There is no evidence for abcense
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.
Leper, you wrote, “No. I accuse you because you ask the same question every time you open your mouth and it's never in the right thread.”
You’re now the thread police?
@CyberLN: "Thread Police! We really have those? Shit! Is that them knocking on my door?" *Toilet flushing, Shouting* "Just a minute. " *Knocking again. Air freshener spraying.* "I'm coming." *Reaching for the door.* "OOPS!" *Raising hand to mouth. Blowing. Smelling breath* "Damn!" *Knocking. A quick swig of mouthwash and back to the door. Reach down, grab the knob, swing the door open.* NO ONE IS THERE. "Fuck!" *Turn around and there is a note taped to the door.*
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... You flushed your stash!!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... Tin Man.
well the recreational use of thread IS legal in some places.
Re: "well the recreational use of thread IS legal in some places."
Oh, absolutely! Matter of fact, I use thread all the time. Most of the time it is for recreational purposes, of course. However, I have also used it in my work environment on a regular basis before. Right out in the open! In PLAIN VIEW! And nobody ever said a word about it. Heck, some folks were even using thread at the same time I was. Even better, I actually have a machine at my own house that helps make it easier and faster for me to use thread. That way I am able to use more thread in a much shorter time. Personally, I believe everybody should learn how to use thread. It has many great benefits, and it is non-addictive. And even IF using thread WAS addictive, the best part is that it would only make you a more productive person. So, win-win for everybody!
@Cog Re: "NOTE: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... You flushed your stash!!!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... Tin Man."
... *peeking from behind tree across the street*....*mischievous snicker*...
As usual you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Your thread is predicated on the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, because atheism is not a belief it simply the absence of the belief that a deity or deities exist. Whereas it is entirely apropos to ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for your beliefs, which are of course the affirmation of a claim, and your evasion here, as always, speaks for itself.
I ask the question, and you never answer it. So that leads me to believe you are religious in name only.
There is an important element always missed by theists, burden of proof (yet, another bloody fallacy, following from the no true scotsman and various others!)
Just by being a good bayesian, you can look at all the preponderance of evidence and accept that with 99% accuracy and probability, we are in a material world/universe that conforms to laws of nature.
What theists propose is the suspension of the laws of nature by invoking the supernatural and the non material.
Well, provide the evidence!
Just say, "but meh holy book!" Doesn't give any justification to any of these kind of claims.
@Leper: There is no evidence for abcense
If an entire sentient species searches in vain for evidence of gods for millennia, that's close enough to evidence of absence. The evidence of absence is further strengthened by the huge variety of gods that people have claimed to discover. Moreover, things that were formerly seen as evidence of gods, such as lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and miraculous healing, have all been explained or debunked by science.
What evidence do you have for the absence of Zeus, Amaterasu, Odin, and all the other theistic nonentities?
As for what happens to bad atheists after death, the answer is nothing. The myth of punishment in the afterlife was dreamed up by tyrants to convince ordinary people to endure oppression in this life. It's the wickedest fraud in the history of humanity. And the biggest deceivers are those who shout loudest that their god is the only one.
@Algebe "If an entire sentient species searches in vain for evidence of gods for millennia, that's close enough to evidence of absence."
That's a poor argument and you probably know why: the new scientific discoveries as well as the future ones.
@Leper: the new scientific discoveries as well as the future ones.
Can you point to any scientific discovery past or present that gives any credence to any deity? How much longer do we need to search before concluding that gods, like the philosopher's stone and perpetual motion machines, are just tricks used to deceive the gullible?
Also, you theists are fond of pointing out that your gods are outside of the universe and time, which conveniently places them beyond the scope of science. So I'm surprised to hear you relying on future scientific discoveries to validate your faith in whatever god you imagine to exist.
You missed my point - or perhaps ignored it.
If you think because there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, we should conclude He doesn't exist, how do you explain or excuse all the other discoveries humans have made and continue to make finding things they never knew of. For instance we should immediately stop considering aliens as a possibility. As realistic as it is that we just popped out of nowhere with our cars and satellites, it cannot have happened anywhere else. We have zero evidence it has. But do you know how much money they're using to find this other life?
Science can find objective evidence of life on other planets in various ways. We can send probes to places in our own solar system, such as Mars and Europa, to search for direct evidence. Or we can discover life indirectly over greater distances by monitoring radio or laser signals, or by detecting certain gases in the atmospheres of exoplanets. If we discover nothing, we may conclude (a) that we are alone in the universe, (b) that aliens exist but are hiding from us, or (c) that given the vast depths of time and space it is unlikely that two intelligent species would exist in close proximity to each other at the same time.
I think we've already reached that stage with gods.
But I'd be interested to hear what you'd consider to be evidence of a god, and how you would define a god.
Don't know what you mean by excuse, but science would disbelieve those claims until they were properly evidenced, and that is sound rational epistemology.
Nope, we don't know that it is impossible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe, and we know as an objective fact that life can exist in this universe, we also have a lot of objective evidence that the circumstances for it's origins need not be limited to just one planet in one of 100 billion solar systems, in one of 200 billion known galaxies in this universe.
Pathetic straw man. Your posts are beyond dishonest.
The first claim is unevidenced rhetoric, the second is not entirely true as we know the circumstances required are possible, and the probability can be broadly calculated.
Not as much as religious apologists have wasted looking for "unicorns". Though it's ironic you are contradicting your objection to Algebe's argument that you're responding to.
Leper: Stop Avoiding - You have been clearly asked to present your god. Do it. All you are doing now is evading. You are making inane assertions that have no basis in supporting a god belief. "New scientific discoveries" say absolutely nothing NOTHING about god or gods.
That's you avoiding the topic of the thread. I have the same advice for you as for xenoview - go make your own thread.
Now that's hilarious, this will be the science whose every discovery dismantles claims your superstition has offered as immutable truths from an omniscient diety. Every single scientific explanation we have shows a natural physical phenomenon, not once has it evidenced anything supernatural, nor can any religious apologist demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural.
You know science relies entirely on objective evidence to validate things right?
"That's a poor argument and you probably know why: the new scientific discoveries as well as the future ones."
Since this "god" has interacted on this planet, and all tales do involve this planet, it is logical to assume this "god" can be located on this planet. As far as future exploration, there could be anything on other planets and heavenly bodies. But this god is supposed to operate on this earth, this "god" should have some evidence by now.
You're rational, right?
You say: "And the biggest deceivers are those who shout loudest that their god is the only one."
Can you reason with me, why would it make more sense for there to be many gods rather than just one?
@Leper: why would it make more sense for there to be many gods rather than just one?
Well I don't think I said that. I find polytheist religions more entertaining as fiction than the monotheistic ones. On the other hand, the transition from polytheism to monotheism is obviously a step in the right direction, like the eradication of diseases.
But then again, I don't think any of the major modern religions can claim to be truly monotheistic. They all have angels, devils, saints, and prophets.
@Leber: "Can you reason with me, why would it make more sense for there to be many gods rather than just one?"
"Everything has a cause."
So you think you god is the only one that is real? So all the other gods are fake? You do know that all the gods humanity worship are made up by humans.
The same thing that happens to everyone; typically decomposition. Something that has been known for a long, long time.
That happens to the body of an atheist.
@Leper: That happens to the body of an atheist.
Are you expecting corporeal resurrection? You won't be disappointed.
Leper: Same thing that happens to all bodies.
It happens to everyones body after death. Do you think that your body will be preserved until your god has judgement day?
No, that's what happens to all human bodies, it is not limited to atheists, and the human brain cannot function without that body. Now if you can demonstrate some objective evidence for human consciousness existing without a functioning human brain please do so?
Leper: "There is no evidence for abcense
How can atheists base their entire lives on a belief on something for which there is no evidence?"
There is no evidence that there is no evidence? Not sure what you mean.
I don't know what you mean either.