Atheists can't explain existence.

[Pushover]

I'm talking about the intellectual postion, I don't care if you are a person who doesn't know what means what you say you are: it's like someone were proud of being a soldier but stated that being a soldier has nothing to do with killing people.
If you BELIEVE in the nonexistence of God or of Unicorns then be aware of the black-and-white position that supposes.
Maybe you, and now I am addressing to YOU, you should make up your mind on whether you really disbelieve or not disbelieve in God


Exactly like not being able to account for the existence of something doesn't exclude the possibility of its existence, and its actual existence.

What's worse than an intellectual with no basis and holding on the fact of their supposed beliefs is a supposed intellectual who just wants to make other intellectuals look bad for totally asinine reasons.

This is also a really bad spin, even for you, Belamy. I dont believe in God, but I do believe that some people are full of shit.

 

[Pushover]

Honestly...stop bringing up these religious topics....

I swear, some people get off on watching others debate religion.

*gives a blatant, unadulterated pointed look at AndrewD*

 

[belamy]

Another quote I liked...

There you have it. An atheist has a truth. If he says he is honestly willing to abandon his/her belief in those truths he is not being honest either in his profession of atheism or in his profession of refutability. An atheist is NOT a philosopher.

 

[gsdx]

and yet I am supposed to find more reasons to reject a creator?)

You might find it easier if you try to understand that they are not mutually exclusive. A belief in science does not automatically preclude a believe in God, or vice versa.

As I have mentioned before in several of your posts, even Pope John Paul II finally accepted the Big Bang theory of science but maintained that it was God who flipped the switch to make it happen. Scientists and physicists are cool with that.

Why can't you be?

 

[belamy]

What's worse than an intellectual with no basis and holding on the fact of their supposed beliefs is a supposed intellectual who just wants to make other intellectuals look bad for totally asinine reasons.

This is also a really bad spin, even for you, Belamy. I dont believe in God, but I do believe that some people are full of shit.

What reasons?What intellectuals? I don't give a shit about individual prides, I only care about arguments, otherwise I wouldn't have plunged in this cesspool of petty prides. If you can't give a counterargument don't try to hide your helplessness with some ad hominem, crying "mommy mommy that boy is so not nice".
If you ultimately think this issue is about personal dignities you are not making thoswe "intellectuals" look "good" in their reasoning.
I usually get that: instead of people pointing the flaws in my reasoning (and I BELIEVE they are there) they get pissed when they feel stupid because they can't give a counterargument. As long as they feel strong in their arguments because they think they know everything about something they feel free to step on anyone's feet, but when they feel stepped upon all they can say is that people are not being nice to them.

 

[_AJ_]

I don't see how scientific notions are seen to simplify our understanding when they actually make it more complex/complicated.

The world appears more complex now (especially at a biochemical level) and yet I am supposed to find more reasons to reject a creator?)

I don't know what a God would be like or what life is about but I think its important to be honest about our limitations of knowledge and not let children believe that we know all the answers one way or the other.

its not about being more or less complex easier or harder to understand it is about the truth nothing more or less

the truth isn't always easy easy to understand but it is still the truth

 

[_AJ_]

ok now that i have that out of the way your wrong the fundamentals of atheism is that there is no god or creator

Atheism is nothing more than that

And we dont have an explanation for everything so what
we dont know exactly how life arose although there are some experiments which replicate early earth and have been promising they are far from fact

we dont know specifics of the big bang what was the universe like before that? I dont know

the question is this if you do not know would you rather believe a story or try and find the answer

here is the rest of my post you ignored

 

[Jarren]

No one's forcing you to explain existence.
But what do you believe causes things to exist?
(Regardless of your atheism)

The analogy for me is like someone asking, "What is the starting point of a circle?" Matter just existed. And things came about because of it. IMHO.

 

[_AJ_]

Charming.



You must know this is dishonest . Being a Christian means being a follower of christ but that is not all there is to Christianity. Atheism encompasses such things as no belief in the afterlife or anything deemed scientifically untestable. I wouldn't rail against atheism if they were simply nonbelievers in the supernatural. they are active in promoting and praising their own notions and mocking the religious.

Do I do that i don't and many others don't just because some people who happen to be atheists do does not mean that atheists are part of some kind of religion.

I have simply asked for an atheistic explanation for existence and I have elucidated this point quite cleary through my posts. Such as the example of a driverless car. There maybe an explanation for a car moving without a driver but an explanation demands itself. Your "so what" seems to be mocking your own scientific endeavours.

Are you claiming that you have some intuition about why matter exists that science can explain something appearing.

I am frightened because I can't explain my existence. You can call that negative and it probably motivates other likeminded people to pursue religion to silence their questions.

I am happy for people to remain atheists as long as they don't promote it as a logical or rational conclusion.

not at all mate i am just saying we dont know everything and that no matter how good the evidence for a natural cause of life until we can actually observe it happening in one way or another we can't be certain what happened that may be observing another planet which is earth like and seeing life arise or going back in time to see it happen here.
this is different in the case of evolution though we have evidence of changes in animal life over time and since we have evidence of changes we don't need to see the change take place in an instant because evolution is a fundamentally different thing to the being of life

evolution is like a car crash in that you can see the skid marks and what happened and can piece it together

life is like a single event which does not effect anything around it and would need observation to prove what happened

 

[bankside]

A driverless car only seems like magic at first glance.

Look up the Skytrain in Vancouver.

It is not reasonable to say that one must look for a driver. What about a car just sitting there? Who applied the brakes? There must have been a brake applicator. (oh really?)

A driverless car is no more a clue to the existence of a hidden driver than a driverless flowerpot.

 

[gsdx]

This question hasn't been answered in the many, many virtually identical threads created by Andrew over the past few months.

It won't be answered in this one, either. At least not to Andrew's satisfaction.

But, don't worry. When people lose interest in this thread and it fades away into oblivion, Andrew will ask the same question again in new threads.

He's spamming the boards with this tripe. He's just spreading it out over time in hopes that the Mods won't notice.

 

[gsdx]

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.
universe invented by noone=just happened to exist for no reason.

I'm sorry but i declare my self winner of this torturous debate.

Pardon me, but you have yet to present one single shred of evidence that God created the universe.

You cannot win a debate which cannot be won.

 

[gsdx]

Why are you consistently missing the point.

With all the pointless, bullshit nonsense you throw around in every post, it's extremely difficult to know what your point is.

I really don't think you have one.

 

[rareboy]

I think that Andrew's psychotropic drugs must be making his neurons misfire.

Andrew.

You are not a particularly good sophist, Platonist or Socratic philospsopher. You are no Thomas Aquinas.

You think that sloppy thinking is evidence that you've seen the light that saw the light.

It isn't. It is just sloppy thinking and perverse and perverted logic.

But, I suppose that once again, you'll claim victory and wait until the end of next week to reset the same fire.

The fact remains. Atheists can explain existence just as easily and far better than you ever could. They just have. Without all your pseudo religious creationist bullshit arguments.

I look at this whole mess and once again relaize why I can't even be bothered to offer actual arguments. It is like talking to a barking mad dog.

 

[bankside]

I don't understand this objection.

The sky train in vancouver is designed and operated by humans.

You wouldn't assume that human artefacts weren't designed but you are going to assume that natural laws and oredered systems weren't designed?

No; you are asserting that my point is the opposite of the point I'm making.

I wouldn't assume that human artefacts were designed at all. Quit saying that I assume that.

It is impossible to observe a car -- in any state -- and conclude from that observation that it was designed, any more than someone could observe a car and conclude that a cactus is wearing a hat in berlin.

It just doesn't follow.

If you observe a car factory, an engineering office with plans of cars, even better an engineer drawing schematics of car parts with some CAD software, then you have evidence of design.

Bellamy, I accuse your brand of neutrality of being fundamentalist in itself. There is such a thing as a fundamentalist adherent to the middle ground, even if the middle ground proves to be meaningless. There is such a thing as the third-person point of view in a debate, and sometimes that person is himself quite dogmatic.

I repeat my challenge to find me a quote from any atheist who would argue that one ought to disbelieve in any god of your choice even if presented with substantial evidence to the contrary.

 

[gsdx]

So you see no design in a computer and react to it in the same way you'd react to a mushroom?

Again, more of your bullshit logic.

How did you manage to reach adulthood?

 

[bankside]

It seems to me that the most honest position any human being can proclaim at present with regards to the notion of some creator entity, intelligence or whatever, or the existence of divinities in general is simply: I don't know.

I agree with you entirely. But it seems to me the most dishonest position anyone can claim is that "All options are on the table," or "Everything is equally likely," or "The evidence is about the same for all positions on the subject."

People who think that way come either from naive delusion or wilful deception.

 

[bankside]

Bellamy,

Belamy I mean..

 

[Pill Pusher]

I've been a lurker for quite awhile, but I'm going to take a crack at it.

I don't see how scientific notions are seen to simplify our understanding when they actually make it more complex/complicated.

The world appears more complex now (especially at a biochemical level) and yet I am supposed to find more reasons to reject a creator?)

I don't know what a God would be like or what life is about but I think its important to be honest about our limitations of knowledge and not let children believe that we know all the answers one way or the other.

Scientific discoveries in biochemistry has not made life any more or less complex. It is just offers and explanation as to what happens at the molecular level in our bodies.

You must know this is dishonest . Being a Christian means being a follower of christ but that is not all there is to Christianity. Atheism encompasses such things as no belief in the afterlife or anything deemed scientifically untestable. I wouldn't rail against atheism if they were simply nonbelievers in the supernatural. they are active in promoting and praising their own notions and mocking the religious.

I have simply asked for an atheistic explanation for existence and I have elucidated this point quite cleary through my posts. Such as the example of a driverless car. There maybe an explanation for a car moving without a driver but an explanation demands itself. Your "so what" seems to be mocking your own scientific endeavours.

As someone has said, atheism neither offer nor require an explanation as to how life came to be. It is merely the belief in the absence of god. Atheism and science are often seen together, but they are not inherently inclusive.

And what does a driving car have to do with anything? Cars do not exist spontaneously, and cars are not innate to the natural world. If you're going to have a discussion as to how the natural world came to be, using examples of manufactered technological devices is not very convincing.

I am frightened because I can't explain my existence. You can call that negative and it probably motivates other likeminded people to pursue religion to silence their questions.

I am happy for people to remain atheists as long as they don't promote it as a logical or rational conclusion.

I'm afraid of aligators, it doesn't mean that I should deny their existence. Your personal opinions regarding the issue does not affect the facts.

I don't understand this objection.

The sky train in vancouver is designed and operated by humans.

You wouldn't assume that human artefacts weren't designed but you are going to assume that natural laws and oredered systems weren't designed?

Again, human machineries are not good evidence as to what happens in the natural world.

This debate wasn't about evidence FOR god it was about evidence SUPPORTING atheism.

Everything is evidence for deism because their is no scientifically logical reason for anything to exist.

So once again atheism is based on a COMPLETE fallacy about the nature of things.

The existence of matter (for the most part) is binary. Matter either exist, or it does not. It isn't evidence for either schools of philosophy.
Science explains the physical, not the metaphysical so there really isn't a big question as to why they exist. That's a question that is outside of science. But if you're asking about how things came to be, that is something that could be potentionally answered by science.

I am not arguing about wether things exist but wether things can exist with no cause.

I have yet to hear what the basis for believing that everything we see and experience can exist independently of any action to create.

Things "just exist" according" to atheists. Lame and dishonest I say.

I would be a non deist if I had ever heard an adequate justification that didn't involve knocking comic notions of bearded GOds.

I have had a revelation to day

Nothing can exist independent of cause. I will never again see any validity in atheism.

It is illogical plain and simple (and reactionary)

You're absolutely right, there is a huge element of the mystery behind how matter came to be, and I honestly don't know the answer. But that's no reason to make something up.

 

[gsdx]

^ Excellent first post, my friend.

Unfortunately, I fear it will go virtually unnoticed (i.e. 'ignored' because it makes sense) by AndrewD.

Welcome to JUB.