Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Thermal]

Agnostic does not mean don’t know.

Ok. Thanks?

 

[Leumas]

"Agnostic" was coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869 to be cowardly. I kind of think (but not quite) that "deism" was also a dodgy idea. Religion has over the years successfully demonized non-believers to the point that makes it difficult for us to stand up and say that religion is full of crap. I know I described myself as an agnostic for most of my life just to avoid that.

Now I think I owe it to the world to say just how bizarre and stupid the religion idea is. Ridiculous ideas are deserving of ridicule.

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262e119fe1027c.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128263e2c74e1b074.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Thermal]

Stop hiding behind truisms you don't understand.

"Absence of evidence" was never meant to conclude that something can exist and never leave any evidence forever.

Again you keep being a perfect, almost strawman example of the kind of person who needs to read (read for comprehension) the Dragon Analogy again and again until you get it.

If there was a god he would leave evidence of his existence at some point. This can't be counter with a glib, misunderstood reference to "absence of evidence."

You are an encyclopedia of how to be wrong.

Why? Why in the name of every stupid strawman set forth on this thread would a god...say , a universal creator of time and space...leave a trail of ******* breadcrumbs?

 

[Leumas]

Why? Why in the name of every stupid strawman set forth on this thread would a god...say , a universal creator of time and space...leave a trail of ******* breadcrumbs?

If s/he/it did not... then it is not God... do you know why?

Because if s/he/it is "god" the creator of everything then according to god-hawkers everything is its breadcrumbs... no?

And if s/he/it deliberately is hiding... then yet again... it is not the "god" of the god-hawkers.

And lest you interject all the naval gazing claptrap about not caring about the plebian god-hawkers... naval gazing about gods would be a fools' errand of a useless already lost hide-and-seek game if it is not going to leave any evidence whatsoever whether or not s/he/it exists or not.

So ivory-tower god-hawkers are even more imbecilic than riffraff god-hawkers.

 

[Leumas]

Agnostic does not mean don’t know.

What do you think it means?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why? Why in the name of every stupid strawman set forth on this thread would a god...say , a universal creator of time and space...leave a trail of ******* breadcrumbs?

*Head desk* Because things that exist interact with the rest of existence and leave evidence that's how reality works.

Even ignoring yet again you're talking about a god that literally nobody believes in a god that doesn't nothing, never effects the universe at all, is the same as a god that doesn't exist.

I'm not even going to bother with your trail of breadcrumbs. I'm not factoring in a god that is intentionally ******* with us into it.

Again no matter how much you whine about it the people pointing out that there is no evidence for god are not wrong.

So now the level of absurdity is an all powerful god who created the universe but doesn't leave any trace.

 

[acbytesla]

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262e119fe1027c.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128263e2c74e1b074.jpg[/imgw]​

I use to have trouble answering the god believers when I would say I didn’t believe. You know, for some of them an admitted atheist is kind of like catnip. They instantly want to convert you.

Now, they are the ones who get befuddled. They'll attack evolution and science which amuses me since, they use computers, cars and cell phones.

But they freeze up when I laughingly mention their book starts with a talking snake. Maybe science can't prove abiogenisis or the Big Bang, but it sure can prove that donkeys and snakes don't speak. Hell, a snake couldn't speak even if it wanted to. They don’t hace vocal chords. Humans don't live to be 500 years plus. Women don't turn into salt.

I'm supposed to believe one ridiculous story after another? Seriously?

 

[arthwollipot]

There is no such thing as strong/weak/tepid atheism, it's nothing more than a repeat of the original agnostic malarkey. An atheist is simply someone who when asked "which god do you believe in?" Answers with " none".

If all you care about is dictionary definitions, then sure.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm pretty sure only atheists and Jesuits ever engage in this level of disagreement over the definitions of simple terms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dead wrong, and comically so. Absence of evidence, yada yada yada. If your view was true,unsolved murders never happened.
...

And yet with an unsolved murder you have a body or a missing person under suspicious circumstances. With the absence of evidence of god(s) existing all you have are nothing but claims that people believe for one reason or another, all best explained as made up stories or made up explanations interpreting one thing or another like some internal sensation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why? Why in the name of every stupid strawman set forth on this thread would a god...say , a universal creator of time and space...leave a trail of ******* breadcrumbs?

What trail of bread crumbs?

 

[GDon]

Now, they are the ones who get befuddled. They'll attack evolution and science which amuses me since, they use computers, cars and cell phones.

No theist attacks science AFAIK. They certainly don't attack the science behind computers, cars and cell phones. Theists like creationists like to claim that it is the creationists who are doing science while the evolutionists are doing science wrong. If (they claim) evolutionists did science right, they would come to different conclusions.

I guess you might be able to find one delusional person who "attacks science", but if you are able to provide an example of any theist group that attacks science, I'd love to see it. It's the scientific consensus that different groups attack, not science itself.

But they freeze up when I laughingly mention their book starts with a talking snake. Maybe science can't prove abiogenisis or the Big Bang, but it sure can prove that donkeys and snakes don't speak. Hell, a snake couldn't speak even if it wanted to. They don’t hace vocal chords. Humans don't live to be 500 years plus. Women don't turn into salt.

Are theists claiming that donkeys and snakes in general can speak? Do they claim that humans in general live to be 500 years old? Do they claim that women frequently turn into salt? They are all parsed as miracles that happened long ago. Hardly the stuff for scientific investigation.

For example: On the donkey talking:

Num 22:28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

If science can prove that the Lord couldn't have opened a donkey's mouth to talk, I'd love to know the tests undertaken.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. But your statements need to be framed better. You make "science" sound like "religion".

 

[psionl0]

Have you demonstrated that 'the' Abrahamic God exists? Or that there is any evidence that she might?

No, only that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the Abrahamic God.

No-one said that was the only god, nor those the only three religions. It was psionl0's claim that those three religions believed in the same god, when that is clearly false.

Thus proving what I claimed in post #488.

 

[Leumas]

This is true. Even when it comes to the Biblical God, few people agree on what he expects.

But I don't know of anybody who says that the God of the Talmud is a different God to the one the Old Testament who is different to the God of the New Testament who is different to the God of the Quran. This is just some BS being made up by posters here who just want to be disagreeable.

That is not true... the majority of Christians think Allah is a pagan moon god who is not YHWH.

Also many Christians think Jesus is YHWH's split personality but Jews and Muslims do not think he is.

So you are wrong.

 

[Leumas]

No theist attacks science AFAIK.

Whaaaat??? Really???

Theists like creationists like to claim that it is the creationists who are doing science while the evolutionists are doing science wrong. If (they claim) evolutionists did science right, they would come to different conclusions.

.... yes... the above is what is rationally called attacking science....

Saying a sky daddy made a human male from dirt and then yanked his baculum and made a woman is the right science while evolution is the wrong science... is... by any rational standards... an insult to rationality and science.

...It's the scientific consensus that different groups attack, not science itself.

Yes... thanks for proving your previous statements above wrong.

And I am glad the article below supports your view too... namely... that religious people do indeed attack science.

Yes, there is a war between science and religion

As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.

And so one sees claim after claim from believers, religious scientists, prestigious science organizations and even atheists asserting not only that science and religion are compatible, but also that they can actually help each other. This claim is called “accommodationism.” But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world.
...

 

[Leumas]

No theist attacks science AFAIK....

Here is an example of a ubiquitous and incessant attack on science by theists....

... "science" sound like "religion".

 

[gabeygoat]

Dead wrong, and comically so. Absence of evidence, yada yada yada. If your view was true,unsolved murders never happened.

??? Surely there would be evidence of a murder?

 

[acbytesla]

No theist attacks science AFAIK. They certainly don't attack the science behind computers, cars and cell phones. Theists like creationists like to claim that it is the creationists who are doing science while the evolutionists are doing science wrong. If (they claim) evolutionists did science right, they would come to different conclusions.

I guess you might be able to find one delusional person who "attacks science", but if you are able to provide an example of any theist group that attacks science, I'd love to see it. It's the scientific consensus that different groups attack, not science itself.

You're kidding right?

Scientists were executed for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Galileo was imprisoned. The town I live in has a "creation museum" with dioramas showing humans and dinosaurs walking together in the garden of Eden. They say that radiometric dating doesn't work. The earth is 6,000 years old as opposed to the 4.5 billion that science estimates. They deny Chromosome 2. They say evolution is false.

Are theists claiming that donkeys and snakes in general can speak? Do they claim that humans in general live to be 500 years old? Do they claim that women frequently turn into salt? They are all parsed as miracles that happened long ago. Hardly the stuff for scientific investigation.

What makes you think that donkeys or snakes ever talked? What do you have to support that idea? Should we believe in an old book written by anonymous superstitious bronze age peasants?

For example: On the donkey talking:

Num 22:28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

If science can prove that the Lord couldn't have opened a donkey's mouth to talk, I'd love to know the tests undertaken.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. But your statements need to be framed better. You make "science" sound like "religion".

You really don't understand science and logic. The Bible is making the claim that God made the donkey speak. You first have to prove there is a god and that the donkey spoke. Science cannot disprove your special pleading. You do understand what special pleading is? It's making an exception. All you have is the writing by uneducated peasants. Nothing that proves that writing. God can do anything is your get out of jail card.

And there you go again suggesting that science is some kind of religion.

But science is self correcting. Miistakes are sometimes made, but science corrects itself.

You can't even count on Christianity to correct what it knows to be wrong. For example Mark 16:18 is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts. It is widely believed by Christian scholars to be a much later interpolation. Yet it is included in most Bibles. Half of the epistles of Paul are believed to be fraudulent yet they too are included.

There are no sacred cows in science. Everything is up for correction and revision. I give you Galileo, Newton, LaPlace, Einstein, Niels Bohr and so on. It's not a religion. I don’t worship the scientific method. But nothing. Absolutely nothing comes close to finding actual truth.

Religion on the other hand spreads ignorance and nonsense. It breeds stupidity by con artists begging for money.

 

[Leumas]

... God can do anything is your get out of jail card.

In fact... just like all the risible and ironic apologetics... this apologetic ironically DISPROVES that it was a god let alone God.

Why would God make the snake talk and let it loose in the garden in order to beguile and inveigle the callow couple he just made out of dirt and a baculum? And did this god also teach the talking snake the same language he taught the callow couple so that they can actually understand each other.... why go through all that trouble???

If this God went around talking to Moses and Aaron and Abraham and having wrestling matches with Jacob why the heck would he not just talk to Balaam or have an angel talk to him... why suddenly does this God have to resort to a miracle of a talking Donkey in order to tell some guy what not to do?

If anything this codswallop proves that this god is a piece of mephitic fetid feces...

or

It is just crafty spinners of tall tales doing what humanity before them and after them have done throughout the annals of human perfidy of devising fictive fables to hoodwink gullible simpletons.

So ironically and risibly... this apologetic... yet again... like all of them... proves that the god they are defending is either a sordid demon or sadistic git... or it is all an artifice by crafty mountebanks.


And... to the point about science... any person who wriggles and contorts CASUISTRY for the above poppycock is not in any possible way concerned about any reason or science.

[imgw=350]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262d7df928a70f.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I find "belief" to be a faith based concept. You can try to justify or rationalize your faith in many ways but in the end we're still talking about "faith" and not evidence.

Beware - when scientists use the word 'believe' something they mean that they have evidence for and (possibly) theories that explain it. This is the opposite of faith, which is belief without evidence.

Personally I avoid using the word 'believe' in the scientific sense, because it causes confusion. Scientists use a lot of other phrases that could be misinterpreted too. Don't be someone who does that.