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.
@ Kenny33
I'm not "triggered", and your posts are becoming more and more dishonest. You started the thread by claiming to "believe in reason", then above you claimed reason had held civilisation back, and carried no real weight, whilst claiming that making irrational assertions and arguments was preferable for advancing civilisation. If that asinine contradiction doesn't warrant an exclamation like fuck me, I don't know what does. And this attempt at projecting your error isn't saving face, trust me the other posters here will see through your claims as I have.
Though I don't for a minute believe you knew your argument was irrational, I strongly suspect your claim to believe in reason was purely rhetoric, as your posts have know demonstrated.
You haven't offered any evidence for me to address, only an irrational first cause argument, so again it's fairly dishonest of you to pretend you have. As for knowing beforehand how I would react to what you claim is evidence that's pathetic, it's an objective fact your op was irrational, as it contains known logical fallacies. You have now claimed you used those irrational claims deliberately, so just what kind of reaction you expected is baffling.
Again I don't believe your claim it was deliberate or that you knew you were using known logical fallacies, else why would you open with a claim to "believe in reason" then deliberately abandon reason in the same post. Then not a dozen posts later claim reason carries no weight in the real world? A more plausible explanation is that you genuinely didn't know that reason is define as thoughts or arguments that adhere to logic. As this would explain your unwitting use of those fallacies, and then your hilarious attempt to wave this embarrassing fact away, by the astounding contradiction that logic and by extension reason carry no weight.
Your questions are tortured analogies, and just a pointless attempt to reuse the same logical fallacies you started with, I've already explained that, so its pointless answering them overcand over, as the answer will remain the same each time, as unlike you I don't use irrational arguments, or think irrational arguments are of any value
Another fairly puerile lie, if you had any objective evidence you'd have offered it, and again the definition is in the dictionary and simple to understand, so your latest claim for clairvoyance is as hilariously dishonest as the others.
Dishonest evasion, nothing more, and pretty childish to boot.
I think we can all reasonably infer your answer as to whether you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, as you'd hardly keep it to yourself while offering an irrational first cause argument right out of the gate, but I did you the courtesy of asking.
If you'd been honest I'd be inclined to help you understand how woefully poor and ill-informed your reasoning was, but sadly you prefer faith based belief over rational honest discourse, so I shan't bother repeating myself.
You have sought atheists out to peddle your superstitious wares, it's nothing to me if you choose to believe irrational arguments represent sound reason, or evidence superstition.
FYI I have never debated professionally, let alone for years. You ought really to stop making assumption about me personally, as you're way off everytime.
Let me refer to my original post since there appears to be a misunderstanding:
"I am a person that believes in reason... if someone presents to me a set of options (a,b,c, etc..) and I have to choose one, I will choose the option with the highest chance of being correct (I guess it is common sense!)"
As you can see I immediately clarified what I mean when I say reason... and I tried later to explain that Reason as a theory is different from practice .
I am a mechanical engineer and I know that most of the theory we study is not going to translate 1:1 when put into practice, there are many external uncontrollable conditions that can simply make theory way wrong. It is called margins of error.
Reason for you seems to be an on-off situation, but for me it is more dynamic. I already explained that in my previous analogies about war and the school exam.
"then above you claimed reason had held civilisation back"
werent you lecturing me on Straw man? I am saying that your way of thinking wouldve destroyed humanity. I guess you might be slow so I will explain:
Lets say I want to base everything I do on solid reasoning, so why I should I eat anything today? you might answer because you need food to survive, but why do I need to survive? let me question this claim that I need to survive, what objective reasoning do you have that I need to survive? instincts? but maybe I am being tricked, how can I know 100% that I am not tricked....
See? if this is how I think I will die surely
Now if we view reason in a different way (the way I do), where we stay consistent and weigh our options smartly, I will probably survive and lead a good life.
"Again I don't believe your claim it was deliberate "
But can you give me 100% irrefutable objective evidence for this belief? if not then did you realize your contradiction?
You can't use your own personal subjective meaning after you are called on the claim, and again you are being dishonest by implying I am using anything other than the dictionary definition of reason, which I have quoited twice verbatim.
How is quoting you verbatim a straw man, you don't half talk a load of bollocks, and again pathetic ad hominem, and I fail to see how it is my fault you have a remedial grasp of language, and use words you don't know the meaning of. You analogy is as idiotic as it is irrelevant, if you're too dishonest and your ego is too fragile for honest debate then leave, but you made two contradictory claims and they are there for all to see.
