4 of 4
4
Atheism is Stupid!
Posted: 10 June 2017 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-06-10
Write4U - 10 June 2017 04:54 PM
Atheist_Twin - 10 June 2017 12:04 PM

Anyone who makes the claim “there is no God” would be subject to the requirement of evidence to support such a claim. .

No, Because it is not a claim.  It’s a disclaimer, because the default position is that is no sentient creator.

You are making that claim and it is up to you to provide the proof .

I’ll re-word the position for clarity. The claim “There cannot be a God or God does NOT exist” is not the same as “There is no evidence for God, or there is no reason to believe in God”

To say that there cannot be a God or it is a certainty that God does not exist, you would need to provide evidence for that. The lack of that evidence does not point towards its existence however as an un-falsifiable claim is a rather weak one than a strong one. I am saying that a God claim cannot be proven nor can it be disproved (tomorrow a God could simply pop into existence and submit itself for analysis and experimentation)

The atheist position does not burden itself with such requirements. It simply takes the position that there is no evidence for a God. One could take the next step to then say “therefore there is no reason to believe in a God” but I believe that step to be superfluous.

Atheists don’t need to make this any harder than it has to be and agnostics don’t need to shy away from the fact that they are essentially atheists too apprehensive to accept the label

[ Edited: 10 June 2017 08:18 PM by Atheist_Twin ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 June 2017 11:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7752
Joined  2009-02-26

As I said before, unless there is evidence that a god exists, the default position is that god does not exist.

Does a Flying spaghetti Monster exist?  My answer to that claim would be exactly the same.

Just because theism has a long history of believers does not in any way alter the fundamental burden of proof.
It is pure hubris to make a claim without any supporting evidence, then require the person who says that this claim makes no sense to prove why it makes no sense.  That’s NOT how it works my friend.

Atheists are not making this any harder than it has to be. YOU DO, by your insistence that God does exist without being able to even describe what properties God possesses, other than the Creator, which is a meaningless term unless you can explain how that could be possible and how God would have gone about this.

Words like “All Powerful”  and “He Saw it was Good”,  are all meaningless in the face of the physical evidence , which argues strongly against any notion of a “sentient and motivated” creation.

The theist could make it a lot easier if they just accepted the fact that only science can trace universal history back to its Origins.  Theism certainly cannot. Scripture certainly can never be introduced as evidence.

Few people are aware that the Papal Academy of Sciences which, to their credit, has now agreed with science that Evolution of species is fact. Any claim to the contrary without proof is pure hubris and self serving clinging to an outdated concept.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2017 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2017-06-10
Write4U - 10 June 2017 11:49 PM

As I said before, unless there is evidence that a god exists, the default position is that god does not exist.

Does a Flying spaghetti Monster exist?  My answer to that claim would be exactly the same.

Just because theism has a long history of believers does not in any way alter the fundamental burden of proof.
It is pure hubris to make a claim without any supporting evidence, then require the person who says that this claim makes no sense to prove why it makes no sense.  That’s NOT how it works my friend.

Atheists are not making this any harder than it has to be. YOU DO, by your insistence that God does exist without being able to even describe what properties God possesses, other than the Creator, which is a meaningless term unless you can explain how that could be possible and how God would have gone about this.

Words like “All Powerful”  and “He Saw it was Good”,  are all meaningless in the face of the physical evidence , which argues strongly against any notion of a “sentient and motivated” creation.

The theist could make it a lot easier if they just accepted the fact that only science can trace universal history back to its Origins.  Theism certainly cannot. Scripture certainly can never be introduced as evidence.

Few people are aware that the Papal Academy of Sciences which, to their credit, has now agreed with science that Evolution of species is fact. Any claim to the contrary without proof is pure hubris and self serving clinging to an outdated concept.

Please look at my user name

Let me be clear. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. I am not making an argument in support of Gods existence. Saying that evidence is required to support the claim that God cannot exist is NOT evidence that it does exist. I am trying to illustrate how arguments work in the context of the discussion.

A theist will characterize the argument against atheism by trying to alter the position to make it easier to attack. For example: How do you prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist?

I’m not actually making the argument in favor of God’s existence I am explaining how easy it is to get lost in the semantics and misunderstand the actual positions.

[ Edited: 11 June 2017 09:25 AM by Atheist_Twin ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2017 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7752
Joined  2009-02-26

@ Atheist_Twin,

Seems we are in agreement then.  It is the way you posed the question that prompted my response.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2017 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2013-08-29

Avocatus, I did not mean to insult anyone who wants to claim to be known as an atheist.  History has been revealing for me and when i found out that leaders of religions used the opportunity to alter the meaning, I asked myself why?  I am growing you know. I thought the name catheist would be ideal, then history got in my way. The Greeks put an A in front of a word they wanted to disagree with it’s meaning.  So I refer to myself as ACATHOLIC which tells someone a bit of my history.  I personally do not have any bad memories, I just have more knowledge now.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2017 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7752
Joined  2009-02-26
grand pa ray - 12 June 2017 11:49 AM

Avocatus, I did not mean to insult anyone who wants to claim to be known as an atheist.  History has been revealing for me and when i found out that leaders of religions used the opportunity to alter the meaning, I asked myself why?  I am growing you know. I thought the name catheist would be ideal, then history got in my way. The Greeks put an A in front of a word they wanted to disagree with it’s meaning.  So I refer to myself as ACATHOLIC which tells someone a bit of my history.  I personally do not have any bad memories, I just have more knowledge now.

  In one of my earliest posts on this forum, I proposed that what religions identify as God, is an early attempt to identify Universal Potential, a word still unknown at that time.

I find it very interesting that scripture begins with “in the beginning was the Word”, and then explains that this word was a causal dynamic.
So, they assigned the word God to that dynamic causality. I have no problem with that. It is just a Word.

But where I began to disagree with scripture was when the Word God was then defined as a sentient, motivated, and emotional being, which made conscious decisions for His pleasure.

Today, in science it is called “movement in the direction of greatest physical satisfaction (comfort)”, which does not require a deliberate act, but is a natural self-ordering tendency of physical things.

As I mentioned before, forming a sphere exists as an abstract universal potential and it is only the restrictive environment which prevents it from becoming a perfect sphere, but not for lack of trying.

[ Edited: 12 June 2017 04:36 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4