The best arguments for strong atheism

ADParker · **#1621** by **ADParker** » Feb 05, 2012 11:36 am

Jireh wrote:And what makes you exclude a deity categorically ? why are you so sure God is not a reasonable response ? specially, when considering the extreme finetuning of the universe, our solar system, the information stored in DNA, consciousness, morality etc ?

You are confusing reason with apologetics.

ADParker · **#1622** by **ADParker** » Feb 05, 2012 11:38 am

Jireh wrote:Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Not yet, no. There are hypotheses however, ones produced on scientific levels of reasoning based on what we do know.

The problem with your preferred answer "Magic Man Dun It" is that it is neither scientific nor philosophical, but pre-rational story telling.

Agrippina · **#1623** by **Agrippina** » Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Jireh wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
The naturalistic explanations you seek are well documented in scientific journals and books. I suggest visiting your local library or university campus if you wish to see evidence of this.

Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Answer this question, why do you and other theists accept science when you want medical attention, computers, cars, telephones, television, and all the other luxuries of modern living. If you believe that your holy book is right and that you should live according to your holy book, why not go all the way, get a home-woven tent, from wool you've shaved off your own sheep, dye the fabric, make a tent and go to live in the desert with nothing but the food you can find in the desert to eat. Give up everything that science has given you and then think about what you left behind because you believed in bullshit written by people who lived that way centuries ago. Why is it that modern people believe the the rubbish that's written in ancient books, except the rules of how to live in the way of the people of the ancient book?

LucidFlight · **#1624** by **LucidFlight** » Feb 05, 2012 11:48 am

Jireh wrote:
hoopy frood wrote:The best arguments for strong atheism are twofold:

1/ The absolute lack of evidence for any supernatural entity to be required to explain all of cosmic and biological evolution.

.

so please explain it then naturalistically in a convincing manner.

Jireh wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
The naturalistic explanations you seek are well documented in scientific journals and books. I suggest visiting your local library or university campus if you wish to see evidence of this.

Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Your original request was for a naturalistic explanation of cosmic and biological evolution. Perhaps your definition of cosmic includes that which lies beyond the natural universe? If so, what is your reason to believe a supernatural cosmic region exists?

Spearthrower · **#1625** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 11:50 am

Jireh wrote:
hoopy frood wrote:
Where is it you need to suppose supernatural entities to explain cosmic or biological evolution?

I guess you have no answer, otherwise you would not answer with a counter question. If you do have no answer, you have no case.

Chairman Bill wrote:Which boils down to not knowing. Which is a crime in Christo-land, because when we don't know something, the only truly honest thing to do is say that Goddidit. Clearly science is arrogant in thinking it can know these things, whereas Christians, and their ilk, show themselves to be truly humble as they assert that they know the answer to everything - God. Er ...

Well predicted.

And the sorry state of tedious affairs is the Jireh is overjoyed at the limitations of human knowledge because he's still got somewhere to fob his god off into.

Of course, how he *knows* this to be true from an ancient book of myth, while science, the modern methodology that has pushed the frontiers of human knowledge galaxies past anything that bronze age pastoralists even dreamed of, clearly spells out the intellectual bankruptcy of the religious position. Ignorance becomes knowledge in the screed of religionists.

Spearthrower · **#1626** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 11:52 am

Jireh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Fatuous response, and in line with much of your posting history. Still can't grasp that 'I don't know' is a better answer than making shit up. .

Please explain why deduce God is " making shit up ".

Because it's not deduction. You had the conclusion for millenia. You certainly aren't alighting on it from the results of scientific inquiry.

Spearthrower · **#1627** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 11:55 am

Jireh wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:

It is to us at this moment a mystery but it has nothing to do with a deity.

And what makes you exclude a deity categorically ? why are you so sure God is not a reasonable response ? specially, when considering the extreme finetuning of the universe, our solar system, the information stored in DNA, consciousness, morality etc ?

There's bugger all fine tuning in the universe of the type you believe in without having a clue (and now the solar system :doh:

)- the fact that you keep touting this ludicrously nonsensical claim after it's been repeatedly obliterated shows one very good reason to reject the god claim - because the proponents of it know fuck all about the universe.

Likewise with the information canard - you've had an education proferred to you for free here, and you adamantly refuse to learn. That's what the god claim is - the pretense that you've got an answer when actually you know fuck all.

Consciousness: brains
Morality: social organisms

Repeating tired old canards just means you have a tired old argument. It's all one long argument from incredulity - I don't know how X occurs, therefore God. Bankrupt.

Spearthrower · **#1628** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 11:57 am

Jireh wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
The naturalistic explanations you seek are well documented in scientific journals and books. I suggest visiting your local library or university campus if you wish to see evidence of this.

Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Umm and how do you purport that philosophy can do this? Just because science restricts itself to things it can repeatedly show works, doesn't lend philosophy any higher claim when it's just evolved ape thinking.

Spearthrower · **#1629** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 11:58 am

Agrippina wrote:What's wrong jireh? Afraid that learning something that isn't taught in your particular book of mythology might cause you to doubt the truth of the book of mythology?

Quite: I've said it before with Jireh - he just has a paucity of faith.

LucidFlight · **#1630** by **LucidFlight** » Feb 05, 2012 12:11 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Jireh wrote:Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Umm and how do you purport that philosophy can do this? Just because science restricts itself to things it can repeatedly show works, doesn't lend philosophy any higher claim when it's just evolved ape thinking.

Well, you see, in philosophy, one can talk about transcendence, ontology, fundamental nature, absolute reality, and metaphysics. :smile:

Scot Dutchy · **#1631** by **Scot Dutchy** » Feb 05, 2012 12:37 pm

Jireh wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:

It is to us at this moment a mystery but it has nothing to do with a deity.

And what makes you exclude a deity categorically ? why are you so sure God is not a reasonable response ? specially, when considering the extreme finetuning of the universe, our solar system, the information stored in DNA, consciousness, morality etc ?

Where is your evidence? You have no proof of its existance.

We at present with our knowledge are unable at this moment of time what happened before the big bang. It does not mean there is a sky-fairy or any other fairy or deity just because our lack of knowledge. That is so fucking stupid. It just remains a hole in our knowledge which in the course of time will be filled.

rainbow · **#1632** by **rainbow** » Feb 05, 2012 12:53 pm

ADParker wrote:
Jireh wrote:Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Not yet, no. There are hypotheses however, ones produced on scientific levels of reasoning based on what we do know.

...so the argument for strong atheism that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything doesn't hold water.
OK.

The problem with your preferred answer "Magic Man Dun It" is that it is neither scientific nor philosophical, but pre-rational story telling.

The argument: not X, therefore Y - is actually a very weak argument.
Got anything better?

hackenslash · **#1633** by **hackenslash** » Feb 05, 2012 1:00 pm

Jireh wrote:
rainbow wrote:
The Universe existed forever, but there was nothing.

If time was created at the Big Bang, the universe could not have existed " forever ". And nothing is equal to non-existence.

Again, on what basis do you conclude that time began at the big bang? You've already been repeatedly and comprehensively sachooled on this point, so why do you keep repeating this idiocy as if it constituted some sort of wisdom?

hackenslash · **#1634** by **hackenslash** » Feb 05, 2012 1:01 pm

Jireh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Fatuous response, and in line with much of your posting history. Still can't grasp that 'I don't know' is a better answer than making shit up. .

Please explain why deduce God is " making shit up ".

On what basis is god 'deduced'?

hackenslash · **#1635** by **hackenslash** » Feb 05, 2012 1:03 pm

Jireh wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
The naturalistic explanations you seek are well documented in scientific journals and books. I suggest visiting your local library or university campus if you wish to see evidence of this.

Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Philosophy can't explain it either; nobody can. More importantly, there is no logical basis to suppose that there even is a 'beyond'. Finally, science has explained a good deal without reference to magical entities and, if ever an explanation is forthcoming regarding those things for which we currently have no explanation, it will come from paying attention to reality, not from burying one's nose ina book of fabricated bollocks.

Nebogipfel · **#1636** by **Nebogipfel** » Feb 05, 2012 1:42 pm

Jireh wrote:
hoopy frood wrote:The best arguments for strong atheism are twofold:

1/ The absolute lack of evidence for any supernatural entity to be required to explain all of cosmic and biological evolution.

.

so please explain it then naturalistically in a convincing manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_ ... lar_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

Fair enough, perhaps that's not quite all of cosmic and biological evolution. But it's certainly quite a lot of it that happened without the intervention of any kind of supernatural agency.

chairman bill · **#1637** by **chairman bill** » Feb 05, 2012 2:16 pm

Jireh wrote:
rainbow wrote:
The Universe existed forever, but there was nothing.

If time was created at the Big Bang, the universe could not have existed " forever ". And nothing is equal to non-existence.

If you could manage to apply a modicum of intellect to the concept, you might come up with a possible solution all by yourself. Here's one off the top of my head ...

What if, the cosmos is eternal, but goes through a process of either contracting & then expanding, over & over again, or as it expands, it gives birth to new bubble universes, of which ours is but one of many? 'Time' would ahve been created for our iteration of the cosmos, or for our 'bubble' universe, but it wouldn't mean there was nothing before it.

As for 'nothing' - I've mentioned before, that whilst zero means nothing, it's still more than minus 100. Which makes it something. An interesting conundrum. If 'nothing' was a matter of a zero-rated energy state, in which positives & negatives perpetually cancelled each other out, there would actually be 'nothing', containing within it the potential for everything. And no God needed.

Spearthrower · **#1638** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 05, 2012 2:16 pm

rainbow wrote:
ADParker wrote:
Jireh wrote:Science cannot explain what is beyond our natural universe. The real of these questions is philosophic.

Not yet, no. There are hypotheses however, ones produced on scientific levels of reasoning based on what we do know.

...so the argument for strong atheism that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything doesn't hold water.
OK.

Only when you, as is so frequently the case with your turgid wibble, go out of your way to formulate it in such a manner.

rainbow wrote:
The problem with your preferred answer "Magic Man Dun It" is that it is neither scientific nor philosophical, but pre-rational story telling.

The argument: not X, therefore Y - is actually a very weak argument.
Got anything better?

Well done, you just busted the god hypothesis.

Jireh · **#1639** by **Jireh** » Feb 05, 2012 3:33 pm

ADParker wrote:
Jireh wrote:Please explain why deduce God is " making shit up ".

Because there is no deducing going on, only "making shit up."
Of course it isn't really making shit up, but resorting to accepting the stories ("shit" or "fairy tales) that others before you have made up with no good reason for doing so.

and you simply ignore all reasons, theists have presented for their case, and why it is rational to believe in God. Chance, or physical necessity, ( its irrelevant if you like this fact, or not ), have been shown clearly to be a unreasonable alternative to a intelligent designer . So the escape " we don't know yet " is not justifiable.

Jireh · **#1640** by **Jireh** » Feb 05, 2012 3:35 pm

Agrippina wrote:What's wrong jireh? Afraid that learning something that isn't taught in your particular book of mythology might cause you to doubt the truth of the book of mythology?

I have only learned so far, how weak the case for strong atheism actually is. That only stregthens my position. It has helped me actually a great deal to believe stronger than ever before in God. I do not hold a blind and uneducated belief, but a belief based on strong theological, philosophical, and scientific reasons. You have actually good reasons to doubt strongly about your strong atheism, it has no solid foundation at all.

The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Re: The best arguments for strong atheism

Who is online