to be so ultimately fundementalist atheist is just as bad as being a fundementalist catholic or muslim.
and so are other people, these people have no real qualifacations and are simply basing their opinions off of what other people have told them is correct. I myself have no qualifacations and as such do not pretend to have all the answers.

Phill, you do not have the all the answers, you cannot definitively say that christians, romans, germanic norse people, catholics, pastafarians, muslims, hindu’s, budhists, jews, ancient egyptions or evangilists are wrong.

im in year 12, 17 yrs old, male, atheist agnostic,
meaning I, at this point in time have no reason to believe in a god, this being due to the fact that i have not seen evidence for a god, in saying that however niether myself, nor anyone in the entirety of mankind can prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete non-existance of god. Now i agree, the onus of proof is on the theists, however there are large aspects of our existance which are unexplained or exlained through unprovable theory. case in point being the infinite mass which created the big bang, there are many theories as to where the infinite mass arose from (blackholes for example) but no common agreement or proof.

therfore i am reluctant to completely dismiss the idea of a higher power in a strictly pantheist or deist view (much the same as einstien)

so people basically what im trying to say is to have an open mind, remember that we dont have all the answers and dont be a condescending, arrogant wankstain on humanity who has an over inflated sense of importance like our friend Phil E. Drifter with a few years of high school science under his belt.

oh and feel free to email me with any objections you may have to anything i have written here on

finally_64@hotmail.com
or facebook me: Charles Champion de Crespigny

Conrad Conrad

Comment | May 4, 2010″

Conrad, are you telling me, that I must be out of my mind to believe in God???

You know, that really is what it boils down to (faith VS reason) and why the argument has to be “left for dead”.

I think you’ll find that there are no knock-down arguments in philosophy for *any* position, including atheism. So the theist can’t persuade you with arguments. So what? You can’t persuade her with arguments either. If that’s troubling for the theist, it’s troubling for you too.Do you think that, in the absence of compelling arguments either way, we ought to favor atheism? That is, do you think that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof is on the theist? If so, why do you think that?The burden of proof is NOT on skeptics of flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic teacups, fairies, etc.But the burden of proof IS on skeptics of other minds, the external world, the reality of the past, the uniformity of nature, etc.Do you think that atheism is in the former category, instead of the latter? If so, why?  

I started out life on the very bottom of the gene pool in special education and learned a different kind of human thought process that has never been in a text book before. It is BOTH mr/dd and Einstein and yes even normal thoughts when its all figured out. Humans are blindsided by their own thoughts! The killer punch to them is human thought is shortcutted thought so that means we have the cart before the horse as we ponder the how the mind works question and don’t even know the very internal thoughts that make us work. Trust me once Psychology figures that out man will be in for a major let down has his mind is not all that advanced and we even use the same ideals and thought process to talk with a pariot does.

Some day all this intenral thought process we (old autism people- not admitted to ) learned by default will grace psychology and then we can tunnel backward up threw the mind to discover how backward man really is. Some day kindergarten will not be 123 and the ABCs but picture thoughts that need ironed out before the 123’s and the ABC ’s work. Tap into the mind correctly and EVERY human will have the Einstein ability in them harvested. Suddenly Personality issues from Dyslexia to stuttering,narcissiam to serial killers and plain good guys will all have an explanation that fits. This will also explain man’s obession with religion and indeed his instance his religion what ever one it is -is the right one.

Rich Shull, Inventor of The Turing Motor. Read more of the mind you don’t know you have at my blog Pre Rain Man Autism thanks.

Epicurus, winning since 341 BCE.

I think you’ll find that there are no knock-down arguments in philosophy for *any* position, including atheism. So the theist can’t persuade you with arguments. So what? You can’t persuade her with arguments either. If that’s troubling for the theist, it’s troubling for you too.Do you think that, in the absence of compelling arguments either way, we ought to favor atheism? That is, do you think that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof is on the theist? If so, why do you think that?The burden of proof is NOT on skeptics of flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic teacups, fairies, etc.But the burden of proof IS on skeptics of other minds, the external world, the reality of the past, the uniformity of nature, etc.Do you think that atheism is in the former category, instead of the latter? If so, why?  

Umm, yeah, the burden of proof is on theists. By definitions, a thing does not exist until proven otherwise. It is impossible to proove that something does not exist (you can’t proove unicorns don’t). So actually, if you can’t find compelling evidence for God, atheism is true for the time being

It’s like being a magnet, and trying to pick up Styrofoam. Sure, it’s light as hell, but it’s electrons are not lined up in a way that my electrons will pull on. (Or however the hell magnetic force works) Religious beliefs are BELIEFS. Faith-based. Not relying on reason, proof or logic.

We thinkers attempt to counter this faith with reason, proof, and logic. Unfortunately for us, the more a faithful person can ignore the truth, the prouder and stronger their faith is proven to be. They have absolutely no incentive to change.

