There is no afterlife - its just woo peddler's fantasy

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, he was wrong about there being no evidence; I mean, his statement "[a]n atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence" is not only using a contentious definition of 'atheist' but also a classic argument from incredulity.

But he's also making the same mistake that is extremely common in these arguments in that he's using a single term 'god' and trying to apply some common meaning to it, rather than understanding that it's really an incoherent term which must be defined before anyone can begin to speak intelligently about existence.

None of this suggests that he is a good person to quote in support of a position he disagreed with.

Isn't that considered an argument from authority? If the position itself is sound, who cares who said it first?

Yes, it is an argument for authority, which is another reason why it's a bad argument to make. That's exactly why I used that word in that context - to acknowledge that that's what it was.

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure Carl Sagan is the right person to quote if you want to cite an authoritative figure in an argument against the idea that we should doubt the non-existence of an afterlife.





Sagan, like Dawkins, took very seriously the scientific canard that you must always be prepared to doubt what you know, and that what you do know can be overturned by superior evidence. And he seemed to think that an argument which claimed to know about the existence or non-existence of God "beyond doubt" was "stupid".

I'm sure, if you try, you can find an authority to quote who hasn't elsewhere called your position "stupid", though.

Zeus doesn't exist, the trinity God of the Roman Catholics doesn't exist, Loki does not exist. Which God should I remain doubtful about existing?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I might not know beyond all doubt, but I know beyond reasonable doubt, scientific doubt, and practical doubt. That should be enough for anybody.

Science can have nothing to say about God or the afterlife because those are not questions amenable to scientific inquiry. Corporial means, being bound their corporial nature, can only measure corporial things. Since there is no known or expected means to detect or measure things that exist outside of the physical universe, it is impossible and inappropriate to declare scientific certainty on the subject.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Zeus doesn't exist, the trinity God of the Roman Catholics doesn't exist, Loki does not exist. Which God should I remain doubtful about existing?

Those are statements of opinion and belief.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Zeus doesn't exist, the trinity God of the Roman Catholics doesn't exist, Loki does not exist. Which God should I remain doubtful about existing?

You should be prepared to concede that you could be wrong about everything and anything. That's why even Richard Dawkins rates himself as a 6 (or 6.9) on his theistic scale of probability where 1 is "100% convinced God exists" and 7 is "100% convinced God does not exist".

There is a lack of evidence that Zeus exists, therefore we should conclude that he does not. However, our opinions should be open to being changed by new evidence. This means we should not be convinced "beyond doubt" that he does not. We should always be open to doubt, no matter how vanishingly small that doubt may be. If we are not then what we are doing is engaging in dogmatism, rather than scepticism.

You can apply the above to any deity, and indeed to anything we think we know about the universe.

 

[This is The End]

I usually look at it this way. (Keeping in mind that even something like "we are all in a simulation" would count as "there is an outside creator".)

Theists and atheists make the same type of mistake. One believes there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence. The other does not believe there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence.

That does not mean they are making the same level of mistake. Occam's razor alone tells us that the theist position is the stupider mistake.

(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. )

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Science can have nothing to say about God or the afterlife because those are not questions amenable to scientific inquiry.

That's not true. Sean Carroll argues, for example, that quantum field theory means that there are no known ways in which consciousness could interact with any afterlife, and that there is no way for any of the possibilities that are as of yet unknown to allow that to happen, either.

Since there is no known or expected means to detect or measure things that exist outside of the physical universe, it is impossible and inappropriate to declare scientific certainty on the subject.

Well, I'd argue that there may be scientific consensus on things, but that there will never be true scientific certainty of anything - just the fact that the probability of certain scientific theories and laws being overturned are vanishingly small.

But, while you're right that we cannot as yet make any statements about what does or does not exist outside of the physical universe, we certainly can make statements about things within it, and how they could or could not interact with things outside of it.

 

[Loss Leader]

There is a saying ' The mind is the great slayer of the real'

All you clever people may simply be outsmarting yourselves.

Just like we did when we sent people to the moon and eradicated smallpox.

Anti-intellectualism isn't noble. It's just a bunch of flat-earthers inhaling evil spirits.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. )

Agnosticism is not a weaker form of atheism, it's a different question. Theism and atheism are about belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge.

A theist believes there is a God or gods. An atheist does not believe there is a God or gods. A gnostic thinks we can know whether or not there is a God or gods. An agnostic thinks we can not know whether or not there is a God or gods.

I would argue that many theists are gnostic theists - they believe there is a God, and they are completely certain of this. I think that a higher percentage of atheists are likely agnostic atheists - they do not believe there is a God, but concede that this is not something that can be known for certain. As said above, both Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan were/are agnostic atheists.

 

[Darat]

Those are statements of opinion and belief.

How so. I can visit Mount Olympus and find no trace of Zeus, I can examine lightning around the world and see no Zeus flinging lightning bolts. These are two attributes of Zeus, since neither can be found it means Zeus as the god is actually described cannot exist.

 

[Darat]

You should be prepared to concede that you could be wrong about everything and anything. That's why even Richard Dawkins rates himself as a 6 (or 6.9) on his theistic scale of probability where 1 is "100% convinced God exists" and 7 is "100% convinced God does not exist".

There is a lack of evidence that Zeus exists, therefore we should conclude that he does not. However, our opinions should be open to being changed by new evidence. This means we should not be convinced "beyond doubt" that he does not. We should always be open to doubt, no matter how vanishingly small that doubt may be. If we are not then what we are doing is engaging in dogmatism, rather than scepticism.

You can apply the above to any deity, and indeed to anything we think we know about the universe.

Nope. Zeus as he is described has certain attributes if those can't be found then he cannot exist. If you want to change the definition of Zeus you are no longer actually talking about the existence of Zeus.

 

[Scorpion]

(As far as I understand it the agnostic position would simply be that we have no evidence whether or not there is a creator. With perhaps an addendum about why one position is more illogical than the other. )

Even Bertrand Russell said he was an agnostic, because there is not enough information to determine if there is a God or not, either in science or Philosophy. That might indicate that confirmed atheists are intellectual light weights.

 

[Darat]

Agnosticism is not a weaker form of atheism, it's a different question. Theism and atheism are about belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism are about knowledge.

A theist believes there is a God or gods. An atheist does not believe there is a God or gods. A gnostic thinks we can know whether or not there is a God or gods. An agnostic thinks we can not know whether or not there is a God or gods.

I would argue that many theists are gnostic theists - they believe there is a God, and they are completely certain of this. I think that a higher percentage of atheists are likely agnostic atheists - they do not believe there is a God, but concede that this is not something that can be known for certain. As said above, both Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan were/are agnostic atheists.

The problem with this is you have to use a definition of God that is not what those professing a belief in a god or gods believe exists. Therefore you are in fact talking about something quite different when you use the word god. In other words your word god means "something may exist that we don't know about", but says nothing about what that thing is. Whereas when a Roman Catholic priest says God exists he has an actual definition of the thing he believes exist (the RC doctrine).

I freely admit there are more than likely things that we don't know about, may even be things we will never know about, but I know none of them will be the god Zeus as people defined him.

 

[Thor 2]

Even Bertrand Russell said he was an agnostic, because there is not enough information to determine if there is a God or not, either in science or Philosophy. That might indicate that confirmed atheists are intellectual light weights.

Hey what do these guys look like? Is there some kind of wafer eating ritual they go through?

I am thoroughly sick of this agnostic, atheist (or strong and weak atheist) crap. I wish the term atheist had never been coined. I just don't believe in woo .... got it?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Theists and atheists make the same type of mistake. One believes there is an outside creator even though they have no convincing evidence.

There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.

There is a great deal of convincing secondary or indirect evidence, such as the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, the finely tuned engineering of the universe, etc.

That does not mean they are making the same level of mistake. Occam's razor alone tells us that the theist position is the stupider mistake.

Why?

Neither position can be scientifically tested, so that's out. Evaluating the secondary competing theories based on reasoning shows that:

Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.

Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.

 

[abaddon]

When Atheist fuzzy wuzzies stop claiming to know that no god exists, then they can take the faithful to task for claiming to know the opposite.

Strawman. That is not the atheist position.

The atheist position is that there is no reason to believe in any deity.

In fact, this is a position that you, TBD also take. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Coazetcoatal? Vishnu? And so on.

Of course you don't. Those would be stupid. right?

 

[Loss Leader]

Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.

No. You've got all the same things happening with a god and without one. With a god, you have to explain how the things happened and then add god's will on top of that. How does gravity work without a god? It's a property of mass. How does gravity work with a god? It's a property of mass AND god's will. The god hypothesis is more complex every single time.

Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.

That's not even remotely what Occam's Razor says. Witness:

A. Red sunsets are a function of an invisible dragon.

B. Red sunsets are a function of a spinning planet. That planet orbits a sun. That planet has an atmosphere that diffuses light. The more oblique the angle, the more red is visible. The more of certain particulates, the more red is visible.

A has far fewer assumptions than B. But A is ridiculous nonsense.

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation that fully accounts for all observations without contradiction should be preferred over the more complex one.

 

[aleCcowaN]

There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.

There is a great deal of convincing secondary or indirect evidence, such as the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, the finely tuned engineering of the universe, etc.



Why?

Neither position can be scientifically tested, so that's out. Evaluating the secondary competing theories based on reasoning shows that:

Case for God: God exists. (1 assumption)

Case for no-God/Random chance: an extremely long series of 'just randomly happened' events, each one their own assumption.

Occam's Razor says the theory with the least assumptions is more likely to be true. In that case, God wins every time.

And between aliens who live in an ocean of liquid methane and resemble sea horses and aliens who live on solid surfaces, have 6 feet and love to dance cancan, what does the razor tell you?

I mean, if you depart from stupid assumptions like "devil/god doesn't exist" or "devil/god exists" and try to substantiate them...

 

[The Big Dog]

Strawman. That is not the atheist position.

The atheist position is that there is no reason to believe in any deity.

In fact, this is a position that you, TBD also take. Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Coazetcoatal? Vishnu? And so on.

Of course you don't. Those would be stupid. right?

I am quite certain that you are not purporting to speak on behalf of all atheists, and certainly not the poster in this thread said that atheists "hold the opposite" position.

 

[smartcooky]

There is no primary evidence or direct evidence, but then there never can be because there is no possible way to use material science to measure things that transcend the material.

You can't prove god exists because you can't prove god exists?

We can always count on bleevers to regale us all with their circular reasoning!

The fact is anything that cannot be proved doesn't exist... therefore, no god - end of story.