Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
''Furthermore, they all make claims that do require the laws of nature to be suspended in order to support their ideologies.''
Show me one such claim and I'll demonstrate how it's invalidity doesn't overthrow theism anyway.
''Theism has yet to produce a solid explanation as to why these laws exist, other then to commit a god of the gaps fallacy.''
It's only a God of the gaps fallacy when you're putting God in ''how'' questions. On the other hand, there is a philosophically necessary answer to all the ''why'' questions that fits what people refer to as God--a first cause and prime mover.
''This is bollocks to the highest order, again miracles require the suspension of the laws of nature and physics and that does not happen.''
You are already begging the question by adding ''miracles don't happen'' as a prerequisite, which doesn't prove anything.
''They make the claims that there is this invisible cosmic mage overlooking us. That we are created. ''
You're resorting to personal incredulity. A philosophically necessary prime mover is by default undetectable by our physical sense (invisible); it is the source of all contingent existence (which includes everything in the universe) and already has all the knowledge that there is to be (so it's adequate to call it a ''mage''). So why wouldn't it be a ''invisible cosmic mage''? What's more, I'm sensing that you're adding ''we are not created'' as a prerequisite; which again, is begging the question.
''And I wonder what the punishment was for not believing in those eras???''
That is irrelevant, because all the major scientists in those eras were theologically motivated; that to study nature is to seek God. On the other hand, China had a better geographical and economical potential to kick-start a scientific revolution; but they didn't have the right theology, as they believed that the universe is chaotic, unknowable, and best left alone. Science developed in Europe directly because of religion, not in spite of.
@ JazzTheist
All religion.
Not required.
Miracles do NOT happen.
Then it doe not exist.
Now you are talking about the Universal Expansion Theory.
Omniscience does not exist. Omniscience excludes the capability of Free Will.
If so, then it does not exist.
No begging. You are the one making a preposterous claim.
The Six Razors:
Wrong. Science was funded by religion in the hopes it could prove the Sky Faerie existed. However, science instead proved your Sky Daddy is so improbable it may as well not exist. Again, until you can provide objective hard empirical evidence, ...
The Six Razors:
rmfr
Thank you Arakish, you've dived in before i could and that echoes my thoughts exactly.
Still, i will issue a challenge that I have many times before in regards to this first cause, supernatural idiocy...
Demonstrate one causal link that leads or goes to supernatural phenomena.
I.e. human evolution (natural phenomena), how Earth formed(natural phenomena), how our solar system formed (natural phenomena)... all the way to the big bang expansion...
Demonstrate one causal link of supernatural phenomena, let's see if it is at all plausible.
Thank you Arakish, for summing up naturalism and demonstrating how the personal incredulity fallacy works.
Oh the irony...
Now, please demonstrate one causal link of supernatural phenomena, let's see if it is at all plausible.
Here's one. Existence. And don't try to examine this in a ''how'' perspective.
@JazzTheist
"Here's one. Existence. And don't try to examine this in a ''how'' perspective."
Why?
Randomhero1982 " please demonstrate one causal link of supernatural phenomena,"
JazzTheist "Here's one. Existence. And don't try to examine this in a ''how'' perspective."
Examine what, that's just a bare claim, Hitchens's razor applies - slash.
@arakish
I want to submit my own to your list:
LogicFTW's First Razor: Prove your religion/god idea is not a con first.
Hmm I may need to improve and make mine more catchy if I am ever going to make this list.. I will have to think on it.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Looking forward to seeing the final. I like you are going.
rmfr
Check all my previous comments and you'll know it's anything BUT a con.
Actually, no they do not. You are trying to con us into believing something you cannot provide any OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
rmfr
You are trying to con ME by repeating yourself.
Again, it's illogical to demand physical evidence for non-physical things. It's like demanding to see a married bachelor.
And if it is non-physical, it does not exist.
rmfr
What an assertion. How do you know that? What's your methodology?
@JazzTheist
Then keep your non-physical concept out of the physical world. Say it is a concept, say it means nothing to us in the real physical world and talk about it as a: purely as non-physical theory you have, that has no evidence that it is a thought construct just like Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy or unicorns etc.
Not this: "every physical thing around you is evidence!" That you say.
You keep saying your god concept has no rules to it because it is non physical, supernatural etc. But then, when convenient, you toss in physical reasons for your god or, physical real world things we physical humans should do, like we should: expand ourselves to consider more than just the evidenced natural world, and go into the supernatural.. right where you found this god idea and your god idea works! In the supernatural world where there is no rules like logic, reasoning or actual cause and effect and certainly no proof or evidence required.
You may not be aware of it, but many of us are fully aware that you bounce between natural and supernatural for your god concept constantly, and you bounce to whichever, based on whatever is convenient to you to defend/rationalize your god/religion idea. Standing back and watching from this angle it is rather comical to watch but that is mirth is marred by the realization billions of other people do the same thing to rationalize their god concept and it has devastating effect on the entire human race as a result.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
''Then keep your non-physical concept out of the physical world.''
No, it's you who should admit that non-physical concepts can't be subject to physical means. I know it's hard because it's basically the foundation of atheism.
''You keep saying your god concept has no rules to it because it is non physical, supernatural etc. But then, when convenient, you toss in physical reasons for your god.''
First of all, there isn't a ''my God'' to begin with. Second, logical reasons are not physical. Third, through logical inference, the ultimate source cannot have rules to abide to; because then it wouldn't be ultimate.
''Many of us are fully aware that you bounce between natural and supernatural for your god concept constantly...''
