Why Atheists are Wrong and Ignorant

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
@Pistos

@Pistos
Links to your evidence.

Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods, that is all it is.

Faith is belief without evidence. Do you have any objective evidence that any god is real?

True that some scientist are atheist, but not all scientist are atheists. So scientist are religious.

Jo's picture
@ xenoview

@ xenoview

Faith is not belief without evidence.
It is a conclusion based on the evidence in matters that cannot be proven.

If I say there is no God, that is my conclusion based on the evidence or arguments as I judge them.
I do not have objective evidence to prove my belief.
It works the other way also.

If I say I do not believe in God because of evolution.
I can present evolution as the evidence I used. I can explain why it is convincing to me.
In the end I have a conclusion I reached based on the evidence.
It is still a subjective belief because evolution does not directly disprove God.

If I say I believe in God because of the fine tuning of the universe.
I can present fine tuning as one of the reason or the evidence I use to reach my conclusion.
But fine tuning does not prove God. It is still a subjective conclusion.

The corollary to your question (objective evidence for God) is can objective evidence for God be obtained if he did exist.
Can objective evidence be obtained if God does not exists, is another question that should go along with yours.
If I said God does not exist because no one has supplied me with objective evidence that he does not exist.
You could readily see the errors in my argument.

If you set up the question to get the answer you want, you are just betraying your beliefs.
This can result in a false positive or false negative conclusion.

xenoview's picture
@Jo

@Jo
You talk in circles. When I was a christian, I prayed to god to reveal itself, god remained hidden. I ask god to speak to me through my heart, god remained silent. Reading the bible from cover to cover made me stop being a christian.

Every theist I have ask for objective evidence, has failed to give any. All they have is subjective coming from their mind.
The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

edit

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Faith is not belief

Jo "Faith is not belief without evidence.
It is a conclusion based on the evidence in matters that cannot be proven."

That's a lie Jo, you've shown no evidence.

cranky47's picture
'Evidence' is a commonly

'Evidence' is a commonly misunderstood term, from theists and atheists, It is NOT a synonym for 'proof'. Evidence is anything provided in support of a claim.

The Torah, The New Testament, copies which go back centuries, accounts by historians after the death of Jesus, claims of a personal relationship with God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit. ALL of those things are 'evidence' .What they are not, is proof.

Faith is belief in things not seen

Definition from Dictionary.com

"noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith."

Then there is the proof in scripture, from Jesus himself. I refer to the 'doubting Thomas 'episode:

"
John 20:27 (King James version) Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."

Then John: 20 24-31

Verse 29: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".

I'm pretty sure that means belief in things not seen. IE blind faith is the ideal,

As I've mentioned in an earlier post. Not only are Christians meant to believe without seeing, Luther actually condemned reason.
Seems to me that Christians are meant to be extremely trusting with no factual base for their trust, nor even reasoned argument:

"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

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

There is NO PROOF for the existence of god, nor in fact is there a consensus for the physical existence of Jesus. These things are accepted by believers as a matter of faith, and that's just dandy, as long as they mind their own business.----I have no problem with the personal superstitions of others

I have a big problem when others try to convert me to their point of view. To do so is arrogant and insulting. It's also so quite silly. There are dozens? hundreds? thousands? of Christian sects, each claiming a different absolute truth.

A wonderful current example is an idiot football, player who belongs to a tiny Christian sect. He claims anyone who does not share his beliefs is going to hell--and that includes our Happy Clappy Prime Minister. And these people wonder why I and others treat their beliefs with amusement at best, contempt at worst.

Sheldon's picture
cranky47 "Evidence is

cranky47 "Evidence is anything provided in support of a claim."

Well theists seem to think so, but I'm dubious, if there's piss on the floor and I offer the claim it was a passing unicorn, that rationale would make some piss on the floor evidence for unicorns? For me this is using the word evidence in a fairly disingenuous way. As theists and religious apologists do all the time tbh.

