Author Topic: Atheism Poll  (Read 1670 times)

Offline Mr.Obvious

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #105 on: September 12, 2017, 07:05:13 AM »
I do have evidence and offered two facts you ignored, the existence of the universe and the fact of sentient life. You do acknowledge its a fact the universe exists and sentient life exists correct? If you want to argue those facts are better explained by what you believe that's fine. What you and most atheists do is attempt to preemptively claim those facts aren't evidence because they don't personally convince you a Creator caused the universe. The correct analogy is you see a pile of shit in your back yard but because you can't believe your neighbor is so crude to take a dump on your lawn you claim the shit isn't evidence. Thus making your lack of belief evidence and argument proof. 

Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do. A ‘creation’ being necessary for something to be deemed a creator does not make it any more likely that an ‘existence’ is a ‘creation’. And what we see, this reality around us, is definitely an ‘existence’. That is the fact. Not that it’s a ‘creation’. And the ‘existence’ thus is not evidence for a ‘creator’. It could potentially be that this ‘existence’ it’s a ‘creation’, but for it to be ‘elevated’ to that, you’d need to present the necessary evidence. Evidence I can’t even imagine, I grant you. But without it, you do not get to claim the universe is evidence for ‘creation’ and ‘creator’. And the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe, but also that a creator could make a universe without life and sentience.
That is why the analogy does work, to some extent. (At the end of the day it’s still an analogy, after all.) It’s why I mention that the neighbour takes the evidence with him. Because we see the backyard. The universe. But we don’t see anything pointing towards outside tampering with it. Everything within the backyard could be explained within the context of the backyard without the neighbour climbing in and doing his thing. And you actually agree with this somewhat, as you seem to think it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if there wasn’t this superbackyardian or a supernatural influence to start with. I don’t claim the pile of shit isn’t evidence. There is no pile of shit you can point to. There is only the backyard.

 
Quote
I view naturalism as second runner up to theism. If we discovered this was one of many or an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics that would highly favor of naturalism. If we find life elsewhere especially life that couldn't have come from earth in anyway would alter the equation. If a theory of everything explains why the conditions for life and the laws of physics obtained would be a big feather in the cap of naturalism. If a naturalistic (non-god) explanation of how the universe came into existence actually pans out that would be highly favorable to naturalism. You are aware that scientists have created virtual universes I assume. Could those universes have just as well come about by happenstance? Why not? How can one say it takes willful intelligence to cause to virtual universe to exist but non-intelligence is capable of causing a universe that allows for sentient life to exist?

I’ve seen you put that in a different thread a while back. And I find it strange. The existence of (intelligent) life is in favour of a creator. But the existence of more life in the universe would be evidence against a creator? Why? How does that work? Does that imply you are invested in the idea of a personal deity? If one universe exists, it’s proof for a creator. But if more universes exists, it’s proof against a creator? How? How does that work? What mental gymnastics are you applying, explain it to me? Because you see, if for one second I were to hypothetically agree with you that life and the universe are evidence of a creator… Just for a second, I’m with you. And now suddenly we both find out there are alien civilisations and multiple universes… How does that shake the belief I have in a creator? Not in a personal deity, mind you, just the idea of an instigator to the universe. If the creator created life on this planet, why would he not do it on others? Why would that be evidence against his power, rather than for it? (Given that the existence of life is proof of the creator.) Same with universes? It’d be MORE evidence for a creator, if they were conceivable as evidence for a creator in the first place.
Things have been explained more and more without the need for Gods. From the variation of species to the existence of stars and planets, to thunder and lightning. But people still cling to the idea of a creator guiding these things. Does that not show you as well that the creator-theory is an unfalsifiable theory? It really is. Because as soon as we learned how planets worked, how life came to be… People started saying there could still be someone guiding all of it. Nothing we can discover can actually damage the idea that a creator created everything, if there is no creator in the first place.
To get back to your point though. I’m not putting forth that non-intelligence HAD to be the cause. I’m not even saying there HAD to be a cause seeing as the laws of physics as we know them, for all we know, only exist within this universe and that the law causation may not even be relevant here. I’m just saying that because you assume that there had to be a cause and that that cause had to be intelligence, you need to show why.
I will say this aligns with the most amusing thing I’ve seen you say. And I really appreciated it. I think you’ve made this point before, regarding the virtual universes. And it was an interesting take. I think I even gave you a like for that because you had such a novel and clever way of putting it. But eventually it boils back down to the unfalsifiableness of your hypothesis and the shifting of the burden of proof to someone who’s not even making a claim.

Quote
By the way Mr Obvious, its not burden shifting its examining the entire picture. If criminologists come across a corpse its not enough to rule out an intelligent cause to determine its 'natural causes' you also have to come up with an explanation of how it occurred naturally to rule out the possibility it was intentional. Whether an active disbelief or a lack of belief you still have to question whether what we observe could have been caused by what we call natural (non-god) causes. The notion atheism or naturalism is some kind of default position is just atheist hogwash. The reason I can assign a percent is because unlike atheists I'm not in denial there is evidence to support their position that defrays from the certainty of my position.

With this, you remind of someone else who was on this forum a while back. The guy was really big on the criminology analogy as well. I’ll tell you, more or less, the same thing I told him. Who are the ones examining the evidence in this case? It’s the coroners. The scientists. And guess what the body scientists who examine the world tend not to find, evidence for a creation. They don’t find evidence against a creation. But they don’t find evidence for one either. So, in your example, the coroners don’t find gashing cuts. They don’t find poison in the body. They don’t find blunt trauma on the back of the head…
What you have is someone who died, for example, of heart failure. And yes, it could be that it is that the person is killed by some poison afflicting the heart that’s not showing up on the toxicology report because it’s not a discovered toxin yet and thus can’t be tested for… But they don’t find any actual poison. So no, they don’t operate on the idea that the body has been poisoned by some murderer. I see no shit. I don’t operate on the idea that my neighbour shat in my yard. And we all don’t operate on the idea that this ‘existence’ was ‘created’ by a creator. And guess what, we are indeed justified in that stance.
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #106 on: September 12, 2017, 07:16:08 AM »
It was ... cough ... Randy.  How soon you forget.
שלום

Offline Mr.Obvious

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #107 on: September 12, 2017, 07:20:15 AM »
It was ... cough ... Randy.  How soon you forget.

I didn't choose Mr. Memory as my nick ;)
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline SGOS

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #108 on: September 12, 2017, 09:09:30 AM »
Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do. A ‘creation’ being necessary for something to be deemed a creator does not make it any more likely that an ‘existence’ is a ‘creation’. And what we see, this reality around us, is definitely an ‘existence’. That is the fact. Not that it’s a ‘creation’. And the ‘existence’ thus is not evidence for a ‘creator’. It could potentially be that this ‘existence’ it’s a ‘creation’, but for it to be ‘elevated’ to that, you’d need to present the necessary evidence. Evidence I can’t even imagine, I grant you. But without it, you do not get to claim the universe is evidence for ‘creation’ and ‘creator’. And the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe, but also that a creator could make a universe without life and sentience.
Yes, it's the old fallacy of equivocation.  Call existence a "creation" enough times and it eventually becomes a colloquial synonym.  Then you reason, "If it's a creation, it had to be created."  And <Presto!>, it's a created creation.  But it's not necessarily a creation either.  All we really know is that it exists.  The how or why remains a mystery both before and after we twist the words.  At least until such time as evidence becomes available.

Drew argues that natural forces suffers the same dismal failure as Goddidit.  But does it?.  Drew likes to add his own personal Killer Caveat to what he sees as the universal atheist claim: "Existence is a result of natural forces <add caveat>  ALL THE WAY DOWN!"

Whoa!  That makes it sound chilling an ominous as if doom is right around the corner.  It's all the fuckin' way down!

But do all atheists add that caveat?  I don't know how many do, but I know at least one that doesn't.  Me.  We do know natural forces exist.  We have observed and measured many of them, but... Maybe they aren't really natural ALL THE WAY DOWN.  OK maybe not.

So what?

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #109 on: September 12, 2017, 04:56:40 PM »
Yeah. We might have had a normal President who doesn't habitually break the law, show absolutely zero competence at the job, or surround themselves with even more incompetent people. We sure dodged a bullet there.

You mean not like the way she ran her campaign?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #110 on: September 12, 2017, 05:35:32 PM »
You mean not like the way she ran her campaign?

Nice soft ball there. Deny it all you want, but clearly you chose the greater of two evils. Hillary had years of experience in politics, Trump had none. Hillary was not a psychotic weirdo who challenged the freedom of the press because they published unflattering stories about her. Hillary did not give legitimacy to racist organizations that needed to stay in hiding. Hillary did not deny scientific facts in order to push an agenda that will fuck over our planet. Hillary was declared innocent by the FBI, while Trump was under multiple investigations, and once in power he abused that power by obstructing justice. There is literally no weakness in Hillary that isn't far outweighed by Trump's.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky

Offline Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #111 on: September 12, 2017, 07:04:02 PM »
Bill Clinton never sucked up to finance (cough)
George H never chocked on a pretzel (heimlich) ... nobody caught my hint, that would have flagged this typo ;-(
Obama never ran a crooked DoJ (cough)

So experienced politicians get you what again?  This is why 80 year old Southern Congressmen used to dominate the government.  Also helped to enforce their peculiar policies.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 10:21:15 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #112 on: September 12, 2017, 07:30:40 PM »
Bill Clinton never sucked up to finance (cough)

Better to be the corrupt backer than to use corrupt backers for funds, huh? Also, you're already out of things to criticize Hillary for, so you've moved on to her husband?

George H never chocked on a pretzel (heimlich)

George H.W. Bush? What does an elderly Republican President have to do with anything?

Obama never ran a crooked DoJ (cough)

Still would take him back over Trump in a heartbeat. Seriously, you're trying to claim that Obama and Trump are equally as bad?

So experienced politicians get you what again?  This is why 80 year old Southern Congressmen used to dominate the government.  Also helped to enforce their peculiar policies.

Experience in a field typically makes one more knowledgeable about how to operate in that field. Would you go to a dentist with no dental degree? Would you hire someone who's never so much as hammered a nail to build your house? That would be idiotic. Just like hiring someone with no experience in politics, who even several months after being elected still has an incomplete cabinet!
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #113 on: September 12, 2017, 07:54:28 PM »
I think the people that voted for Trump are too stupid to ever be allowed to vote again. The ones that still support him after 7 months of abysmal failure need to have their meds checked.


I'm still waiting for Drew to explain how the universe is proof of a creator. He has said it as a fact so many times, but he has never said why.
Would you like to play with my invisible friend? HE can give you anything that you want. All you have to do is ask HIM

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #114 on: September 12, 2017, 08:00:48 PM »
I think the people that voted for Trump are too stupid to ever be allowed to vote again. The ones that still support him after 7 months of abysmal failure need to have their meds checked.
I wouldn't mind if they were to all win Darwin awards...
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #115 on: September 12, 2017, 08:15:27 PM »
I do have evidence and offered two facts you ignored, the existence of the universe and the fact of sentient life. You do acknowledge its a fact the universe exists and sentient life exists correct? If you want to argue those facts are better explained by what you believe that's fine. What you and most atheists do is attempt to preemptively claim those facts aren't evidence because they don't personally convince you a Creator caused the universe. The correct analogy is you see a pile of shit in your back yard but because you can't believe your neighbor is so crude to take a dump on your lawn you claim the shit isn't evidence. Thus making your lack of belief evidence and argument proof. 

Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do.

Of course you were going to respond its not evidence and you'll systematically rule out any fact I offer as evidence. I use homicide investigation as a analogy because they do the same thing we're doing. They want to know if a death is natural causes or caused intentionally. It's a foregone conclusion you'll never admit there is evidence in favor of theism because it is a cornerstone doctrine of atheism 'there is no evidence in favor of theism'. If you were to admit there is evidence, game over because theism becomes an intellectually justified belief. For the sake of impartial lurkers in this forum evidence is just facts that comport with a belief. Theist's believe a Creator caused the universe and life to exist and lo the universe and life exists. Whether anyone agrees or admits its evidence it is. The fact of a dead body is evidence of murder. Its not proof of murder because we know death can occur without it being murder. In the case of the universe its not actually known whether it was or could be caused by natural processes or whether it could or was caused by a Creator. Note I didn't say the creation of the universe is evidence of a Creator, I said the existence of the universe is evidence of a Creator. Suppose we could somehow have this conversation but no universe existed and I said I believe an invisible Creator exists you would say what do you attribute to the existence of a Creator and I said the universe. You'd say Drew there is no universe therefore while your claim maybe true you're not attributing anything to the existence of a Creator. The dogmatic claim by atheists there is no evidence of a Creator would actually be true!


Quote
And the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe

Stop right there... no creator is necessary is a claim, not only is it a claim, its one you offer no evidence of nor is it one you know is true. You are actually stating a belief. You don't know that a Creator isn't necessary for the existence of the universe or for life to exist. You assume there is no Creator thus making one unnecessary a classic example of circular reasoning.


Quote
That is why the analogy does work, to some extent. (At the end of the day it’s still an analogy, after all.) It’s why I mention that the neighbour takes the evidence with him. Because we see the backyard. The universe. But we don’t see anything pointing towards outside tampering with it. Everything within the backyard could be explained within the context of the backyard without the neighbour climbing in and doing his thing. And you actually agree with this somewhat, as you seem to think it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if there wasn’t this superbackyardian or a supernatural influence to start with. I don’t claim the pile of shit isn’t evidence. There is no pile of shit you can point to. There is only the backyard.

Except the belief isn't that someone took a dump in your backyard the belief is someone caused the universe and life to exist and there is a universe and there is life. Your analogy at best is a bait and switch. What's amazing is that you don't see that and you probably still won't. You'll insist its still a perfectly valid analogy. I take solace in the fact any lurker remotely impartial will know other wise.

 
Quote
I’ve seen you put that in a different thread a while back. And I find it strange. The existence of (intelligent) life is in favour of a creator. But the existence of more life in the universe would be evidence against a creator? Why?

You're right its not bombshell type evidence. One might argue its hubris on our part to think a Creator would create only life on earth. However, atheists would jump on it as evidence life wasn't intentional it can occur in a lot of places under completely different circumstances. Over all I think it would favor that narrative.

Quote
How does that work? Does that imply you are invested in the idea of a personal deity? If one universe exists, it’s proof for a creator. But if more universes exists, it’s proof against a creator? How? How does that work? What mental gymnastics are you applying, explain it to me?

The existence of a multitude (or infinitude as some have suggested) of universe with varying characteristics could account for the exacting properties and conditions that obtained in this universe in a mindless unintentional manner that resulted in life (as we know it) existing. As the saying goes sometimes less is more. 

Quote
Things have been explained more and more without the need for Gods. From the variation of species to the existence of stars and planets, to thunder and lightning. But people still cling to the idea of a creator guiding these things. Does that not show you as well that the creator-theory is an unfalsifiable theory? It really is. Because as soon as we learned how planets worked, how life came to be… People started saying there could still be someone guiding all of it. Nothing we can discover can actually damage the idea that a creator created everything, if there is no creator in the first place.

No, it demonstrates that when or if scientists prove a 'naturalistic cause' for something attributed to the existence of gods (rain god, earthquake god) that people reject those beliefs. The same would be true for a Creator of the universe if scientists prove a naturalistic cause of the universe belief in a Creator will wane. A favorite argument of atheists is that there is a long history of beliefs that have proven to be naturalistic and thus a track record has been established. However this is only true if its naturalistic causes all the way down. If there is a Creator the track record is moot.

Quote
I’m just saying that because you assume that there had to be a cause and that that cause had to be intelligence, you need to show why.

I don't assume there has to be a cause but I suspect there is for that there is a good track record. But you don't believe the universe came into existence uncaused do you? Since you decline to believe things with no evidence you should be consistent.

Quote
I will say this aligns with the most amusing thing I’ve seen you say. And I really appreciated it. I think you’ve made this point before, regarding the virtual universes. And it was an interesting take. I think I even gave you a like for that because you had such a novel and clever way of putting it. But eventually it boils back down to the unfalsifiableness of your hypothesis and the shifting of the burden of proof to someone who’s not even making a claim.

You are and have made a claim... that a creator is unnecessary. So I asked if a creator was unnecessary to cause a virtual universe to exist a fair question.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #116 on: September 12, 2017, 10:18:07 PM »
Better to be the corrupt backer than to use corrupt backers for funds, huh? Also, you're already out of things to criticize Hillary for, so you've moved on to her husband?

George H.W. Bush? What does an elderly Republican President have to do with anything?

Still would take him back over Trump in a heartbeat. Seriously, you're trying to claim that Obama and Trump are equally as bad?

Experience in a field typically makes one more knowledgeable about how to operate in that field. Would you go to a dentist with no dental degree? Would you hire someone who's never so much as hammered a nail to build your house? That would be idiotic. Just like hiring someone with no experience in politics, who even several months after being elected still has an incomplete cabinet!

What?  The Clintons earned their own money?  They printed their own money?  They grifted it from corrupt donors, right?

George W, my bad.  George W was the one too incompetent to safely eat pretzels ... that is why Death's Head Cheney was really running things.  And no, I wasn't making a false equivalence, you were ... comparing Democrats to Mother Theresa.  My G-d!  Hillary isn't even Catholic! (sarc).

Experience ... yes, exactly Socrates' argument in Plato's Republic.  So you are really part of the Guardian Class (the real Master Race)?  That was exactly why Socrates hated Democracy ... because the know nothings (in the upper class only of course ... people just like Trump and George W) kept thinking they were geniuses when they were just silver spoons from broken families (awww).  They didn't realize that Socrates would have led them to a paradise of 72 little boys.  Or was that just Plato putting his own sick whatever into Socrates' mouth?  This Is Sparta!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 10:20:08 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #117 on: September 12, 2017, 10:19:12 PM »
I wouldn't mind if they were to all win Darwin awards...

Darwin was smarter than his contemporaries ... and kicked ass in Thunder Dome!
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #118 on: September 13, 2017, 01:01:34 AM »
Are you just not getting the understanding of whose assertion it is?  You assert the claim there is a deity. YOU have to prove it.  Stop being Trumpish.

Unlike my atheist friends I don't deny I make a belief claim, not a fact claim. I have made a case for it and have linked to it on several occasions. The more I talk with atheists the more I come to think it is cultish. Here we are in a thread with a poll in which 6 respondents claim they are 99.99999% sure no creator exists yet you insist I alone make an assertion.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Baruch

Re: Atheism Poll
« Reply #119 on: September 13, 2017, 06:42:07 AM »
Unlike my atheist friends I don't deny I make a belief claim, not a fact claim. I have made a case for it and have linked to it on several occasions. The more I talk with atheists the more I come to think it is cultish. Here we are in a thread with a poll in which 6 respondents claim they are 99.99999% sure no creator exists yet you insist I alone make an assertion.

Echo chamber .... not cultish.  Birds of a feather flock together.  And I am "Super Chicken-Little Man".

Your epistemic argument falls on deaf ears.
שלום