• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

Navigator said:
If there was evidence then there would be no need for "belief" now would there?

I am happy for you to give examples of this evidence, as I would be amazed that such things as god, afterlife, alternate universes etc categorical cannot exist because science has proved so.

I would truly be in awe of that.
Click to expand...

Who says there is any need for "belief"?

Who said the science has proved that god etc doesn't exist? That's an impossible task and a fools errand. If you think I said that, then you ought to quote me.
 
mikeb768 said:
So the idea that the book which contains no errors, made accurate predictions regarding upcoming events, and remains consistent with science; the idea that book was the work of multiple authors would seem to contradict reason.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you have more than half of the board on your ignore list if you think those claims are still going to fly here.

mikeb768 said:
It may seem to some that Freewill and Predestination are at odds with one another. So how are we able to reconcile the two? The best way that I have heard it described is as follows: Say you have teacher who is very familiar with his pupils, he knows that they will sit for an exam later that day. Before they arrive to class he writes down every student's name and the exact grade which they will receive on the exam. He then places this piece of paper inside of his desk. The students later sit the exam and turn in their papers.

After all exams have been completed and submitted, the teacher then takes out the list from his desk. He then grades each exam which the students have submitted, and finds that the prerecorded list to be an exact match.
Click to expand...
Before you arrived, I wrote down your name and the words "Epic Fail" and placed it inside my desk. After evaluating the content of your post, I found the prediction to be an exact match.
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
I'm guessing you have more than half of the board on your ignore list if you think those claims are still going to fly here.


Before you arrived, I wrote down your name and the words "Epic Fail" and placed it inside my desk. After evaluating the content of your post, I found the prediction to be an exact match.
Click to expand...

*venerates Frozenwolf150*
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
I'm guessing you have more than half of the board on your ignore list if you think those claims are still going to fly here.


Before you arrived, I wrote down your name and the words "Epic Fail" and placed it inside my desk. After evaluating the content of your post, I found the prediction to be an exact match.
Click to expand...

I thought the second part was pretty funny as well.

*On a side note, I'm almost back in poetry mode Frozenwolf, so I hope you are keeping your skills up, maybe even doing some type of training in the off season.
 
I Ratant said:
Group cleansing of the gene pool is good, but not community wide.
Those frustrated can't-get-none-here Jihadists that go for broke in the community, just to get laid after death.... can't they go to a brothel?
They might consider 72 is way too many women to handle at one time!
Or even serially!
Click to expand...

Instead of sending troops to Afghanistan, we should have just sent a few thousand Prostitutes. That would've set the cat amongst the pigeons. Plus the pro's could get really cheap heroin while they were there.

It's win-win.

mikeb768 said:
I thought the second part was pretty funny as well.

...
Click to expand...

But you don't think it's funny when the exact same absurd reasoning is applied to the Quran or God?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
Right, because the guy typing on his keyboard, and the creator of the universe are somehow comparable?
Click to expand...

No the guy writing on his keyboard and someone claiming to have written down the word of god are perfectly comparable. And that's all you have; a text written by a person and a tortured attempt to twist the content to find 'prophecy' in it.
 
mikeb768 said:
Right, because the guy typing on his keyboard, and the creator of the universe are somehow comparable?
Click to expand...

Some guy scratching on papyrus created the creator of the universe to begin with.
 
mikeb768 said:
Right, because the guy typing on his keyboard, and the creator of the universe are somehow comparable?
Click to expand...

How do you know that some guy typing on his keyboard isn't the creator of the universe? Are you saying that the creator of the universe can't post messages over the internet?
 
Brian-M said:
How do you know that some guy typing on his keyboard isn't the creator of the universe? Are you saying that the creator of the universe can't post messages over the internet?
Click to expand...

It's possible, unless the creator of the universe is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I've heard it's rather difficult to type up messages with hooves.
 
Brian-M said:
How do you know that some guy typing on his keyboard isn't the creator of the universe? Are you saying that the creator of the universe can't post messages over the internet?
Click to expand...

Just to add some levity sanity information amusement direction. . . something to this thread:

Check out Typewriter_in_the_SkyWP written by our all time favourite phony L Ron Hubbard before he got religion.

The protagonist Mike de Wolf finds himself inside the story of his friend's book. He must survive conflict on the high seas in the Caribbean during the 17th century, before eventually returning to his native New York. Each time a significant event occurs to the protagonist in the story he hears the sounds of a typewriter in the sky. At the story's conclusion, de Wolf wonders if he is still a character in someone else's story.
Click to expand...
You may continue the bickering. ;)
 
tsig said:
Some guy scratching on papyrus created the creator of the universe to begin with.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I don't just come here for the lively discussions. I also enjoy the witty banter.

