Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#281 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:09 PM

Okay, heres my basic understanding of Atheism.

View Post

Okay

There are two claims regarding the existance of a God. One, is "God exists", the other is "God does not exist". They are mutually exclusive, if we ignore the "Sometimes he exists sometimes he doesnt".

View Post

Actually, there are many more claims than that. But for the sake of the context in this OP;

The theist says – There is a God

The Atheist says – there is NO God (or gods)

And in the case you are attempting to make, the agnostic says "I don't know".

A belief necessarily addresses one claim. You can believe, or disbelieve the claim of "God does exist", and the same goes for "God does not exist". And each claim has to be substantiated by evidence in order to be valid.

View Post


Close enough to work with.

But this is where it gets tough. What if BOTH claims have insufficient evidence to support them? Then we are ineligable to accept EITHER claim as a belief. And this is basically my stance. Therefore, i dont see why ALL atheists MUST necessarily accept the belief of "There is no God".

View Post


It’s not tough at all, but you are missing the entire point: Atheism doesn’t have any evidence to support its own claims. And that is what the OP is about.
But to be more succinct concerning your attempt at the argument: your posit fails the “Law of Non-Contradiction” and as it applies to the “Law of the Excluded Middle”. You are attempting the bait and switch of conversion by definition again. And you are claiming to be an atheist, while taking an agnostic stance.

There is either God, or No God, because either He IS, or He IS NOT. For God cannot both “Be” and “Not Be”at the same time in the same sense. Nor can He “Not Be” and “Be” at the same time in the same sense.

The “Law of Non-Contradiction” is expressed by the propositional formula ¬(p^¬p). Here I will break the sentence down make it easier to understand. p^¬p means that p is both true and false, which or course is a “Contradiction”. So, negating this statement means that there can be no contradictions. In other words, the law of non-contradiction shows us that a statement Cannot be both true and false at the same time. This law is relatively uncontroversial (except to relativists. And this does lead us directly into the “Law of the Excluded Middle”.

The “Law of the Excluded Middle” is expressed by the propositional formula p_¬p. It means that a statement is either true or false. The “Law of the Excluded Middle” basically shows that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other. Hence, it’s called the “Law of the Excluded Middle”. Why, because it excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. So while the Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that no statement can be both true and false at the same time in the same sense, the Law of the Excluded Middle tells us that they must all be one or the other. So, we can get to this law by considering what it means for the Law of Non-Contradiction to be true. For the Law of Non-Contradiction to be true, ¬(p^¬p) must be true. This means p^¬p must be false.

Based on that, i wouldnt call my atheism to be based on faith.

View Post


Based on what you said, you didn’t prove anything. And, I’d suggest you go back to the OP, and read it again. Atheism is faith based, because it has absolutely NO evidences for its own foundations; let alone foundations of origins. Therefore, ALL statements other than the “here and now” by any atheist, is a “faith statement”.

Were inevitably going to get to this, so i might as well nip this in the bud right now. Agnosticism/Gnosticism, and Atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive, because Agnosticism/gnosticism has to do with knowledge, and Atheism/theism has to do with belief.

View Post


Incorrect; because agnosticism, by definition, deals only with the “lack” of knowledge. Therefore “Everything” agnosticism says about “Anything” within its “Agnosticism” is “Faith Based”. Hence, your premise is flawed.

Its why we have, for example, Agnostic Theists, who claim that they believe that God exists, but cannot claim to know for certain that he exists because they must be humble, or because they acknowledge that they may be wrong. And then, we have Gnostic theists like Kirk Cameron who would say that they know, for certain, that a God exists, because he has a personal relationship with him.

View Post


That is nothing more than “conversion by definition” (and an equivocation) once again, because it would be like me saying I am an (A)atheist because I don’t believe in atheism! AND, when we have a personal relationship, we DO KNOW!

#282 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:03 PM

Most atheists will tell you that their atheism is based on there being no evidence to support the existence of God. This point has been explained time and time again on this forum, and has consistently been misrepresented by theists.

Ron, what you're asking for is evidence that there no evidence. It doesn't make sense. If leprichauns don't exist, then show some evidence to demonstrate this. Otherwise, athei-leprichaunism is one big faith statement.

View Post

I thought that anti-leprichaunism was established as a faith statement. We have no proof of the non-existence of leprechauns.

Of course. But that doesn't make it reasonable to say that leprichauns might be real.

View Post

That is a good point.

#283 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 December 2010 - 01:19 PM

I am thinking perhaps, in addition to atheist and agnostic we should have apathetic as a choice.

Here are some definitions that my homeschooling group has found helpful.

Theist- intervening/personal god

Deist- god created the universe but does not intervene and lets it run its course according to natural laws

http://wiki.ironchar...st_vs._agnostic

If you scroll down there is a chart with this:

1. Agnostic atheist

    does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists

2. Gnostic atheist

    believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. Agnostic theist

    believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. Gnostic theist

    believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Note that case 1 describes weak atheism, but case 2, as stated, is actually stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge.

Clearly the distinction between belief and knowledge is an important one, and it is this distinction that is often misunderstood, or simply ignored, by self-identified "believers".



#284 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:05 PM

Most atheists will tell you that their atheism is based on there being no evidence to support the existence of God. This point has been explained time and time again on this forum, and has consistently been misrepresented by theists.
Ron, what you're asking for is evidence that there no evidence. It doesn't make sense. If leprichauns don't exist, then show some evidence to demonstrate this. Otherwise, athei-leprichaunism is one big faith statement.

View Post

I thought that anti-leprichaunism was established as a faith statement. We have no proof of the non-existence of leprechauns.