What the fuck are you blathering about, reason is defined as thinking or arguing in accordance with logic, you don't get to just make up your own definition for words, that's asinine, and that is the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, it doesn't have any relevance at all. Are you seriously implying logic would cause someone starve themselves to death, that's beyond idiotic.
I was offering an opinion, if you had the most basic critical reasoning skills you'd know these are subject, but I already gave my reasoning, you're an idiot who actually used a word know knowing its meaning, because you thought it lent some credence to your superstitious beliefs, but then immediately contradicted yourself in the same post because you don't know what a common logical fallacy is, then tried to bluff your way past it when I called you on it, by claiming you deliberately peppered your OP argument with irrational fallacies.
In your endless histrionics one thing is worthy of note, and that is that you have only offered a fallacious argument for a first cause, not one cogent rational argument or a shred of any objective evidence for any deity. Your embarrassing evasion when asked for objective evidence is also in this thread for all to see, blathering on about the meaning of objective in post after post, then pathetically lying that you didn't offer any as you claim to somehow know I would reject it.
As if you would not demonstrate objective evidence for a deity, laughable stuff. Anyway I'm out for now, as your drivel is just not worth the effort, time for a pizza, and a glass of wine as I have earned it engaging with your endless guff.
Again I won't bother replying to anything you say that doesnt touch my original post.
"You can't use your own personal subjective meaning after you are called on the claim, and again you are being dishonest by implying I am using anything other than the dictionary definition of reason, which I have quoited twice verbatim."
But I am using the dictionary definition, I just happen to have a better interpretation than you for this definition.
And all you managed to do is attack my style of debating rather than attacking my point...
"you don't get to just make up your own definition for words, that's asinine, and that is the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, it doesn't have any relevance at all. Are you seriously implying logic would cause someone starve themselves to death, that's beyond idiotic."
I am implying that your way of thinking would destroy humanity in no time.... I challenged your idea that reasoning has to be strictly fallacy free and I put a convincing analogy forward, and I simply explained it to you that everything is nice in theory, but not so in practice.... throughout my arguments, I always kept mentioning reality but for some reason all you care about is theory , thats the huge mistake in the way you think... you became so worried and concerned about fallacies (I am not saying you shouldnt!) and you lost sight of something far more important. In other words, you became the definition of closed-mindedness .
"I was offering an opinion, if you had the most basic critical reasoning skills you'd know these are subject, but I already gave my reasoning"
Sorry for sticking to the obvious dictionary meaning of "believe" since you seem to like semantics...
" you're an idiot who actually used a word know knowing its meaning, because you thought it lent some credence to your superstitious beliefs, but then immediately contradicted yourself in the same post"
Oh dear, I am not gonna repeat myself , you seem to be a fan of repetition, I am not!
"I'm out for now, as your drivel is just not worth the effort, time for a pizza, and a glass of wine as I have earned it engaging with your endless guff."
Enjoy !
You seem determined to make ever more stupid claims, and again I made no interpenetration of the definition, I quoted it precisely as it is written, that is what verbatim means, but as we all now know, word definitions are clearly beyond you. And to illustrate your lie here again, here is the definition verbatim.
reason
noun
The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically
So you cannot both believe in reason, as you claimed, and use known logical fallacies as you did.
Your analogy was asinine rubbish, and again you don't get to challenge word definitions, only an imbecile would think otherwise.
Another lie, I never mentioned theory at all, and your belief has nothing to do with reality since you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence, or a single rational argument to support it.
More nonsensical blather, you claimed to believe in reason, then in the same OP used a quite commonly used first cause argument that contained known logical fallacies, thus it was poorly reasoned by definition. Now you are claiming my adherence to logic represents bias, and again the hilarity of such a stupidly errant claim is manifest. I didn't create logic you clown, and adherence to its principles are a prerequisite of reason, as the definition states. It's astonishing that anyone thinks they can debate this simple fact. You don't have to use logic, but you can't claim to believe in it then make irrational claims, as Cyber also pointed out to you.
Kemmy33 "Oh dear, I am not gonna repeat myself , you seem to be a fan of repetition, I am not!"
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...priceless
Not repeating myself, waste of time!