But if would have taken the time to read over the thread, then you would have realized that the first 23 years, the task was conducted only in an oral fashion.
 
mikeb768 said:
Believe it or not, I don't just come here for the lively discussions. I also enjoy the witty banter.

But if would have taken the time to read over the thread, then you would have realized that the first 23 years, the task was conducted only in an oral fashion.
Click to expand...
.
And then those "Companions" sitting around the hookah coming up with WWMHS* ideas, batted back and forth, came up with a book.
And that book was destroyed, and another gathering around the hookah came up with a different one.
.
.
.
.
*What Would Mohammed Have Said
 
tsig said:
Because Allah kept you from getting it he's gonna make sure you get it in the next life. He's even gonna replace your skin when it burns off so you can feel more pain.

Nice guy he's not.
Click to expand...

Nothin' I can do about it. Allah has sealed my heart. I'm the victim here.

Hapless and helpless pawn of an invisible galactic overlord, future crispy-critter for Allah's amusement, or unbelieving atheist rotting in the ground - any way you slice it, I'm screwed. Just the price I have to pay for being that one unlucky sperm in a hundred million that happened to get borned. Borned, then boned. This is the way of things.
 
Theists claim there is a god. Atheists don't believe them. It really is that simple.
 
godless dave said:
1: I was specifically talking about life after death. In that case, there is copious scientific evidence that consciousness is a property of human brains, and thus cannot survive death. So in that case, it's not a belief that there's no afterlife, it's a conclusion based on scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

1: The only evidence is that the body dies. That is certain. It is assumed that consciousness is a property of the human brain but this is not conclusive - it is not an absolute certainty.
 
asydhouse said:
...
1: Per the hilighted part of your post, and in response to Navigator's tiresome insistence that he is taking a "more scientific stance than thou":

2: People who get brain damage from a hit on the head, for instance, often become completely different in their character, effectively ceasing to be the person they were before their accident. This looks like evidence to me that "consciousness" is dependant on the brain.

3: When people talk of life after death, they are naively expecting themselves to be unaffected by the transition to the new bodiless nonphysical state of the afterlife. It's illogical to think that people would make that transition as identical entities to their physically generated selves,...

4: On top of that, Navigator seems unable to grasp that the null hypothesis is a scientific position: given everything we do know, god does not appear to exist. Therefore, we can assume that god does not exist, until such time that god is shown to exist.

5: "God does not exist" is easily falsified by showing that god does exist. Therefore it is a scientific statement.

6: D) "I don't know, so I'm going to allow the equal weight of possibility to both statements" is not scientific, it's just a cop out.

7: You can claim that position philosophically, even morally, but don't try to pretend that it's the scientific position.

All the best, a Syd
Click to expand...


1: I am taking a logical stance. I don't claim to be taking a 'more scientific stance', whatever that actually means.

2: I did not claim that consciousness wasn't dependent on the brain. I said that it is unknown either way whether consciousness continues after death.
Accidents which damage the brain is not death.


3: An interesting observation. If a person considers their self to be the physical body and finds their self still existing after death but absent a physical form, it would take some getting used to I imagine.
If a person considers their self to be consciousness then it could be less of a problem adjusting to the new situation.
But I don't really see that it is illogical to think that you as consciousness would be any different in personality through such a transition from being in a physical form to not being in a physical form.


4: You can assume if you like, that is an individual choice, but assumption is not science it is personal opinion and if the assumption evolves into claiming the opinion as an absolute, then it is belief.

5: Science deals with the physical universe. By defining that god as an idea is not physical in nature, it is easy enough for anyone claim for example that 'god does not exist as a physical entity in the physical universe' but it cannot be claimed absolutely that god does not exist altogether, and scientific method is applicable only to the physical universe.

So if the definition of god is said to be "God as an idea exists as a physical entity in the universe" it could be said then that 'god does not exist' is scientific statement. But it is not a scientific statement to claim 'god does not exist.' and certainly not without defining what is meant by 'god' in relation to the physical universe.

In the same way, science has no evidence that extraterrestrials exist, so it could be said that to say 'extraterrestrials do not exist' is a 'scientific statement' due to your reasoning that it can be falsified, (by showing that extraterrestrials exist).

5: 'A cop out' is not a scientific statement. What am I 'copping out' of? Taking sides? Being against those you are against? Deciding that choosing one way or the other is pointless and illogical is not a 'cop out'. It is sensible and rational.

7: I am not pretending any such thing. See my answer to (1).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom