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.
Some comments to address some posters above.
1. I've been posting here off and on for about 5 years and the best post of all time by an atheist here was cognostic who posted something to the effect that science doesn't prove anything. Science devises models/theories to explain facts, but doesn't prove anything. Theories can't be proven. Krauss also notes early in the video that science changes; it throws out old theories like "yesterdays newspaper" and replaces them with new models/theories. Many participants here don't seem to get that and instead mistakenly reifiy theoretical constructs.
2. Another poster, Grinseed, apparently thinks that inductive reasoning eliminates belief. For example Pepsi vs Coke: which has more calories? He recommends taking a sample of each to analyse and draw a conclusion from the results of the sample. But choosing a sample to generalize to the whole, (inductive reasoning) introduces subjectivity. Every time you make a choice, you introduce subjectivity. The conclusions of such a method are based on the belief that the sample exactly represents the whole. Consequently, inductive reasoning can not eliminate belief.
3. Is the earth round or flat? it has been proposed that it is an objective fact that the earth is round or at least approximately round, and not flat. I take it as a fact that the earth is approximately round. But I don't take it as an "objective fact" that the earth is such. consider how one comes to think that the earth is more or less round. many people learn this in elementary school if not before due to being told it is round, and believing what they are told. In my case a teacher presented a round globe on a stand that tilted the globe. the teacher employed a lamp to represent the sun. The teacher thereby demonstrated how the rotation of the earth produced day and night. Too, the teacher demonstrated how the tilt and the revolving around the sun produced the seasons.
Guess what. I believed the teacher, as did, I assume, everyone else in the class room. If believing the teacher makes it an objective fact, then objectivity and belief fit together.
4. The foregoing raises the question what do we mean by "objective"? I have asked this question many times but the question is avoided by bombast, bluster, and weasel words. Oh, but we have pictures from space that show it is round. We also have pictures of Big Foot, alien space craft, the Kennedy assassination, and on and on, but no matter how you slice and dice, you believe what you see in the picture or you don't. It requires personal judgment to separate fake pictures from true pictures and judgment is fallible. In other words, if you believe what you see in a picture it amounts to faith in your judgement.
And why pick such an obvious example such as the earth is round to demonstrate "objective"? Why not pick electrons vs string theory? Do you believe its an objective fact that electrons exist? How about invisible protons and neutrons? How about invisible dark matter? How about the atheist metaphysical belief that the only thing that exists is nature? Is that objective? When "objectivity" is demonstrated why do they invariably pick something like 'the grass is green'? Because they want you to think that all facts are that simple when in reality it is not that simple. The pick the earth is round and the grass is green because they are employing sophistry to "prove" a false idea.
In sum, I take it as a fact that the earth is round and that fact is based on my belief that the methods used to determine it is round are valid and reliable. I don't take it as an 'objective fact' however. The adjective 'objective' is meaningless.
5. Well I take it you guys don't like Krauss' origin fable. And some of you are all in a funk about why did I pick him. I met a guy at a party who was an atheist and I mentioned that I'd been asking on an atheist forum for their views on the origin of the universe and don't get a response. Is there any atheist vies on the origin of the universe I asked him. he sent me a link to the Krauss video. That's why I picked him. If you have a better alternative to Krauss, let me know.
6. Why don't I ask about the origin of the universe in a physics forum someone asked above. that's ridiculous. Again, if I remember right, cognostic pointed out that the origin of the universe is beyond the horizon of physics. I think his words were, "We do not know". In that sense of knowing, I agree with cognostic. I think cognostic is a resource you guys should pay more attention to.
7. Issue of 'lack belief in God' doesn't imply anything. That's a claim that cries out for justification or as you guys might put it, proof. Denying that it doesn't imply anything doesn't make it so. It's obvious that lack of belief in God implies the only thing that exists is nature, and so Naturalism becomes the metaphysics of atheism. I should mention as well that this forum promotes a book entitled something like 'Why There is no God". Clearly, atheists believe there is no creator God.
@Apollo
FYI, none of your post addresses any of the points made, you've simply breezed in, posted the same fallacious rhetoric, and left. Same old Apollo and same old rhetoric, and FYI scientific theories evidence scientific facts, you're using semantics to repeat your asinine assertion that faith based belief in archaic unevidenced superstition somehow has parity with scientific fact, because science doesn't claim to ever be 100% certain. It's not even new BS, apologists espouse this asinine rationale all the time.