Kenny (05/06/20, 1651hrs.) - "Oh dear, I am not gonna repeat myself , you seem to be a fan of repetition, I am not!"
Kenny (05/06/20, 1802hrs.) - "Not repeating myself, waste of time!"
Huh?
Tin...let me explain. Poor Kenny has a reason to repeat himself, he’s trying to convince us. It’s like I have a reason to get mad when the kids ask about lunch...or you know, someone murders someone else - they all have a reason (or is it an excuse?). Fuck, I always get those two mixed up!
Everything that as you would say "has been created" follows unbroken chains of causality.
Everything has a natural causal link, that does not require the suspension of the laws of nature and physics.
So the burden of proof massively increases on your side and becomes more far fetched and 'unrelatable'.
So we now have two arguments,
1 - Whatever caused all of the known universe is naturally occurring, like every other cause (which is evidenced), and doesnt require the breaking of any known laws.
2 - everything is naturally caused, apart from one thing (god), that created everything.
Which requires a broken causal link(good luck proving that) & requires the suspension of the laws of nature and physics (again, good luck showing a single shred of evidence to support your view).
Furthermore, why god? IF we accept the notion that something could have created everything and it was not subject to causality itself, why your god? Why any good? Why not something else?
If you wish to invoke any of the gods proposed by any of the major religions, you have even more to prove.
This is exactly when a theistic world view can be seen as being complete hogwash.
The amount of evidence required to be even remotely acceptable as a claim, becomes astronomical and the amount of evidence it gives out is ridiculously poor.
Random hero... are you using “common sense”?!?! Now are you, really?!?!? Objectively prove it. Lol!!!!! :)
Sorry, my bad. I should have waited for Kenny to write that.
"Furthermore, why god? IF we accept the notion that something could have created everything and it was not subject to causality itself, why your god? Why any good? Why not something else?"
Well I didnt say it is God, I just said a creator....
Ok, why a creator? Why not something else?
Why not something random?
You appear to be assigning agency.
We know our being here resides upon the earth forming from the accretion disc... this is a fact and there is no conscious agency behind its formation.
So agency is not required.
You could claim a creator, but I could claim 'an invisible magic rabbit'.
Neither can be proven, neither have any evidence.
It's simply slotting in something where your lack of knowledge and understanding (as well as scientific thinking) breaks down.
This then starts the treacherous walk toward a god of the gaps arguement.
"Ok, why a creator? Why not something else?
Why not something random?"
Because it is more reasonable, if you put a rock in front of a computer and tells it to type a novel, do you expect any result?
If you put a monkey do you expect a result?
If you put a human then you expect a result..
"We know our being here resides upon the earth forming from the accretion disc... this is a fact and there is no conscious agency behind its formation."
Fact? very far from that, true it might be operating alone, but so does a machine that is programmed to do so.... if we analyze the machine an the earth we find that both have a starting point,, for the machine it was when the creator pushed the start button,,, and the for the earth it was the big bang..The machine cant do something other than how it was programmed
Based on that statement, I have to assume you don't have much experience with machines.
Not it is not, you're privilaging your world view, rather then coming at this from a rational and logical approach.
This demonstrates nothing more then special pleading and a conformation bias.
No, it is 100% a fact, that is how planets form.
You still miss the point, from the birth of our planet all the way to T=0, there is only naturally occurring causal paths, with absolutely zero super natural phenomena.
There are no conscious entities creating planets, stars, black holes etc... this is nature and physics.
Errr.... no!
"Not it is not, you're privilaging your world view, rather then coming at this from a rational and logical approach."
What? I just gave you how I reached that it is reasonable ... very dishonest ... I never claimed that my reasoning is 100% fool proof (there is nothing like that)
"No, it is 100% a fact, that is how planets form."
werent you accusing me of "conformation bias"? let me demonstrate that you also have it...
Why do you think it is 100% a fact? science? but who said that science is 100% correct? science is empirical , but what if our senses trick us? The reality is, nothing is 100% a fact..
You believe the watchmaker arguement is logical or rational?
If so, you really ought to read the arguments against it.
It is such a horse shit argument, that is now only spouted by ardent creationists.
Where is the causal link from naturally occurring phenomena to supernatural?!
It is called bayesian probability, when something is that heavily studied, understood and evidenced, then that .1% of 99.9% isn't too much of an issue.
", when something is that heavily studied, understood and evidenced, then that .1% of 99.9% isn't too much of an issue."
