Where are the arguments for god?

291 posts / 0 new
Last post
Calilasseia's picture
Steinhardt and Turok, two

Steinhardt and Turok, two leading physicists, say you're talking out of your arse.

Sheldon's picture
Vochensmut "You can choose to

Vochensmut "You can choose to ignore the evidence"

What evidence, please demonstrate the best objective evidence for any deity or deities?

Grinseed's picture
A great quote from John Adams

A great quote from John Adams.
However the fact that you quote it is mind bogglingly ironic.
There is no proof or evidence for anything supernatural which is comprised of wishes, inclinations and dictates of passion.
I think you should find another quote before you stubbornly make yourself look foolish.

Calilasseia's picture
So, if "design" is so fucking

So, if "design" is so fucking "obvious", which of those rocks in that photo I posted is the "designed" rock?

Algebe's picture
@Vochensmut:

@Vochensmut:

I like your John Adams quote. He sounds like an atheist.

It would be nice to believe in a benevolent sky-fairy who could poof up a universe just for us, but reality is more complex and nuanced than your magic-man myths.

cranky47's picture
@ Titilayo

@ Titilayo

Like metaphysical propositions tend to be, the existence of god is unfalsifiable. IE can be neither proved nor disproved.

God cannot be argued into or out of existence.

Logic is not a reliable tool for discovering truths;. a logical inference is true if and only if the premise is true. I guess such arguments are fun if one is say a philosophy undergraduate, or has nothing better to do .

This atheist refuses to engage with apologist on this issue: I have made no claims, it is the believers who have made the claims. It is they have the burden of proof not I. It is not my responsibility to disprove anything.

Cognostic's picture
@Cranky: intelligent

@Cranky: intelligent atheists are so much more interesting to listen to that the one's that run about making inane claims against theists. Good Job Cranky! You have no reason at all to engage them. It is the Theist who has the burden of proof.

cranky47's picture
I'm very fond of Occam's

I'm very fond of Occam's razor .

None of the Abrahamic faiths have managed to justify the existence of evil and suffering. Hinduism and Buddhism have a bash at it with the concept of karma, which still doesn't quite nail it imo.

My favourite quote on god and the problem of evil (and suffering, by implication) :

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Epicurus (341-270 bce)

I have the impression that long, beautifully reasoned arguments are pretty much wasted on Theist apologists. As a group they seem to be impervious to reasoned argument or facts . These same people are anti science. By that I mean they reject outright any scientific idea which contradicts doctrine .EG evangelical literalists and evolution.

As for rejecting reason :(apologies if I've posted this before)

Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation wrote:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther ,

Randomhero1982's picture
The only arguements for a God

The only arguements for a God(s) are essentially all philosophical arguements that do not stand up under scrutiny.

One may make a logical argument for their imaginary cosmic wizard of choice, but none have ever and likely will never be deductive arguments.

cranky47's picture
Indeed.

@Randomhero82

Indeed.

The claim that an omniscient god negates free will is one which any apologist with half a brain will try to refute.

I first made that claim at my Catholic boys school in about year 8. The teaching brother replied that :" Knowing the future does not make it happen" . I wasn't happy with that in year 8, and remain unconvinced.

. One hurdle seems to be that the free will/determinism dichotomy has not been resolved. It seems to be another of those pesky unfalsifiable metaphysical propositions.

reedemption's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic
@Sheldon
I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you guys think ?

Also, if we originate from one source, Why then do we speak different languages ?

Algebe's picture
@reedemption: Also, if we

@reedemption: Also, if we originate from one source, Why then do we speak different languages ?

Languages evolve, just like species. Speakers get isolated from each other and their languages evolve in different directions. Sometimes invasion and migration bring them back to together, which is why we have so many Latin, Norse, and French words in English. Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales were both written in English in England. Yet most English-speaking people wouldn't even recognize them as English, because our language has changed radically in the past millennium. Imagine how much change could happen over tens of 1,000s of years as humanity migrated globally. By the time the Tower of Babel fantasy is supposed to have happened, there had been countless languages for millennia.