They, on the flip side, try to convert our reasoning, questioning, proof-desiring minds with faith based arguments. Equally futile, for the most part.

It just ain’t gonna happen, on either side, unless the theist has some damned good logic, (tricky, in most religions) or if the atheist can somehow apply to their faith to emancipate itself from itself. It’s two completely different mindsets. Both ways, it’s magnets trying to pull Styrofoam.

And one thing that keeps bugging me, from Phil E Drifter, aside from numerous other sweeping and un-justified statements, (of which I also am guilty) is his chronology of Religious belief systems. Sure, Greco-Roman deities were at points co-existent with Norse Gods, a continent away, sure he left out thousands of years, sure he left out most of the world, sure he asserted that Religions with sun-gods don’t count, sure he screwed up the names of many deities, and their relationship to days of the week. Fine. What really is bugging me is this: GRECIAN GODS CAME BEFORE ROMAN GODS! Actually, they were more or less the same gods, the Romans, after they took up the reins of “Great Mediterranean Empire,” just changed the names of most of them. I realize that bears no relationship to anything important, except that, when jousting from the high horse of “Facts and Knowledge,” it is often wise to actually use “Facts and Knowledge,” rather than “Misconceptions and Guesses.” Rome did in fact, come AFTER Greece!

As far as that second phrase from my mother, it was this. “And they can ALL vote.”

2. It is not up the Christians to prove God to you because the evidence of Him is all around.

…

Imagine I told you about my sister who lived in a different country. Instead of trying to disprove her existence from your side of the world rather get on a plane and come visit me and see for yourself if she exists. In the same way you can find out if God exists by leaving the reasoning of your fallible mind and entering the realm of faith where God lives and you will meet Him!

And here is where YOUR argument is flawed. If you tell me you have a sister in a different country, I have no reason, really, to disbelieve you. I will so stipulate. If, on the other hand, you said your sister is Michelle Obama, I might be a little more skeptical. If you told me you were sleeping with Michelle Obama, I would probably not believe you, unless you could prove it. As they say, pics or it didn’t happen. If you told me you were sleeping with Michelle Obama and she’s actually an alien, I’d assume you are nuts. Assuming you’re insane makes more sense than believe that the first lady is an alien. So you see, as your claims become more and more outrageous, there is more and more need for evidence before a reasonable person believes them.

As for “the evidence of Him is all around” — I’m sorry but I see no evidence for God. In fact, everything I see was actually created by a guy named Barry I met in a pub once. He told me so. Even showed me a book he wrote that said he created everything. You got a book that says god created everything? Barry’s book had pictures. Does yours? The fact is, anyone can claim responsibility after the fact. Doesn’t mean they actually did it. Or that they exist at all.

But then you say we need to enter “the realm of faith where God lives” in order to believe. Forget about evidence and just believe. Why? Because you say so? Because some book says so? I can show you a book that says you should send me all your money. Gonna do that? What if I told you God wrote it?

“Faith is believing when common sense tells you not to.” That’s all fine and dandy for little kids believing in Santa Claus, but I’ve outgrown that. Perhaps it’s time you outgrew your fairy tales too.

I see no point to keep following this thread, so I’ve unsubscribed.

Please do that. I’m sure i’m not the only one who is unimpressed with your “AP” status from high school.

1. Assuming you are an individual of marked intelligence you will know it is almost entirely impossible to prove the non-existence of something unless you were all knowing in which case YOU would be God (very unlikely that you are). You would have to have knowledge of every facet of this earth and universe in order to do so from a purely scientific not spiritual standpoint and please do not even get on to the idea of statistical reasoning!
Only thing you may have proved is that the argument presented to prove God’s existence might be flawed which I as a Christian do realise is most definitely the case in many instances. You have not disproved God’s existence however! Remember when Thomas Edison invented the light bulb every person who told him it could not be done had to retract their disbelief and yet still could not explain the light that they saw before them. The evidence does not lie, even if your understanding of the “How” and “Why” does not yet add up.
2. It is not up the Christians to prove God to you because the evidence of Him is all around. Rather you need to disprove Him despite all the evidence first which I’m sure you will find alot harder to do.
Imagine I told you about my sister who lived in a different country. Instead of trying to disprove her existence from your side of the world rather get on a plane and come visit me and see for yourself if she exists. In the same way you can find out if God exists by leaving the reasoning of your fallible mind and entering the realm of faith where God lives and you will meet Him!

Conrad

That was very elegantly elucidated. Thanks.
Ben.

Manuel: All atheist believe in god.

Says a lot for thinking before you speak.

the earth may be pear shaped, but who cares?

Nope… not important at all… doesn’t change anything at all. *EXTREME SARCASM*

Thus, no design is really designed in the sense that Intelligent Design would propose. Nowhere can we see a car that someone has entirely conceived and designed from scratch, without any concept of what a car should be… not even the first car was such a beast, because it was an amalgamation of technology that already existed: The steam engine, the wheel, etc. Each of these technologies came from earlier designs that were less functional… which built on designs for other things…. Steam engines from stoves, and wheels from logs stripped of branches, which rolled in one direction and served to help move heavy things like stone.

Thus, everything which we have ever designed we did so as a collective. Much like life, which arose from a collective of accidental design, we too have continued the trend of evolving our technology from simple electronics to computers to the grand center of knowledge known as the internet…. the internet which is significantly more complex than one human being was designed by us all… the human body which is significantly more complex than a cell was designed by cells. Everything we’ve ever designed has essentially evolved through us to aide our survival.

Irreducible complexity is thus a flawed theory, as is specified complexity… none of what we’ve ever designed prescribes to these concepts. Fine-tuned Universe falls flat on its face when you realize that everything in this universe, including life is fine tuned for the universe itself, not the other way around. Fine-tuned universe is the song of water in a puddle, thinking the ground was designed just for it because its the perfect shape for all the puddle’s many curves.

But then, you’re all well aware of most of it… some of you have just never looked at the concept of human design from an accidental perspective. It’s clear for me though, being a computer programmer and a musician, that all my original ideas were thought out long ago by the plethora of people that came before me… I’m just arranging them in new (or old) ways which please me. The only thing we have that makes our design less than purely accidental is our ability to spot a good idea. Lets keep the good ones and filter out the bad, shall we?

I was trying to be brief which is why I left off: “Before Norse gods, there were no gods/people worshipped the sun. (’SUNDAY,’ anyone? ‘Monday’ was for Mars, ‘Thursday’ was for Thor, ‘Friday’ was for Fria, ‘Saturday’ was for Saturnalia/Saturn…)

Um, yeah. Kinda. Try this – Sunday = Sun; Monday = Moon; Tuesday = Tiw (Mars); Wednesday = Woden (Mercury); Thursday = Thor (Jupiter); Friday = Frigga (Venus); Saturday = Saturn.

Notice how you never see summer solstice or fall equinox celebrations, why would people get excited that it’s going to get cold and dark for 6 months?

My god, you’re right! In fact, now I come to think of it, the summer solstice is the most un-celebrated day in the pagan/druidic calendar…

*facepalm*

And while we’re on the subject, I’m struggling to think of any major festivals on or around the autumn equinox…

*double facepalm*

Seriously, engage brain before posting. You’re giving the rest of us a bad name.

And for the record, religious people are rather logical. Without an elementary grasp of evolution and cosmology(big bang theory), a designer is an acceptable explanation. If the universe is designed, we can predict that things will be complex, that things will act as if they have a purpose, that things will therefor be predictable. Beyond that of course, there is little that the God hypothesis is useful for, but most people don’t need a more accurate theory. It’s kinda like the spherical earth compared to the slightly pear shaped earth; the earth may be pear shaped, but who cares?

The most interesting thing I saw on this post was the argument that we atheists choose not to place God with the self-evident truths: The existence of this world, the existence of other minds, the reality of the past, the accuracy of our senses.

Descartes’, “I think therefore I am” comes to mind. But if this alone were true, I would be able to control the universe in the same way I control my body. Because I cannot do this, I must assume that there is something other than me in existence. It then becomes a question of finding the most effective way to describe this other thing.

Many times have theists stated, “There is a god” (Some people would argue that’s why they’re called theists, but bear with me…). The response I as well as many of my non believing friends give is to question why these beliefs are true. Often this inspires a lively debate, but more often the theist’s response is some variation on, “You can’t prove there isn’t.” This argument neatly absolves the theist of any burden of proof, and yet claims are being made, so a burden of proof must exist.

The reason for this is simple and (in my opinion) very elegant. In any knowledge base, either a fact or its converse is true, never both, never neither. Therefore, untested hypotheses must have some default truth value of either true or false. If we automatically believe that all assertions are true, then contradictions arise when two affirmative claims are made which contradict each other.

If we are inside, and we are speaking of the sky, then we can say that the sky is blue, but we can just as easily say the sky is gray. Having no evidence in favor of one stance or the other, and assigning a default value of “true” to all affirmative claims, then we must believe that the sky is blue AND gray and the same time. All meteorology aside, this creates a contradiction. If, however, we refuse to accept either fact as true, then the burden of proof returns to the amateur weathermen trying to convince us what color the sky is, while we have no beliefs as to the color of the sky.

“There is a god” is an affirmative claim. Therefore, any being whose worldview is based upon the above logic, must ask for proof before accepting the truth of the claim, and say, “I do not believe there is a god.” Therefore, atheism, a lack of belief in a god, is, in fact, the default position that must necessarily be taken in this argument in order to maintain a consistent and predictive worldview.

