There is no evidence for abcense

231 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leper's picture
There is no evidence for abcense

How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?

Doesn't it frighten them?

What happens to an atheist after death if he isn't a good atheist?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Leper

@ Leper

How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?

Ummmm, excuse me, but errrmmmm, I think that you have it wrong....the sentence should read How can theists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?

Atheists of my acquaintance reject that for which claims are made without evidence. So their lives, like mine are solidly grounded in reality.

Every theist I have met,, base their lives on unproven assertions and on unevidenced claims, and very dodgy documents/stories.

Either your grasp of English has completely failed or you have lost your marbles....

Leper's picture
I see you choose the tactic

I see you choose the tactic of denial.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Leper

@ Leper

Nope.

I see you chose the tactic of unintelligibility.

Leper's picture
@old man

@old man

You just deny and deny. Where can one get with you in a discussion?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Leper

@ Leper

Then answer questions in proper form.
Ducking and dodging, evasions are stock in trade for a theist.

I have yet to deny anything except the evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
Evidence you, it seems,are unable to provide.

Leper's picture
What have I dodged? Make the

What have I dodged? Make the question clear, I will give a clear answer for sure.

You deny a lot more than that. Even simple facts.

Tulasipatti's picture
I don’t know what is not

I don’t know what is not evident. If we close our logical and observational side of brain then we become atheist. All natural laws are accidental, well that is very scientific and logical explanation. I can’t help but laugh at these seemingly sophisticated but totally ridiculous reasons that God doesn’t exist.
You said atheist reject what is non evident. Now tell me what is evidence of non existence of god? Answer is no evidence. Yet you say there is no god. It’s just envy, too much envy towards God that gives you such kind of intelligence.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Tulasip[atti

@ Tulasip[atti

If we close our logical and observational side of brain then we become atheist.

Au contraire. As is evidenced by many posts on these forums....including this latest one of yours. Do read a bit before posting this utter nonsense.

You said atheist reject what is non evident. Now tell me what is evidence of non existence of god? Answer is no evidence.

Another pathetic attempt at reversing the burden of evidence. Did you read any of the thousands of posts on this forum before posting idiocy?

It’s just envy, too much envy towards God that gives you such kind of intelligence.

1> I can't be envious of something that may only exist inside your head.
2> Something that may only exist inside your head cannot gift me anything.

Do try and provide some evidence for your chosen god thing, then I may take you seriously.

Agree (0)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tulasipatti - All natural

Tulasipatti - All natural laws are accidental...

strawman

Tulasipatti's picture
That is what I want to tell

That is what I want to tell you indeed that no law is accidental. It’s made by higher authority. Here everybody talk about “evidence”.
But no evidence given enywhere. Just mental speculation. You can use any kind of seemingly sophisticated words or scentences. But that doesn’t prove anything. God exists or not that is out of your grasp first get to know this material word properly. It’s like kinder garden kids trying to discuss post graduate concept. You don’t even have a single meaningful reason in your support, let alone evidence. There is no reasoning with fools.

David Killens's picture
@Tulasipatti

@Tulasipatti

"That is what I want to tell you indeed that no law is accidental. It’s made by higher authority."

Please explain this claim.

Can you offer an adult and reasonable response to questions instead of just insults and attempting to reverse the burden of proof?

Cognostic's picture
@Tulasipatti RE: "no law

@Tulasipatti RE: "no law is accidental. It’s made by higher authority."

Wow are you confused. You quite obviously have been baptized one too many times. You should avoid allowing people to hold you under water for extended periods of times as it kills brain cells.

"No law is accidental." Agreed. How did you ever arrive at the conclusion they might be accidental? That's just ignorant. Laws are natural, observable and predictable occurrences.

So what I gather from your inane utterance here is that you believe some authority (I have no idea at all what you mean by "Higher.") has .... um.... created the laws? Do you have any evidence for that?

You admit there is no evidence given anywhere, so how in the hell do you arrive at the conclusion there is a god thing?

So your argument is, "There is no evidence anywhere, so God exists." That's just moronic.

Well, we do agree on one thing ---- "There is no reasoning with fools."

Cognostic's picture
@Tulasipatti: Someone has

@Tulasipatti: Someone has lost their mind in the forum but I fear it is not the Atheists.

RE: " All natural laws are accidental?"
I have no idea at all how you came up with that inane assertion. Do you know what a natural law is?
Natural Law: "An observable law relating to natural phenomena." Natural laws are observable, measurable, repeatable. I don't know how you got to accidental. Perhaps you could explain that to us.

RE: Reasons that God doesn’t exist.
Which reasons god does not exist are you speaking of? Which god are you talking about? If you define your god then it can be discussed. Wouldn't it be cool to discover it does exist. Why not tell us which god you are talking about?

RE: "Now tell me what is evidence of non existence of god." Which god? You have to define your god before we can talk about it.
For example: If you claim Tin Man is your god, well he obviously exists. He is not worth worshiping in my opinion but he is a hell of a craftsman and certainly deserves a bit of admiration. (Don't tell him I said that.) So your God would exist but it would just be a normal Tin man that likes to work with wood. Not much of a god in my opinion but certainly real. So what'ch got?

Your god does not exist to me until you tell me what the fuck you are talking about. The fact that you can not describe or define your god to me lets me think you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Envy? Envy towards? Is English your first language? Do you perhaps mean envy of god or gods? I might be envious if such a being actually existed. Can you demonstrate your god? I can't be envious until I know what the fuck you are talking about.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "If you claim Tin

@Cog Re: "If you claim Tin Man is your god, well he obviously exists."

Dammit, Cog! What the hell?!? Don't go giving Tulasipatti any ideas! The LAST thing I need or want right now is some babbling theist following me around all day every day praying to me, and asking for forgiveness, and sacrificing animals, and telling me how much he loves and adores me! I especially hate it when he drops to his knees right in front of me as I walk, causing me to trip over him and damn near break my neck. That shit gets really annoying, and I wouldn't be able to get anything done in my workshop. Oh, and then he will likely start telling all his friends about me, in which case I would soon have a WHOLE GROUP of babbling theists around me, each one trying to out-do the other in showing who loves and worships me the most. Fuck that! I ain't got time for that type of nonsense!

Hey, Tulasipatti! Trust me, you do NOT want to worship me. I would be a HORRIBLE god. I'm bitchy and stubborn, and I totally expect people to handle their own shit. COG, on the other hand, would be an excellent god for you to worship! He absolutely LOVES giving advice and admonishing people who spout stupid shit. Plus, he makes a fantastic banana pudding and banana cream pie. And if you are extra good, he will even sit still for a few minutes and allow you to pick the nits out of his fur. How could you possibly refuse that?

Cognostic's picture
@Tulasipatti: Yea, worship

@Tulasipatti: Yea, worship me. Pick up those buckets of poo over there. We are heading over to Old Man's house to do a bit of flinging. I have this bag of bolts, screws and nuts. (He he he he he , I said nuts.) We will toss them on the lawn and when he sees the mess he will blame Tin Man. If you can't fling poo. I don't need you as a minion. You gotta pull your own weight around here. While you are at it, grab that empty bucket. I expect you to fill it before we get to the house.

Tulasipatti's picture
@ Tin, cog etc. Well now I

@ Tin, cog etc. Well now I get it you guys are on a bogus propaganda. You have no real evidence for it so you try to demean and offend who give you evidence against your bogus propaganda. That’s what you have in you support? No concrete proof no practical observation just make big complicated sentences. There is no reasoning with such bogus cult. Another money making cheater cult.

Tin-Man's picture
@Tulasipatti Re: "Well now I

@Tulasipatti Re: "Well now I get it you guys are on a bogus propaganda."

Nope. Sorry. Good guess, though. Granted, I can't speak for Cog, but I know I am currently on a purple futon. Although, I do admit, tomorrow I am planning to be on a streamlined bonanza. Just got to figure out how to steer the damn thing, though... *scratching head*...

Re: "Another money making cheater cult."

Wait... What???... *indignant look*... Money making cult??? Son of a-... *yelling toward break room*... Hey! What the hell? You bunch of assholes been holding out on me?!? Nobody told me about making any money on here!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Tin-Man - You bunch of

Tin-Man - You bunch of assholes been holding out on me?!? Nobody told me about making any money on here!

Remember when you were "given" that human heart; yeah, that is where your cut went.

Tin-Man's picture
@Nyar Re: "Remember when you

@Nyar Re: "Remember when you were "given" that human heart; "

Human heart, huh? Oh, really? So, please tell me, do you have to take YOUR heart out three times a day to wind it up just to keep it ticking? Oh, and then take it out twice a year to adjust it for the whole Daylight Saving Time nonsense?... *folding arms across chest*... Hmph! I think NOT! Besides that, from the looks of it when I first got it, the dang think must have been purchased at a pawn shop or secondhand store. So how much could it have possibly cost??? Sheesh!

Cognostic's picture
@Tulasipatti: Bogus

@Tulasipatti: Bogus Propaganda? But.... but.... but..... you have no evidence, therefore it is real. Why do we need proof when you don't? This is all so confusing.

Tulasipatti's picture
You prove my point natural

You prove my point natural laws are not accidental, you misread what I wanted to say there. And no sane man would accept that such laws exist without a creator of such laws. If your brain can’t handle such idea due to its sheer magnitude then it’s your problem. As we can see that all laws require a creator and then a body to impose it, we can clearly perceive that there is higher authority over us that impose these laws. Knowledge of who he is a whole different topic. But fact is that we are being controlled by higher authority. We can’t even blink on our will. If we try to break away from this authority immediately there is punishment. Stop blinking immediately there is problem in eyes. Here one can clearly perceive existence of higher authority. There are numerous evidences. From morning till next morning we are fully under supervision. We can’t avoid going to toilet we can’t avoid sleep. We can’t avoid nature’s supervision. If you can’t see something that don’t mean it don’t exist. Perception based upon practical observation is greatest proof. Please stop being dum. Sophisticated words are not going to save you, nature will act our acceptance or denial don’t matter.

Now you ask about my god, well God is god like gold is gold it’s cannot be categorised. So your definition of god is very cheap. God is beyond material senses that is why only people with developed perception can feel his presence through material energy.

So leave god for now as you can never perceive him at your current mental state. Just concentrate on material working and apply some brain. Now here is another evidence: we can see that in our observation no matter creat itself. An external force is required to make matter move or stop or to creat anything out of it. So based on this observation an intelligent person can perceive that such gigantic planets are made by somebody. If you say it’s accidental than give me proof. As there is no observation of anything that is created accidentally or by itself. So this notion of accidental or automatic creation is completely nonsense and is born out of complete ignorance. science is observation and application. Here in accidental or automatic theory there is no observation of such phenomena what to talk about it’s application.

Don’t give me shit words give me practical evidence of what you say. As I’m showing you by practical evidence that higher authority exist. Give me proof that it don’t exist. Your Shitty words are not proof.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh dear. I smell a sock that

Oh dear. I smell a sock that's escaped from the drawer.

In the meantime, let's take a look at this shall we?

That is what I want to tell you indeed that no law is accidental.

You manifestly don't know what is meant by the words "physical law". A physical law is an observable relationship between entities of interest, that holds universally for those entities. I don't know where you derived the idea that these relationships are "accidental", because no one here postulates this, and the relevant scientists certainly don't postulate this in their peer reviewed papers. Indeed, the reasons why physical laws exist in their observed form, is an active research topic among physicists, in no small part motivated by the fact that several papers exist in the literature, demonstrating that numerous relevant phenomena would remain essentially unchanged even if certain physical constants varied by a wide margin. Indeed, I covered two relevant papers from the literature in some detail here, one of which demonstrated that stellar nucleosynthesis and chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if the weak nuclear force was removed from the universe altogether.

It’s made by higher authority.

Poppycock. There is zero evidence for any "authority" handing down the laws of physics by decree. This is a fantasy that supernaturalists entertain, because they can't be bothered learning about the actual science involved.

Here everybody talk about “evidence”.

There's a good reason for this. Which has much to do with the fact that observational data IS evidence for or against relevant postulates, as scientists have demonstrated time and again. To give an apposite example, my textbook on theoretical mechanics from my undergraduate days, contains an exposition of central forces and the underlying mathematics. The textbook in question is Theory And Problems In Theoretical Mechanics by Murray. R. Spiegel, Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 07 084357 0.If I turn to page 127, Problem 5.15, that problem is as follows:

Under the influence of a central force at point O, a particle moves in a circuar orbit which passes through O. Find the law of force.

That problem is then presented in full, with a worked solution, yielding the result that the force in question in this problem obeys the law F = k/r^5, where r is the radial distance of the particle from the point O. Now, if someone were to postulate that this law of force applied to gravity, we can test that postulate very easily, by measuring the positions and motions of objects moving under the influence of gravity, and using that data to determine if the paths those objects move along, conform to the specification given in that problem. If those positions and motions produce paths other than the one specified in the problem, then we have evidence that gravity does NOT obey an inverse fifth power law.

Indeed, this is how science works - by testing postulates to see if they are in accord with observational data. Said observational data will falsify many postulates presented, but some postulates will be in accord with said observational data, and those postulates thus in accord, are the postulates that become our physical laws and scientific theories. However, the point to bear in mind here is that scientists will modify those postulates in the light of new data, if that new data tells us those postulates need to be modified, which is precisely the process that occurred when scientists moved on from Newtonian mechanics to General Relativity. Initially, Newtonian mechanics appeared to be extremely successful, and for 250 years, was in accord with observational data. But, it was a victim of its own success. It enabled scientists to develop the means to conduct observations of phenomena that did not behave in a manner described by a Newtonian system.

Along came Einstein, and provided an alternative set of postulates. Postulates that not only explained the behaviour of those new phenomena, but also explained the behaviour of all the previous phenomena thought originally to be Newtonian. In the process, Einstein provided the reason why Newtonian mechanics appeared to be so successful for so long - namely, that the error involved in a Newtonian analysis for everyday entities and interactions, was too small to be measurable at the time. Courtesy of a function known as the Lorentz Gamma Factor, which, for weak gravity fields and velocities much smaller than the speed of light, is extremely close to 1. As a corollary, the error in using Newton's ideas is tiny - it doesn't appear until you can measure relevant quantities to 15 decimal places. When Newton devised his physics, he did so in an era when the fastest form of transport was the horse, and two decimal places of accuracy was considered a significant achievement. Even now, in the 21st century, it takes vast expense and effort to measure that tiny error.

As a corollary, we still teach Newtonian mechanics in school, for two reasons. One, for many real world problems, Newtonian mechanics is a good enough approximation to allow us to achieve constructive ends. You don't need to delve into four-dimensional Minkowskian tensors and 15 decimal places to build a house. Two, Newtonian physics is mathematically simpler, and can be learned by high school students, whilst General Relativity takes you very quickly into the realm of the Ricci calculus, which is intimidating even for students at Ph.D level.

But, for those phenomena involving entities and interactions that require the Ricci calculus, it becomes very quickly apparent that the error involved in using a Newtonian analysis for these is huge. Which is why physicists have moved on to General Relativity to deal with such entities as black holes.

But this brings us to an essential point about science - namely, that science is a DEscriptive enterprise, NOT a PREscriptive enterprise. Science works precisely because it doesn't issue decrees, but instead chooses those postulates that are in agreement with ever larger sets of observational data. The data decides which postulates win.

And that's where supernaturalist assertions fall flat on their face - because there is no data supporting any of them. Indeed, quite a few assertions contained in supernaturalist mythologies are known not merely to be wrong, but absurd and fatuous. Not least because some of them involve physical unreality on a grand scale.

As a corollary, those of us who paid attention in class, regard supernaturalist mythologies as incompetent to answer even elementary questions, let alone important ones. The assertions contained therein are either untestable even in principle, or in the case of the testable assertions, have been tested and found to be wrong. Consequently, the idea that mythology is informative about anything other than the tendency of pre-scientific people to fantasise, is untenable.

But no evidence given enywhere. Just mental speculation.

Wrong.

Here's a clue for you. When even elementary scientific fact destroys mythological assertions wholesale, mythological assertions go in the bin. This has already happened. A classic example of mythological absurdity being the farcical view of genetics contained in Genesis 30: 37-39. Read it and work out for yourself why it's farcical.

God exists or not that is out of your grasp first get to know this material word properly.

The irony here being that many of us have expended effort doing precisely that. See above.

You don’t even have a single meaningful reason in your support, let alone evidence.

Here's an important concept for you to master. When testable natural processes are found to be sufficient to explain a class of entities and interactions of interest, then supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant from that point on. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including entities and interactions that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about.

There is no reasoning with fools.

How often have we seen this principle demonstrated, whenever supernaturalists try to tell us that reality is wrong and mythology is right?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Call I

@ Call I

When you come to Sunday Lunch you can carve, you are an expert......

NewSkeptic's picture
@Cali,

@Cali,

Do you have to so thoroughly destroy them before the rest of us get to have a little fun?

Cognostic's picture
@Tulsapatty: " And no sane

@Tulsapatty: " And no sane man would accept that such laws exist without a creator of such laws." What about a sane woman? Why are you picking on the men? Isn't that sexist?

If your brain can’t handle such idea due to its sheer magnitude then it’s your problem? (Is this a sentence that makes sense to you? Just wondering? Perhaps you could try again in English.)

RE: "But fact is that we are being controlled by higher authority. We can’t even blink on our will."

HEY TIN: This person must be a robot just like you. No free will. Wires and circuits, bolts and screws. Who do you imagine is pulling the strings and forcing this little machine to make posts? Santa, Peter Pan, one of those with a higher power (OH NO ------- "THE MODS!" Are they really in control?)

Talyyn's picture
Oh Boy...

Oh Boy...

Another Dunning-Kruger case of cosmic magnitude...

Sheldon's picture
@Tulasipatti

@Tulasipatti

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

"what is evidence of non existence of god?"

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational, ipso facto only a moron claims to be using logic then immediately shows they don't even have the most basic knowledge or understanding of informal logic.

Tulasipatti "Yet you say there is no god. It’s just envy, too much envy towards God"

Do you envy unicorns? Is that why you deny their existence, or perhaps you believe they are real, just how stupid are you prepared to be in your opening salvo of posts, as the signs are not very good. Here's a helpful hint for you, atheists by definition don't believe any deity or deities exist, thus to claim atheists envy the very thing they don't believe in is asinine.

Tulasipatti "All natural laws are accidental, well that is very scientific and logical explanation."

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for purpose behind scientific laws? I'll bet a years wages you will resort to another argument from ignorance salary, if you even bother to acknowledge the request for evidence, which most religious apologists simply breeze past to their next raft of evidence claims.

Grinseed's picture
Atheists do not base their

Atheists do not base their entire lives on a belief.
How can theists base their entire lives on a belief for which there is no falsifiable evidence?

It doesnt frighten me to accept reason or rationality or the laws of nature. I revel in the knowledge of it.

After death the same thing happens to good and bad atheists as well as to good and bad theists. We cease to be.

It only scares theists who have not accepted their natural mortality or the prospect of losing their egos.

Leper's picture
"Atheists do not base their

"Atheists do not base their entire lives on a belief."

Anyone who bases their life on that there is no God does base their life on a belief. Of course there are those who never even think about it and we may argue about what they base their lives on on a practical level.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence for abcense so... Atheism is a religion really.

LostLocke's picture
There's also no evidence for

There's also no evidence for absence of Lolth, or Zeus, or Sauron, or Cthulhu, etc....
So, that means I should believe in ALL deities.

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.