Why aren't you atheists agnostic?

[VitalOne]

What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?

For those of you who say "Well I don't believe in Zeus, FSM, or [any other thing you make up to make yourself feel better and increase your faith in atheism]" this argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God, if someone is talking about whether or not the theory of relativity for instance was true and somone kept saying "Yeah well I don't believe in the geocentric theory, or the aether or any other completely unrelated theory that people don't believe in now" it wouldn't make any logical sense, it would just be a clever way of avoiding the actual argument (which is the theory of relativity)

For those of you who are saying "well it just doesn't seem true, it sounds like a fantasy, fictional, like something made up" thats also irrational, an argument from personal incredulity or "well it just doesn't sound true, so it must be false"

For those of you who say "The existence of God is unlikely" this is false since there's no way of measuring the likelihood of the existence of God, since its unverifiable, and an absence of evidence when there should not be evidence present doesn't indicate unlikelihood, its like someone saying "There wasn't any shred of evidence that quarks existed in the 1930s, so that meant it was unlikely that quarks existed, even though the existence of quarks was unverifiable during that time period and an absence of evidence when evidence should not be present doesn't indicate unlikelihood"

So what prevents you from saying the existence of God is unknown or unverifiable? Is it because that statement in itself makes it seem as if God could possibly exist?

[spidergoat]

God should be able to contact you.

[shaman_]

What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"
Main Entry: dis·be·lieve
Pronunciation: \-ˈlēv\
Function: verb
Date: circa 1644
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief


If you don't believe then you disbelieve.
:shrug:

[iceaura]

What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable" We are often agnostic toward possible and plausible Gods.

Yours isn't one of them. Too much nonsense and special pleading, to many contradictions and circular justifications, plus it's supernatural.

[spidergoat]

I think, on a basic level, the universe is completely out of control. Nothing I've seen contradicts that.

[wsionynw]

I think it was Richard Dawkins that said we're all intellectual agnostics. I'm an atheist in so far as I don't believe in an intelligent creator of all things. Do I know there isn't a God? No of course I don't, no more than VitalOne knows there is a God.

[Sarkus]

Why aren't you atheists agnostic

I am, thanks.


What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"I didn't.

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic?I am.

Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?I haven't. I have no belief that god exists (I am an atheist) primarily because of my agnosticism.


VO - you need to accept that agnostic atheists abound on this forum.
Lumping all atheists, as you do, into the "I believe God does not exist" category is disingenuous (feel free to look that word up) to the rest of us, and also why your posts/threads are attacked the way they are... 'cos you just don't seem to learn.

[VitalOne]

Why aren't you atheists agnostic

I am, thanks.


I didn't.

I am.

I haven't. I have no belief that god exists (I am an atheist) primarily because of my agnosticism.


VO - you need to accept that agnostic atheists abound on this forum.
Lumping all atheists, as you do, into the "I believe God does not exist" category is disingenuous (feel free to look that word up) to the rest of us, and also why your posts/threads are attacked the way they are... 'cos you just don't seem to learn.

There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist, though atheists might try to trick you into believing so (atheists love deceiving people to believe their propaganda) , you can't both "not believe in God" and "believe God is unverifiable" at the same time, its contradictory, if you believe God is unverifiable then you don't know if God exists or not, and if you don't believe in God then you think God doesn't exist...

[superluminal]

What made you decide... blah, blah, blah.
I skimmed your rant and it's the same cloned rant you always post, and no less stupid.

You've already figured out all of the responses we atheists might come up with and decided that we're idiots.

No point of discussion. Thread closed.

http://sciforums.com/images/statusicon/thread_lock.gif

[VitalOne]

Why? Why are threads like "Why do theists value hope more than truth?" allowed? Or "theists are self delusional"

[(Q)]

What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?

Since YOU'VE already claimed through biblical myth that NO ONE can see a god, what would make you even assert gods existed?

The same logic can be applied to Zeus or the FSM - in other words, I've never seen them but I know they exist.

So, how do YOU know gods exist?

[snake river rufus]

I realized the bible was too contradictory to possibly be true at about age 12 but remained an agnostic. By age 19 I was sure that there was no god. Nothing that have experience in the 39 years since has changed my mind.
Your argument
"Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?"
rings hollow. The irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion is yours.
The idea that a person should believe "just in case" of anything supernatural is the illogical posistion. The example that I would use is
I believe UFOs from other planets land here and abduct humans. Since that has not been proved wrong, it might be right.

Now could you make your argument holding this posistion using logic? Of course not. Believing in anything supernatural is the very definition of illogical thinking.

[superluminal]

Why? Why are threads like "Why do theists value hope more than truth?" allowed? Or "theists are self delusional"
Because they don't irritate me nearly as much.