I think you’ll find that there are no knock-down arguments in philosophy for *any* position, including atheism. So the theist can’t persuade you with arguments. So what? You can’t persuade her with arguments either. If that’s troubling for the theist, it’s troubling for you too.Do you think that, in the absence of compelling arguments either way, we ought to favor atheism? That is, do you think that atheism is the default position, and that the burden of proof is on the theist? If so, why do you think that?The burden of proof is NOT on skeptics of flying spaghetti monsters, cosmic teacups, fairies, etc.But the burden of proof IS on skeptics of other minds, the external world, the reality of the past, the uniformity of nature, etc.Do you think that atheism is in the former category, instead of the latter? If so, why?  

This is much the same feeling that I get reading the “new” atheists’ books. Not only do they offer you a series of fake gold chains, but worse, they’ll belittle anyone who doesn’t buy one.  

The difference is that their chains aren’t fake! They are solid gold, and they can prove it! It’s testable. It’s repeatable. It’s science. It’s REALITY!

Over 100 prophecies were given concerning intricate details about jesus; if they were written after his arrival we wouldn’t be counting down the days that passed from his death…

The 100+ prophecies you speak of were written in the old testament. The fulfillment of the prophecies were written in the new testament. The writers of the new testament were avid readers of the old testament, they studied it quite religiously. All of the gospels were written at least 40 years after jesus’ death. No writers of any gospel actually met jesus. Each story contradicts the others, while fulfilling the prophecies that they had read in the old testament. They simply wrote the stories around the prophecies. Also, just look through the gospels and see how many contradictions you can find.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/04/28/the-bible-quiz-show/

Sorry to say, complexity is usually an indication of intelligent design, if an apple laptop was on your doorstep and I said it simply evolved, you would think I was crazy… yet you’re willing to believe in a billion plus coincedenses that are required to explain away the existence of god…when you get video of a monkey transforming into a man, or any animal evolving so to speak… post it.Over 100 prophecies were given concerning intricate details about jesus; if they were written after his arrival we wouldn’t be counting down the days that passed from his death…All atheist believe in god, they just feel like they seem smart spewing this philosphy quoting clever remarks from the same people who will pray their eyes out if they get scared, sick, or feel like they need to take some precautions in case their witty little ideas prove wrong.were early pagans smart for believing in gods they made up looking at animals?, no… but if they settled on the answer that life simply assembled itself even on molecular levels… then we would have legitimate idiots to refer to. Water alone is more complex than any man made design… god should have put a serial number on it maybe then u would stop blaming existence on accidents…  

Wow congratulations you proved that non-biological parts can’t evolve. There is no video of a monkey evolving into a man because thats not how it works,it takes billions of years. I mean as much as I love pokemon thats not how evolution works.As for all atheists believe in god, I would love for you to prove to me that all atheists pray when they get sick or are about to die. However even if some atheists do indeed do that, many theists lose their faith after a tragedy so that argument is moot.
Also I’d also love to see these 100+ prophecies that describe intricate details of jesus. But as I’m quite sure they are very general prophecies that people devrive intricate details from much like they do with Nostradamus.

Sorry to say, complexity is usually an indication of intelligent design, if an apple laptop was on your doorstep and I said it simply evolved, you would think I was crazy…
[some deleted crap]…maybe then u would stop blaming existence on accidents…  

No one ever says anything “simply” evolved – all things evolve through natural selection INCLUDING APPLE LAPTOPS. John Von Neumann did not have a plan for iPads on his chalkboard when he described how to build computing machines. He did not launch the internet from a ballistic idea launcher in mid century.

The first cell did not have homo sapiens in mind [sic] when it made copies of itself. Evolution happens. You are repeating worn out arguements in a thread about worn out arguements. And you know it. Go ahead and evolve already.

But the burden of proof IS on skeptics of other minds, the external world, the reality of the past, the uniformity of nature, etc.

Do you think that atheism is in the former category, instead of the latter? If so, why?”

One could posit events that would be more likely if things in the former list were the case. As far as I know none of these events have come to pass. Similarly I can posit events that would be more likely if the statements in the second list were the case – and many of those events occur with a great frequently.

The existence of fairies would lead me to presume at least one person at least one time in history would have been able to show evidence of one. The lack of any such evidence whatsoever is strong enough an indication not to waste my time speculating about fairies.

The existence of other minds, an external world, and the reality of the past and the uniformity of nature would lead me to presume that I would be able to share an experience with another human being and reach consensus at a future date about what happened. This is often the case (unless so radical a trick has been played on me that all cognition is futile).

Atheism leads me to predict that I will not see intervention of a deity in my day to day life, and this has uniformly been the case.

“The invisible and the imaginary look very much alike.” – Delos B. McKown

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” – Gene Roddenberry

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts