17 votes
Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:16 PM
How about this little test
Prove your god
Also why is your god such a prick that he'd want me to put faith, not in him, but a bunch of sheet wearing goat shaggers who wrote a book and told a story?
And why would god knowing how fallible humans are trust those men to do so in a honest way?
Posted 20 July 2015 - 11:39 PM
How about this little test
Prove your god
Also why is your god such a prick that he'd want me to put faith, not in him, but a bunch of sheet wearing goat shaggers who wrote a book and told a story?
And why would god knowing how fallible humans are trust those men to do so in a honest way?
You are either ignorant or you can't read. This thread is about Atheism and you have been reminded of this over and again.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 12:34 AM
Lets cut through some of this fog. Here is a little test.
You:
1. Believe there is no God and that God does not exist.
2. Believe there is a God.
3. Don't have a clue.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Excerpt:
Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Standford, is it? Your unimpeachable source.
Good to know.
So you accept Standford's position on evolutionary theory?
I don't think you are as familiar with that site as you think you are. Because I know it as a fantastic source of information destroying arguments for God just like yours, hahah.
I think you fucked up, again, in your haste. I don't think you read that particular page all the way through:
... Science can even improve its own methodology, so that the nature of science is well captured by Neurath's simile of scientists as like sailors on a boat which they build and repair while still at sea. Clifford's contention about the reprehensibility of believing without or against the evidence still stands. Thus there are people who believe the Old Testament literally and with whom it is impossible to talk about biological evolution or modern cosmology. They often say explicitly that they will read and believe only what they find it comforting to read and believe....
... It is undeniable that many, perhaps most, theists do not even attempt to reconcile their belief in God or in the tenets of a particular religion with philosophical arguments or with plausibility in the light of total science. On the other hand many scientists, especially some physicists and cosmologists, and some philosophers, do claim to believe in God because of evidence, namely, because of the fact that there are simple laws of nature and even more so on the apparent so-called ‘fine tuning’ of the fundamental physical constants which will be discussed shortly. Perhaps, however, most theists believe in God simply because their parents and teachers have told them that he exists. And perhaps the parents and teachers believe in God because of what their parents and teachers told them...
... Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. ...
... Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence. ...
Your beloved WLC and his silly Kalam:
http://plato.stanfor...cal-argument/#5
I distinctly recall telling you before that WLC's argument fails because it relies on an old theory of time that has been rejected by most physicists in favor of another one that is supported by QM.
WLC fails physics:
The Causal Principle has been the subject of extended criticism. We addressed objections to the Causal Principle (or PSR) from a philosophical perspective earlier in 3.4. Some critics of the argument deny that they share Craig's intuitions about the Causal Principle (Oppy 2002a). Others raise objections based on quantum physics (Davies, 1984, 200). On the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened. For example, it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence elsewhere. One can neither trace their intermediate existence nor determine what causes them to come into existence at one point rather than another. Neither can one precisely determine or predict where they will reappear; their subsequent location is only statistically probable given what we know about their antecedent states. Hence, “quantum-mechanical considerations show that the causal proposition is limited in its application, if applicable at all, and consequently that a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang cannot go through” (Smith, in Craig and Smith, 1993, 121–23, 182).
WLC fails math:
Critics fail to be convinced by these [WLC's] paradoxes of infinity. When the intuitive notion of “smaller than” is replaced by a precise definition, finite sets and infinite sets behave somewhat differently. Cantor, and all subsequent set theorists, define a set B to be smaller than set A (i.e., has fewer members) just in case B is the same size as a subset of A, but A is not the same size as any subset of B. The application of this definition to finite and infinite sets yields results that Craig finds counter-intuitive but which mathematicians see as our best understanding for comparing the size of sets. They see the fact that an infinite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with one of its own proper subsets as one of the defining characteristics of an infinite set, not an absurdity. Say that set C is a proper subset of A just in case every element of C is an element of A while A has some element that is not an element of C. In finite sets, but not necessarily in infinite sets, when set B is a proper subset of A, B is smaller than A. But this doesn't hold for infinite sets — we've seen this above where B is the set of squares of natural numbers and A is the set of all natural numbers.
Cantorian mathematicians argue that these results apply to any infinite set, whether in pure mathematics, imaginary libraries, or the real world series of concrete events. Thus, Smith argues that Craig begs the question by wrongly presuming that an intuitive relationship holds between finite sets and their proper subsets—that a set has more members than its proper subsets—must hold even in the case of infinite sets (Smith, in Craig and Smith 1993, 85). So while Craig thinks that Cantor's set theoretic definitions yield absurdities when applied to the world of concrete objects, set theorists see no problem so long as the definitions are maintained. Further discussion is in Oppy 2006, 137–54.
WLC fails cosmology:
The response to this argument from the Big Bang is that, given the Grand Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang is not an event at all. An event takes place within a space-time context. But the Big Bang has no space-time context; there is neither time prior to the Big Bang nor a space in which the Big Bang occurs. Hence, the Big Bang cannot be considered as a physical event occurring at a moment of time.
Moment of truth: Universities of most modernized countries (and their eminent scientists) are dominated by the irreligious. It's just the way things are right now, the more educated someone is, the less religious they tend to be, this pattern is seen all over the world.
The bigger or more prestigious the university, the more irreligious it tends to have in its faculty. Stanford has a substantial percentage of atheists/"agnostics" on its roster. Lawl, Stanford even has an "atheist chaplain" on staff.
What does this mean? The majority of the Stanford philosophy articles (btw each article tends to have just one author) are going to take a more objective (or plainly biased in favor of irreligious positions) views of religion than most theists would like. That also means that that website is not like a textbook that has gone through repeat review and correction, through a large host of editors.
BUT if you insist, we can start poring through the dozens of articles in that Stanford database that are about religion and morality. And secular morality. And biological evolution and morality. That might be a bit of fun. For me, anyway. 
Edited by Duchykins, 21 July 2015 - 12:51 AM.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 01:05 AM
Talk of an attempt to derail the topic. I live in the bay area which has one of the largest concentrations of universities in the world and have 5 PHDs in my family so come off it. Yes I quoted Stanford's school of philosophy as to the definition of Atheism. But, this is not the only source I have quoted. You want to mock it and to change the subject to Evolution well this forum and the moderators allow it. And the largest educational systems, outside of government are religious. but Stanford is right. By the way I know several Theistic professors at Stanford and it is not some bastion of Atheism. Nothing of your off topic post negates in any way what I said.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 02:09 AM
Talk of an attempt to derail the topic. I live in the bay area which has one of the largest concentrations of universities in the world and have 5 PHDs in my family so come off it. Yes I quoted Stanford's school of philosophy as to the definition of Atheism. But, this is not the only source I have quoted. You want to mock it and to change the subject to Evolution well this forum and the moderators allow it. And the largest educational systems, outside of government are religious. but Stanford is right. By the way I know several Theistic professors at Stanford and it is not some bastion of Atheism. Nothing of your off topic post negates in any way what I said.
Lol
I live in the "bay area" too. Monterey. I'm about ten minutes (walk) from the water. I know where you are. You live in an itty bitty town (and I thought my area was small, lol), if you are truthful about your location, about 45 min to an hour away from Palo Alto. I'm about 1.5 hours away from it. Unlike you though, I live somewhere that actually has some prestigious educational institutions right here, both military and civilian, even though Monterey is small area. Which is kind of unusual because you don't usually get major colleges unless you have a big city. Hell, I used to work at NPS. Guess how many US astronauts came from Monterey?
Does your town even have a pithy CSU? CSUs are mid-level. Scotts Valley used to have a nice Christian college that recently failed from money problems, and then another Christian school that failed a year after that for the same reason, so congrats on that. Bethany was probably the biggest school in the city, right?
Look at you trying to mooch off of Palo Alto's glory, hahah. "I live in the bay area, look how badass I am." I can play that game if you want, but it's really kind of pathetic ... I like to go off of my own steam, not someone else's.
The amount of religious schools in a small place like Scotts Valley, and you, the way you are ... all making sense now ...
I quoted a lot of stuff about WLC because you have mentioned him multiple times in this thread in a variety of contexts including off-topic nonsense.
Your sense of self-importance is staggering to behold. As is your hypocrisy.
You know 5 theists at Stanford (we're just going to pretend that's true for the moment); therefore, the majority of Stanford staff are not irreligious?
Edited by Duchykins, 21 July 2015 - 02:34 AM.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 02:35 AM
We have Cabrillo College here as well as UCSC. San Jose state is just over the hill and we are in the middle of the greater silicon valley complex with many schools. My daughter is finishing uh at the University of San Francisco and my youngest son is a computer scientist who lives just down the street from the main Stanford Campus. I gave a California College teaching credential and have taught at San Jose State, Cabrillo and other places but I do not need to justify myself to you. Yes Scotts Valley is a beautiful town half way between San Jose and Santa Cruz. It lacks nothing but it is interesting that is an example of the Logical Fallacy that you seem to major in. Are you saying that no one who lives in Scotts Valley can understand Atheism?
Posted 21 July 2015 - 03:22 AM
Cabrillo is a community college.
Yeah San Jose State is "over the hill" ... in San Jose. I actually know where you are in relation to all of these places, and I've seen it all myself. UC Santa Cruz is much closer to you ... but still in Santa Cruz.
Yeah, Scotts Valley is between San Jose and Santa Cruz, I've been through it before. It's basically one of the pit-stop towns for the highway between the cities.
What you're trying to do right now, what it looks like to me, is just like some dumbass Salinas resident trying to mooch off of Monterey's or Pacific Grove's or Carmel's glory ... just because they're all in the same county. But in reality Salinas is garbage, it's a horrible place to live. Those people are sad.
You don't need to justify yourself to me, I never asked for it, I never questioned you about it, but you seem to be volunteering a lot of stuff. A lot of personal shit nobody asked for and nobody cares that much about. So that's on you. You're the one who feels they need to justify themselves. I think that's because you unconsciously know how precarious your position is. I didn't start this nonsense. I never asked your credentials, which seem to be nothing other than "I know some people over here."
Edited by Duchykins, 21 July 2015 - 03:38 AM.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 02:08 PM
Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:22 PM
More evidence for atheism:
16. God won't dance with us to our music;
17. Our art, paintings, sculptures don't move God;
18. God doesn't care about our stories, our literature, our poetry, our devotion;
19. God won't cure diseases, or cancer in children, or aging, or cure anything, and so our useless suffering is our problem; God allows child abuse, terrible poverty, pain, injustice, God won't heal us anytime soon
+++++
Side Bar: you're choking on a bone, and you will die soon if you don't choose the correct one of two options:
1. Pray to God to save your life from choking to death, or;
2. Allow someone to perform the Heimlich maneuver on you to save your life from choking to death.
Choose
+++++
20. God isn't in the water, or the ice, or the steam;
21. God isn't in fire, or sparks, or smoke;
22. God isn't in the air, or any of the known gasses;
23. God isn't in the earth, or the rocks, or the geological record, we find no God fossiles anywhere;
24. God isn't in empty space, or negative space, or dark space, or in black holes;
25. God isn't found in time;
26. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred places of worship to God may be bombed, and yet God doesn't care;
27. 7-billions people pray to God everyday, and there is no response from God;
28. No God in the periodical table of elements;
29. Genocides, God doesn't care; people fight over the words of the bible, other religious works purporting to know the ways of God, yet God offers no guidance;
30. We say "God is alive", and God remains silent, we say "God is dead" and God remains silent, we say "I love you, God" and God remains silent, we say "Please help us, God," and God remains silent; nothing we do or say, no crazy clothes or hats or haircuts seem to work, none of our thousands of human languages seem to bring us any closer to God, the Great Mystery
...
And so on.
You want evidence for atheism. Which is a silly request, as has been pointed out again and again. You say God is immaterial. Isn't immaterial just another way of saying God probably doesn't exist?
So the more I think about it, and the more I read and watch your arguments here in the summer of my life, the more I refine my position away from agnosticism -- I don't know -- and toward atheism -- probably no God exists. I still don't know, no one knows, but I can say that your prosylezation at least in my n=1 case is working in reverse of your intent. If you're intending to convert, it's not working, and in fact it's pushing me farther away.
Are you proselytizing for Atheism or having a discussion regarding atheism? Material things are not the only thing that exists. You don't use material methods to examine the immaterial. In fact methods used to examine material things are themselves not material such as the scientific method itself which is not a product of the scientific method.. What you do with God is your choice alone. I could answer your extended list again but if you find this convening go ahead.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:36 PM
Nope, but SH just proved a whole other side of himself just now.
SH also ignored everything in that initial post about Stanford, it was all "off-topic."
Apparently this thread is only about the definition of atheism.
Stanford is a good source for philosophical subjects and I have used it for years. I quoted it as a source for what Atheism is and it still is a good, but not the only, source by far. I ignored nothing but stayed on target. Stanford's philosophy sources are huge and cover many subjects. Of course I did not reference them all just as I would not reference an entire dictionary when looking up the meaning of a word. Atheism is not Agnosticism and this thread is about Atheism.
In case you want to get an idea what it is like in Scotts Valley, five miles from Santa Cruz, check it out and compare it to Duchykins description.
https://www.google.c...AhWLLYgKHUp2Cpk
Edited by shadowhawk, 21 July 2015 - 07:51 PM.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:38 PM
The immaterial as we're familiar with it is the realm of experience. Memories, thoughts, concepts, and perception are examples. Yet none of these are demonstrated to have the ability to work miracles, create material objects from nothing, or otherwise manifest themselves as supernatural entities or events. Why should we believe that to be plausible for God? If not certain, then at least what makes implausible (or, as you said, "pie in the sky") to believe that the brain is the dog wagging the tail of the soul and not the other way around? Or that God is no more special than any other fantastical being that could be imagined and therefore categorically plausible to dismiss?
Edited by Vardarac, 21 July 2015 - 07:39 PM.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 07:53 PM
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:00 PM
The immaterial as we're familiar with it is the realm of experience. Memories, thoughts, concepts, and perception are examples. Yet none of these are demonstrated to have the ability to work miracles, create material objects from nothing, or otherwise manifest themselves as supernatural entities or events. Why should we believe that to be plausible for God? If not certain, then at least what makes implausible (or, as you said, "pie in the sky") to believe that the brain is the dog wagging the tail of the soul and not the other way around? Or that God is no more special than any other fantastical being that could be imagined and therefore categorically plausible to dismiss?
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:05 PM
We all have experiences, thoughts, memories, perception. Theists do as well. However much of this is not material and I can think of such things as logic and math which are abstract objects bit the entire material world runs by their dictates. The material world is caused and therefore is incapable of explaining itself. Most of what you believe is history. Even your starting reading this post is history. 99% of what you know is not material but history.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:17 PM
I'm not proselytizing for atheism. I'm agnostic and just attempting to add up whatever evidence may exist for either theism or atheism. And using common sense: we have five senses, for example, and none of them work to detect God. We have maths, science, art, literature, music, dance, religion -- and none of these work to find God, either. So I guess that's because, as you say and appear to know, God is immaterial.
Ok, since God is immaterial and "methods used to measure material things are themselves not material such as the scientific method itself which is not a product of the scientific method" can we use our immaterial methods to check out the immaterial God? Sounds like a plan. Let's devise some immaterial science to search for the immaterial God. Like that prayer study, maybe? That prayer study that turned up some disappointing results for those prayed for...
You could answer my extended list, but don't. Hmm. Each and every point of evidence I mention alone probably doesn't indicate a lack of God. But when we add up all these little common sense ideas they do seem to indicate that some doubt regarding the existence of God is rational. And you claim to be rational. So where are your rational arguments for the immaterial God?
I gave them in Evidence for Christianity under attack from dozens of mockers throughout. They didn't answer me, just the usual name calling and marking down everything I said. There is lots of evidence for the existence of God. I gave the Atheists the same opportunity but most responses have been name calling and a desperate attempt to change the subject or define Atheism away.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:39 PM
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:46 PM
We all have experiences, thoughts, memories, perception. Theists do as well. However much of this is not material and I can think of such things as logic and math which are abstract objects bit the entire material world runs by their dictates. The material world is caused and therefore is incapable of explaining itself. Most of what you believe is history. Even your starting reading this post is history. 99% of what you know is not material but history.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 09:04 PM
^^ right. But few if any of your arguments for God in those threads -- I've read them all -- were very satisfying to intelligent minds. And many, many writers certainly did answer you, you just don't appear to enjoy the responses. Then is when people begin mocking your words -- because you flee from reason while simultaneously telling us how reasonable your arguments are. Then, instead of ignoring ad hominem, you continually stew in it because -- since you can't address points discussed -- that's all you've got.
I'd love it if you could convince me that God exists. That'd be a major, life-changing moment in my life. But so far, you haven't. And repeating yourself over and again with what's already been soundly defeated sends you into this sorta Alzheimer's or dementia-looking route, which you probably don't want.
Since you are so intelligent why did you not speak up. Ill tell you what since you think the answers against me were so great, take one and we will discuss it elsewhere. So far you are just making noise. I am not trying to convince you that God exists. That is impossible. That is between you and God. What are you going to say, Shadowhawk did not convince me?" To funny.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 09:41 PM
Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:07 PM
Since you are so intelligent why did you not speak up. Ill tell you what since you think the answers against me were so great, take one and we will discuss it elsewhere. So far you are just making noise. I am not trying to convince you that God exists. That is impossible. That is between you and God. What are you going to say, Shadowhawk did not convince me?" To funny.
So then it's your god's fault there is no evidence for god.
lol
Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:10 PM
^^ right. But few if any of your arguments for God in those threads -- I've read them all -- were very satisfying to intelligent minds. And many, many writers certainly did answer you, you just don't appear to enjoy the responses. Then is when people begin mocking your words -- because you flee from reason while simultaneously telling us how reasonable your arguments are. Then, instead of ignoring ad hominem, you continually stew in it because -- since you can't address points discussed -- that's all you've got.
I'd love it if you could convince me that God exists. That'd be a major, life-changing moment in my life. But so far, you haven't. And repeating yourself over and again with what's already been soundly defeated sends you into this sorta Alzheimer's or dementia-looking route, which you probably don't want.
And these points quoted are the reasons Shadowhawk, why people call you an asshole 
Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:23 PM
Timeless proof of atheism
___________
1. Theist: "My god exists."
2. Other person: "What god?"
3. Theist: [describes their god]
4. Other person: "Doesn't seem legit just yet."
5. Theist: "I have all these logical proofs of god too. How about now?"
6. Other person: [points out theist's bad logic]
7. Theist: "What are you, some kind of dirty atheist?"
8. Other person: "Looks like it."
Therefore, atheism exists.
Posted 21 July 2015 - 10:33 PM
Hey guys I found the perfect argument for SH:
ARGUMENT FROM PLAYGROUND SOCIAL DYNAMICS
(1) The public school system is overwhelmingly populated by Christian kids.
(2) If you raise your kid as an atheist, he will get beaten up a lot.
(3) No, this is NOT a reason to be angry at Christians. It is a reason to become one.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Posted 22 July 2015 - 02:07 AM
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