Scientific theories ARE the objective evidence, and this has been explained to you repeatedly, so this is either sophistry or breathtaking ignorance of even the most basic scientific methodology. As Cognostic points out, deities can't even be demonstrated as possible, let alone evidenced, whereas scientific facts are established with sufficient objective evidence.
You seem to be missing the point that this happens only when objective evidence demands it.
So it's just personal opinion that it's round? Do you think there is a possibility the earth might be flat then? Do you ever read your BS back and get embarrassed? Now think hard, and tell us what the "fact" that the earth is not flat is based on? There is a clue in the definition of fact for you. Do you think the teacher who taught you about the earth's shape and orbit was offering subjective opinion? Seriously this is fucking hilarious.
That is simply a blatant lie, I have posted the definition for you multiple times, since like many other theists you appear to be unaware you can Google word definitions. Here it is again then:
Objective
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Note the word fact again, and you claimed the earth is not flat is not an objective fact, so ipso facto you are asserting it is simply personal opinion. Again the sheer stupidity is trumped only by the hilarity.
This is a joke right? You think it would be better to pick something that was NOT such an obviously objective fact, to make it easier for you to repeat your asinine assertion that there is no such thing as an objective fact, christ on a bike.
If this objective fact is too "fact like" for you, then maybe you ought to consider avoiding absolute claims that are so easily refuted.
That's another lie, as that is not an atheist belief. This is another of your pathetic attempts to reverse the burden of proof. I don't believe YOUR CLAIM that something other than the natural physical world and universe exist, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for your claim, this is not a belief i hold, it is the rejection of a belief you hold that you can demonstrate no evidence to support. I can disbelieve your claim without making a contrary claim, and this has been explained to you ad nauseam.
Just because atheists refuse to believe the unevidenced claim a deity creating everything using magic, doesn't mean they have to have an alternative view to that nonsense, this is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Ridiculous to direct questions about theoretical physics to theoretical physicists? Another of your inexplicable jokes surely? One more time for Apollo then, just because atheists don't believe everything was created by an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using unexplained magic, doesn't mean they have to have ANY ALTERNATIVE.
It's in the fucking dictionary, you can read right?
Hilarious double negative, thank you for refuting your own position.
Nope. this is still a lie you're repeating to use an argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof. Many atheists have made their position on this crystal clear, so your rank dishonesty here is manifest, and I think it has been clear for some time you are trolling.
I don't believe any deity or deities exist, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence and this is demonstrably not a belief, or a contrary claim.
I don't believe anything supernatural or non physical exists for the same reason, and again this is not a belief or a contrary claim.
The burden of proof remains entirely yours, and my atheism remains intact, and will do until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for theism.
I don't have to believe anything in any book, so no book determines what I do and do not believe. You're thinking of theism, not atheism. It's theists who have to adhere to nonsensical BS in a book, not atheists. Atheists can decide for themselves.
Sheldon wrote, "Objective
adjective
1.(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
You post is permeated with your opinions, personal choices, and views.
Give me the title of a book on objectivity, evidence, positivism/empiricism that you have read and agree with. I can guarantee you, no criteria was ever formulated to enable "objectivity". You posts, permeated as they are by your personal views is testimony to the myth of objectivity.
@Apollo
I have never claimed not to offer opinions, so your point escapes me. Though it's worth noting your dishonesty here in not addressing the actual content of my post, which offered YET AGAIN the definition of objective, that you had lied no one would offer. However even if every word out of my mouth was merely a subjective opinion, this doesn't remotely evidence a deity, and again it's worth noting you have failed to do this, thus my atheism remains intact. You're just using the same old sophistry to try and pretend atheism needs contrary evidence to the claim of theism, it doesn't, as we've explained, this is logically fallacious.
Why do you keep throwing puerile red herrings demands for me to name books I've never mentioned, while ignoring actual post content? Again your dishonest sophistry is self evident in this rather puerile evasion.
Objective facts axiomatically exist. This has been demonstrated, unless you think the shape of earth changes from round to flat or flat to round based on mere opinion. You yourself said it was a fact, just what is that fact based on if not objective testable evidence, like the examples I linked, and that you have of course completely ignored, in favour of evasive sophistry.
I believe the world is not flat.
Now tell me is that just my subjective opinion, or is it supported by objective evidence? Like the testable examples I linked?
https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html
7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)
As I told you before Apollo, endless repetition of your lie won't make it true. Indeed if your asinine opinion were true, it would immediately render all claims meaningless. Including your own claim that all claims are merely subjective opinion.
So as Cognostic asked, how do you differentiate between true and false claims, if there is no objective evidence?
You seem unwilling to answer?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Apollo
"4. The foregoing raises the question what do we mean by "objective"? I have asked this question many times but the question is avoided by bombast, bluster, and weasel words."
I'll take a shot at this. I'll try to avoid bombast, bluster, and weasel words.
"Objective" is one of those complicated words with multiple shades of meaning. In this context, what I mean by it is "true for everyone, whether they prefer it, believe it, or even know about it".
Yes, that's quite broad strokes. But the word is complex and my intention here isn't to write a dictionary.
So, here's an example of both what I mean and why it's so complex.
I honestly don't care much for sweet, mushy, food. I'd near always prefer steamed asparagus to chocolate mousse.
A subjective fact is that asparagus is tastier than chocolate mousse.
An objective fact is that asparagus is healthier food than chocolate mousse.
A subjective fact is that people shouldn't eat chocolate mousse.
A subjective fact is that the world would be better if all the chocolate mousse were turned into asparagus.
An objective fact is that nearly everyone disagrees with my subjective fact.
The real problem is that objective and subjective aren't a mutually exclusive binary. Some things are true for so many people that they're darned near objective. This is why it's so important to try to figure out what someone really means by the words they're using.
Tom
2. Another poster, Grinseed, apparently thinks that inductive reasoning eliminates belief.
I seriously doubt that. Everything is belief. The distinction is what we justify as true belief or just Wooo wooo belief. Justified true belief would be those things we hold to be true. We absolutely can, from a sample, determine which is better, Coke or Pepsi. (Everything hinges on the definition of better.) "Which is less harmful, thus better, for the human body?" The matrix must first be agreed upon. Once it is agreed, the quality of better can be clearly established. Once established, it is still a belief.
3: Objectivity and belief fit together. "There is nothing but belief" Objective or not you still believe it or not. Whether or not the earth is round - again - depends on the definition of "round." How round are you willing to accept as round? My understanding is that the earth bulges in the middle and is a bit dumpy on one side (generally considered the bottom - an interesting idea as we are in weightless space.) This shape has been called an oblique spheroid.
oblate spheroid
"Since the Earth is flattened at the poles and bulges at the Equator, geodesy represents the figure of the Earth as an oblate spheroid. The oblate spheroid, or oblate ellipsoid, is an ellipsoid of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its shorter axis." Wikki
This is the general consensus. It is accepted as fact "true belief," and until someone comes along with a better definition, it will just have to do. There is another interesting pic of the earth that is demonstrated without the oceans. This is my favorite illustration of the earth. (See Attached.)
4. The foregoing raises the question what do we mean by "objective"?
"Supported by facts and evidence that can be measured, tested, repeated) It does not matter that the measuring devices are subjective or that our sense of color is subjective. It does not matter that existence is temporal or even that the very laws of physics may change. For this time and space, the tools that we have agreed to use, are all in agreement. They agree if I use them and they agree if you use them. This is objective. Before you can reach any objective tendency you must define that which you are calling objective. How would you know it is objective without first defining what you mean by objective. Just calling something objective, does not make it so.
RE: Krauss' origin fable. I don't have a better explanation but there are other explanations out there. The "Big Bang" is being challenged. https://interestingengineering.com/5-alternatives-to-the-big-bang-theory
The question is..... What can be justified? As I said before - the difference between the crap you are spewing and the general consensus on this site is the degree of justification. You have this idea that because something is not proved 100% it is the same thing as the Wooo you are spreading. BULLSHIT! Belief is justified to the degree of facts, evidence, and information that supports it.