[superluminal]

What he fails to understand, and does so in a manner consistent with left temporal lobe lesions, is that the vast majority of atheists take the stance that the word implies. a-theist. Withouth theism. Without religion. (I don't care what other etymology you care to come up with).

He posits his straw man arguments, then takes our straightforward answers to his questions and says, and I quote, "No, you're a fool".

Now watch. He'll say something like:

"Ha! Foolish atheists. Just what I predicted you would say. Fools."

Did I cover it VO? Are we finished here?

Good.

[VitalOne]

Since YOU'VE already claimed through biblical myth that NO ONE can see a god, what would make you even assert gods existed?

The same logic can be applied to Zeus or the FSM - in other words, I've never seen them but I know they exist.

So, how do YOU know gods exist?
Thanks for dodging away from the actual argument :rolleyes:, this is your trademark

The thread isn't about "how do theists know God exists", once you again you've managed to escape addressing the argument, which is why can't you atheists say the existence of God is unknown since its unverifiable?

I realized the bible was too contradictory to possibly be true at about age 12 but remained an agnostic. By age 19 I was sure that there was no god. Nothing that have experience in the 39 years since has changed my mind.
Thanks for the re-confirmation, it has nothing to do with evidence, just personal incredulity, you don't think its possible that God can exist, so you say God doesn't exist, and you've made up your mind to never believe in God, no amount of evidence can convince you or most other atheists otherwise


Your argument
"Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?"
rings hollow. The irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion is yours.
The idea that a person should believe "just in case" of anything supernatural is the illogical posistion. The example that I would use is
I believe UFOs from other planets land here and abduct humans. Since that has not been proved wrong, it might be right.

Now could you make your argument holding this posistion using logic? Of course not. Believing in anything supernatural is the very definition of illogical thinking.
Once again, a typical atheistic tactic, instead of addressing the actual argument (the existence of God) you make up some other idea and say "well see I don't believe in this, so I don't believe in God either", in something known as reality (atheists hate reality) the existence or non-existence of whatever UFO thing you just pointed out has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God...why can't atheists argue without being irrational

Its would be like me saying "I don't believe in the geocentric theory, that was at theory believed to be true long ago, so X theory must also be false"...it doesn't make any rational, logical sense

[(Q)]

Thanks for dodging away from the actual argument :rolleyes:, this is your trademark

The thread isn't about "how do theists know God exists", once you again you've managed to escape addressing the argument, which is why can't you atheists say the existence of God is unknown since its unverifiable?

Simple. It is verifiable. Show us your god. That would verify his existence.

Of course, you can't. Hence, why the hell should anyone take you seriously?

[superluminal]

this is your trademark
I wonder what VO's trademark is?

There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist...

though atheists might try to trick you into believing so (atheists love deceiving people to believe their propaganda)...

why can't you atheists say...

Thanks for the re-confirmation...

no amount of evidence can convince you or most other atheists otherwise...

Once again, a typical atheistic tactic...

in something known as reality (atheists hate reality)...

...why can't atheists argue without being irrational...

Can someone lock this thread and give this troll a warning?

[VitalOne]

Simple. It is verifiable. Show us your god. That would verify his existence.

No its not, give me an example of what can be CONSIDERED evidence that can't be considered a "god of the gaps"...saying "show me your God" isn't an example, ofcourse this might be difficult for you to understand, what do you mean by "show me your god"?

Of course, you can't. Hence, why the hell should anyone take you seriously?
Well why do you atheists take abiogenesis seriously then even though there's little to no evidence for it? I know why, its because abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with God or religion, so its easier for you to believe

You atheists should just admit that you don't really care about the truth, as long as something has no correlation to religion and sounds kind of true and agrees with naturalism you'll blindly support it and believe it

[superluminal]

VO:


Well why do you atheists take abiogenesis seriously then even though there's little to no evidence for it?

You atheists should just admit that you don't really care about the truth...

you'll blindly support it and believe it...

[(Q)]

No its not, give me an example of what can be CONSIDERED evidence that can't be considered a "god of the gaps"...saying "show me your God" isn't an example, ofcourse this might be difficult for you to understand, what do you mean by "show me your god"?

Simple, show me your god. What's so hard to understand?

Well why do you atheists take abiogenesis seriously then even though there's little to no evidence for it? I know why, its because abiogenesis doesn't have anything to do with God or religion, so its easier for you to believe

Why should science have anything to do with cult fantasies? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. What makes you think I do?

You atheists should just admit that you don't really care about the truth, as long as something has no correlation to religion and sounds kind of true and agrees with naturalism you'll blindly support it and believe it

True, I don't care about YOUR alleged truth. That is your own personal fantasy that NO ONE else shares.

[VitalOne]

Simple, show me your god. What's so hard to understand?



Why should science have anything to do with cult fantasies? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. What makes you think I do?