Evidence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Cognostic's picture
@Fergson : What a load of

@Jo: What a load of dipshit double-speak.

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

Why do you keep misrepresenting atheism as a claim and or a belief?

You can demonstrate no objective evidence for your belief, the fact your belief can't be disproved doesn't validate it all, nor does it mean your belief has any kind of parity with disbelief. This is a fallacy in informal logic you are using to reverse the burden of proof, it's called argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's not going away Jo, no matter how many times you dishonestly ignore it and rehash this fallacy. Nor is this change by anything any atheist claims about the existence of a deity.

I disbelieve any deity exists as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the belief, and this does not require faith, nor is this lack of belief a belief, which is too absurdly dishonest to require any counter argument.

Do you believe invisible unicorns exist Jo? Are you claiming they don't? Is this claim a faith based belief Jo?

You're relentless dishonesty is taxing Jo, but it speaks volumes about your beliefs that after months on here this common logical fallacy to reverse the burden of proof is all you have, and that's why you keep coming back to it.

You're still holding an empty bag Jo.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

You insist that you are not calling me names, but in every post to me there are words like misrepresenting, dishonest, and relentless dishonesty. So who are you referring to when you use words like lies? Is there another Jo? Just wondering how you reconcile it.

When someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, you have to wonder if they are insecure in themselves, in their beliefs, or are they just interested in a poo slinging contest.

"Why do you keep misrepresenting atheism as a claim and or a belief?"
I am addressing your claims, not atheism.

You are making the argument from ignorance by asking for objective evidence and then using what you characterize as lack of evidence, as evidence. Below is the definition.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

It is negative evidence. It is a logical fallacy that provides that a statement is true only because it has not been proven false, or a statement is false only because it is not proven true. A person considers or asserts that something is false and implausible because the thing is not proven true.https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/argumentum-ad-ignorantiam/

LostLocke's picture
One atheist was unable to

One atheist was unable to reconcile that human consciousness exists apart from the human body in face of clear evidence of it being true...

Great. All you have to do is show us a consciousness that exists without a body.

And I'm almost certain I know what "phenomenon" you're going to start referencing to explain this. I won't say what it is, but I bet others are thinking the same thing...

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look, another

Oh look, another supernaturalist has turned up to unload the contents of his soiled intellectual nappies on the forum. This is going to be so much fun to subject to the usual well-deserved treatment ...

The atheist

And there's your first mistake straight out of the gate, namely, the tiresome and entirely predictable supernaturalist caricature of homogeneity of atheists. Said caricature being pounded into a bloody pulp by the observable data, available in quantity, to the contrary.

has already determined that their is no supernatural realm

Correction, we've determined, in accordance with the rules of proper discourse, that the assertions on this subject by you and your ilk have zero support from any proper quarter, be it reliably obtained observational data or error-free deduction in a properly constituted, rigorous formal system. As a corollary, your assertions are safely discardable. The moment someone provides proper support for assertions about the supernatural, we'll take note.

and any evidence you present will always be labeled as unsatisfactory or inconclusive because it doesn’t fit their definition of evidence.

That's because made up shit isn't evidence. Which is all you and your ilk have ever had. That, and repeated parroting of the very self same mythological assertions that are the claims requiring support via external corroboration.

If proper, rigorous academic disciplines accepted made up shit the same way supernaturalism does, they would not BE rigorous academic disciplines by definition, and would be wallowing in the same fatuous state of anti-consilience that affects supernaturalism.

The atheist claims to be a scientist

Wrong. What we actually claim, is that we paid attention to what actual scientists have presented to us. Do learn the elementary concepts, before making a spectacle of yourself on a globally accessible public medium.

However, it so happens that some of the people I've circulated among in the past are proper tenured scientific researchers. Who would be happy to subject your drivel to the treatment it deserves in their spare time. I might invite one or two of them to do just that.

but doesn’t throughly [sic] examine his/her beliefs.

Bullshit. What part of "testing assertions to destruction" do you not understand as an essential part of any proper discoursive activity? Which you'll find happens here with reliable regularity. But don't let this stop you from your blatant and mendacious act of supernaturalist projection of your own inadequacies onto us, it's never stopped your ilk in the past ...

The atheist will say that logic/reasoning is how they determine what is true

That's because some of us learned what this actually IS, and how to apply it.

despite there being any way to scientifically test logic/reason as the best or only way to determine truth.

How about, IT FUCKING WORKS? Which was established 23 centuries ago by Aristotle? That's before we factor in more modern developments, such as those by Boole and Quine.

The atheist is absurd.

Wrong. All the absurdities around here are manifestly the product of mythology fanboys like you.

One atheist was unable to reconcile that human consciousness exists apart from the human body

Oh really? When was this established on a rigorous basis? Paper citations?

in face of clear evidence of it being true

When was this presented again? Don't recall this appearing in any of the peer reviewed neuroscience literature, which would be the proper place to report any evidence of this sort ...

as a result, the atheist denied the existence of human consciousness.

Hmm, looks like we're into "anecdote being peddled as data" time again, a familiar part of the supernaturalist aetiology ...

I believe his name was Daniel Dennett.

Here's a clue for you. Don't post lies about famous individuals whose work is in the public domain and eminently checkable. Dennett doesn't "deny" the existence of human consciousness at all, which is your first demonstrable lie. In several of his works, as you would know if you had actually READ them, he presents a theory of consciousness based upon neuronal data processing. The Multiple Drafts Model is essentially a data processing model, and represents consciousness as merely another Turing machine in operation within the neurons of the brain.

Another atheist once said if there is a world that exists beyond nature it’s probably just more nature.

Let me guess ... another simplistic and misleading caricature of actual atheist thought, like the previous one?

One atheist was explaining how something can come from nothing

Citation for this? Only we're used to supernaturalists making shit up here, as you've just been exposed doing with Dennett's work above.

while attributing the properties of something to complete nothingness.

Again, citation for this?

Atheist deny the existence of God

Bullshit. First of all, what we actually say on the matter, is that no supernaturalist assertions on the subject have ever been provided with proper support, therefore those assertions are, in accordance with the proper rules of discourse, safely discardable.

But we're used to supernaturalists pretending that their caricatures of our thought constitute the reality, without bothering with the inconvenience of actually asking us what we think, as you've just done straight out of the gate here, with the hubris and mendacious presumption that is typical of your ilk.

Indeed, I am on public record here as welcoming evidence pointing to the existence of a god-type entity, on the basis that when it arrives, it will falsify all of the stupid, pre-scientific mythologies fanboys like you cling to. Indeed, I've exercised a fair bit of diligence here with respect to examining the god concept, including contemplating ideas that you and the rest of the complacent mythology fanboys were incapable of even fantasising about. I'll let you do your own homework finding out about this, just to see if you actually bother to exert some diligence yourself.

While I regard the existence of a god-type entity in its most general form as an unanswered question (as does everyone here with respect for discoursive rigour), one idea we can enjoy much certainty about, is that the fatuous and absurd candidates for the role asserted to be thus in pre-scientific mythologies can be safely tossed into the bin, on the basis of their being replete with absurdity, paradox and internal contradiction. That's before we consider the manner in which pre-scientific mythologies have their provenance as purported sources of "knowledge" roundly flushed around the U-bend by the presence of assertions contained therein, that are not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd.

In short, if there is a god out there, it won't be one of the risible mythological ones. Yours included.

yet they believe in morality,justice, and love

No, these aren't matters of "belief", these are matters of observational data. We have a wealth of observational data to draw on with respect to these concepts, and human application thereof in the case of the first two. Do learn the elementary concepts at work here. We leave "belief" to mythology fanboys like you.

which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

What part of the words "observational data" did you not bother trying to understand as you slept through your classes?

If someone tells you that they love you, you can’t test their love in a lab. You have to take their word for it and place your faith in that person.

Wrong.

I love the way supernaturalists continually confuse inference from insufficent data with "faith". (See what I did there?) The two are completely separate. Faith, certainly as practiced by supernaturalists like you, consists of uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, regardless of how much data is available flushing many of those assertions down the toilet. On the other hand, humans demonstrably engage in inference from insufficient data on a daily basis. Of course, that inference is subject to modification when new data arrives. So, for example, a partner who expends effort caring for you, even when doing so incurs consdiderable personal cost to that partner, provides data reinforcing the notion that the relationship is based upon strong ties and commitment to shared well-being. A partner discovered to have been having multiple sexual affairs behind your back, on the other hand, provides data quickly refuting that notion.

Looks like you never bothered learning the elementary concepts at school, but I've seen a lot of supernaturalists who never bothered with such learning.

Which atheist have no problem doing

See above, with respect to having data to support or refute a given notion.

but they mock believers for having faith in God

That's because mythology fanboys like you have no data. That's the essential different. And no, your mythology and its assertions are NOT the data, they are the source of the claims requiring data to support. Do learn this elementary concept before making a fool of yourself here.

even though they place their faith in things to.

Bullshit. See above on inference from insufficient data, which still relies upon data supporting a postulate.

You can’t be an atheist without living in constant contradiction.

Poppycock. The only one exhibiting contradiction here is you. Oh, and I didn't have to lie about anything in order to compile this post, unlike you.

The short version of the above: fuck off until you've learned some basic honesty.

Pistós's picture
A scientist is anyone that

A scientist is anyone that practices the scientific method or practices a science. All atheist are scientist.

You can’t say science is the only way to know if something is true because you can’t scientifically prove that. It’s self-refuting.

Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

There’s no way for atheist to know with 100% certainty that science is the only way to know truth, it requires some faith to trust the scientific method.

Please provide me with the observable data that proves love and justice exist. I’d certainly eat my words.

Faith is NOT belief in the face of no evidence. Faith is freedom from doubt. The evidence for God is good enough for me but maybe not for you, so saying there’s a lack of evidence is your opinion.

Calilasseia's picture
Let's take a look at this

Let's take a look at this drivel shall we?

A scientist is anyone that practices the scientific method or practices a science.

There's much more to being a scientist than this. Such as being part of a well-defined, recognised research programme.

Tell me, are you posting this manifest caricature with a straight face?

All atheist are scientist.

Wrong.

You can’t say science is the only way to know if something is true

And I and many others here don't assert this. Which on its own destroys your apologetic fabrications.

What we do state, on the other hand, is that science is reliable. There's a difference.

because you can’t scientifically prove that.

But we CAN demonstrate the reliability of science. In short, it works.

It’s self-refuting.

Since we don't adhere to your fabricated apologetics strawman caricatures, your assertion here is null and void.

Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

So what? Apparently you're unaware that logic is a formal system, and as a corollary, a separate set of rules apply thereto. Such as consistency of any theorems derived from relevant axioms.

There’s no way for atheist to know with 100% certainty that science is the only way to know truth

But since none of us here adheres to your manifest strawman caricature of atheism, your apologetics is null and void.

it requires some faith to trust the scientific method.

Bullshit. Observational data on its reliability renders your assertions about "faith" null and void.

Please provide me with the observable data that proves love and justice exist.

Are you fucking serious? I already provided some examples of the relevant data in a previous post. Or is reading comprehension something else you fail at?

I’d certainly eat my words.

Fetch your fucking cutlery.

Faith is NOT belief in the face of no evidence.

Yes it is. It's uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and supernaturalists like you keep providing the data upholding that view.

Faith is freedom from doubt.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. As classic an admission of Dunning-Kruger from you as I could have hoped for.

The evidence for God is good enough for me

What fucking evidence?

Come on, put your money where your mouth is. And if you provide nothing but the usual tiresome apologetic fabrications and appeals to mythological assertion I see so often from your ilk, I'll know you're beneath deserving of a point of view.

but maybe not for you, so saying there’s a lack of evidence is your opinion.

No, I simply have standard here, that you manifestly don't.

Cognostic's picture
@Calilasseia: I was about

@Calilasseia: I was about to pounce on the same drivel from Pistos when I saw your name below. Well, what the hell else is there to say. Then Sheldon chimed in. FFS - I guess I just missed this post. It has obviously all been said.

Sheldon's picture
Pistós "The atheist has

Pistós "The atheist has already determined that their is no supernatural realm and any evidence you present will always be labeled as unsatisfactory or inconclusive because it doesn’t fit their definition of evidence."

Nope, that;s a lie, and there are two l's in labelled champ, you're off to a cracking start. However by all means demonstrate the best objective evidence you can for any deity, I am breathless with anticipation.

Pistós The atheist claims to be a scientist but doesn’t throughly examine his/her beliefs.

Nope, another lie, and you have no clue what beliefs an atheist holds until they tell you, so you can't even master reading a simple word definition, is it stupidity or dishonesty? I'm smelling troll here.

Pistós "The atheist will say that logic/reasoning is how they determine what is true despite there being any way to scientifically test logic/reason as the best or only way to determine truth."

Another lie, logic is just a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, and it's successes are manifest objective evidence of the veracity of its methods. Why do theists not seem to know they can Google these facts?

Pistós "The atheist is absurd."

Atheists are illogical? You just contradicted your previous rant where you said they use logic.

Pistós "human consciousness exists apart from the human body

Be a dear, and demonstrate some objective evidence for that bizarre fantasy.

Pistós "Atheist deny the existence of God,"

Nope, I am an atheist and I don't deny the existence of any deity anymore than I deny the existence of invisible unicorns, I simply don't believe in things for which insufficient or no objective evidence can be demonstrated.

Pistós "they believe in morality,justice, and love which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested. "

Wrong again, the first two are words we use to explain actions and behaviours, the word love describes a physiological condition, and of course there is evidence it exists, and though of course you can't be certain that someone who says they love you does in fact love you, there is usually some evidence they do. So you are the new ferguson, wrong on everything in just about every context. Anyone else smelling a sock puppet account?

Pistós "You can’t be an atheist without living in constant contradiction."

Again this is demonstrably false, but more importantly how does this remotely evidence your superstitious fantasy that a deity exists?

Sheldon's picture
Pistake "The atheist has

Pistake "The atheist has already determined that their is no supernatural realm"

Their - indicating fucking possession
They're - abbreviation of they fucking are
There - indicating fucking position

FFS fergie, your sock puppet accounts are not going to be hard to spot, when they have the same level of illiteracy and stupidity as your original username.

JohnLFrazer's picture
"human consciousness exists

"human consciousness exists apart from the human body in face of clear evidence of it being true"...

That's a lie. This isn't name calling, but you're lying.

"Atheist deny the existence of God, yet they believe in morality,justice, and love which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested."

I won't say you're lying here, but you're grossly mistaken.

Morality is fluid, and the theist's "morals" are frightening because it is so. Next week it'll be moral again to take the children down to the town square to watch the church leaders torture and burn some heretics and witches.
You come up with endless ways to get around following all the rules and injunctions in your holy books, to avoid admitting that the reason you don't stone women who aren't virgins at their wedding night, is because we won't let you.

Our ethics are objective, provable, backed by science. We know that slavery is wrong for provable facts, not because a new revelation from the preachers says so.
We know that murdering someone because the preacher says they caused the plague or crop failure is wrong, for provable objective reasons.

JohnLFrazer's picture
..." you can’t test their

..." you can’t test their love in a lab. "

A rat who knew his way around a maze/obstacle course, goes out of his way to help a newcomer in distress. Forgoes getting to the food to do so.

Pirate Jack's picture
@Pistos

@Pistos
No one has ever provided one bit of indisputable evidence that a god exists. If a person has to believe in spiritual realms, souls, devils, angels, an invisible paradise called heaven... it wreaks of BULLSHIT!! If god is real, and I’m wrong, I will ask him why he did everything possible to make his existence seem like a bullshit story, and then ask him how he got Mary pregnant without intercourse. And then ask him why he created sin, and bunches of other questions before he opens the trapdoor down to Mr. Satan. I will then ask Satan for a promotion to a position that doesn’t involve being raped or burned forever. Hell, haunting a house or possessing people can’t be that bad!

Calilasseia's picture
Meanwhile ...

Meanwhile ...

Faith is not belief without evidence.
It is a conclusion based on the evidence in matters that cannot be proven.

You actually wrote this with a straight face?

xenoview's picture
@Dark one

@Dark one
If you have become christian, why do you still claim to be an atheist in your profile?

Tin-Man's picture
Re: To Dark One - "If you

Re: To Dark One - "If you have become christian, why do you still claim to be an atheist in your profile?"

Hey, Xeno! Ummmm.... I could be totally wrong, but if I am reading that OP correctly, I am willing to bet that Dark One was using some over-the-top sarcasm and satire in his statements. Made me laugh, at least... *chuckle*...

Just in case, though..... Yo! Dark One! Don't go toward the light!!!

xenoview's picture
@Tin-man

@Tin-man
I don't see the humor or sarcasm. He said he was a christian now.

Cognostic's picture
@Dark One: "Why Atheists

@Dark One: "Why Atheists are Wrong and Ignorant."

ATHEIST: A person who does not believe in god or gods.

So why are Atheists, Wrong or Ignorant?

Well, first of all I do not believe in god or gods. To be wrong, you would have to assert that I do believe in a god or gods. Good luck with that. Are you asserting that not believing in a god is ignorant? I will agree with you if you can produce your god or a valid reason for believing in it.

1. RE: "the scope of our scientific knowledge is so very limited" Nothing to do with atheism. This is a classic God of the Gaps assertion. We don't know something, therefore God. It is a fallacy and it leads us nowhere. You might as well say, we don't know anything, therefore, magic bananas.

2. RE: Are we letting certain kinds of religious people close our minds to the possibilities of 'God, the afterlife and the beyond'
How is anyone closing our mind to anything. Atheists do not believe in god or gods because of the lack of evidence for such claims. As soon as there is good evidence, we will all change our minds. We may not worship that god but his or her existence will not be questioned. If there were any good arguments or evidence for the existence of god or gods, wouldn't the theists be using them?

3. Half the stuff you write makes no sense what so ever. What you think you are writing is not what is appearing in print. You might want to slow down a bit, reread your material, and see if it actually says what you think it says. In this case, It Obviously Does Not.

4, "Like he said there's nothing you could argue or disagree with here, it's a watertight rebuttal of atheism as a worldview/philosophy/lack of whatever. " All of these things are different and certainly any argument anyone could make would never in a million years address atheism. What has happened here is that several Straw Man arguments are presented as being Atheism.

STRAW MAN #1: Atheism is a belief system. No. Atheism is non-belief in god or gods. It is the theists who have a belief and expect us to share it. All we are doing is saying "No!."

STRAW MAN #2: Atheism is a world view. No. Atheism is non-belief in god or gods, The theists have a world view, They can not imagine a world that does not have a world view. They assume all other religions have world views. They assume all people operate from a world view. They may be right. Atheists are republicans, democrats, socialists, humanists, Buddhists and more, Many atheists have world views. What atheists do not have are atheist world views. Atheism is simply not believing in god or gods. According to the church, you are born an atheist. You are born separated from god by original sin, You are born not knowing god. How is this a world view. You are a new born infant has a world view because they are non-believers. This is complete bullocks. Non-belief in god or gods is not a world view.

5. RE: Proof: Proof is a completely unreasonable standard for most things outside of mathematics. Things are believed or not contingent on the quality of the evidence provided. Belief is not an all or nothing proposition like the theists would have you believe. For all intent and purposes I can tell you with a clear mind that I have never seen any reasonable evidence for the existence of god. If you think you have some, I would love to hear it., All I see coming from the theists are unfounded assertion, appeals to emotion and threats. Sorry, but this crap just isn't very convincing.

Tin-Man's picture
@Noboby in particular

@Noboby in particular

A buddy of mine sent this meme to me. Now, I do not know for certain if it is true, and (to be blunt) I'm not about waste my time reading through the entire bible to find out. Be that as it may, I did take a moment to remind him that actions speak louder than words. And even if Jesus never actually SAID, "I love you," there must have been PLENTY of things he DID to SHOW how much he loves us. For instance, that whole turning water into wine thing he does. Hey, if THAT doesn't practically SCREAM, "I love you," then I don't know what does.... (Okay, sure, I would prefer beer or a good rye whiskey. But beggers can't be choosers, right?)

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
cranky47's picture
2 cents

2 cents

"The atheist has already determined that their is no supernatural realm and any evidence you present will always be labeled as unsatisfactory or inconclusive because it doesn’t fit their definition of evidence."

Do try not to put words into my mouth, there's a good chap. I 'd also appreciate if others would try to refrain from telling me what I think or believe. PS it's "there"

PLUS theres is a difference between metaphysics and science. Metaphysics include topic such as The existence of god(s), free will and ethics. Metaphysical propositions tend to be unfalsifiable .IE cannot be proved nor disproved.

Science uses empiricism.

"Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification".[4] Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I recommend any who are still confused read the Wiki reference linked below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

I call myself an agnostic atheist. That mean I dis-believe, due to an absence of proof I do not un-belive. IE I do not claim 'there is no god".. I state that I do not know.

I would dearly love to be able to believe again. My atheism is not a choice, but the inevitable conclusion of a journey which took me over 25 years after rejecting Christianity. Consequently, I'd be just thrilled to learn of any proof I have rejected . It is true I have rejected a lot of CLAIMS of proof. That tends to happen with people who have not grasped the difference between 'evidence"and proof". Such people also often think god can be argued into existence, using logic. Due to another misunderstanding. Logic does not guarantee truth. A valid logical conclusion will be false UNLESS THE PREMISE IS TRUE.

At 71, I'm an ignorant man.I have been a scholar all of my adult life, and have earned a diploma and a BA. The most important thing I've learned from my studies is the depth of my ignorance.I guess I fit the definition of a dilettante; I know a bit about a lot of things, but a lot about very few things. AND the older I get the more ignorant I become. I bother because I believe that to live is to learn. I am not discouraged because I also believe "t'is better to light a single candle than to curse the dark" (anon)

Cognostic's picture
@Dark One: I am still

@Dark One: I am still waiting to hear about how atheists are "wrong" or "ignorant."

1. The scope of scientific knowledge is limited, therefore God. (Classic God of the Gaps) Refuted as many times as it has been used.

2. "we really say with any degree of confidence that things such as God/s, spirits and souls and whatnot cannot exist " WRONG BANANA BREATH - We can say with all the confidence of modern science, technology, and 6000 years of theistic failed apologetic. Contrary to popular belief, a lack of evidence does equal a lack of existence. If that were not the case, any scientific study that did not produce results would continue being done in the same way ad-infintum. Once it is determined that evidence is lacing, it can be concluded that there is no evidence and no reason to look there any more. The hypothesis is void with regard to this area of inquiry. God is void with regards to every area of inquiry known to bring about true, predictable, usable, and valid results. We can know that for a fact!

3. "things such as God/s, spirits and souls and whatnot cannot exist unless proven otherwise with science? "
Like most theist assertions, this one is completely WRONG. It is not the job of science to prove every crazy idea to come along does not exist. The burden of proof is on the presenter. You either provide evidence for your claim or you do not. Thus far, the theists have managed a big ZERO for their religious and supernatural claims.

4. "Literally anything could exist out there for all we know, and we don't know, so there you go."
And until you have actual evidence for whatever it is you are imagining that does exist, there is no reason at all to assume whatever that thing you are imagining is real. You do not get to imagine things into existence and then call them real.

5. " Are we letting certain kinds of religious people close our minds to the possibilities of 'God, the afterlife and the beyond'?"
No one's mind is closed but for the ignoramus asserting God and Spirits are real. They are the ones that have made up their minds. And they have done so without good evidence. The atheists are just sitting hear asking for evidence. Atheism is not a position of closed minds. When you come up with the evidence for your god, we will all admit that it is real. We may not worship your god but no one will deny that it is not real.

6. "Is there any arguing with the infinite wisdom of the Space Gnome? Or should we just surrender to this profound cosmic wisdom that cannot be argued against and make ourselves into better (i.e Christian I'm guessing) people as a result of accepting this truth?"

UTTER AND COMPLETE NONSENSICAL GIBBERISH!

7. "Like he said there's nothing you could argue or disagree with here, it's a watertight rebuttal of atheism as a worldview/philosophy/lack of whatever." HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THIS SITE? YOU STILL HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL HOW ATHEISM IS DEFINED? SERIOUSLY? The only way to "argue" against atheism is to create a "Straw Man."

1. Atheism is a world view. (STRAW MAN #1) No! Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
2. Atheism is a philosophy, (STRAW MAN #2) No! Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
3. Atheism is a whatever - (STRAW MAN #3) Clearly someone is not listening. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.

8. Well there's no way to know or prove anything, (Proof is a mathematical concept and does not apply to non-mathematics.) In the real world "proof" is not necessary. "Evidence, Predictability, Probability, and Repeatability are enough to come to an excellent conclusion, I know for a fact that if you jump from the top of a 10 story building into a concrete parking lot, without the aid of any life saving devices, you are going to damage yourself and quite possibly die.. I know that to be as clear a fact as any,. Prove me wrong! I dare you.

Kataclismic's picture
I couldn't get past the

I couldn't get past the assertion that atheists are trying to prove something with science. Wrong again. Theists make a claim and atheists just ask what basis you have for the claim.

After that they say "You must have some irrational way of justifying claims, then."

cranky47's picture
"Well theists seem to think

"Well theists seem to think so, but I'm dubious, --"

That's fine, that's your right. However, I didn't make this up. For both evidence and faith, I'm simply a giving a standard definition .

An every day example of evidence vs proof ; in court, a second person account (EG X told me Y &Z) is considered 'hearsay' (not proof) and is not accepted as evidence in court

Hence, evidence MAY be proof ,but it is not necessarily proof.

Definition of evidence

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

As a point of fact; as I write, there is no proof for the existence of God. This suggests but does not prove there is no god. Hence, I am only able to say "' I don' believe ,due to lack of evidence . I am unable to claim I KNOW there is no god. HenceI I call myself an agnostic atheist .

Everything Christians claim to know about Jesus hearsay. The earliest New Testament writings are the Epistles of Paul, written around 50 ce. IE about a human generation after the death of Jesus, around 30 ce. There is no contemporary evidence about Jesus, none.

This problem is exacerbated by the practical difficulties in copying book before the invention of the printing press, over 1300 years later.

My reference;"Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman.

So, until there is proof to the contrary, I will maintain my position that the New Testament is no more than than than the mythology of Christianity. That is has little if anything do with a real historical person called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf (hebrew).

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.