Cognostic's picture
@Right! Sex organs are

@Right! Sex organs are evidence of design. The woo woo factory is next to the garbage dump and you wonder why you can't get a blow job. GREAT FUCKING DESIGN.

One source? WTF are you talking about? What in the world, other than your ignorant take on the bible, ever led you to think there was a single source for life as we know it? (Adam and eve is a myth.) You might want to ask why Americans, Australians, The English, The Philippine people, the Irish and the Scots, as well as all those people in India all speak different versions of the English language. Hell, I once roomed with a couple of Girls from New Hampshire and I could not understand a single word they said. WTF are you talking about?

Sheldon's picture
reedemption "I believe the

reedemption "I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you guys think ?"

I think you need to demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim, and since all the objective evidence shows that species evolution through natural selection is a scientific fact you'll need to undo 160 years of global scientific research from multiple scientific disciplines. I think it's as likely we'll discover the world is flat and at the centre of the universe after all.

reedemption"Also, if we originate from one source, Why then do we speak different languages ?"

That question is so breathtakingly stupid I have to ask if you are you being facetious? You do understand that humans create languages, make them up, and that they evolve over time? What has that to do with species evolution, and common ancestry?

cranky47's picture
@reedemtion

@reedemtion

Wot? Intelligent design, again?

To answer your question: NO.

Evolution is mainstream science . The tiny minority who reject evolution are the literalist evangelicals who also claim the world is 6000 years old .There IS NO ARGUMENT

Perhaps have a go at actually reading some Darwin. If you do that you may ask fewer ignorant questions which just make you seem mentally deficient. IE: stupid

(although, to be fair, I think the existence of literalists is pretty strong evidence AGAINST intelligent design. )

I'm going to pretend you didn't ask that second question. Perhaps have a go at filtering it through your brain.

Calilasseia's picture
I believe the Male and Female

I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you guys think ?

I don't even need to be an invertebrate zoologist, to regard this as an admission of ignorance. But, as shall be seen shortly, it helps. But before delving into the minutiate of other species, it's pretty obvious to anyone who exerts even an elementary level of effort studying the requisite output, that creationists don't give a flying fuck about any other species, except when they want to press those species into service in duplicitous apologetic fabrications. All that creationists care about, is maintaining a mythical "special" status for human beings, and they'll make up whatever shit they think will purportedly uphold and preserve this mythical "special" status. Instead of regarding the biosphere as a vast treasure house of diversity from which we can learn genuine, substantive knowledge, creationists routinely demonstrate that for them, the biosphere is nothing more than a supplier of burgers and fries. Indeed, many of them haven't even seen a live cow or chicken, and as for invertebrates, asking the typical creationist to name ten species of Diptera, is like watching that video clip of Justin Bieber floundering when asked to name the continental land masses of the planet. Though geography is another subject that creationists, American ones especially, tend to have bugger all understanding of, but that's properly the subject for another thread.

Now, moving on to sex organs .... well, whoop de doo, what do we find when we scan the biosphere? Oh wait, even if we ignore the asexually reproducing organisms altogether, which means we're ignoring two entire Kingdoms of organisms (Archaea and Eubacteria), along with a large swathe of Protista, and concentrate for a moment solely on the sexually reproducing organisms, a good many of those don't possess copulatory organs at all. Organisms as diverse as mosses and sedentary Cnidarians, just toss their gametes into the environment, and let such environmental features as turbulent water currents bring them into contact with each other. Even among vertebrates, we find, whoops, most of the Teleost fishes don't have copulatory organs either (as a tropical fishkeeper of 35+ years' standing, I've observed a lot of fish breeding behaviour). Many of the Teleosts just swim side by side and squirt out their gametes - the Ostariophysans in particular exhibit this particular mechanism. In the case of fishes such as the Cichlids, females lay their eggs on flat surfaces, and then the male swims up behind and squirts out his milt - the two fishes participating in this process, sometimes don't even engage in physical body contact during this critical part of the reproduction process. Don't even get me started on the hilarity that is the Corydoras catfishes, which can truly be claimed to be the one group of organisms that reproduce via oral sex. In the case of the Corydoras panda I bred three generations of back in the early 2000s, they keep up a frenetic level of activity in this vein for five hours at a time, and if I tried emulating their sexual stamina, I'd end up in a jar at the hospital. But I digress.

Continuing with the fishes for the moment, there's a brace of Families within the Order Cyprinodontiformes, that contain live bearing species. Of these, the Family Goodeidae, exhibit in the males, a modification of the first two rays of the anal fin, to form an intromittent organ (see, for example, Skiffia bilineata), but this isn't particularly elegant as intromittent organs go, and only the tip thereof slots into the female urogenital opening for a brief second or two. The Family Poeciliidae, containing the familiar Guppies, Platies and Swordtails that have been a staple of the aquarium trade for decades, have the entire anal fin of the male thus modified, but again, only the tip thereof contacts the female's urogenital opening, and only for a brief moment. More hilariously, you have the Family Jenynsiidae, whose females have a genital pore covered by s scale, which can only open to one side. Likewise, the males have "handed" intromittent modification of the anal fin, which can only swing to one side. So left handed males can only mate with right handed females, and vice versa, a situation replicated in the Four Eyed Fishes of the Family Anablepidae. Anyone who thinks this was "designed", needs to think long and hard about the mentality of any entity that would intentionally "design" this.

Oh, and returning to the Poeciliidae for a moment, those Swordtails (Xiphophorus hellerii), exhibit another interesting feature. Namely, they all start out female. Once the age of sexual maturity is attained, the largest fish in the shoal turns into a male. Then, that fish stops growing. For a time, that male enjoys the privilege of being able to mate with a raft of available females ... until one of the females grows to be bigger than he does. Then, that female turns into a male, and becomes the dominant male, courtesy of larger size. Eventually, the last female in the shoal from the original generation, becomes bigger than all the surrounding males, and becomes male herself, at which point, this female turned male has a nice selection of females from later generations of past matings to copulate with. This species isn't unique here - fishes that change sex at certain key points in their lives, are numerous and well documented in the scientific literature, including fishes with no copulatory organs whatsoever, though I chose the Swordtail as one to focus on, because it's one of the odd ones that do possess copulatory organs.

But now, we move on to invertebrates. And oh, boy, do they take the rule book and rip it up wholesale in numerous ways.

Take spiders, for example. These organisms introduce a whole new chapter of hilarity all on their own. At the front end of spiders, there are a pair of limb like organs known as labial palps, which are used for food manipulation. In essence, spiders have their own built in cutlery to handle their food. But the males throw an extra piece of hilarity into the mix. Courtesy of the fact that the males don't have copulatory organs where you'd normally expect them. Instead, what happens when a male is out looking for a female to inseminate, is this. The male spins a silk pad on some suitable surface, and deposits a spermatophore upon said silk pad. Then, the male reverses, and inserts his labial palps into the spermatophore. The male's labial palps are equipped with an extra set of appendages, known collectively as the palpal bulbs, which are, in effect, the spider substitute for a penis. The male then tracks down a likely female, and, if successful at persuading her to mate, inserts each palp, one after the other, into the female epigyne. In short, spiders are organisms that use their cutlery for sex.

But it gets better. In some spider species, a classic "Red Queen" arms race has emerged, in which picky females have acquired, over evolutionary time, genital tracts that incorporate "blind alleys", or diverticulae, into which females can divert an incoming male's labial palpal projection, if she decided during copulation, that he's not fit to fertilise her eggs. Males have acquired, in turn, various behavioural and anatomical means of subverting this choice on the female's part. Including such fun developments as bits of the labial palp that break off during copulation, and become lodged in the female epigyne, preventing her from mating with another male until the next episode of ecdysis (body moulting). In one extreme example, the aptly named Harpactea sadistica, the male's solution is to avoid the female epigyne altogether, but to aim straight for her ovaries by stabbing her with labial palps equipped with a hypodermic inseminator. Juicy. Again, anyone wishing to claim that this was "designed", needs to think long and hard about the mentality behind a "design" like this.

Oh, and that business of hypodermic insemination isn't unique to Harpactea sadistica by any stretch of the imagination, though thus far, this is the only spider exhibiting this mode of reproduction. The insect Order Hemiptera is replete with hypodermically inseminating species, whose males, instead of bothering with the usual sexual etiquette, simply walk up to the female and stab her through the side of the abdomen, with a penis that's more mediaeval assault weapon than instrument of love. As if this weren't enough, some of those true bugs in this order, add to the mix by engaging in gay sex. Yes, that's right, we have scientifically documented instances of gay insects. Even more hilariously, these are hypodermically inseminating gay insects, the classic example of which is the Australian flower bug Xylocoris maculipennis. Whose males offer themselves up to other males for this activity, in what appears to be a seriously masochistic move to the untrained eye, in order to decommission the genitalia of rival males, so that they can move on and mate with the females. Even more interestingly, these bugs have developed the ability to dismantle enzymatically the incoming sperm from their gay partner, and use the protein and nucleic acid resources therefrom, to make more of their own sperm.

Just when you though all this hoo-ha with hypodermic insemination had reached its peak of weirdness, then we have Hesperocimex cochimiensis and Hesperocimex sonorensis to contend with. These are two blood-feeding parasites on various birds (owls and martins being targets of choice). However, H conchimiensis has a neat way of dealing with the food resource competition from H. sonorensis, by using sex as a biological weapon. Quite simply, if a male H. cochimiensis inseminates a female H. sonorensis, that female suffers a massive and fatal immune reaction to the sperm she's just been inseminated with. In this way, H. conchimiensis eliminates the competition for all that nice owl blood they're feasting on. And, once again, anyone who wants to claim this was "designed", needs to think long and hard about the mentality of a "designer" that would come up with this.

Then of course, we have that bundle of anatomical joy known as the bilateral gynandromorph, which can appear among various insects with surprising frequency, the Lepidoptera providing particularly spectacular instances thereof. Those who don't know what a bilateral gynandromorph is, well, it's an individual that is half male, half female, divided lengthways, so that, for example, the left hand side is male, but the right hand side is female. This division extends to the internal organs, including the genitalia, so that the individual in question has, for example, male genital morphology on the left hand side, but female genital morphology on the right hand side, with all manner of teratomic anomalies marking the suture junction between the two. I have in my collection of entomology papers, a particularly nice example occurring in the moth species Harmaclona tephrantha from Indonesia, complete with a nice diagram showing the weird nature of the half-male, half-female genitalia. In the case of butterflies or moths exhibiting visible sexual dimorphism with respect to wing colouration, the result can be pretty spectacular, even more so in species with wingless females.

Oh, and we also have some other strangeness to cover here, such as the gall wasp Biorhiza pallida, an individual of which I found during some recent biological sampling work, and which has a seriously weird life cycle. One generation of adults is sexually reproducing, whilst the subsequent generation is asexual, with parthenogenetic females. The species alternates between sexual and asexual adults in this manner. The underpinnings for this life cycle, I have seen described as "Byzantine genetic bureaucracy writ large". Again, who in their right mind would "design" this?

Indeed, given the massive flaws in the whole "design" assertion and its palsied apologetics that I've dealt with here, I would have thought anyone sensible would avoid wading into this territory, but, since the requisite assertion has been peddled here, I thought I'd provide the above Baedecker Tour of biological hilarity, just to ram home the point.

David Killens's picture
@ reedemption

@ reedemption

"I believe the Male and Female sex organs is an evidence of design, What do you guys think ?"

If the female and male sex organs were designed, then why do males still have nipples? I can think of only two answers.

1) the designer was an idiot

or

2) there was no designer.

reedemption's picture
Let me put forth a simple

Let me put forth a simple argument by deduction. Within the universe exists a law of conservation of energy as energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning . Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time and the universe that in itself is eternal.

Physicists call it energy, I call him God. You can also call it the God of the gaps but that answer is fine by me

Cognostic's picture
@Redemption: Still waiting

@Redemption: Still waiting for the deductive part of that bullshit you are spewing. Do you know what a deductive argument is? "A deductive argument is the presentation of statements that are assumed or known to be true as premises for a conclusion that necessarily follows from those statements."

Energy is neither Created or Destroyed: Wow are you behind the times.....
"To most people, the idea that conservation of energy is violated goes against everything they learned about the most fundamental laws of physics. But on the cosmological scale, conservation of energy is not as steadfast a law as it is on smaller scales. In this study, the physicists specifically investigated two theories in which violations of energy conservation naturally arise.

The first scenario of violations involves modifications to quantum theory that have previously been proposed to investigate phenomena such as the creation and evaporation of black holes, and which also appear in interpretations of quantum mechanics in which the wavefunction undergoes spontaneous collapse. In these cases, energy is created in an amount that is proportional to the mass of the collapsing object.

Violations of energy conservation also arise in some approaches to quantum gravity in which spacetime is considered to be granular due to the fundamental limit of length (the Planck length, which is on the order of 10-35 m). This spacetime discreteness could have led to either an increase or decrease in energy that may have begun contributing to the cosmological constant starting when photons decoupled from electrons in the early universe, during the period known as recombination." (First premise is rejected.)

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violations-energy-early-universe-dark.html

Dark energy emerges when energy conservation is violated

The conservation of energy is one of physicists’ most cherished principles, but its violation could resolve a major scientific mystery: why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? That is the eye-catching claim of a group of theorists in France and Mexico, who have worked out that dark energy can take the form of Albert Einstein’s cosmological constant by effectively sucking energy out of the cosmos as it expands.

https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-energy-emerges-when-energy-conservation-...

re: LET'S SEE WHAT IDIOCY YOU HAVE FOR #2.
2. It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning .
No, it is not OBVIOUS Mr. Science. Had you passed the 5th grade you would know this. "The Big Bounce: Why our universe might be eternal."
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/big-bounce-theory

It must be nice to sit back and pretend that you know a thing or two about the universe. When you have not read a fucking book in your life and your only information about science comes from the pulpit.

RE: Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time and the universe that in itself is eternal. FIRST YOU MUST PROVE A BEGINNING.
NEXT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE A SOURCE. YOU DO NOT GET TO MAGICALLY ASSERT A UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE.

RE: 3. PHYSICISTS CALL IT ENERGY? WTF are you on about now? You just asserted "conservation of energy" and you you are citing energy outside the universe. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DO YOU?

I completely believe "God of the Gaps" is the perfect answer for you. It matches up perfectly to that echo chamber between your right and left ear.

Sheldon's picture
@reedemption

@reedemption

That's the kalam cosmological argument you're trying to pass off as your own, so that's pretty dishonest for a start, and it's a first cause argument, you are simply assuming that cause is your deity. I don't view assumption as sound argument. You're also claiming known scientific laws about the natural physical universe applied prior to the big bang, which is obviously nonsensical since you cannot know they applied. Energy is energy, calling god is no different calling it a leprechaun, and just as meaningless. No physicists share your opinions here based on scientific evidence either. You can't assume something into existence, I'd have thought that was obvious.

Algebe's picture
@reedemption: It is obvious

@reedemption: It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning .

Preambles like "It is obvious" and "All thinking people would agree" are usually a sign of a spurious argument, as in this case.

If you have evidence that the universe is not eternal or had a beginning, you should present that before moving onto the next step in your chain of logic. But you don't have that evidence, do you?

Even if we assume that the universe had a beginning, it's still a giant leap from there to say that god did it.

Calilasseia's picture
Let me put forth a simple

Let me put forth a simple argument by deduction.

Why do I detect a fatuous apologetic fabrication about to be presented? Oh that's right, I've seen so many of them from supernaturalists like you.

Within the universe exists a law of conservation of energy as energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Ah, the attempt to treat physics as a branch of apologetics. Don't you supernaturalists ever learn that this is doomed to failure, before an audience that actually paid attention in physics classes?

It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning .

No it isn't. The current observable universe in its current form may have had a "beginning", but as I've already pointed out at length here in several threads, the actual view of cosmological physicists on this matter bears NO relation to your simplistic, mythology-driven view of the topic. That extant cosmological view, among many of the requisite cosmological physicists, is that the entities and interactions preceding the current observable universe are themselves eternal.

Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time

BZZZT!!!! Those same cosmological physicists don't think time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

and the universe that in itself is eternal.

And those same cosmological physicists postulate instead, that well defined natural entities and interactions preceding the emergence of our observable universe, were the generators of that observable universe. Going to read some of that cosmological physics literature sometime, are you?

Physicists call it energy, I call him God.

So your approach is to assert blindly that a well-documented natural entity is your magic man?

If this is what is considered "sophisticated" apologetics among your ilk, you're easily dazzled and pleased, aren't you?

You can also call it the God of the gaps but that answer is fine by me

Translation: "I can't be bothered learning any actual physics, so I'll make shit up to prop up my attachment to a pre-scientific mythology".

Speaking of said mythology, care to explain why it contains so much absurdity and outright dumbfuckery, of a sort that any genuinely existing fantastic magic entity would have proofread out of existence before ink hit papyrus?

Calilasseia's picture
Let me put forth a simple

Let me put forth a simple argument by deduction.>

Translation: "Let me peddle another piece of apologetic fabrication duplicitously labelled as deduction".

Within the universe exists a law of conservation of energy as energy is neither created nor destroyed.

I'm willing to bet you don't even understand the treatment of this by 19th century physicists such as Rudolf Clausius, let alone the modern treatment thereof in quantum field theory. But let's see where youre taking your fabrication with this, shall we?

It is obvious that also the universe is not eternal and had a beginning .

BZZZZZT! WRONG!

If you had bothered to read any of the numerous peer reviewed scientific papers from the discipline of cosmological physics, you would know that what is regarded as having a "beginning" in that discipline, is the current observable universe in its current form. I've presented here two papers from the cosmological physics literature, postulating a testable natural origin for the observable universe in its current form. They're not the only such papers. As a corollary, the mere fact that cosmological physicists have been able to postulate a variety of testable natural processes that could instantiate the current observable universe, on its own brings into serious question any assertion that an imaginary magic man from mythology was needed for this. The moment any of those testable natural processes are observationally validated, it's game over.

Therefore there must a source that existed before the start of time and the universe that in itself is eternal.

This is gibberish for several reasons. First, numerous cosmological physicists don't postulate that time didn't exist before the instantiation of the current observable universe, and indeed, some means of ordering events would have needed to be in place beforehand, even if it wasn't a time dimension as we currently understand it.

Second, I notice the hypocrisy endemic to supernaturalist assertions, to the effect that physical entities could not possibly be eternal, but whoop de doo, their imaginary magic man was purportedly thus, and purportedly out of "necessity", despite the fact that no "necessity" for an imaginary magic man has ever been properly demonstrated, and indeed, the supertanker loads of evidence for testable natural processes renders such an entity superflous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to vast clases of entities and interactions known to science.

That's before we consider the cosmological physics literature in detail.

Physicists call it energy

I can tell from this that you've never even come within light years of the cosmological physics literature, let alone perused any of it.

I call him God. You can also call it the God of the gaps but that answer is fine by me

So, your position at bottom, consists of "I don't understand cosmological physics, therefore my favourite imaginary magic man from mythology is real".

How pathetic.

reedemption's picture
have always put it succinctly

have always put it succinctly, I was an atheist my reason for choosing a different worldview is simply because by mere reasoning it is obvious that the universe is not eternal. It is a consensus with the science community that the universe has a beginning. I choose to worship whatever caused the beginning of the universe .

Secondly atheism leads to nihilism short and simple. Nothing means anything, the best atheism can come up with is positive nihilism.

Christianity gave meaning to my life and I am sure that no argument for God will sway you either . Its hard to go down that route and engaging you guys in a conversation especially when your comments are laced with insults and sarcasm.

Sheldon's picture
reedemption "I was an

reedemption "I was an atheist my reason for choosing a different worldview is simply because by mere reasoning it is obvious that the universe is not eternal."

Atheism is not a worldview, as you have been told repeatedly. Is it obvious? Please demonstrate objective evidence that the universe could not have existed in a different form prior to the big-bang, science doesn't claim this, so it seems yet again you're simply making an unevidenced assumption, and trying to pass it off as obvious.

reedemption " It is a consensus with the science community that the universe has a beginning. I choose to worship whatever caused the beginning of the universe . "

Do you think we won't notice that you have simply repeated your unevidenced assumption that the big bang had a cause? Or the lie that you are choosing to worship this cause, when you are in fact worshipping a deity from a bronze age superstition, and simply assuming that it was that cause?

reedemption "Secondly atheism leads to nihilism short and simple. Nothing means anything, the best atheism can come up with is positive nihilism."

I disagree, and again your sweeping unevidenced assumptions are hilarious, but even if this was true, it doesn't evidence a deity using magic from a bronze age superstition just because you prefer that fantasy to reality. Atheism doesn't need to "come up with anything" anyway, anymore than not believing in unicorns requires an alternative viewpoint.

reedemption "Christianity gave meaning to my life"

So what, that doesn't make it's claims remotely valid, it just gives you a biased motive to believe it.

reedemption "I am sure that no argument for God will sway you either "

Well you're wrong again, as unlike you and all the theists I encounter, I supply the same unbiased standard to validate all claims, and a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence will convince me.

reedemption "Its hard to go down that route and engaging you guys in a conversation especially when your comments are laced with insults and sarcasm."

Well it's your lies and misrepresentations of atheism and atheists that I object to, you can be as sarcastic as you like as long as it's funny.

Calilasseia's picture
have always put it succinctly

have always put it succinctly, I was an atheist

Oh, not THIS tired old piece of shite we keep seeing from supernaturalists ... which is complete fucking bullshit, because it's obvious from your peddling of repeatedly destroyed, tired old canards on the subject, that you never were an atheist, otherwise you wouldn't be peddling this drivel.

my reason for choosing a different worldview is simply because by mere reasoning it is obvious that the universe is not eternal.

No it isn't. Do I have to smack you over the head with Steinhardt & Turok again?

Plus, the moment a supernaturalist says that something is "obvious", those of us who paid attention in class know that what he's really saying is "I'm too stupid to learn the actual science, therefore my magic man from my favourite pre-scientific mythology must have done it".

Except that oops, scientists have already rendered blindly asserted mythological entities superfluous to requirements and irrelevant for vast classes of entities and interactions, and the remaining areas of active research aren't yielding any results breaking that precedent.

It is a consensus with the science community that the universe has a beginning.

No it isn't. How many times do I have to keep schooling you on current cosmological physics?

I choose to worship whatever caused the beginning of the universe .

If Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel in the next 20 years, start worshipping branes.

Secondly atheism leads to nihilism

Bullshit. Far from leading to "nihilism" in my case, being an atheist simply motivated me to learn about the scientific facts, instead of accepting bullshit mythological assertions. Including scientific facts about the origin of our capacity for ethical thought.

short and simple. Nothing means anything, the best atheism can come up with is positive nihilism.

Bullshit. Oh wait, since atheism is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions, it's not required to come up with anything, because, wait for it, atheism doesn't involve erecting blind assertions. It leaves that to mythology fanboys. It also leaves the business of providing postulates about the world, to those disciplines for which this is a remit. What part of "leaving a task to the relevant endeavour" do you not understand?

Christianity gave meaning to my life and I am sure that no argument for God will sway you either .

We've never seen any real "argument" for your imaginary magic man. All we've seen is regurgitation of mythological assertions, and the peddling of fatuous apologetic fabrications. in some cases said fabrications involving blatant outright lies.

Its hard to go down that route and engaging you guys in a conversation

What, because we keep pointing out that the facts destroy your vacuous apologetic fabrications?

especially when your comments are laced with insults and sarcasm.

Oh no, it's TONE POLICING TIME!!!! The tiresome supernaturalist appeal to post style, in order to avoid dealing with post content. Boo fucking hoo.

Quite simply, the maxim in operation here is bad ideas exist to be destroyed. Frequently, before persistence of those bad ideas starts destroying good people. For those of us who paid attention in class, ideas are a free-fire zone for whatever discoursive ordnance we choose to deploy, in order to determine which of those ideas are good ideas, and which are bad ideas. As a corollary, because it is eminently possible to change the ideas one considers to be good ideas, as one learns over time, especially if one applies diligence to the matter of testing assertions to destruction, the principle "you are not your ideas" applies, a principle that we know it's hard for a supernaturalist to understand. But it's precisely because we recognise that ideas onlyu deserve to persist after they;ve survived the appropriate discoursive artillery, that we're ruthless in dealing with unsupported assertions. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, or in this case, the blast furnace.

Quite simply, again, we're not going to lower our standards just to accommodate a whiny supernaturalist, who isn't used to having his assertions subject to proper scrutiny. If you don't like the fact that we treat bad ideas with contempt, scorn and derision, and subject the ridiculous to the mockery it deserves, then it's fucking tough. We're not going to lower our standards because your fucking fee-fees are inflamed and in need of the butthurt ointment. This is how proper discourse is conducted - assertions are given whatever carpet bombing is required to expose their weaknesses, and if you think things are bad here, you want to try dealing with some academic environments I'm aware of, where even the smallest of errors invites swift, immediate and ruthless shelling.

David Killens's picture
@ reedemption

@ reedemption

"It is a consensus with the science community that the universe has a beginning."

Nice try, but a more honest statement is "It is a consensus with the science community that this known universe had a start point in the form of a singularity."

Personally, I lean towards the proposition that this known universe is a bubble, among many other bubbles within a much grander and larger cosmos.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Reedemption - "Secondly

Re: Reedemption - "Secondly atheism leads to nihilism short and simple. Nothing means anything, the best atheism can come up with is positive nihilism."

Ya know, even IF that statement were true, I really don't give a shit. After all, what difference does it make what he, I, or anybody else thinks? Because nothing any of us says or does matters anyway, right? We are born, we eat, shit, sleep, have sex, and then we die. What more could a person want? So that whole remark about nihilism is pretty damn ridiculous, if you ask me..... Hmph!... Nihilism.... *chuckle*... Who cares?... *waving hand in dismissal*...
(Dripping sarcasm, in case anyone didn't notice.)

Side note: (Yeah, I know Reed is no longer with us... (God rest his soul.)... But I somehow missed that particular post from him when he was still here, and I simply could not resist in responding... lol)

Cognostic's picture
@reedemption: Whatever you

@reedemption: Whatever you were, it wasn't an atheist. Atheism has no "World View." The simple fact that you ignorantly have no idea at all what the word "Atheist" means demonstrates this.

RE: Speaking of ignorance, "by mere reasoning it is obvious that the universe is not eternal. " is most likely one of the most ignorant utterances this week. Demonstrably, you have no idea at all what you are talking about.
"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning."
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

The fact of the matter is that WE DO NOT KNOW. Logically speaking - your assertion makes you look IGNORANT.

RE: Atheism does not lead to Nihilism. WTF sort of Straw Man Bullshit are you constructing now. Atheism is the disbelief in "God Claims." Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
PHILOSOPHY: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. (So I challenge you to find an atheist on the site that does not have a strong sense of morality. Religion is often challenged on the basis of morality. Religion professing to be moral turns people into moral monsters. People who hate homosexuals, hate non-believers, hate any other religion that is not theirs. Religion uses the moral stance to blind you against the hatred with which it fills you.

RE: Christianity gave meaning to your life. Sorry to hear that. Pretending you have answers when there are none is only wallowing in ignorance. You enjoy your cool aid and cookies.

It's hard engaging you in conversation when every utterance that you post is full of fantasy, lies, fallacious reasoning, appeal to emotion, and inane assertions with no foundation in reality at all.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Segev Moran's picture
You cant find evidence for

You cant find evidence for God as your definition of God is probably wrong :)
The Jewish depiction of God is much different than what Christianity and Islam made of God :)

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.