True, I don't care about YOUR alleged truth. That is your own personal fantasy that NO ONE else shares.
ROFL

Man atheists are so funny, "I say its a fantasy, case closed...it seems like a fantasy doesn't it? That's good enough to convince my thick atheistic skull, so no need to investigate further"

So you just admitted that atheists ONLY require evidence for religious claims, scientific claims, "man I don't need no f***in evidence, religion is man made, we know this could've happened, and that's all thats important"

Atheists are such hypocrites, they'd go at ANY length to preserve the atheistic faith, thats all they have is 100% faith, nothing more neccessary

[superluminal]

ROFL

Man atheists are so funny, "I say its a fantasy, case closed...it seems like a fantasy doesn't it? That's good enough to convince my thick atheistic skull, so no need to investigate further"

So you just admitted that atheists ONLY require evidence for religious claims, scientific claims, "man I don't need no f***in evidence, religion is man made, we know this could've happened, and that's all thats important"

Atheists are such hypocrites, they'd go at ANY length to preserve the atheistic faith, thats all they have is 100% faith, nothing more neccessary
What kind of a fucking response is that?

If this troll were to be banned, I wouldn't be suprised. Not that I'm suggesting such a thing, but if a banning were to happen, I certainly wouldn't be suprised.

[snake river rufus]

Thanks for dodging away from the actual argument :rolleyes:, this is your trademark

The thread isn't about "how do theists know God exists", once you again you've managed to escape addressing the argument, which is why can't you atheists say the existence of God is unknown since its unverifiable?


Thanks for the re-confirmation, it has nothing to do with evidence, just personal incredulity, you don't think its possible that God can exist, so you say God doesn't exist, and you've made up your mind to never believe in God, no amount of evidence can convince you or most other atheists otherwise


Once again, a typical atheistic tactic, instead of addressing the actual argument (the existence of God) you make up some other idea and say "well see I don't believe in this, so I don't believe in God either", in something known as reality (atheists hate reality) the existence or non-existence of whatever UFO thing you just pointed out has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God...why can't atheists argue without being irrational

Its would be like me saying "I don't believe in the geocentric theory, that was at theory believed to be true long ago, so X theory must also be false"...it doesn't make any rational, logical sense

Not at all, a theory can be proved or dis-proved. Your god idea, by your own words, cannot be. If you believe in anything supernatural with out any single piece of evidence then it is you who are acting irrationally. Would you care to show me just one iota of evidence for your god?
To be honest, since I've lived among creationist for so many years, I've come to realize that xians do not truly know what the word "rational" or "logical" mean.:shrug:

[VitalOne]

What kind of a fucking response is that?

If this troll were to be banned, I wouldn't be suprised. Not that I'm suggesting such a thing, but if a banning were to happen, I certainly wouldn't be suprised.
In other words you're upset because its true and can't address the substance of the argument...

Come on tell me why:
- Atheists have no problem believing energy was causeless and always existed, but God being causeless and always existing, "what it just can't be"
- Atheists have no problem accepting abiogenesis without evidence "well we know it could've possibly happened" but God without evidence "What we absolutely NEED evidence, but we can NEVER EVER give you an example of what can be considered evidence that can't be a "god of the gaps"
- Atheists take ANY explanation for the anthropic principle over an Intelligent Creator, including the many-worlds interpretation, even though there's no evidence for the MWI, all of a sudden "man I don't need nio f**kin evidence, we know it could be true, and that's good enough for me, case closed"

Not at all, a theory can be proved or dis-proved. Your god idea, by your own words, cannot be. If you believe in anything supernatural with out any single piece of evidence then it is you who are acting irrationally. Would you care to show me just one iota of evidence for your god?
To be honest, since I've lived among creationist for so many years, I've come to realize that xians do not truly know what the word "rational" or "logical" mean.:shrug:
ROFL, ah this is so funny, you sound like you actually believe this...well let's wake you up to reality:

- If you DISBELIEVE or BELIEVE in something unverifiable without evidence, then its irrational
- Theists BELIEVE God exists (when the existence of God is unverifiable) so its irrational
- Atheists DISBELIEVE the existence of God (even though its unverifiable), so its irrational
- If the existence of something is unverifiable it means there's no way of knowing whether its true or false...

[S.A.M.]

What kind of a fucking response is that?

If this troll were to be banned, I wouldn't be suprised. Not that I'm suggesting such a thing, but if a banning were to happen, I certainly wouldn't be suprised.

You could just close your eyes, plug your ears and go lalalalallala

OTOH, there is an ignore button.

[(Q)]

- If the existence of something is unverifiable it means there's no way of knowing whether its true or false...

Which means one can engage their imaginations to conjure anything at all, from Flying Spaghetti Monsters to Celestial Teapots, and forever remain unaccountable for their beliefs.

[VitalOne]

You could just close your eyes, plug your ears and go lalalalallala

OTOH, there is an ignore button.

Yeah suggest that atheists just ignore and run away from their problems, you see atheists can't legitimately argue using logic so their only choice is to run away and go home and pretend like it never happened, just ignore the whole situation

[VitalOne]

Which means one can engage their imaginations to conjure anything at all, from Flying Spaghetti Monsters to Celestial Teapots, and forever remain unaccountable for their beliefs.

Again dodging away from the actual argument, instead of talking about how God can't exist, you make up other things completely unrelated to the exixstence of God then say "Well you see I don't believe in X [completley unrelated to the existence of God], so I don't believe in God either, even though the existence of X has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God and doesn't show how the existence of God is unlikely"

So let's wake you up from that imaginary delusional world: Saying "I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster" doesn't show how the existence of God is unlikely, it doesn't show anything in regards to the existence or non-existence of God

[Orleander]

I want to believe there is something more than this. I want to believe my essence as a human being will go on after this life. I WANT TO!
But I can't believe something just because I want to. I refuse to lie to myself like that just to make myself feel better.
I'm an atheist because that's who I am.

[VitalOne]

I want to believe there is something more than this. I want to believe my essence as a human being will go on after this life. I WANT TO!
But I can't believe something just because I want to. I refuse to lie to myself like that just to make myself feel better.
I'm an atheist because that's who I am.

You don't have to lie to yourself, why can't you just say its unknown whether or not it's true or false since its unverifiable? Why you have you choosen to favro the atheistic faith-based belief system?

[Orleander]

You don't have to lie to yourself, why can't you just say its unknown whether or not it's true or false since its unverifiable? Why you have you choosen to favro the atheistic faith-based belief system?

??? Because it is black/white for me. yes or no. Not maybe. Its no.

[VitalOne]

??? Because it is black/white for me. yes or no. Not maybe. Its no.

So what made you decide no? Is it just because of what you said "Man it just doesn't seem like God exists" (argument from personal incredulity), thats 100% irrational, illogical, and unreasonable....your argument reduces to "it just doesn't feel like God exists"

You still haven't answered why you have chosen the irrational, illogical, unreasonable logic...

[snake river rufus]

posted by vo
Come on tell me why:
- Atheists have no problem believing energy was causeless and always existed, but God being causeless and always existing, "what it just can't be"
- Atheists have no problem accepting abiogenesis without evidence "well we know it could've possibly happened" but God without evidence "What we absolutely NEED evidence, but we can NEVER EVER give you an example of what can be considered evidence that can't be a "god of the gaps"
- Atheists take ANY explanation for the anthropic principle over an Intelligent Creator, including the many-worlds interpretation, even though there's no evidence for the MWI, all of a sudden "man I don't need nio f**kin evidence, we know it could be true, and that's good enough for me, case closed"
1) We don't believe that energy was causeless but your god idea needs tangible proof, as has been explained to you over and over. You see we have tangible proof of energy.
2) We have some evidence pointing towards abiogenesis- evidence for god Zero. You might consider evidence suggesting that god might exist, evidence not involving the supernatural:rolleyes:
3)Educated people, atheist or not, alwys look to the natural,
only when that has been ruled out may we move to the supernatural-god

[Orleander]

...You still haven't answered why you have chosen the irrational, illogical, unreasonable logic...

because to me its rational, logical, and reasonable. 'maybe' doesn't make sense to me. 'maybe' is wishful thinking. Its either yes or no, not maybe.

[snake river rufus]

posted by vo
ROFL, ah this is so funny, you sound like you actually believe this...well let's wake you up to reality:

- If you DISBELIEVE or BELIEVE in something unverifiable without evidence, then its irrational
- Theists BELIEVE God exists (when the existence of God is unverifiable) so its irrational
- Atheists DISBELIEVE the existence of God (even though its unverifiable), so its irrational
- If the existence of something is unverifiable it means there's no way of knowing whether its true or false...
1) Untrue, it is always irrational to believe in the supernatural. It is wise to be skeptical in the natural world.
2)Yes, because god is supernatural, and again, it's never logical to believe in the supernatural:rolleyes: supernatural needs evidence and lots of it.
3) Finally, you got one right. Unless your god is of this world.;)

[VitalOne]

posted by vo
Come on tell me why:
- Atheists have no problem believing energy was causeless and always existed, but God being causeless and always existing, "what it just can't be"
- Atheists have no problem accepting abiogenesis without evidence "well we know it could've possibly happened" but God without evidence "What we absolutely NEED evidence, but we can NEVER EVER give you an example of what can be considered evidence that can't be a "god of the gaps"
- Atheists take ANY explanation for the anthropic principle over an Intelligent Creator, including the many-worlds interpretation, even though there's no evidence for the MWI, all of a sudden "man I don't need nio f**kin evidence, we know it could be true, and that's good enough for me, case closed"
1) We don't believe that energy was causeless but your god idea needs tangible proof, as has been explained to you over and over. You see we have tangible proof of energy.
2) We have some evidence pointing towards abiogenesis- evidence for god Zero. You might consider evidence suggesting that god might exist, evidence not involving the supernatural:rolleyes:
3)Educated people, atheist or not, alwys look to the natural,
only when that has been ruled out may we move to the supernatural-god
1) Yes, many of you do, and you have no problem with it
2) NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD, its unverifiable, how many million times do I have to say this?

There isn't zero evidence for God, there's massive amounts, for instance there's evidence for design, fine-tuning, etc...but atheists will say "this isn't evidence" any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps", so I ask atheists "can you give me an example of what can be considered evidence of God that cannot be considred a 'god of the gaps'", atheists are speechless, get upset and angered and say "religion is man-made, I don't have to give an example, but if you had some type of hypothetical evidence that God exists of which I can never ever possibly name, then I would believe you"

3) Yeah, naturalism is unfalsifiable, just like any other faith-based belief system, you always say "nature-did-it" and use a "nature of gaps" in all conditions, again why the f*** do you ask for evidence of a supernatural God but deny and reject any evidence provided? Why not just say "You see I'm an atheist, and I just don't want to believe in God regardless of anything, case closed"

because to me its rational, logical, and reasonable. 'maybe' doesn't make sense to me. 'maybe' is wishful thinking. Its either yes or no, not maybe.
Ok, so the answer is "it's seems rational to me", thanks for answering question unlike other atheists

According to your answer your rationale is just the same as theists, they think its rational, so they believe it, so using your answer both atheism and theism require faith

[snake river rufus]

Yeah suggest that atheists just ignore and run away from their problems, you see atheists can't legitimately argue using logic so their only choice is to run away and go home and pretend like it never happened, just ignore the whole situation

NO, but atheists do grow weary of your continued penchant to push ignorance and superstition. As to logic, you seem to have no concept of what the word means. Hint; When you apply logic, the first rule is to rule out all natural causes. Only then may you look to the supernatural.:rolleyes:
Your posistion how ever is that if man doesn't know all the answers-it must be god. That is a textbook example of illogical thinking. You just don't seem to get it.:bawl:

[VitalOne]

NO, but atheists do grow weary of your continued penchant to push ignorance and superstition. As to logic, you seem to have no concept of what the word means. Hint; When you apply logic, the first rule is to rule out all natural causes. Only then may you look to the supernatural.:rolleyes:
Your posistion how ever is that if man doesn't know all the answers-it must be god. That is a textbook example of illogical thinking. You just don't seem to get it.:bawl:
Woah...ROFL you just reconfirmed what I said, instead of using logic argue "you just don't know what you're talking about because I say so, you don't know, I'm telling you, case closed"

Uhm...logic has nothing to do with natural causes ROFL..."natural causes" is science...science BY DEFINITION can ONLY have natural explanations which is why its hilarious to hear atheists say "there's no scientific evidence of the supernatural" when by DEFAULT there cannot be, if a scientist finds evidence of the supernatural, they are forced to explain it away in some naturalistic way, even if it doesn't work

[scorpius]

What made you decide "I don't believe God exists" as opposed to "I neither believe nor disbelieve the existence of God since the existence of God is unverifiable"

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?

For those of you who say "Well I don't believe in Zeus, FSM, or [any other thing you make up to make yourself feel better and increase your faith in atheism]" this argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God, if someone is talking about whether or not the theory of relativity for instance was true and somone kept saying "Yeah well I don't believe in the geocentric theory, or the aether or any other completely unrelated theory that people don't believe in now" it wouldn't make any logical sense, it would just be a clever way of avoiding the actual argument (which is the theory of relativity)

For those of you who are saying "well it just doesn't seem true, it sounds like a fantasy, fictional, like something made up" thats also irrational, an argument from personal incredulity or "well it just doesn't sound true, so it must be false"

For those of you who say "The existence of God is unlikely" this is false since there's no way of measuring the likelihood of the existence of God, since its unverifiable, and an absence of evidence when there should not be evidence present doesn't indicate unlikelihood, its like someone saying "There wasn't any shred of evidence that quarks existed in the 1930s, so that meant it was unlikely that quarks existed, even though the existence of quarks was unverifiable during that time period and an absence of evidence when evidence should not be present doesn't indicate unlikelihood"

So what prevents you from saying the existence of God is unknown or unverifiable? Is it because that statement in itself makes it seem as if God could possibly exist?

WHICH god dont YOU believe in..and WHY?

www.godchecker.com

[snake river rufus]

1) 2) NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD, its unverifiable, how many million times do I have to say this?

-
If there cannot be evidence of god, how can there be god? The fact that there is no evidence of god is evidence of no god. But just to help you along in your delusions. Could you cite just one example of anything that cannot have a natural explaination? How about a documented example of a person regrowing a severed limb? Since you know that to be impossible, I expect that to be the reason that xians never pray for regrown limbs. If it could be done the studies on the healing power of prayer might have some meaning :rolleyes:

[VitalOne]

WHICH god dont YOU believe in..and WHY?
www.godchecker.com

Again dodging the question, ROFL, let me awaken yet another delusional atheist to reality...

Saying "Well I don't believe in [name other God entity etc..completely unrelated to God]" doesn't show how the existence of God is unlikely, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God...

For instance if I you were talking about the theory of relativity, and someone tried to falsify it by saying "Which theory don't you believe in [list of theories believed to be true in the past]" it wouldn't make sense...now would it? Why wouldn't it make sense? Because listing other theories that turned out to be false doesn't show anything how the theory of relativity itself is false, it doesn't address the actual substance of the argument, its illogical, non-sequitur...

[snake river rufus]

Woah...ROFL you just reconfirmed what I said, instead of using logic argue "you just don't know what you're talking about because I say so, you don't know, I'm telling you, case closed"

Uhm...logic has nothing to do with natural causes ROFL..."natural causes" is science...science BY DEFINITION can ONLY have natural explanations which is why its hilarious to hear atheists say "there's no scientific evidence of the supernatural" when by DEFAULT there cannot be, if a scientist finds evidence of the supernatural, they are forced to explain it away in some naturalistic way, even if it doesn't work

I see the problem. your reading comprehension skills are sub-par:confused:. Try reading the post again, slowly.

[snake river rufus]

Again dodging the question, ROFL, let me awaken yet another delusional atheist to reality...
...

Mental check- reality can be proven. Yet you keep ranting on that your 'god' cannot be.:rolleyes: Who's living in fantasy?

[VitalOne]

If there cannot be evidence of god, how can there be god? The fact that there is no evidence of god is evidence of no god. But just to help you along in your delusions.

ROFL, another illogical argument, you're using an argument from ignorance....

Let me ask you this question: "Can something exist yet be unverifiable at the present time?"

The answer is YES, before it was verifiable whether or not quarks existed, they stilll existed, though it was not measurable, not verifiable, and there was no shred of evidence they existed...


Could you cite just one example of anything that cannot have a natural explaination?
Sure, demonstrating that something cannot possibly arise naturally, like a computer, it cannot arise naturally, it has an intelligent cause

Ofcourse you helped my own argument, which is that naturalism is unfalsifiable, just like any other faith-based belief system


How about a documented example of a person regrowing a severed limb? Since you know that to be impossible, I expect that to be the reason that xians never pray for regrown limbs.
Regrowing limbs have nothing to do with the existence of God, I believe its possible though, but even if it really happened atheists like you, Dawkins and others would say "this doesn't shwo that God or anything supernatural exists, anyone who says it's evidence of God is just using a 'god of the gaps' "

So you are still unable to provide an example that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps", thereby making your atheism unfalsifiable, and entirely faith-based


If it could be done the studies on the healing power of prayer might have some meaning :rolleyes:
Many studies have shown prayer does heal, but many others have shown it to have no effectiveness, the results of the studies are mixed and inconclusive...the placebo effect is a great example of the power of faith, people believed they're healed, and they become so, just as Jesus says "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]" (Mark 11:24)

[snake river rufus]

posted by vo
For instance if I you were talking about the theory of relativity, and someone tried to falsify it by saying "Which theory don't you believe in[list of theories believed to be true in the past]" it wouldn't make sense...now would it? Why wouldn't it make sense?
Your god is not a theory, it's a fantasy. And we don't dis-believe in god solely because every other religion has been wrong. But that does tell us to be wary of belief.
It wouldn't make sense because you aren't making sense.

[VitalOne]

Mental check- reality can be proven. Yet you keep ranting on that your 'god' cannot be.:rolleyes: Who's living in fantasy?
Wtf? Another illogical statement, "man I just you're living in fantasy because you believe in God and God sounds like a fantasy, case closed"

Man atheists are so funny, the funniest part is they really believe they're being logical and reasonable..ahaha so funny, its hilarious

[VitalOne]

posted by vo
For instance if I you were talking about the theory of relativity, and someone tried to falsify it by saying "Which theory don't you believe in[list of theories believed to be true in the past]" it wouldn't make sense...now would it? Why wouldn't it make sense?
Your god is not a theory, it's a fantasy. And we don't dis-believe in god solely because every other religion has been wrong. But that does tell us to be wary of belief.
It wouldn't make sense because you aren't making sense.

ROFL...great typical atheistic tactic

"Your god is a fantasy because I say and think so, case closed, end of story"

[draqon]

I believe that God does not exist. There.

[snake river rufus]

posted by
ROFL, another illogical argument, you're using an argument from ignorance....

Let me ask you this question: "Can something exist yet be unverifiable at the present time?"

The ignorance is your own.
Yes, now when do you plan to verify your god? Or at least provide the ground work for others?

[snake river rufus]

ROFL...great typical atheistic tactic

"Your god is a fantasy because I say and think so, case closed, end of story"

No, your god is a fantasy, not because I say so, but because you remain unable to provide evidence for a fantastic belief system.

[snake river rufus]

I believe that God does not exist. There.

OK, I'm going to church tomorrow.:D

[VitalOne]

posted by
ROFL, another illogical argument, you're using an argument from ignorance....

Let me ask you this question: "Can something exist yet be unverifiable at the present time?"

The ignorance is your own.
Yes, now when do you plan to verify your god? Or at least provide the ground work for others?

ROFL "Yeah I agree I'm being illogical, but you can't prove God exists even though there's no way to prove God exists since its unverifiable, so you can't prove it by default"

Man atheists are so funny, I wonder when they will give up and just admit that atheism is the same as any other faitb-based belief system

[VitalOne]

No, your god is a fantasy, not because I say so, but because you remain unable to provide evidence for a fantastic belief system.

OMFG, for the last f***in time THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, YOU CAN'T SAY AN UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM IS FALSE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE SINCE BY DEFAULT AN UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM HAS NO EVIDENCE SINCE ITS UNVERIFIABLE

Its so funny man, atheists will go at any length to preserve the atheistic faith, even though when they've been completely beaten, they've lost the argument, they've failed, all they can do is ignore me and pretend they're still rational

[snake river rufus]

OMFG, for the last f***in time THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, YOU CAN'T SAY AN UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM IS FALSE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE SINCE BY DEFAULT AN UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM HAS NO EVIDENCE SINCE ITS UNVERIFIABLE

Its so funny man, atheists will go at any length to preserve the atheistic faith, even though when they've been completely beaten, they've lost the argument, they've failed, all they can do is ignore me and pretend they're still rational

If it is unprovable and supernatural it is always logical to dis-believe in it.

[VitalOne]

If it is unprovable and supernatural it is always logical to dis-believe in it.

No it isn't, this isn't logical at all...again with your tactic "I say its not logical case closed, no need to show how it's illogical, it kind of sounds illogical doesn't it? Case closed"

[original]

Posted by VitalOne
...
2) NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD, its unverifiable, how many million times do I have to say this?

There isn't zero evidence for God, there's massive amounts, for instance there's evidence for design, fine-tuning, etc...

Contradiction.

Assuming your first statement is true I would think it appropriate to say evidence of god(s) does not exist.

Otherwise, assuming your second statement is true, the task falls to the claimant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god(s) exist.

Massive amounts of evidence for God, you say, evident in design, fine-tuning... of what?
The cells in your body? Hairs on your head? Grass on the earth? Stars in the universe?

Please elaborate or restate.

[snake river rufus]

posted by
Many studies have shown prayer does heal, but many others have shown it to have no effectiveness, the results of the studies are mixed and inconclusive...the placebo effect is a great example of the power of faith, people believed they're healed, and they become so, just as Jesus says "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive [them], and ye shall have [them]" (Mark 11:24)
You were asked before to cite any such study, what is the hold up?:confused:
The placebo effect is an example of faith in modern medicine not god. And the placebo effect is an excellent example of mis-placed faith.
Don't quote your bible, I picked it apart well before I was your age. Too many contridictions for it to possibly be true.

[snake river rufus]

No it isn't, this isn't logical at all...again with your tactic "I say its not logical case closed, no need to show how it's illogical, it kind of sounds illogical doesn't it? Case closed"

Several of us have explained in great detail what, exactly, logic is. By any accepted definitition the supernatural and un-provable things fall outside of "logic". you really need to take a course or two in critical thinking. You have yet to show any.

[VitalOne]

Contradiction.

Assuming your first statement is true I would think it appropriate to say evidence of god(s) does not exist.

Otherwise, assuming your second statement is true, the task falls to the claimant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god(s) exist.

Massive amounts of evidence for God, you say, evident in design, fine-tuning... of what?
The cells in your body? Hairs on your head? Grass on the earth? Stars in the universe?

Please elaborate or restate.

There's no contradiction, atheists should learn to read instead of cherry-picking

Read carefully I said there's evidence just no evidence atheists would accept they say "this isn't evidence" and any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps"

The evidence for example is the anthropic principle, which shows that everything in the universe is specifically fine-tuned for intelligent life. all of the constants, forces, etc...are fine-tuned for it, for instance if you change gravity by 0.1% there's no more intelligent life, if reality was something causeless and meaningless like atheists say nothing should be so fine-tuned, it shouldn't matter if you changed something by 0.1%...

[VitalOne]

Several of us have explained in great detail what, exactly, logic is. By any accepted definitition the supernatural and un-provable things fall outside of "logic". you really need to take a course or two in critical thinking. You have yet to show any.

ROFL...let me clarify you can't say something illogical "just because I so by definition its supernatural so its outside of logic" something supernatural isn't outside of logic, its outside of nature, outside of the system, its has nothing to do with logic and isn't illogical by defaeult...rather YOUR assumption illogical, its an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE

None of you have clarified this, man the atheists are getting desperate now...so desperate because they've lost the debate, they should give up and just admit that their atheism is 100% irrational and that it does take faith to be an atheist

[snake river rufus]

There's no contradiction, atheists should learn to read instead of cherry-picking

Read carefully I said there's evidence just no evidence atheists would accept they say "this isn't evidence" and any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps"

The evidence for example is the anthropic principle, which shows that everything in the universe is specifically fine-tuned for intelligent life. all of the constants, forces, etc...are fine-tuned for it, for instance if you change gravity by 0.1% there's no more intelligent life, if reality was something causeless and meaningless like atheists say nothing should be so fine-tuned, it shouldn't matter if you changed something by 0.1%...

You're making even less sense than usual. The anthropic principle (A.P.) shows evidence for a successful big bang. nothing more. You see design because you want to see it, not because it's there.

[snake river rufus]

Vitalone, please respond in full and intelligently to post #42 before you do anything else.
If you can't then I'll have no choice but to consider you a troll.

[VitalOne]

You're making even less sense than usual. The anthropic principle (A.P.) shows evidence for a successful big bang. nothing more. You see design because you want to see it, not because it's there.
Well it may be evidence for the big bang, but its also evidence for an intelligent creator, just about all the evidence that you can possibly gather that an intelligent creator exists is there

No, I see design because its there, and physicists agree that its there, you DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD JUST ADMIT IT OTHERWISE YOU COULD EASILY GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A GOD OF THE GAPS

Atheists are so irrational, come on bring it on man give me an actual challenge, this is so easy

[original]

From what I read of your statement it appeared to be a contradiction, but with your recent explanation it seems to be a broad generalization of atheists and a fairly pointless statement. So am I correct in thinking that you believe there is evidence everywhere of the existence of god(s)? You used the anthropic principle as an example to demonstrate how life on Earth could not exist as we know it, a statement I agree with, because we are a product of our environment. But can you explain how or why natural laws prove the existence of god(s)?

[snake river rufus]

I've asked you to respond to a post. If you are unable to do so fine. welcome to ignore

[VitalOne]

I've asked you to respond to a post. If you are unable to do so fine. welcome to ignore

Vitalone, please respond in full and intelligently to post #42 before you do anything else.
If you can't then I'll have no choice but to consider you a troll.

There's nothing to respond to, there's no argument there just an insult, where as I have insults + arguments combined into one, you just have insults

But I'll respond anyway, clearly I can read I'm the one that uses actual logic you on the other hand "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're just wrong, I don't have to explain why "I say disbelieving in something supernatural is logical just because I think so"

From what I read of your statement it appeared to be a contradiction, but with your recent explanation it seems to be a broad generalization of atheists and a fairly pointless statement. So am I correct in thinking that you believe there is evidence everywhere of the existence of god(s)? You used the anthropic principle as an example to demonstrate how life on Earth could not exist as we know it, a statement I agree with, because we are a product of our environment. But can you explain how or why natural laws prove the existence of god(s)?
Its not a broad generalization, its a TRUE GENERALIZATION, otherwise JUST GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THAT CAN'T BE A "GOD OF THE GAPS", if you can't give an example, then you agree with my statement that ALL evidence of God is a "god of the gaps" to atheists

I never said it absolutely proves God exists, but it is evidence for an intelligent Creator, a God-like figure, see you're an atheist, so due to your immense bias you say "man this isn't evidence, thats just the way things are", but in reality (I know atheists hate reality and prefer delusion) it is evidence, the chance that its a coincidence is so remote, everything shouldn't be so perfectly fine-tuned for intelligent life to exist, where in changing ANYTHING to very very slight extent would cause no more intelligent life

Now to escape this conclusion atheists will favor the many-worlds interpretation, but there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, what's this? All of a sudden atheists no longer need evidence to believe in something like they falsely claim, they'll believe anything as long as it favors naturalism and is against theism

You also re-confirmed what I said, any evidence of God is not considered eivdence to atheists, they can't accept any evidence, yet they ask for evidence, deny evidence, then say "see there's no evidence, but I can NEVER EVER tell you what can be considered evidence that can't be considered a "god of the gaps"

I'm going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over

[original]

I hardly call this a debate.

I asked you for evidence, and in turn you ask me? That doesn't make sense.

Then you go on to make numerable assumptions, up to and including "it's over".

[shaman_]

I'm going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over

:roflmao:



troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.