Origin of the universe: We do not know, does not leave the door open for any cockamamie story that comes along. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT WE DO KNOW. We have a very good idea of how the universe was formed. Apparently cosmologists are capable of explaining this to 10-43 seconds before its expansion. (Go to a physics forum if you want to know more.) The fact that time has no meaning beyond this point or that physics breaks down, is not the same thing as knowing nothing. (Your Assertion)
You seem to operate in the world from a position of all or nothing, black or white, dualistic thinking. Again - Belief is allocated to a proposition based on the degree of evidence supporting it. (IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE) Not all beliefs are the same. That which is asserted without facts or evidence, literally most everything you have asserted on this forum, can be rejected without facts or evidence. You are a person who can not see the forest for the trees. You run about cherry-picing comments, missing the main ideas, and then responding with unsubstantiated BS.
7. RE: Lack of belief in god implies exactly what it says it implies. "Lack of belief in god." MUST WE DEFINE BELIEF AGAIN? It implies, no facts, evidence, or information that supports the claim "God Exists." NO REASON TO BELIEVE.
THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS IS NATURE: YOU IDIOT!~!!!! STOP! This is a separate claim that is no different than "God Exists" If you assert, nothing exists but nature "YOU MUST EVIDENCE YOUR CLAIM." If you assert all we ever see, or, all we ever experience is nature, "You are committing a black swan fallacy."
NATURALISM IS NOT THE METAPHYSICS OF ATHEISM: "Stop being so obtuse!!!) Atheism is the "LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD OR GODS." NOTHING MORE! It says nothing at all about the metaphysics of the belief systems of the people on this site. NOTHING!
RE: I should mention as well that this forum promotes a book entitled something like 'Why There is no God". Clearly, atheists believe there is no creator God.
Fuck you you dumb cunt! Because there are arguments against god does not mean Atheists believe them. I happen to have my favorite argument against god and I do not believe it is contained in the book you mentioned. The simple fact that I have a favorite argument does not mean there is no god. I don't even know what most theists mean by god or gods. Just like every other claim on the planet, the God claim is believed to the degree of the evidence any theist can offer for their version of god.
If you tell me your god is the sun, I believe your god exists. I don't get why it needs to be worshiped or why you bother calling it a God when we have a perfectly good word that does a better job of describing it, "Sun."
To determine if any atheist believes in any specific god.... YOU MUST FIRST DEFINE THAT GOD. You must evidence the existence of the thing you are talking about. ONLY THEN CAN WE EVEN BEGIN TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS BELIEVABLE.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Apollo
You don't seem to want to answer Cognostic's question:
If as you claim no objective facts exist, and everything is therefore presupposition, then what do you use to determine the validity of any claim or belief? You said it is a fact that the world is not flat, but not an objective one, so you're saying there is no objective evidence the world is not flat, it is only personal opinion, you must see how stupid that claim is.
https://www.livescience.com/60544-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round.html
7 Ways to Prove the Earth Is Round (Without Launching a Satellite)
There is that word again, prove, so before you wank yourself to death in a lather of semantics.
Prove
verb
1.demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
You will note the results of those experiments are not influenced by personal opinion, making them objective facts.
I look forward to Apollo evading this for another few weeks, then returning to repeat his lying bullshit again, then sneak off without addressing it.
Tell us Apollo what are facts based on? Donald Trump seems to think as you do, that they're merely subject to personal opinion.
Since some people still believe the earth is flat, and some believe it is rotund, can you explain why you agree with the second group, and think this is a fact, yet maintain it can be influenced by personal opinion?
Are both groups correct in their opinion, or is the earth's shape unaffected by either group's opinion.
Think hard now...if you can.
@Sheldon: Thanks...... saved me the headache!
@Cognostic
I've got your back, at some point it'll be a cut'n paste, as that seems to be pretty much what Apollo is doing now, endlessly repeating the same irrational BS that everyone's debunked already.
It's sad when they just start going through the motions, you feel almost cheated, but you're right, it gets tedious explaining their errors over and over again to them, especially when you know they don't care that their spiel is nonsense.
You have the patience of a saint -
You are
Hereby “Saint Sheldon”
Jesus fuckin Christ ... I guess if Apollo says the same shit over and over and over and over with nothing new to add, “it’ll make it true”...a peek into what obviously convinced him
@Apollo
"7.
His origin tale, his science fiction yarn, has some problems. How does he get that nothing is something? And why does he declare that nothing is something? I got some help from a six year old arithmetic whiz. I asked her what is zero? She said its nothing. How many ones are in zero, I asked. None, she said. How many twos in zero? None silly, zero is nothing. So, according to her, you can't get something from nothing. So the universe can't come from nothing. Krauss's origin statement is then missing a word, namely, abracadabra. His statement should go like this: nothing is really abracadabra something. Obviously magical thinking. Then, abracadabra, the something that is nothing burped and abracadabra the universe popped into existence. This si-fi yarn is a Leprechaun in Krauss's basement that he apparently insists is plausible, and apparently believes in. But I don't find it anymore credible than some ancient origin myth. so what made him create this myth? Otherwise, he said, you might need a deity. Clearly, he created an atheist origin myth for philosophical purposes."
What you've got here is a wordy and convoluted version of Kalam Cosmological Argument.
It's satisfyingly simple and intuitive. But it's primitive and mostly useful to people like W L Craig in their efforts to convince the gullible of his authority. But it really isn't too hard to see through, if you're looking for Reality.
Ask your six year old math whiz, "If I take your ball, and keep pushing it harder and harder, will it keep going faster?" She probably will say yes. Because that's the simple and intuitive answer. But it isn't true. Even a layman's understanding of modern physics will demonstrate that her ball will not exceed the speed of light.
"From out of the mouths of children" isn't always a great way to understand reality. For all I know, she also believes in Santa.
But here's a range of other logical problems with KCA.
Even if it were true,
A) It doesn't demonstrate the God still exists in any meaningful way. A lot can happen in 15 billion years.
B) It doesn't demonstrate that God is a unitary being. Could be a host of them.
C) It doesn't demonstrate that creating the universe was a deliberate act. When Michelangelo carved his masterpiece, David, he also created a pile of marble chips and dust. He didn't care about it, it was just an unimportant side effect which was swept out and forgotten.
This is just a start on the logical problems with accepting the primitive ideas of ancient people and then extrapolating from them.
And the "primitive" people I'm referring to aren't all ancient religionists. "The Big Bang" was a derogatory term coined by an influential scientist, Hoyle, to describe the singularity. Hoyle didn't believe that the universe was ever extremely different from what we could perceive at the time. He believed in a "Steady State" universe. But, as more data came to be known, the scientific consensus moved away from his firmly held and authoritative opinions. He was wrong, and the scientific community moved on.
Unlike religion, scientists don't believe in absolute certainty or human authority. Every opinion and theory is contingent on the objective, empirical, data.
Tom
@Columbus
Well structured and rational response, which of course Apollo will ignore. It's been pointed out to him from the start that his claims are a first cause argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, nothing more than a god of the gaps polemic. He ignores these objections with naught but hand waving and endless repetition.
It is also worth noting that the KCA, like all first cause arguments, is not an argument for a deity. The cause might just as rationally be a powerful leprechaun, simply defined, and bestowed with the same completely unevidenced attributes theists like WLC arbitrarily attribute to their deity. Even allowing for this, the argument gets you no closer to Jesus Allah or Yahweh, than it does to the Aztec god of gluttony. And this is after all the obvious flaws and fallacies in the argument are ignored by theists.
As for Apollo's childlike definition of zero as nothing, and I don't for one second believe he got this from a child. Zero degrees Fahrenheit is 17.778 Celsius, and in binary code zeros render a different value. So had this nonsense come from a child and not from Apollo, one might excuse it, but since he has used it one can see why he is so far out of his depth here that he can't see that zero is a relative term, and not an absolute term, as of course is the term nothing, when used in theoretical physics, the very point he was trying risibly to dispute with an example that destroys his own claim.
Tom/Columbus:
I didn't say the universe came from nothing, Krauss did. So you will have to take it up with him, not me. Krauss' idea is that if one doesn't come up with a natural explanation for the universe, then you might need a deity. That appears to be his motive. Apparently Krauss is not very popular around here so you are welcome to improve on his ideas.
In any case, it is obvious that from an atheistic perspective, the only thing that exists is nature. As such everything should have a natural explanation. Atheists, or at least some atheists, are then called to devise or contrive a view on the origin of the universe. The reality is that science claims the universe had a beginning. Doesn't matter if you call it the big bang or something else, current views are it had a beginning. So how did it begin? The most common answer is, science doesn't know.
Columbus wrote, "Unlike religion, scientists don't believe in absolute certainty or human authority. Every opinion and theory is contingent on the objective, empirical, data."
I don't believe in absolute certainty either. Every thing I/we believe could be false.
But you seem to be confused as "objective empirical data" is supposed to provide the certainty that you deny in your first sentence. Too, you are overlooking the most important thing Krauss said: He said we all have preconceptions which means we all have beliefs. Hence, all "data" is interpreted in terms of one's preconceptions.
"I didn't say the universe came from nothing, Krauss did. So you will have to take it up with him, not me."
I am not responding to Krauss. He doesn't post on Atheist Republic.
I'm responding to you. And your interpretation of what someone I don't know wrote somewhere.
Tom
This is still a lie Apollo, and each time you repeat this lie I will ask the same question to expose your lie. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for anything existing that is neither material or natural?
Nice piece of sophistry there, but you did claim to be certain your deity existed and that it created everything, yet after dozens of posts of your repetitive BS, you have not offered a shred of evidence, objective or otherwise.
Ah this lie again, just because individuals, like Krauss for example, may hold subjective beliefs, does not mean that every belief they hold is solely subjective opinion. This will remain a lie every time you misrepresent people in this way. The salient fact here is that have claimed to be certain a deity exists, but can'f offer any evidence, objective or otherwise, or a single rational argument.
@apollo
Do you have any objective evidence of your god? I didn't think so. Believing in something without evidence, by definition, is delusional. You fail miserably at reason...grow up.
Well doG, you are welcome to tell me how the universe came to be. So far its a fail on atheist explanations. Despite you huffing and puffing on "objective" evidence for a natural explanation, all you have from Krauss is a convoluted fable that relies on his beliefs. So work on improving it. If you don't have a quality alternative why should a theist give you any credibility? Answer: No reason.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, atheists don't need to fill the gap in our knowledge in order to disbelieve your claim that an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition made everything using unexplained magic. It is however an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, as does the natural physical universe, it is you who is adding something you have no evidence for, yet again, and yet again this is irrational according to Occam's razor.
Good fucking grief, for the same rational reason you have been given ad nauseam, demanding an alternative to your superstitious fiction is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It is the very definition of a god of the gaps polemic, which you have denied ever using, yet have used twice on this page. Again I don't automatically believe what Professor Krauss, or anybody else thinks, I only care what can be objectively evidenced.
I am an atheist because I don't believe claims until sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated for them. This obviously includes your claim an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstitious myth created everything using unexplained magic.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
ROTFLMAO. That's all you have? Can you not see the gap in your god assertion? LOL. I guess rational thought is not something you choose to use when discussing your religion. Is it reasonable to assert a god somewhere simply because you believe? Without objective evidence? Do you not think that he should be evidenced to exist in reality, before inserting him into reality?
Irrelevant of theory...you fail at reason, because you believe in something without objective evidence in reality. Like I said, grow up. If you want to convince me that your god exists, I will need evidence that he does. I do not need to hear about unevidenced theory, religious or scientific...or fallacious arguments based your own inability to reason...I will need demonstrable objective evidence. Do you have any? Of which you have none.
https://www.amazon.ca/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637
That link is to a book by an atheist who reportedly defends intelligent design. Krauss claims there is design in the universe, but it designed itself by accident. So there seems to be some disagreement among atheists on the issue of design.
If atheists were "objective", why would they disagree with each other? Answer: They are not "objective". They have differing preconceptions/beliefs which guide their selection of facts and interpretation of facts.
@Apollo
Who has claimed that all atheists are always objective? You just make up straw man positions for atheism in an endless tedious repetitive line. This doesn't evidence any deity, and never will. You have no evidence for your belief / claim, and so I will continue to disbelieve it, as I do all such claims.
FYI That would include intelligent design, which I also disbelieve as it is unsupported by any objective evidence, though of course intelligent design would not be objective evidence for any deity, why on earth would it ffs, you even said it was an atheist who believed in intelligent design, so ipso facto that atheist believes that intelligence was not a deity.
