Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[BienvenuJDC]

The burden of proof is on the theists!

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: you don't need logical certainty to justify disbelief. A dozen times I've mentioned that there's no logical argument against unicorns, centaurs, ect. Varenne stated that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Its true. Give me some evidence. Not just an argument but some hard evidence of God's existence. You'd think an all-powerful being would leave some trace, some foot-print. In the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe. Without a logical argument I may not be able to uphold the impossibility of God, but I can sure maintain His unlikelihood.

I disagree. There is but one problem that science does not reasonably answer. Since it is proven that matter is not eternal, therefore it must have a beginning. Matter cannot be created or destroyed by natural means. Then something Supernatural must of created matter at the point that it was created. This seems fairly simple. Those in the scientific community try to explain this by using incomprehensible jargon and so-called logic that would take more faith to believe than if one would just choose to believe in a Supernatural Creator in the first place.

[Varenne Rodin]

I didn't see this before my last post. Now I better understand your position. So, you don't have arguments against God, and you don't think you need any. OK.

I'll offer something else, though it seems rather redundant to do so. God cannot be observed. It cannot be tested. It cannot be replicated. I will not put faith into something that does not exist in this reality. Does that mean no gods exist? No. Do I believe in something unseen? No. If someone creates a fantasy, that fantasy does not automatically become fact.

Go ahead and critique.

[BienvenuJDC]

God cannot be observed. It cannot be tested. It cannot be replicated.

This is also true with evolution.

Do I believe in something unseen?

I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.

[Darcy88]

This is also true with evolution.



I bet that you believe in many things that no one has seen.

Evolution can most certainly be observed Bien. The amount of data corroborating evolution is staggering.

[BienvenuJDC]

Evolution can most certainly be observed Bien. The amount of data corroborating evolution is staggering.

Sorry, I believe that claim as much as you believe the claim that there is evidence that supports the Bible and its claims. Those who believe in evolution often spout that claim of evidence, but never produces anything concrete.

[Darcy88]

Sorry, I believe that claim as much as you believe the claim that there is evidence that supports the Bible and its claims. Those who believe in evolution often spout that claim of evidence, but never produces anything concrete.

In the last thread in which this subject arose JuniperWoolf laid out much of the evidence for evolution. I'll post links if you want. Its all out there for anyone who wants it though. At this point denying evolution is almost akin to denying genetics or Newtonian physics.

[BienvenuJDC]

In the last thread in which this subject arose JuniperWoolf laid out much of the evidence for evolution. I'll post links if you want. Its all out there for anyone who wants it though. At this point denying evolution is almost akin to denying genetics or Newtonian physics.

And like denying the evidence out there that shows that other cultures had witnessed dinosaurs?

[Darcy88]

And like denying the evidence out there that shows that other cultures had witnessed dinosaurs?

What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?

[Varenne Rodin]

I guess we should try to ask the question, is it impossible for there to be a supernatural entity that is able to create beyond the natural laws. If there is one who chooses not to believe that there is a God, but would at least concede that there may be a possibility of such an entity, it could easily be accepted. However, most of the atheists at this site choose to disbelieve AND demand that anyone who would believe MUST be an idiot for such unreasonable considerations.

I don't see how it could easily be acceptable with infinite other possibilities to consider. Those infinite other possibilities make your singular possibility highly improbable. It is acceptable that you believe in your singular unsubstantiated idea. It is not acceptable to attempt to force that idea as fact in everyone's reality. It is not acceptable to teach the fantasy in schools or enact laws that revolve around its supposed rules.

I don't presume to know whether you are an idiot. You do believe in highly improbable ideas and you seem to seek a feeling of validation through the opinions and acceptance of peers. That's the downside and the upside to fantasy. On the upside, you can have whatever fantasy you wish. On the downside, if you take your fantasy public that public might not embrace it. It is an error to try to force others to accept a fantasy position as universal reality.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't see how it could easily be acceptable with infinite other possibilities to consider. Those infinite other possibilities make your singular possibility highly improbable. It is acceptable that you believe in your singular unsubstantiated idea. It is not acceptable to attempt to force that idea as fact in everyone's reality. It is not acceptable to teach the fantasy in schools or enact laws that revolve around its supposed rules.

I don't presume to know whether you are an idiot. You do believe in highly improbable ideas and you seem to seek a feeling of validation through the opinions and acceptance of peers. That's the downside and the upside to fantasy. On the upside, you can have whatever fantasy you wish. On the downside, if you take your fantasy public that public might not embrace it. It is an error to try to force others to accept a fantasy position as universal reality.

God is not unsubstantiated. There are not an infinite amount of other possibilities, in fact, the one other possibility is unsubstantiated. I don't try to force my belief, but it is a fact that the fantasy of evolution in forced into the school system. I wish that it wasn't. We should really just leave the unsubstantiated philosophies out of science class. Let's just teach what we know and leave the unknown subjectivity of origins out of school altogether.

[BienvenuJDC]

What evidence would that be? Those fabricated stones which also show pictures of ancient astronauts?

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

[Darcy88]

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.

[billl]

Again, you seem to be missing the point of an ad absurdum. It leads to an absurdity. And absurdities do not exist. The idea of rocks and trees being atheists is absurd. But it follows from the antecedent. It's "silly" in that sense, in the sense that the antecedent premise is silly. But that's the whole point. That's what the argument is supposed to show.

Again, you seem to be thinking that you have some explaining to do about how logic, argument, and debate work. We'll do this one more time. As I mentioned, it is not that the reductio had no right to be absurd. However, if your formulation is beside the point and silly, and based on arbitrarily altered premises, it is merely bobbing and weaving (to put it charitably) for you to claim that that silliness is due to it being a reductio ad absurdum.

Moreover, I still see it as relevant. Since both Calidore and Varenne, if not others, have suggested that atheism is merely a lack of belief. But it's obviously stronger than that. Change rocks and trees to dogs and cats if you want. Since dogs and cats have beliefs. The argument still holds.

The moreover is unnecessary, since this is what is being objected to. You are (and this is sophistry in its purest form) asserting that people tieing atheism to lack of belief (merely a lack of belief in god, and not a belief in the non-existence of god) have left an opening for the inclusion of rocks and dogs into their camp. As OrphanPip pointed out earlier, this would be banal at best. It certainly wouldn't undermine the particular shorthand definition's validity (a definition introduced in its shorthand by you) as a stance that people might take. They would still be people who have no beliefs in god(s)--whether you tie their position on the issue to rocks or dogs or whatever.

Like you, though, I think that it would fairly be considered absurd to call a rock an atheist. But the problem (the absurdity) is that you have, for no useful reason, decided to suddenly omit personhood from your re-definition. Now we have a bunch of nonsense where you seem to think you need to explain what agents are, and perhaps want to bring, along with people, cats and E.T. entities into the discussion or something? Just so you can do some "explaining" now?

Because, try as you might, a person can fairly describe themself as having no belief in god(s) without any absurd consequences. The position that cats and rocks might be taking on the issue (or failing to take) is beside the point, and your jokey thought-experiment simply created a sideshow. Do you see how it is inappropriate to defend it by explaining over and over again things you have learned by studying logic?

Perhaps it would help you get the bigger picture here if I told you that there has been no need to clear up what a reductio ad absurdum is for me--perhaps you are stuck on that possibility. I am looking at the application of your argument. I'm not going to dig out my old transcripts for this, but I have had at least 15 hours of study of logic/symbolic logic, including two courses at the graduate level (one in a U.S. Top 10 Computer Science Department and one in the same school's Philosophy Department, and yes the grades were quite good).

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think you realize that thousands of men and women have devoted their lives to studying the natural world and that the theory of evolution best explains all that they've observed. When you call the theory fantasy you are essentially saying that you know better than all of them.

Just because there is a belief among the masses doesn't make it true. I bet that you would have joined with the flat earth and the geocentric people if you lived in that time....yeah, you seem the type.

[Varenne Rodin]

Now you are just making things up to discredit something that you don't want to believe in. There are more than just stones. There are pictographs, descriptions, and more. However, you believe in less that support evolution because that is what you want to believe in.

Supposed eye witness accounts mean very little.

I witnessed Jesus Christ in a department store yesterday. He was a red haired man with freckles wearing a purple pimp suit and hat. I can even draw a picture of him. He told me we should all go live in the ocean and only eat pomegranates that grow on the fjords of Norway, the chosen land of blessed food. We should follow his teachings, right? You believe me, right? Not believing me would mean that you are insensitive and insulting to my beliefs. Not getting in the ocean immediately is like calling me an idiot, right?

Individual eye witness accounts without physical evidence mean absolutely nothing. A drawing is not usable evidence.