Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I love how heartfelt this is. Thank you sir.
My objection, though, is your definition of reality being the external, the physical. But I'd say that ''imagination/fantasy'' may be just as real, just in a different way. Yes, I won't argue against that fact that it's ''inside my head'', but the inside is no less real than the outside.
After all, there could be a wide array of ''spiritual laws'' that govern our spiritual lives, which are by default undetectable via physical means (because they're not physical).
That's just my two cents. What do you think :D
So if you imagine a unicorn that makes it real? Yeah I don''t think you have considered your claim with the proper level of critical scrutiny.
We could be surrounded by invisible pink unicorns, but like your claim this is pure unevidenced speculation.
''So if you imagine a unicorn that makes it real?''
This is a blatant straw man, logical dude.
I'm not saying that everything you imagine is real, I'm saying that they CAN be, and there is at least some reality to the world of imagination, just not in a physical sense.
''We could be surrounded by invisible pink unicorns, but like your claim this is pure unevidenced speculation.''
I'm not saying invisible pink unicorns exist, but do you know that ''X isn't real because no evidence'' is argument from ignorance?
So if you imagine a unicorn that makes it real? Yeah I don''t think you have considered your claim with the proper level of critical scrutiny.
No it isn't, though it might be considered reductio ad absurdum...
Well your earlier claim didn't make this distinction clear, and I must say your posting is very sloppily put together. However now that you have added this caveat, tell us what objectively differentiates between things you imagine that are real, and those that are not?
I never said you did, and this wasn't my point, rather I was illustrating that your claim was again a bare unevidenced claim.
Not quite, but pretty close, something is not disproved because of a lack of evidence, anymore than it is proved through a lack of contrary evidence. However you are again conflating a lack of belief in your claims with a contrary claim, and this simply isn't the case. Atheism is not a claim, it is a lack or absence of belief in a claim, and the fact no theists can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity makes withholding belief in the claim epistemologically justifiable. Hence my example of invisible pink unicorns being an unfalsifiable concept. You cannot know they do not exist, so does that justify belief they are real, or even that they might be possible? This type of reasoning is evident in a great many theist's posts on here, but the rationale is a cul de sac where you are either forced to accept all unfalsifiable claims have validity, or hold a biased closed minded position where you grant this exception to one belief in a particular deity.
Remember an unfalsifiable concept or claim cannot be falsified even if it is false. Thus all claims to knowledge are false, in science such claims are rejected out of hand as unscientific as it is a basic requirement that all claim are falsifiable, and unfalsifiable claims are often referred to as not even wrong, since falsifying something in science advances our knowledge.
''So if you imagine a unicorn that makes it real? Yeah I don''t think you have considered your claim with the proper level of critical scrutiny.''
I literally just told you why this is a fallacy.
''Well your earlier claim didn't make this distinction clear, and I must say your posting is very sloppily put together. However now that you have added this caveat, tell us what objectively differentiates between things you imagine that are real, and those that are not?''
Why should I be responsible for your own incomprehensibility? And haven't I made it clear in the newer response?
What are you even trying to achieve here?
''I never said you did, and this wasn't my point, rather I was illustrating that your claim was again a bare unevidenced claim.''
And I literally just said I didn't claim that at all! Now you're just accusing me of claiming something I didn't claim. And I've even already explained why I wasn't claiming that.
Is this your tactic? Frustrating your opponents by deliberately not comprehending what they're saying?
''Not quite, but pretty close, something is not disproved because of a lack of evidence, anymore than it is proved through a lack of contrary evidence. However you are again conflating a lack of belief in your claims with a contrary claim, and this simply isn't the case. Atheism is not a claim, it is a lack or absence of belief in a claim, and the fact no theists can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity makes withholding belief in the claim epistemologically justifiable.''
And this line of thinking is exactly what I'm arguing against, yet you're repeating it over and over again as if that has any impact on my position!
As I've already said a million times, demanding physical evidence for non-physical thing is unsubstantiated.
Think about this: if by definition there will never be evidence that you can accept, then doesn't that technically make atheism unfalsifiable?
''Hence my example of invisible pink unicorns being an unfalsifiable concept. You cannot know they do not exist, so does that justify belief they are real, or even that they might be possible?''
And again, no! Really, do you think that I wouldn't even know what's argument from ignorance?
What's more, your example of the invisible pink unicorn is not a good one. First of all, unicorns are physical beings, and a unicorn can't be a non-physical being by definition. Second, being invisible and pink is logically contradictory, thus said creature can't exist at all. So I've decided to change my stance: yes, I can say for certain the invisible pink unicorns don't exist.
Let's use a different example before moving on. Let's say, the human soul. You OK with this one?
''This type of reasoning is evident in a great many theist's posts on here, but the rationale is a cul de sac where you are either forced to accept all unfalsifiable claims have validity, or hold a biased closed minded position where you grant this exception to one belief in a particular deity.''''
And again, this is a straw man. All I said was that you can't dismiss something due to lack of proof, which is argument from ignorance. I never claimed you can say something's true just because you can't disprove it.
What's more, again, if you only accept physical evidence, then by definition there can never be evidence for deities, thus making atheism unfalsifiable. I'd like to hear your two cents on this.
@hanni the witch
So what objectively differentiates between things you imagine that are real, and those that are not? Your latest disjointed rant seems to have missed the question.
It's not a line of thinking, it is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of atheism, a point that you seem incapable of absorbing.
I'll gloss over how bat shit crazy that claim is, but my example deliberately said invisible pink unicorns, so a perfect analogy for a non physical deity you have imagined, but cannot evidence. Again please explain the objective difference between the two?
I'll dumb it down as much as I can for you...
Why do you believe a deity is real?
''It's not a line of thinking, it is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of atheism, a point that you seem incapable of absorbing.''
You misunderstood. I am NOT arguing against how atheism is defined (because I literally can't, and don't need to anyway). I'm arguing whether this position is justified.
''I'll gloss over how bat shit crazy that claim is, but my example deliberately said invisible pink unicorns, so a perfect analogy for a non physical deity you have imagined, but cannot evidence. Again please explain the objective difference between the two?''
You literally just equated ''non-physical'' with ''not real'', and based your argument upon that. Do you realize this is the fallacy of begging the question?
''Why do you believe a deity is real?''
That's a big question. Well, the reasons are spiritual and personal, but this is apparently something you wouldn't accept.
Speaking of which, I'm going to repeat my argument once again (which you ignored): since there can be no satisfactory evidence for you, wouldn't it render atheism unfalsifiable?
@hanni the witch: What you are missing is EVIDENCE. There is no reason to assume the reality of anything without "evidence." There is a very good little book out there called "Crack in the Cosmic Egg." It's the only good book the author ever wrote as the then got caught up in Hinduism. Not sure what he is doing now. It discusses how we go about making leaps of logic into the unexplored.
I've already present my evidence and deductions.
If you keep insisting on only accepting PHYSICAL evidence, then technically you're never be able to be proven wrong. You're unfalsifiable. It's just like only asking for evidence against the accused during a trial.
You can't give us evidence without giving us information. And as far as anyone has ever shown, information is stored in physical distinctions.
Before you can give evidence for the non-physical, you'll need to show that there is non-physical information; by repeatedly and reliably extracting it from some non-physical source. Or you could just continue with the insults.
My guess is you will continue posting insults and not even try to be serious.
@ hanni the witch
"Yes, I won't argue against that fact that it's ''inside my head'', but the inside is no less real than the outside."
There is a guy locked up in a psych ward who sincerely believes he is Napoleon. Because it is in his head, is it real? Is he really Napoleon?
I gave this example to illustrate that even though a person can "believe" things as a direct result of their inner thoughts, imagination, or a mental illness, that alone is no proof it is real.
I am sorry, that definition/explanation is not sufficient or me to accept. Can you please provide other and more powerful examples?
He isn't. Why? Because he's conflating his imaginations with the physical world--that is, blatant misunderstandings of the physical world.
Thus, your example isn't convincing, and my point stands still, since the spiritual is not based upon disregarding the physical.
@Hanni the witch: If your "spiritual" has no effect on the natural "IT'S FUCKING USELESS, and THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSERT IT IS REAL IN ANY WAY AT ALL. If it does affect the natural "IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURABLE." How frigging hard is that to figure out.
@ Hanni
I agree, Us atheists have no idea:
You made me write this down after reading your first post, thank you from all my heart
We are in the midst of a sentient ennobling of stardust that will be a gateway to the totality itself. We are at a crossroads of knowledge and selfishness. Reality has always been buzzing with dreamweavers whose chakras are transformed into grace.
Yes, it is possible to destroy the things that can confront us, but not without transcendence on our side. Without rejuvenation, one cannot grow. You must take a stand against bondage.
Shakti will clear a path toward high-frequency wisdom. Soon there will be a flowering of non-locality the likes of which the nexus has never seen. We must learn how to lead psychic lives in the face of desire.
We can no longer afford to live with desire.
The goal of supercharged waveforms is to plant the seeds of starfire rather than greed. Potentiality requires exploration. We heal, we dream, we are reborn.
Ignore those here Hanni, let us take our reality elsewhere.
@ Old man
I can set ants on fire just by thinking. If I get really irate I can make a crow burst into flames. I once got kicked in the nuts and a cockroach exploded.
Haha, I see what you're doing. Nice try ==
Quote from Hanni “ I won't argue against that fact that it's ''inside my head'', but the inside is no less real than the outside.”
Ahhh...the conundrum. Everything is inside your “head”. This is where information is processed. A person can now veer off into speculation about “outside information” (ie brain in a jar; running computer simulation, etc) - mind candy. And since information about the brain comes from”outside” mind-candy could in essence remove this “processor” altogether .... ohhh what a fun, deep, rabbit hole.
@ hanni the witch
"Haha, I see what you're doing. Nice try =="
I was using sarcastic and irreverent humor to illustrate that just throwing out buzzwords and concepts that cannot be substantiated can seem silly to another.
I apologize if I offended you, but I had to make a point.
Now I have to go find my "Ant Fire Extinguisher". Last time I saw it was under Tin man's arm as he clattered out the door, he was muttering something about cooling his tongue. Because of death nuts I am going to have tiny burn marks on my floor. Little fuckers tried to make off with a slice of toast.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Well, apology accepted, but the point is:
Making nonsensical parodies of spiritual text actually doesn't prove your point against spiritualism. It does nothing, because it is pretty much mockery, and mockeries are NOT arguments.
I can make nonsensical parodies too. I can try to generate a ''physics paper'' full of random technobabble and irrelevant formulas, and it'd still be pretty much indistinguishable from a real physics paper.
This is by no means saying ''therefore, spiritual texts are all right''. No, in fact many of them are bullshit, precisely because they misunderstand the physical world and conflate the spiritual with the physical. In reality, spiritualism is much more than ''quantum vibrations''.
Hanni “ I can try to generate a ''physics paper'' full of random technobabble and irrelevant formulas, and it'd still be pretty much indistinguishable from a real physics paper.”
You can. But then physicists would say “what the fuck” upon peer review and toss it. Part of peer review.
Yeah. Exactly. And spiritualists would look at what you wrote and say ''what the fuck'' and toss it as well. Because it's nonsensical, ffs.
Which spiritualists?!?! Which ones exactly? Get specific. Each of my “spiritual” expressions has its meaning in spirituality.
You may toss it out as nonsense. You - but what is the measurement tool being used?
Is it back to feelings? Feelings lead to Jesus. Feelings lead to stalking. Just because you have a “filter” in regard to Jesus (assuming) doesn’t mean feelings are an accurate path to what is “true”.
What's the measurement tool? Common sense. That random text literally made no sense.
Well feelings also lead to happiness. On the other hand, science gave us a 70-year lifespan, but science also led to eugenics.
Look, I'm not arguing that feelings are always right; it's just like how science isn't always right either. Things grow and progress.
Feelings lead to Jesus, so what? Christians experience different feelings than mine, who am I to judge? I must tolerate others' rights even though I disagree with them. And you usually might dismiss this, but religions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It's just like three blind men touching different body parts of an elephant--their descriptions are different, even seemingly paradoxical, but technically they're not wrong.
@ hanni the witch
"Yeah. Exactly. And spiritualists would look at what you wrote and say ''what the fuck'' and toss it as well. Because it's nonsensical, ffs."
Not at all. Part of the scientific process is that papers must be published and peer reviewed. And during that process other physicists and scientists attempt to find fault and tear it apart. The paper must provide concise explanations on how the experiments were performed, so that anyone with the required abilities and equipment can replicate the test. Repeatability.
Anyone can publish a paper, but it must undergo a very demanding and rigorous process for it to be accepted by others.
It is not nonsensical. It is a rigorous process where each step must be proven.
Oh, no, no, I know what's a peer review and I wasn't arguing against that.
I'm was saying that I don't need peer review to know whether something is LITERAL GIBBERISH.
@Old Man: Give me back my shovel!!!
OMS ...words of wisdom based in love, the ultimate force moving reality forward through conscious observation.
This has to be a wind up?
Page 3, and I'm calling this one.
Hi, Hanni the Witch. Just woke up and read these three pages. Glad I poured a cup of coffee first.
From what you’ve written, it seems you consider the existence of mind/spirit/emotion to be a separate sort of entity from kidneys, liver, and fingernails. Is that correct? And that the non corporeal exists but cannot be demonstrated using corporeal methodology. Correct?
If so, okay. I have zero problem with you thinking that. I might think it’s silly, or illogical, or false but really don’t care if you hold those ideas. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
As an atheist, I don’t happen to agree with you. But your insistence that you know what I think and why, I’ll admit, rankles me.
It’s awfully convenient that we, living in the physical world, have no tools to test your assertions about a non physical world. Others posters here have offered that anything one can imagine could be supported as real with this line of reasoning. I agree with them. Here at AR, we have had many, many non-atheists offer the same argument for quite varied deities.
In your OP, Hanni, you inferred that all folks who identify as atheist rely on science as the only basis for rejecting god assertions. I’m not a scientist so won’t even pretend I rely solely on it for anything. Also, your assertion that you used to be me made me chuckle.
Why are you here, Hanni, posting at AR? Are you on a mission? Looking for entertainment? Trying to hone debate skills? Assuage boredom? Whatever the reason, welcome.
Your unabashed accusations of my intentions hurt me. I've had very elaborate explanations on my intentions and what I'm looking for; if you've really read the thread you'd probably notice it. But in short I'm only here for rational debate and personal growth, since I regard critical thinking as a important component of human experience. Anyways, ouch.
''From what you’ve written, it seems you consider the existence of mind/spirit/emotion to be a separate sort of entity from kidneys, liver, and fingernails. Is that correct? And that the non corporeal exists but cannot be demonstrated using corporeal methodology. Correct?''
Yes and no. The spiritual and physical are obviously interwoven (as evidenced by the fact we have brains and nerves), even though the two are still fundamentally different.
''It’s awfully convenient that we, living in the physical world, have no tools to test your assertions about a non physical world. Others posters here have offered that anything one can imagine could be supported as real with this line of reasoning. ''
First of all, it is illogical to object to the fact the non-physical things can't have physical evidence. Non-physical things have non-physical evidence.
Second, it's a straw man fallacy. I never claimed ''you can say anything's real''; in fact, you can actually TEST if a spiritual claim is true--but it would be fundamentally subjective, and works only if you're open to deeply exploring your experiences. I can't really put it logically because this is not within the realm of science.
''In your OP, Hanni, you inferred that all folks who identify as atheist rely on science as the only basis for rejecting god assertions. I’m not a scientist so won’t even pretend I rely solely on it for anything. Also, your assertion that you used to be me made me chuckle.''
Chuckle all you want, but right now you're literally arguing with the assumption that only the physical is real (or, at best real-er than the spiritual), and science is about the physcial. I was never claiming you guys are scientists and whatnot, so you misunderstood me.
''Why are you here, Hanni, posting at AR? Are you on a mission? Looking for entertainment? Trying to hone debate skills? Assuage boredom?''
Right....oh no, I'm such a monster who tortures rational people by trying to have rational debates with them! How dare I? @@
Pages