1712 replies to this topic

[gamesguru]

Well, it's just a guess. There's no proof that nanotech exists, and no proof that eugenics works. Now you're talking about fiber optics replacing neurons? This all makes for fine talk, but it says nothing about the actual technologies which the future will bear out. I'm optimistic too, but we don't know if or when this will happen. I also don't know how the transition will take place, and I doubt many humans would find a mass extermination from superhumans to be a compassionate fate. Who's to say they would guide homo sapiens? Why wouldn't they just ignore them, or kill them, or leave Earth behind?

Edited by dasheenster, 26 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[hooter]

Sociological data and fMRI analysis shows that religion is a mental disorder. So really, pointless discussion.

[hooter]

Analytic Thinking Can Decrease Religious Belief, Study Shows

ScienceDaily (Apr. 26, 2012)

— A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers

http://www.scienceda...20426143856.htm

[DukeNukem]

>>> Can you say with any confidence why the burden of proof falls upon theists?

Since there's zero evidence for gods, atheists have no burden of proof of their beliefs, because everything supports the view that gods are not real.

The ultimate irony is that belief in higher powers imparts a group advantage, and it appears we've evolved the circuitry to encourage belief in gods (the so-called God gene, as Time magazine once called it). Belief in gods is instinctual. And most people can't rise above this genetic coding.

[Link]

When i was at work last night someone was talking about about how people always get bad lower backs and knees.

I mentioned just in passing that our spines and joints are not particularly well evolved for carrying our weight in an upright stance. I was then asked if i believed in evolution to which i replied "of course".

What happened next was very strange. Nearly every person in the room started berating me, calling me ignorant and using some of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution like "Well then why are there still monkeys?"

I tried to discuss it using logic and explain that we didn't evolve from monkeys but share a common ancestor however it quickly became a circus. One of the guys said "Well then where is the evidence of monkeys turning into humans?"

I said "homo habilis".

All this got was more ridicule, "A homo? hahaha"

The argument went on for a bit, but in the end i got pissed off and told them to read a book, but i was still annoyed as felt like i had somehow just lost an argument with some of the most scientifically illiterate people i have ever met.

This left me scratching my head and wondering what the hell just happened. One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I think that part of the problem is because some of the best arguments for evolution, and also some of the best arguments about the illogical nature of God, are fairly complex. And whilst i understand most of them, they are often very difficult to explain in lamens terms, especially when the listener is already biased against your view, thus you just get blank stares.

Whilst on the other hand a self convinced theist is armed with an endless list of "trump cards" like "free will" and "evolution is just a theory" and "you believe that all this just came from nothing" and my personal favourite from last night "all fossils prove is that animals died, it doesn't prove anything about evolution". All these are perfectly reasonable rebuttals in their own minds.

What i realised in the end was that arguing science and religion with a theist who knows nothing about science, is actually a lot harder than debating a theist who is well read on evolutionary theory. In fact its basically impossible.

Last night was an eye opener for me because some of these people are very intelligent about other subjects and i am often seeking their advice.

So, as passionate as i am about science, and evolutionary biology in particular - and as much as i despise religion, i think i will leave the debating to the professionals from now on. Not because i don't believe that religion needs to be put in it's place, but simply because i don't believe you can change someones religious views with logic - as ridiculous as that sounds.

[hooter]

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1070575

[mikeinnaples]

One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I've heard this one myself from a religious nut. Not only wrought in irony, but a fine fine example of typical religious hypocrisy. Don't believe everything you read UNLESS IT'S THE BIBLE.

[steampoweredgod]

When i was at work last night someone was talking about about how people always get bad lower backs and knees.

I mentioned just in passing that our spines and joints are not particularly well evolved for carrying our weight in an upright stance. I was then asked if i believed in evolution to which i replied "of course".

What happened next was very strange. Nearly every person in the room started berating me, calling me ignorant and using some of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution like "Well then why are there still monkeys?"

I tried to discuss it using logic and explain that we didn't evolve from monkeys but share a common ancestor however it quickly became a circus. One of the guys said "Well then where is the evidence of monkeys turning into humans?"

I said "homo habilis".

All this got was more ridicule, "A homo? hahaha"

The argument went on for a bit, but in the end i got pissed off and told them to read a book, but i was still annoyed as felt like i had somehow just lost an argument with some of the most scientifically illiterate people i have ever met.

This left me scratching my head and wondering what the hell just happened. One of these theists even had the gall to say "You know man, you shouldn't believe everything you read".

I think that part of the problem is because some of the best arguments for evolution, and also some of the best arguments about the illogical nature of God, are fairly complex. And whilst i understand most of them, they are often very difficult to explain in lamens terms, especially when the listener is already biased against your view, thus you just get blank stares.

Whilst on the other hand a self convinced theist is armed with an endless list of "trump cards" like "free will" and "evolution is just a theory" and "you believe that all this just came from nothing" and my personal favourite from last night "all fossils prove is that animals died, it doesn't prove anything about evolution". All these are perfectly reasonable rebuttals in their own minds.

What i realised in the end was that arguing science and religion with a theist who knows nothing about science, is actually a lot harder than debating a theist who is well read on evolutionary theory. In fact its basically impossible.

Last night was an eye opener for me because some of these people are very intelligent about other subjects and i am often seeking their advice.

So, as passionate as i am about science, and evolutionary biology in particular - and as much as i despise religion, i think i will leave the debating to the professionals from now on. Not because i don't believe that religion needs to be put in it's place, but simply because i don't believe you can change someones religious views with logic - as ridiculous as that sounds.

There's always the dna trump card, as predicted by evolution man's 9X~% close to monkey and apes, 6X~ or 7X~ or maybe 8X~ % close to mice, something like 5X or 6X% close to maize, etc. The clsoer the relation between species the closer their sequence is in similarity. The genetic sequence closeness is as predicted by evolution, and once genome sequencing becomes more widely and openly used in the medical community, it will digest most of the arguments against evolution. Almost everyone believes in DNA and sequencing.

[gamesguru]

There is a very clever modern theology, according to which God is not omnipotent, but He is trying His best in spite of great, insuperable difficulties, and therefore the world is full of goods and also evils which come and go under a temporal flux. I do not think we can refute the assumptions of this system. All we can say is that there are no reasons to favor it over other, competing systems.

This cleverness, however, renders all arguments about the origins of man irrelevant, because the Devil is permitted to introduce deceit or evil where God is powerless, and in our world that translates into an obscure origin and a waning vitality. So even if humanity decides to destroy itself, a new postmodern religion could still explain away all the evils and misdeeds as part of the Devil's action.

I'm not an advocate of this modernist form of theism, but it is certainly causing a fuss in some circles.

[Link]

There's always the dna trump card, as predicted by evolution man's 9X~% close to monkey and apes, 6X~ or 7X~ or maybe 8X~ % close to mice, something like 5X or 6X% close to maize, etc. The clsoer the relation between species the closer their sequence is in similarity. The genetic sequence closeness is as predicted by evolution, and once genome sequencing becomes more widely and openly used in the medical community, it will digest most of the arguments against evolution. Almost everyone believes in DNA and sequencing.

Yes but as i was saying, these people are completely ignorant of the most basic principles of evolutionary science. So even though the DNA evidence is an excellent argument for it, it would have been falling on deaf ears.

If someone refuses to acknowledge the relevance of the fossil record, do you really think talking about DNA is going to convince them?

Since this happened things at work have become.. less enjoyable. A lot of "half-jokes" about me going to hell and that God will smite me down - typical sort of stuff - "Well if we're wrong it doesn't matter but if you're wrong you're gonna burn in hell" followed by a smug grin.

I just told them that if heaven was full of people like them then I'd rather go to hell.

Edited by Link, 05 May 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[N.T.M.]

To the OP: You're asking somebody to prove a negative. You have the burden of proof in reverse my friend.

Sociological data and fMRI analysis shows that religion is a mental disorder. So really, pointless discussion.

Religious experiences are centered in the limbic system, an emotional center in the brain which is discrete from regions more directly involved in logical function.

[shadowhawk]

The last several posts demonstrate there is little evidence for Atheism. The best that can be done is to try to change the subject by attacking Theism. I am surprised on how poorly atheists have done. I tried to anticipate some Atheist responses by posting a series of objections but no one has dealt with them but just continue to repeat the same old reasons why Atheism needs no reasons or evidence. Try again. Focus on 3 and 3 because they are what seems to come up again and again.


1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502824

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...post__p__503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504130

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504306

6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity...post__p__504592

7. Summary of some of my arguments for lack of evidence of atheism..
http://www.longecity...post__p__504785

[shadowhawk]

The atheists continue to say they have no need for proof. They have none. Read the above seven points to refresh your memory.

[N.T.M.]

The atheists continue to say they have no need for proof. They have none. Read the above seven points to refresh your memory.

I only went over the list briefly, but it seems like you accidentally included Ockham's Razor. Just thought I'd point that out. ^_^

[shadowhawk]

The atheists continue to say they have no need for proof. They have none. Read the above seven points to refresh your memory.

I only went over the list briefly, but it seems like you accidentally included Ockham's Razor. Just thought I'd point that out. ^_^

I did include it. No mistake

[Deep Thought]

Logical fallacy -> informal fallacy -> proof by assertion -> argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum.

I find it fascinating and scary that theists cling have such strong faith.

Edit: I didn't intend to appear offensive.

Edited by Deep Thought, 25 September 2013 - 03:42 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Logical fallacy -> informal fallacy -> proof by assertion -> argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum.

I find it fascinating and scary that theists cling have such strong faith.

Edit: I didn't intend to appear offensive.

There is no God. Proof? Theists are scary because they believe.
Typical Atheist argument here. Name calling, and you are going to pretend to know something about fallacies? .

[Deep Thought]

There is no God. Proof?

Ad argumentum nausea/infinitum. I've seen you repeat that statement "There is no God. Proof?" in several posts.

Theists are scary because they believe.

Theists are scary because they believe.

Therefore you are scary if you believe.

Ergo, if I believe in the tooth fairy, I am scary.

Typical Atheist argument here. Name calling, and you are going to pretend to know something about fallacies?

A typical shadowhawk argument here; a childish ad hominem attack.

Your antics are fascinating.

Edited by Deep Thought, 26 September 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Posted Today, 01:42 AM

View Postshadowhawk, on 25 September 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:
There is no God. Proof?

DEEP THOUGHT: Ad argumentum nausea/infinitum. I've seen you repeat that statement "There is no God. Proof?" in several posts.

Typical evidence for Atheism. Don’t answer the topic but attack the one who questions. DEEP!

Theists are scary because they believe.

Therefore you are scary if you believe.

Ergo, if I believe in the tooth fairy, I am scary.

Another typical Atheist. This is all the evidence they have for their baseless belief. Name calling.

Your antics are fascinating.

Thank you.

[shadowhawk]

[sthira]

Neither evidence exists: none for god, none for no god. Again, the honest position is agnosticism: we don't know.

[shadowhawk]

Neither evidence exists: none for god, none for no god. Again, the honest position is agnosticism: we don't know.

Do you know this?

[N.T.M.]

Neither evidence exists: none for god, none for no god. Again, the honest position is agnosticism: we don't know.

That implies that the two likelihoods are on equal footing, which is clearly incorrect. In this strict sense all atheists are agnostics.

[DukeNukem]

Thought this was a good article that might belong in this discussion...

You can't prove a negative
God is like those fairies. Not only is he a supernatural being who’s supposed to exist, but, unlike fairies, a theistic God is supposed to have designated effects on the world. In particular, he’s supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Some further believe that there is an afterlife in which one goes to either Heaven of Hell, that prayers are answered, that God had a divine son who was resurrected, and so on.

If these are true, there should be evidence for them. But there is none. In particular, this is what we find:

There is no evidence of divinity or miracles in the present world, and no palpable evidence of God-inspired miracles (prayers don’t heal amputees).

God, despite being omnipotent and desirous of our knowing him, has never appeared despite his manifest ability to do so. He could, for example, write “I am Yahweh; obey me” in the stars. This is the “hidden God”, the Deus absconditus. As philosopher Herman Philipse has noted, God should want each individual to know of his existence to create a reciprocal relationship.

Tests of intercessory prayer show no effect.

There is no good justification, assuming a benevolent and all-powerful God, for “natural evil,” the suffering of animals and innocent children due to diseases and natural disasters. Theologians’ attempts to explain why, for example, children get leukemia, why ten million civilians met their deaths at the hands of the Nazis, and why thousands are killed by tsunamis, are laughable, and not remotely convincing to anyone who hasn’t already bought into religious delusion.

Earlier “evidence” for divinity has been dispelled (creation, Adam and Eve, Great Flood, etc.)

A benevolent God would not kill off humanity in 5 billion years. Nor would a benevolent and powerful God use evolution or natural selection to create modern life and humans. That just doesn’t make sense, though theologians concoct amusing arguments not only why evolution makes sense, but why it should be God’s preferred way to bring species into being.

There is no explanation for why a benevolent God would allow more than 99% of the species he wanted to exist to subsequently go extinct without issue.

Most of the universe inhospitable to life, and nothing lives there. Why this largesse of uninhabitable space if God created Earth for humans? Even if life exists elsewhere, it can’t be common, and the trillions of uninhabited stars serve no purpose.

In the case of God, then, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence for His absence. We can provisionally but confidently say that there’s no evidence for a God. and therefore reject the notion that He exists. (This could be revised, of course, and in earlier posts I’ve given some possible evidence that would convince me of divine beings.)

Needless to say, all the above observations make sense—indeed, are expected—if God doesn’t exist.
http://whyevolutioni...ove-a-negative/

[sthira]

We can provisionally but confidently say that there’s no evidence for a God. and therefore reject the notion that He exists.

I agree with this up to the "reject the notion that He exists" simply because we don't know. No one knows. Either way no one knows, and it doesn't matter what words people use or what logical twists are wound up and argued back and forth.

I tend to reject god based on what you've quoted above. And yet there is a deep quiet space within me that finds something "god-like" and a very plain, obvious oneness I sometimes "glimpse." It's precious, sacred. But it also pisses me off: if god is real, why not reveal yourself more robustly to all? Is my deep god "feeling" or uncharted "knowledge" of oneness just an area in my brain that's been naturally selected because it was beneficial to my ancestor's survival? Probably. But who's to say with any honesty or ultimate conclusion that god exists or god does not? No one. We're small, finite people trying to understand -- through stories and logic -- what's ineffable. We should be humble, of course, but humility is rare in capitalist culture.

To reject "it" is arrogant; atheism is just another arrogant belief. And on the other hand to accept god and then move to attribute powers and prayers and stories and all the crazy shiz religions have inflicted in the "name of g-d" is also arrogant; religion is a horrid abomination, and the planet will be better off when it finally dies off completely. But none of it -- belief or non-belief -- gets at "it.". And getting at it is one reason to support indefinite human lifespans.

[DukeNukem]

I tend to reject god based on what you've quoted above. And yet there is a deep quiet space within me that finds something "god-like" and a very plain, obvious oneness I sometimes "glimpse."

Remember, we are genetically evolved to believe in supernatural higher powers. That is one reason this whole god-thingie is so hard to shake free of for the vast majority of people. It makes intuitive sense to us as humans, even though there's no logic or evidence in the least. We are evolutionarily brainwashed to believe in gods.

It really takes concerted, reasoned effort to overcome this for most of us.

BTW, super ironic that evolution gave us god-genes, and yet those same god-genes prevent most religious people from accepting evolution. Hilariously ironic.

[Prismira Vex]

Of course there is. Occams Razor.

[sthira]

Remember, we are genetically evolved to believe in supernatural higher powers. That is one reason this whole god-thingie is so hard to shake free of for the vast majority of people. It makes intuitive sense to us as humans, even though there's no logic or evidence in the least. We are evolutionarily brainwashed to believe in gods.

It really takes concerted, reasoned effort to overcome this for most of us.

I like open discussion, and keeping doors of possibility free, since no one knows. It's arrogant to pretend like we do know that god exists; it's arrogant to pretend like we do know that god does not exist. Both theism and athiesm are species of faith on the same branch.

I recognize deep longing for god in my own life. The god impulse, we seem to agree, may have been passed along through evolution. Belief was beneficial to our ancestors; nature tends not to waste what's non-essential to survival. Belief may or may not be beneficial now, in our more comfortable lives. We know very little about much of anything in this giant, wondrous universe, so why cut ourselves off from possible knowledge of the divine? I'll take a sort of Pascal's wager, and at least keep the door open for god.

[DukeNukem]

It's arrogant to pretend like we do know that god exists

Do you also keep the door open for vampires, werewolves, unicorns and dragons? Or the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and Santa Claus?

[sthira]

It's arrogant to pretend like we do know that god exists

Do you also keep the door open for vampires, werewolves, unicorns and dragons? Or the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and Santa Claus?

No. But if I'm honest with myself then I recognize that all of those storyland beings are categorically different. They're used in a tired fashion to mock the search for meaning in an apparently indifferent universe. Citing storyland characters aren't really useful in progressing an honest conversation.