I am starting to think you simply have an execrable grasp of English.
Another interesting comment Krauss made was "question everything". I agree. But there seems to be much opposition to questioning atheist beliefs.
"Another interesting comment Krauss made was "question everything". I agree. But there seems to be much opposition to questioning atheist beliefs."
I'm starting to think that you just don't understand this Krauss person you keep quoting.
I don't know anything about him, except for the bits that you post.
Krauss appears to be saying "Don't accept human authority. Follow the scientific method. Regardless of which authority makes a claim, remain skeptical. Question Everything."
This is in stark contrast to the usual religious method. "Pick a human authority and believe whatever they tell you, even if it's irrational. Because God is mysterious, but He'll tell His favorite prophets stuff."
I'm not claiming that all religionists operate that way. One of the improvements to the modern world is the way religious folks adopt secular humanist values, and pretend that Scripture always meant that. I don't care what anybody believes, I just care about what people do.
Attribute human rights and representative government and environmentalism and such to your Scripture, and I'm fine with it. Even if I have read Scripture and know it's not really in there.
I won't complain about that.
Tom
@Columbus Re: Apollo
Just a little FYI for you real quick if you are interested. Darling little Apollo is our resident Career Troll. He's been around off and on for a few years and is relatively harmless, for the most part. Sure, he can be a source of mildly amusing entertainment at times, but you might not want to get your hopes up of having any type of productive discussion with him. He has proven time and time again he has no interest in such things. Anyway, being the new guy, I figured you might want to know. Might save you a headache or two... *chuckle*... Have as much fun with him as you like, though. However, he is such an easy target that it can get quite boring rather quickly. No real challenge with him. Just sayin'... *shrugging shoulders*...
"Have as much fun with him as you like, though. However, he is such an easy target that it can get quite boring rather quickly. No real challenge with him. Just sayin'..."
Not only am I trapped in the house by C19, but it's pouring down rain.
I can't even walk the dogs.
I'm happy with whatever chew toy I find on the internet. Apollo is more interesting than chatting with people I already agree with. Where's the fun in that?
Tom
@Columbus Re: "Apollo is more interesting than chatting with people I already agree with."
I totally disagree with that... *chuckle*...
"@Columbus Re: "Apollo is more interesting than chatting with people I already agree with."
I totally disagree with that... *chuckle*..."
This forum needs emoticons. Like one for "rolling eyes".
:)
Tom
P.s. ~Why did the machine delete rolling eyes when I put it in a different punctuation?~
Columbus,
You don't know much about Krauss or me. You are welcome to be empirical in lieu of assuming everything. Why would you just read the bits I quoted thereby assuming it was accurate? Is that scientific? Why would you assume I care very much about "Scripture"? I don't. Besides atheists have their own scripture.
Science is constituted by people, so the scientific method isn't independent of people and the authority some scientist may have. Besides, Krauss' ideas about the origin of the universe, that quantum fluctuations were pre-existing, they burped, and the universe popped out, isn't science. Its a quasi-religious belief. You can't hide behind science. many of the greats in science were theists: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein were all theists of various sorts. So all this stuff about atheists are scientific while theists are not is just baloney.
And speaking of Einstein time for a quote, “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein
"Human rights" was not invented by atheists. The atheists Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and more could have cared less about human rights. The founding fathers of America were all theists and they defined the American version of human rights. Freedom of religion, for example, was formulated by theists, and also protects atheists. It is interesting how you phrase your post, you make it sound like atheists formulated "human rights". Plus you make it look like atheists alone populate science. Neither is true.
As explained millions of time, there are no atheist beliefs you freaking moronic troll.
@NewSkeptic
Yeah, Mr. Appalling has been on this site for several years, and everything in his last post has been covered countless times by untold numbers of other members. Even a rotten potato could have remembered/understood the things that have been laboriously explained to him at this point. But he intentionally ignores any and all, and he purposely uses every lame apologetic "argument" over and over in an effort to push buttons and get reactions.
It makes me almost sad, really, to think of how pathetic and dismal a person's life must be for them to willingly display such an image of utter ignorance and asinine foolishness over such a long period of time. In a way, that mentality is actually something of a minor fascination to me from a psychological perspective. But that is a topic for a whole other post.
Pages