maybe im not sure but i guess it could be real
no but if yes this god is a jerk
yes but i do wonder sometimes if its true
[Reference: last post wins]
Sorry for not being active, I had a lot of end-of-the-year finals and large projects I had to study/finish. Fortunately, I only have two more finals within the next week or so, so I'll see how active I can be.http://jiggmin.com/threads/55500-Doe...=1#post2023860 As I said before, lacking a belief means you have NO belief whatsoever which is why atheism cannot be scientific under that definition.
As for the burden of proof, theists have given atheists proof for god everywhere; proof such as Irreducibly Complexity, Cambrian Explosion, the Fossil Record, Fine Tuning, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Rare Earth, Human Consciousness, and much more. If you do not believe it is time for atheists to start producing evidence against God, I challenge you to research any 3 of these topics on the internet.
By the way, I'd like to cite a good example of a realistic argument regarding a hypothesis that is not proven. (Not invisible dragons as your video uses.]
As many of you know, multiverse is a hotly debated topic; especially as scientists are uncovering new evidence.
Which you can see here:http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...allel-universe
On this article, the skeptic posts 7 arguments AGAINST multiverse theory. The proponent of multiverse also posts several reasons why they believe multiverse is true. According to you, Rammjet the skeptic has a lack of a belief, so he shouldn't have to post any evidence; however, the skeptic is clearly arguing against multiverse theory. In fact, in pretty much any scientific hypothesis, both sides will make claims, and produce evidence. We don't see ANYONE arguing against multiverse proponents that the burden of proof lies on multiverse supporters. No, we see educated arguments based on science from BOTH sides. Both the skeptic and the proponent give evidence.
It is time for atheists to start giving evidence for their belief seeing that all other scientific theories are being debated with science; not by dodging the question of who should produce evidence.
By the way MFdom, while I realize you are making fun of extreme literalist christians, I'd like to point out that most Intelligent Designers and Creationists are logical in their thinking; they use the fossil record, carbon dating, and pretty much all the evidence evolutionists use to prove their ideas. Unfortunately, the creationists that are shown to the public are the ones that are not scientific; such as Kent Hovind and others similar to him. You rarely hear of Jason Lisle, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, Russel Humphreys, and others. Mainly because they actually have valid ideas; for instance, Jason Lisle proposed a new idea based on known laws of physics to explain distant starlight. While his idea does need tweaking, it definitely is a good start since its founded on scientific laws. As could be expected, very few anti-creationists choose to rebut his arguments; they tend to focus on the weakest aspects of our arguments which I find highly disgusting.
Last edited by Blackie6789; 23rd May 2012 at 04:24 PM.
Pr2: Rank 35 Hats:9Pr3: Rank 37 Hats:11
Did you miss that post I made that showed arguments for and against god?
You keep insisting we don't provide any arguments, but we obviously have...
I will accept your challenge. In the meantime, perhaps you should research ours.
[Reference: last post wins]
Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
The universe has a cause of its existence
Okay. This says that the universe must have been caused by something. It doesn't prove it was god. Saying "the first cause is god" doesn't make it any better. We don't know nearly enough about the universe to do anything here. What created god?
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large, which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience."
Well then... I think someone's been living in the past.
Cambrian Explosion: I'm pretty sure Rammjet and others have already argued against this recently.
[Reference: last post wins]
I guess I'm not needed then. :c
Mftopia, land of dreams. <3
You can defend a lack of belief, that's what skepticism is. For example most biologists are skeptical about some people's claims that big foot exists.
Atheism isn't exclusively a positive choice, it refers to any person who has no belief in gods, including societies which don't have a concept of god as well as individuals from cultures that do worship gods, who have grown to reject previous beliefs. :]
Science isn't about having belief- you're actually referring to hypothetical claims. Science is all about skepticism, if you don't realise this you need to find out what science is. The arguments provided by theists, however numerous, are poor, which is why I remain skeptical, for example arguments of intelligent design were disproven in court, the cambrian explosion isn't an ontological argument at all and the fossil record says nothing about the existance of gods, just emminantly supports biological theories of evolution etc.
I'm still skeptical because these are not effective arguments, if I were asked to prove pixies existed, and after numerous failed attempts said 'now it's your turn' I think even you would understand the flaw.
I've read your article before, and the skeptic isn't required to post proof of a negative- only to dismantle arguments proponing the idea, this lack of requirement does not forbid someone from posting further arguments for their skepticism however, it's simply not a requirement. For example I'm skeptical about the existance of unicorns, I'm entitled to demand evidence before believe in them, not required to provide counter-proofs, but not forbidden from doing so. [quite simple really- they are the laws of argument]
You need to understand how science actually works, if a skeptic's position is a negative it is unfair to require them to prove a negative, because that is impossible logically, however attempts or reasons to do so aren't forbidden and most people engage with this enthusiastically [as most atheists also have done in this thread, should you care to notice], the law of debate remains that if a claiment is unable to create evidence convincing to positions of skepticim, that the skeptic has no cause to change their view, but the claiment does.
I'd like to challenge you to prove there aren't elves living on the sun, beyond the detection of humans. Unfalsifiable claims put no pressure on skeptics, and it's almost confusing that you're demanding atheists post argument when we've posted plenty. We've dismissed the creation story for example by proving the earth is 4.56bn years and that the universe is 13.7bn years old- and figuring out how both of them formed.
We've dismissed some gods by showing logical inconsistancies, such as contradictions of character in their descriptions and holy texts.
We've provided alternative hypotheses and then grounded them as theory, for example delusions of grandeur and belief in the supernatural is often a symptom of mental problems or the suspension of critical faculties, which is a present function in many cultures and religions, especially those which require depressants or hallucenogens as part of their rituals [which christianity does, specific denominations requiring the use of alcohol and ganja].
The working theory here is atheism, not theism, not even deism.
And while I do agree with you on Atheism being a choice, the method by which to defend their choice is what happens to be gaining more and more attention these past years since they have more "evidence" to back up their decision. I can see the some reasons why place scientific advancement as the basis for their arguments, but I don't see it as a way to prove everything.
Mftopia, land of dreams. <3
I'm sorry for the double post, but I explored more of the UKatheist's videos and there was one which addressed a large number of Blackie's popular arguments.
The commentators identify these forms of arguments as arguments from ignorance, because the claiment is both ignorant of the fields they're trying to contort and assumed that in the absense of knowing his claim is vindicated, the opposite of which is true. In the absense of knowing all claims about the origin of the universes are suspended under further inspection-
-to compare this to a court of law, we do not assume anybody is guilty before this being proven the case, and the prossecution is not entitled to make the case 'if the defence cannot prove the crime didn't happen, then our suspect must be guilty,'.
I don't take christianity any more seriously than any supernatural claim, such as ghosts or astrollogy.
Atheism can be a choice, but is not be necessity. I'm an atheist by choice, but a large number of people, who were never introduced to the concept of a god, are atheists by default.
Of course science isn't a way to prove everything- we have actually proven there are some things you cannot prove, like double negatives or questions such as 'are there infinite prime numbers?,'. However it is within current scientific merit to dismiss ideas of human-like gods on numerous grounds, because these figures fit into the working theory 'these are projections of the id,'.
Last edited by Rammjet; 23rd May 2012 at 05:04 PM.
This thread should be titled "Does Science Exist?", since that's basically what everyone is arguing here.
Science cannot prove whether or not the existence of a deity is true or false. It could be thousands of steps behind figuring that one out or most likely not at all.
Mftopia, land of dreams. <3
Blackie, I think your logic is a bit off. Basically you have been saying that
1) Rammjet is an atheist
2) Rammjet made a positive choice not to believe in God
3) (All) atheists make a positive choice not to believe in God
It's kind of like if I said
1) My pet is a cat
2) My pet is black
3) (All) cats are black
Obviously not true.
One member of a group having a specific detail doesn't mean all other members of the same group have that detail as well.
Show your PR2 abilities, and try to match up with the very best in the PR2 Campaigns. Rank 0 times included! Record threads: PR3 Campaign - PR2 Campaigns
Submit level(s) for DaBombs' "Level of the Week" contest and have a chance of getting them on my account "Levels of the Week"! Detail link on "Information" by Levels of the Week: http://pastebin.com/5iWiC6Ru
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope.
This is only semi-related, but I thought it was funny:
The doctrines of christianity are not unified; have you ever read their holy text? The first section is devoted to a warrior like God of a clearly primitive and brutal society, whereas the God depicted in the second half is significantly more developed. The characteristics and doctrines of these two gods often disagree with one another. One god demands you cut off young boys' foreskins, don't eat shrimp and should be prepared to sacrifice your son to him, the other forgets most of these commandments and sacrifices his own son instead.
Science can prove or disprove individual claims in your holy text as well as operating working theories. For example the genesis event, described as it is in your holy text, did not happen- and neither did the creation stories of any other religion, the people writing those stories had no idea how the earth got here so they were all guesses and fiction to be frank, and the existance of God is not a necessary part of working theory to describe religious behaviour- social dominance and human behaviour adaquately covers this.
It's not possible to categorically disprove an unfalsifiable core idea- like gods in general, or magic-, which is why these are suspended until a burden of proof on the claiment is met, but the specific gods described and worshiped by many religious people clearly don't exist, because it's more difficult to assume they exist in working theories than it is to assume they're all mental projections.
Can god create a bigger rock, than he can roll?
If god is truly omnipotent, he also has the power to remove his own omnipotency.