Heavily studied? not even close, do you think a couple of hundred years of studying anything is enough to make them 100% or even 99.9%? The way I see it, the pattern we observe can break at any point since we relied on "methods" we have no proof that they work.
It has been studied and subjected to academic scrutiny of the highest degree.
Perhaps you and your fellow believers could give that a try?
Be honest, actually throughly research what you believe to be fact and deliberately try to disprove it.
That is empiricism and intellectual honesty.
@Random...and have other asshole scientists
tear it to shreds to see if it can stand up to scrutiny. Something we ourselves do to each other here...something Kenny is discovering...
Yeah the earth is 4.6 billion years old, the universe is 13.8 billion years old, so you're only out by 9.2 billion years.
Oh and cosmologists have a very clear understanding of how solar systems form when gravity pulls dust and gas together, this is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing supernatural is evidenced, or even needed to fully explain it.
Another classic Kenny fail, pointing at things, then claiming god done that...
Relatability?
How would any self-respecting, empathetic mortal relate to an imagined divinity wilfully using its omnipotent power to create so many different forms of suffering, disease and biological malfunctions as necessary manifestations of its "miraculous creation"?
You are vainly trying to shore up the long discredited cosmological argument with this ill-defined subjective 'relatability' term or else you're trying to add authority to it from Aquinus. It doesnt work.
I couldn't relate to a deity that would choose to create over 120,000 species of disease-carrying, misery-inducing flies (estimated 17 million per person alive today!) As Mark Twain remarked, if a guy somehow achieved anything like this he would not be worshipped but utterly condemned. http://www.gnaedinger.com/writing/TheFly.html
I have nothing in common with a god who would willingly abandon the Hensel sisters to their pitiable fate (and the thousands like them) and who were certainly not made in it's image. Google them, and then argue for this deity's magnificence.
And how are the tragedies of motor neuron disease, dementia or trisomy 21, a worthy testament to the glory of an omnipotent god.
It would be better that the concept of such a creator not exist; it could only reasonably be regarded as a nasty narcisistic sadist for delivering such an overwhelming excess of misery. I could only relate such cruelty to a few human genocidal dictators.
And there's no point suggesting how mankind is unable to understand this god's ways and thoughts which only proves how unrelatable it is to us all.
I prefer the proofs of a naturalistic universe as evidenced by the scientific method and by evolutionary theory. It helps me rationally understand why bad shit happens and not to vainly ponder the capricious and malevolent actions of a mythological psycho.
C19 is not over. Keep safe.
woah why so many assumptions?
"wilfully using its omnipotent power to create so many different forms of suffering, disease and biological malfunctions as necessary manifestations of its "miraculous creation"?"
Okay two points,
1. Why did you assume it is his doing? Things like corona virus and HIV are made by humans or result of bad human activities.
2. Lets assume he made them,then it could be part of a test, testing patience, faith etc...
In exchange you are rewarded with infinite happiness, sounds like a deal anyone would take..
it is like telling someone to pay 100$ today and get it back 10000000000$ next weak.
"And there's no point suggesting how mankind is unable to understand this god's ways and thoughts which only proves how unrelatable it is to us all."
God is very relatable, if we think of how Religions describe him: Merciful, Just, Gentle, Ever-Forgiving, Noble, Bountiful, Wise etc...
Dont we as a human beings have some of these features? Granted not comparable to God but we can still relate.
Another hilarious straw man, as firstly the ubiquitous suffering on this planet you claim a perfectly merciful deity designed and created, is hardly limited to those two diseases now is it, and secondly there is no evidence either of those diseases is man made. They both in fact have been observed in other mammals before humans became infected.
So another priceless example of your love of sound reasoning there.
@Kenny... hi! I only read so far but I’m throwing in my 2 cents before I continue (sorry, eh)...
“, we humans have created various digital worlds ourselves, to our best knowledge this is the only way a world that follows certain rules and bound by specific constants can be built...”
In walks (drum roll) Simulation (ie we ourselves and our world is just a big simulation running for an advanced civilization) - a “mind-candy” bit of fun.
...” you always do this sort of reasoning.... lets say you were in a hurry and you need to cook something fast,” etc etc
Yes, I do compare real life stuff to real life stuff and my mind has the ability to imagine. I’ll even look up recipes and imagine what they’ll taste like. It’s a cool human brain activity and ability.
“... Now if this creator made everything existing, how did he exist in the first place? well the answer is that he might be in a special category of "things"... ”
Why? Why isn’t there an invisible noodle thing, or a couch thing, or a butterfly thing, etc etc - I mean, why limit this unknown made up thingy to “one” thingy? Maybe all these invisible thingys had no “creator” and got together as this physical world....
Yah, the imagination is fun, but when it comes to physical explanations, I’ll stick to the “scientific method” to help sort out bias and imaginative shit (although scientists can get pretty imaginative, it never “goes” any place until it reaches Theory level, and then, well the door is still left a crack open)
***whew**** got to the end!!! What fun.
BTW -
Seriously, fuck you Sheldon (I get tired of reading definitions and logical “fallacies”) Its stupid.
OK, now that I got that out of the way, let’s move on...I kinda like the idea of a creator thingy outside time/space that’s “special”... I do - my only fear is “it” died when it broke through into this reality. Why do I come to this conclusion?
I know there is a process of evolution (science)
And physics and stuff (science, maths blah blah blah) OK, and a lot of other sciences that work for humans...
That set aside, there hasn’t been anything to indicate this “thing” is alive (or god or “specialness”).
Whew, I only withhold belief, Kenny. That’s it. If god is dead and we are the remains and science has only been examining a dead “body”, wouldn’t that be something?!?!?
@Kenny: Time to grow up and put away the fairy tales. (God of the Gaps is not an argument.) I can't think of how we got here so it must be God. (Is not an argument.) A PROBABILITY needs evidence before it can be considered a probability.
How does everything not exist? Please demonstrate nothing. We know for a fact something exists. Why does it have to come from anywhere? Fundamentally, there is just something instead of nothing. How do you get to nothing in the real world?
No, I do not do this sort of reasoning in my daily life. I can not treat myself like an idiot.
"Now if this creator made everything existing, " "IF?" The conversation is over. You don't even believe the bullshit you are peddling. "If the Big Yellow Banana created the universe, your god is unnecessary." You don't even get to assert your god did it until you offer evidence.
"he might be in a special category of "things"" And he could be an ignorant assertion with no evidence to support it at all. Please demonstrate the possibility of your God.
God has Empirical Relatability? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....... Stupidest comment of the year. Demonstrate your God. Demonstrate this reliability.
Hey monkey brain ... some of us enjoy this imagination...
“ No, I do not do this sort of reasoning in my daily life. I can not treat myself like an idiot.”
Mentally for yourself BUT I know that you have (probably) enjoyed some of the physical pleasures of imagination ;)
Rolling pin tummy rub time!!!!
@White!: Fuck!!! Again? I mean fuck again!
@kenny33
I was making no assumptions.
As an atheist I don't accept the existence of a god. Instead for the purpose of discussion, I described, in simplistic terms, the theist belief that a god is responsible for all things good and bad, which I reject in favour of natural and man made causes.
In the absence of such a belief, I can only accept that such calamities either have natural origins, or are the result of man-made social and political actions, like war and the fallout of aggressive economic activities. Sometimes it can be a mix of both, such as famines or economic collapses that usually follow wars, or the excesses of industrial pollution that lead to issues like climate change.
I have more reasons to reject rather than accept any conspiracy theories about the Covid viruses being created by men in laboratories.
You ask why I make so many assumptions and then invite me to entertain yours. lol
I cannot join you in the assumption about faith, tests, expectation of patience or rewards as I don't believe there is a god issuing tasks and prizes. How much more do you assume to know about eternal rewards? Why would eternal life would be so good? What are the details of eternal life? And why did you not mention punishments? I have no faith either rewards or punishments will be forthcoming.
I agree, given the similarities, we can relate to the idea of a god, even one that is willing to punish eternally (I refer to the biblical Christian god here, I understand the Islamic god has similar designs for non-believers), but it isn't necessarily a good reason to believe in the existence of one. The comparable altruistic and baser features a god might share with us, can be explained in an opposite way which includes those higher virtues to which the most of us might only aspire, and that would be, that we created god in our own image.
And Kenny I really do not expect any empirical evidence from you as I have none to present to you to back my own stand. And by the same token and as others have already pointed out, there is no conceivable way anyone can prove or disprove the existence of any god.through even the most eloquently worded cosmological, ontological, teleological or even relatability principle.
Stay distant, keep social.
Pages