And I'm fully aware that everyone is committing non sequitors all the time; which is probably why I had to constantly explain things differently in the first place.
Now that is a true sign of that horrible disease, "goddidititis." Sometimes called God of the Gaps Fallacy. Perhaps you should pray for a cure?
rmfr
@JazzTheist
I have already stated to you today I have no problem with non-physical/supernatural concepts not being subject to physical means/rules/laws/evidence/reasoning. I only have a problem when you do that. And now you repeat yourself saying not to do that, I agree, don't do it! Non-physical/supernatural ideas/concepts are fine if you keep them there. I got no problem with that. I don't punish myself for believing in Santa Claus when I was 10. I would think I was an idiot if I tried to as an adult convince someone Santa Claus is real with real physical/natural cause and effect without any sort of evidence to prove it. I would call myself a liar if I did that.
Are you saying you do not have a god? If so, progress! I have been arguing for a while you actually are an atheist based on your description of this "first mover" thing. And that you do not believe the standard accepted definition of god, like the abrahamic based gods.
You are right, they are not. They are a human thought process, sometimes used to describe the physical/natural world, and sometimes the meta physical/supernatural concepts. However any decent logic is almost always rooted in physical reality based findings of evidence, otherwise it is not very good logic. The logic is "empty" if the support behind the logic is baseless, without evidence or proof.
You are now defining your god,"ultimate," "cannot have rules," defining into being and defining why it has no rules, you can do that all you like, but to any rational person, or to anyone that has a different opinion than you, your argument is without merit, there is no reason to consider it seriously, there is no "meat" to it to make me consider that possibility of nearly an infinite other possibilities. If we are not able to discard ideas that has no merit to differentiate it from an infinite number of other ideas, we would not be able to function. We would likely die the first time we tried to cross a busy high speed freeway, unable to filter what matters and is real from what is just a baseless concept/idea out of the infinite possibilities.
You have not answered this elsewhere: I, LogicFTW am your god, bow down to me, and give me all your worldly possessions. My proof? Exactly the same proof you supplied for your god. I am "non physical" I have no rules that apply to me." I am the ultimate source, if I had rules I had to abide to like proof, evidence and rules, I would not be ultimate! Still waiting on all your worldly goods, actually if you can do a favor and sell all your crap and just give me a check for the amount that will be more convenient to me, your "ultimate" god.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Logic
Hey, rather than sell all my worldly possessions, would it be okay if I just donated a dollar to the cause?
@Tin-Man
Hey now I never claimed I was your god. Just JazzTheist god. Besides you do not try to defend a god concept with: "well he is ultimate and ultimate things cannot be bound by rules!"
I am well aware I could not possibly convince you I am your god, because you require a higher standard, you require real evidence that I am your god other then just thoughts and conjecture.
That said, if you want to donate a dollar to my cause I happily accept, I think it is highly likely you made me spew at least a dollar's worth of various beverages with some of your hilarious commentary. Before I took peoples warnings here to heart about not eating/drinking while reading your, and others, commentary.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Logic
Well, since you put it that way, how about I just buy you a drink or two should we ever have the good fortune of meeting one day?... *chuckle*...
"Again, it's illogical to demand physical evidence for non-physical things. It's like demanding to see a married bachelor."
The problem being that married bachelors don't exist, so something of an own goal there.
Straw-man.
That is not what he said, it is clear that he said the laws of physics and nature do not get suspended.
@JazzTheist
"Theism provides a philosophical explanation on why laws of nature and physics exist in the first place."
Why is there air?
"Nope. Theism provides a philosophical explanation on why laws of nature and physics exist in the first place."
No t doesn't, it provides a claim, the claim itself has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
"The reason why the Catholic Church had much control over the mass is exactly because they wouldn't let people read the Bible. And when folks finally got to read it, they became Protestants. "
Catholicism is still the largest demographic of christians? I'm happy to accept that Catholicism is woo woo, but so is the bible.
''No it doesn't, it provides a claim, the claim itself has no explanatory powers whatsoever.''
Every contingent thing needs to have a cause that's less contingent than it. For example: when you see a bunch of cards stacked into a specific structure, you can infer that the structure's previous form was less contingent than it is now. Presumably, just a bunch cards lying evenly on the table. And using the same logic we can infer an ultimate non-contingent cause to everything that exists. I assign the title of God to it because it would fit the description of God of classical theism.
It may sound just like a claim from a naturalistic worldview. But naturalism, by definition excludes the supernatural--which makes it not applicable to anything related to the supernatural unless we're talking about supernatural interventions.
''Catholicism is still the largest demographic of christians?''
Non sequitor. I was simply stating that reading the Bible actually made people rebel against the system.
Wait, can you say that again:
Which is more contingent?
JazzTheist: "Every contingent thing needs to have a cause that's less contingent than it. For example: when you see a bunch of cards stacked into a specific structure, you can infer that the structure's previous form was less contingent than it is now. Presumably, just a bunch cards lying evenly on the table. And using the same logic we can infer an ultimate non-contingent cause to everything that exists. I assign the title of God to it because it would fit the description of God of classical theism."
Another method for spotting a Religious Absolutist: They do not know what logic is.
Using your same analogy, those cards are just contingent whether they are stacked as a "house of cards," a messy pile all over the floor, or a neat stack on a table. None are less contingent than the other.
And if something is non-contingent (contingent = dependent for existence upon something else), then it is non-existent.
rmfr
If something is non-contingent, then it only needs to depend on itself to exist.
Non-contingent=not dependent for existence upon something else
YOU don't know logic.
Pages