't demonstrate any objective evidence for? If you demonstrate objective evidence then get on with it. I already explained twice that no book can rationally validate it's own claims.

"if that be the case, then perhaps someone other then you will explore, if not for others to learn from but for himself to make the decision if it is correct. is it not better to be a leader and not a follower?

That's gibberish sorry, what does it even mean? Either some objective evidence can be demonstrated to support the claims of the book or it can't, which is it?

"it would be one terrible world if we left all our decisions to be made by persons with mindless intellect that will prevent investigation."

You do like your duplicitous condescending straw man polemics don't you. The choices are not limited to prevent investigation, or waste my time wading through an unevidenced book making puerile superstitious claims that can't be properly evidenced. If you wish to be gullible and indulge this hokum that's your business, but do stop trying to sneer at people who set a reasonable unbiased and objective standard of evidence for claims.

"are you that busy in spreading your own beliefs?"

Another dishonest straw man, since I have not mentioned any beliefs, and unlike you am not given to hysterical proselytising.I am happy for people to decide for themselves whether a belief is justified, but if they bring their claims into public a debate forum then I have every right to comment.

"i believe in nothing that cannot be proven. "

You have already shown this claim to be false, as you claim to believe reincarnation is not just valid but a "proven fact", yet so far have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for the belief. I don't care what this book says, either it's claims can be objectively evidenced or they cannot, a great deal can be inferred from your evasion though.

"is it too much to ask to
read one chapter in a book?"

You can ask for my credit card details and PIN if you like, just don't sulk when I refuse. I have no desire to wade through a book on "unicorn husbandry" just because you claim it has compelling evidence, yet can't produce one single piece of that evidence here or cite any objective evidence for the book's claims.

"if that be the case then i will depart. it matters not to me what course you follow. it just proves how f--ked up a lot of people are."

Well you won't be missed, as religious histrionics are ten a penny on here lately. Though before you go I feel minded to point out you brought your unevidenced superstitious verbiage here, I didn't seek you out, and having failed to offer a single tangible fact in support of your absurd claim for reincarnation you are now throwing your toys out of your pram and insulting me. There is nothing fucked up about approaching all claims and beliefs with an open minded and unbiased standard for evidence as I try to do.

"no investigation, no new possibilities, no discussions, no growth. "

Well you've offered no one of that, so blaming everyone else is pretty silly. You have offered not one objective fact for examination, possibilities are irrelevant to the validity of your claims as they appear to me to unfalsifiable anyway, and probability seems very unlikely since you can offer no evidence, just endless references to a single book, are you on commission or something?

" how can you expect to advance in this dimension we exist if you have all the answers?"

Another bare faced lie, I haven't claimed to have any answers, you are the one making all the bizarre superstitious claims not me. Do stop making up these preposterous lies about me please.

"i will watch and see what transpires. if nothing? so be it . corsair leader."

What did you expect to transpire from yet another visiting poster making grandiose claims for the supernatural they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for? Do you generally get the glowing approbation of people you share this hokum with then? If so you need to try a tougher audience, as your arguments are woeful, so filled with common logical fallacies it's almost funny to see someone think they are making a rational argument.

Diotrephes's picture
corsair leader,

corsair leader,

If everyone gets reincarnate then where do all of the people come from? Thousands of years ago there were few people. Today there are billions. So how did the few become billions? When the original people underwent their original reincarnations did they multiply into multiple copies like yeast? Do you have any idea who your original person was? If people keep getting reincarnated why are they so stupid after multiple reincarnations?

Algebe's picture
@corsair leader: it reminds

@corsair leader: it reminds me of when louise pasture begged doctors to wash their hands before doing surgery

You should give credit where credit's due. It was Ignaz Semmelweis who first proposed hand sterilization as a way of preventing infections in the mid-19th century. He carried out scientific trials at hospitals in Vienna and achieved major reductions in the death rate for women giving birth. He was ridiculed at the time and eventually ended up in an asylum, where he was beaten to death by the guards. He only got credit after Pasteur proved him right by discovering germs.

Semmelweis didn't know about germs, but he reasoned that the vector for infections was the hands of physicians moving from one patient to another. Pasteur gave us a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Another example is John Snow, whose theory that cholera was transmitted in water rather than air was ridiculed at the time. Snow also invented the use of anesthesia for childbirth and was condemned by the church for going against the will of god.

Where are the Semmelweis, Snow, and Pasteur of reincarnation? The idea has been around for centuries, but not one shred of real evidence has been produced. All we have is subjective stories that can't be proved or disproved.

arakish's picture
And John Snow's study about

And John Snow's study about cholera was the first instance of the use of Geographical Information Science.

rmfr

David Killens's picture
Nice try at misdirection, but

Nice try at misdirection, but let'd get back to this wild claim, that reincarnation is an established and proven fact.

Proof.

Randomhero1982's picture
a subject i'm sure most

a subject i'm sure most atheist do not want to discuss.
RE-INCARNATION. this topic is not only a fact, proven beyond any doubt, but still not discussed with honesty and openly

If you truly believe in this utter bollocks, then may I say that I have a big bag of magic beans I wish to sell to you!!!

JazzTheist's picture
''Well, why don't you believe

''Well, why don't you believe in those other gods I listed?''

Because those other gods were part of pagan religions, where gods were treated like other natural beings and were only invented to explain how natural phenomena work. The ''God'', on the other hand, is a necessary ultimate answer to ''why'' natural phenomena occur in the first place.

Tin-Man's picture
Awwww, maaaaaannnn.... Get

Awwww, maaaaaannnn.... Get rid of one crew of sock puppet trolls, and another crew comes in to take their place... *face palm*... *groooan*....

JazzTheist's picture
Please act civilized. This is

Please act civilized. This is the ''debate'' room.

arakish's picture
We do act civilized. Theists

We do act civilized. Theists are the ones who do not.

JazzTheist: Because those other gods were part of pagan religions, where gods were treated like other natural beings and were only invented to explain how natural phenomena work. The ''God'', on the other hand, is a necessary ultimate answer to ''why'' natural phenomena occur in the first place.

Please provide objective hard empirical evidence this "thing" is a necessary ultimate answer to ''why'' natural phenomena occur in the first place.

Otherwise, The Six Razors:

  1. Sagan's Razor: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  2. Hitchens's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Arakish's Razor: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
  4. Xenoview's Razor: Objective claims requires objective evidence.
  5. Randomhero1982's Razor: If it's not evidenced, it's bollocks.
  6. Tin-Man's Butter Knife: Any ridiculous nonsense presented will be countered with opposing ridiculous nonsense of an equal or greater amount.
  • Cognostic's Shovel: When someone starts slinging bullshit at you, get a shovel and sling it back.

There is no "thing" other than natural explanations for everything.

rmfr

JazzTheist's picture
''We do act civilized.''

''We do act civilized.''

Tin-man certainly does not.

''Theists are the ones who do not.''

Well, not me.

''Please provide objective hard empirical evidence......there is no 'thing' other than natural explanations for everything.''

I used to believe the exact same line of reasoning until I realized some flaws in the methodology.

Here's a thought experiment: let's say the things described in Revelations suddenly happened today.

"See,'' I say, ''the Bible was right.''

''No,'' you say, ''that would be invoking the supernatural.''

Here's another thought experiment: scientists discover a pattern in the DNA of every human which looked like some kind of autograph. The pattern is decoded to say, ''I am God. I made this''.

''See,'' I say, ''God is real!''

''No,'' you say, ''that would be invoking the supernatural.

You've probably noticed what I'm talking about. When the methodology of your worldview strictly excludes any possibility of other worldviews being right, then...I dunno, it doesn't sound logical to me.

LogicFTW's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist
Let's get this straight, you had to go into a hypothetical "let's say the things described in Revelations suddenly happened today."

If you have to go into hypothetical thought process argument to defend your opinions, you need to know that defense of your opinion is in trouble, deep, DEEP! trouble.

If you do not understand that when I point it out... yikes.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist's picture
So you're against using

So you're against using thought experiments altogether, am I wrong?

LogicFTW's picture
Using thought experiments as

@JazzTheist
Using thought experiments as an argument of proof/validity? Absolutely I am against that.

Using thought experiments to come up with new ideas to test with careful experimentation, study, testing and seeing how it fits and is supported or not by what else has been carefully studied, tested etc, however is a good process and is needed, but that is not what you are presenting here at all.

If you think using thought experiments is how you can explain the unknown, there lies your problem. Those kind of things need to remain strictly in the experiment stage, as it literally uses that word. I (and I am pretty sure no one else) has any idea what happened before the big bang. We can draw no conclusions from it. NONE. You cannot support a "god" idea of yours from something that is unknown.

Why? Because anything can be supported by the "unknown" which makes it useless, gibberish, a waste of thought, as it achieves nothing, proves nothing. Until actual real, empirical, evidenced, repeatable study that uses reality and real world data can be done it just that a thought, and we have an unlimited quantity of useless thoughts that serve us no good but to possibly distract and delude ourselves into highly faulty conclusions that will only serve to detract us from actual truth and knowledge.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

JazzTheist's picture
I am NOT talking about the

I am NOT talking about the unknown in the first place. All I'm doing is demonstrating the necessary existence of a first cause/prime mover/highest being that's responsible for every contingent thing. What science knows or does not know is not relevant.

The two thought experiments I presented was intended to demonstrate how flawed your methodology is. A presupposition of your methodology by definition rules out ANY possibility of the supernatural, which sounds unfalsifiable to me.

David Killens's picture
@JazzTheist

@JazzTheist

"The two thought experiments I presented was intended to demonstrate how flawed your methodology is."

Thought experiments can not prove anything, thought experiments are just a mental probing of possibilities. The classic Schrödinger's cat thought experiment does not prove anything, it just opens up a new way of examining things. Einstein's though experiments were a fundamental tool for understanding physical issues and for elucidating his concepts to others. But they did not prove anything, they just provided a path to further experimentation that eventually were confirmed by empirical evidence.

Sadly, your referencing thought experiments as being able to prove anything is a failed methodology.

Cognostic's picture
Oh honey, you are never wrong

Oh honey, you are never wrong. You are a big boy. You express your thoughts. Remember mommy and boyfriend love you. You are a good boy. I will see you soon and I will bring you a little gift. Something to occupy your time so you don't have to play with the mean atheists;. Kisses to mommy,.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jazz (aka: Squidward) Re:

@Jazz (aka: Squidward) Re: "We do act civilized.'' Tin-man certainly does not.

... *loudly bashes open door*... *walks into room dragging large mangled carcass of unidentified animal*... *drops bloody carcass in middle of room*... *kneels down beside carcass*... *grunting while using teeth to tear large chunk of meat from carcass*... *rises up wiith bloody face and shredded hunk of meat dandling from mouth*.... *looks around room and notices everybody staring in disbelief*... *discretely reaches down to make sure fly is zipped up*... *look of realization crosses face*.... *spits out hunk of meat*.... Oh, I'm sorry. Silly me. Where are my manners? Please, everybody, help yourselves... *gestures to carcass*... Plenty to go around.

JazzTheist's picture
You accused me of being a '

You accused me of being a ''sock puppet troll''. I thought you base your beliefs upon evidence, no?

Whether you believe it or not, I woke up and grew out of atheism. I'm a theist, not a squid anymore *chuckle*

Tin-Man's picture
@Squid-Jazz Re: "I thought

@Squid-Jazz Re: "I thought you base your beliefs upon evidence, no?"

Nope... *annoying buzzer sound*... Wrong! Johnny, tell him what he didn't win.... *applaud from audience*....

Sure, the whole evidence stuff is helpful to a degree, obviously. Personally, though, I could take it or leave it. For the record, my LACK of belief in any gods is based solely on the fact that the teachings of the major religions are totally ridiculous to me and make ZERO rational sense. In other words, my LACK of belief is totally independent of whatever "evidence" of which you speak. Thanks for playing, though. Please choose a consolation prize from the garbage can as you walk out the door.

JazzTheist's picture
Made me laugh. Ha ha ha.

Made me laugh. Ha ha ha.

You're just resorting to personal incredulity. I'm looking at you just like you'd look at a young Earth creationist who says ''evolution is ridiculous and lacks rational sense''.

Cognostic's picture
That's it sweetie, you stand

That's it sweetie, you stand up for yourself. Don't get too excited though. We don't want you to poop your pants. Oh sorry. I wasn't supposed to tell you about that. Anyway the poop is out of the panties now. Just remember not to get too excited. We don't want to have an accident. Remember you are a good boy and we love you.

Tin-Man's picture
@Squid-Jazz Re: "You accused

@Squid-Jazz Re: "You accused me of being a ''sock puppet troll''"

Oh, so sorry. Didn't mean to "accuse" you of anything. I just thought I was simply stating the obvious. My bad. Please, carry on... *bowing gracefully*...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.