View Post


Where Falcone errs here is that he’s attempting to analogize the persona of God, with that of leprechauns. This is unfortunate for a few reasons:

First: Unlike leprechauns, there is not only many-many lines of reasoning for God (Anthropic Argument, Teleological Argument, Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, The Euthyphro Dilemma , etc…) and irrefutable eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus. Not to mention the life, ministry, miracles, death of his apostles.

And, as for the leprechauns… Zilch!

Second: Falcone is doing nothing more than equivocating, wasting time and ignoring the many warnings given him for doing this previously. Not to mention his repeated violations to this OP.

Of course. But that doesn't make it reasonable to say that leprichauns might be real.

View Post

That is a good point.

View Post


Again, there is no good evidence, and therefore reason, to believe in leprechauns. And Falcone knew this before he attempted this fallacious argument. And he is doing this, for no other reason than to protect his dogmatic defense of atheism (for which there is absolutely no foundational evidence).

#285 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:31 AM

Okay, heres my basic understanding of Atheism.

There are two claims regarding the existance of a God. One, is "God exists", the other is "God does not exist". They are mutually exclusive, if we ignore the "Sometimes he exists sometimes he doesnt".

A belief necessarily addresses one claim. You can believe, or disbelieve the claim of "God does exist", and the same goes for "God does not exist". And each claim has to be substantiated by evidence in order to be valid.

But this is where it gets tough. What if BOTH claims have insufficient evidence to support them? Then we are ineligable to accept EITHER claim as a belief. And this is basically my stance. Therefore, i dont see why ALL atheists MUST necessarily accept the belief of "There is no God".

Based on that, i wouldnt call my atheism to be based on faith.
Were inevitably going to get to this, so i might as well nip this in the bud right now. Agnosticism/Gnosticism, and Atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive, because Agnosticism/gnosticism has to do with knowledge, and Atheism/theism has to do with belief. Its why we have, for example, Agnostic Theists, who claim that they believe that God exists, but cannot claim to know for certain that he exists because they must be humble, or because they acknowledge that they may be wrong. And then, we have Gnostic theists like Kirk Cameron who would say that they know, for certain, that a God exists, because he has a personal relationship with him.

View Post

Can I ask then, what do you do with revelation through history? That is that God has visited us in various ways and at various times. What do you do with current revelation? The church is growing in areas all around the world, despite persecution. In fact persecution seems to make the church grow more.

The reason is the Holy Spirit is being poured out in order to confirm the testimony of Christ, and people acknowledge it.

If God is going to communicate, He is going to communicate His way, not necessarily how we think He should.

#286 Tkubok

Tkubok

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 15 December 2010 - 06:58 AM

No, actually my questions were:

I thought that "What do you believe our origins are" was pretty much the same as "what are our Origins"? Could you possibly explain the difference?

Both atheism and agnosticism play into it. But, only because you claim atheism as your worldview but are giving an agnostic answer (i.e. lack of knowledge, which is the definition of agnosticism).
Now, as to the universe coming into existence via a “natural” means, please provide the empirical evidence for it, or simply admit it as a faith statement (keep in mind, the OP). Because, according to the OP, you are failing at your task whenever you utter words like “possibility” or “less likely” (etcetera…)-


I sorta kinda already explained why Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. But this stemmed from my confusion with regards to whether you were asking what our beliefs were, or what our "Knowledge" was. If you are asking what we "Know", then its hard to even claim that we know the universe even had an origin to begin with. But this also depends on what definition of knowledge you are using, so i assumed you meant belief. If my assumptions were wrong, i apologize.

Again, maybe this doesnt follow the OP, but i dont hold the view that the universe came into existance via natural means, so i suppose i cannot answer that.

And, you indeed made a claim:
to which I responded “I don’t know is an agnostic claim, not an atheistic claim”.


Oh, then i suppose ill change my answer to "I dont have a belief regarding the origins of the universe".


Yes, and that is the definition for agnosticism. And this OP is questioning “atheisms” foundations.
So, do you wish to make more faith statements about the universe?

View Post

i dont know how i can make "More" faith statements, as im not aware that i made any, that I accept, atleast. Granted, the thing i said about the possibilities would be a faith statement, but i dont accept that as my own belief.

But this is the part that i dont quite understand, regarding your original questions. You are asking atheists what they believe? Or what they claim to know? Both are potentially back-able by evidence.

#287 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 December 2010 - 07:10 AM

I thought that "What do you believe our origins are" was pretty much the same as "what are our Origins"? Could you possibly explain the difference?
I sorta kinda already explained why Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. But this stemmed from my confusion with regards to whether you were asking what our beliefs were, or what our "Knowledge" was. If you are asking what we "Know", then its hard to even claim that we know the universe even had an origin to begin with. But this also depends on what definition of knowledge you are using, so i assumed you meant belief. If my assumptions were wrong, i apologize.

Again, maybe this doesnt follow the OP, but i dont hold the view that the universe came into existance via natural means, so i suppose i cannot answer that.
Oh, then i suppose ill change my answer to "I dont have a belief regarding the origins of the universe".
i dont know how i can make "More" faith statements, as im not aware that i made any, that I accept, atleast. Granted, the thing i said about the possibilities would be a faith statement, but i dont accept that as my own belief.

But this is the part that i dont quite understand, regarding your original questions. You are asking atheists what they believe? Or what they claim to know? Both are potentially back-able by evidence.

View Post


I think I remember asking you idf you read the OP. I could go back and check...

If you go bace and read the OP, you'll soon realize that I at no time asked for "Faith Statements", but rahter asked for "Facts". Because when you opine on what you "believe" you are merely making "faith" statements. regardles of how you flip the verbiage. Therefore "What do you believe our origins are" is absolutley nothing like "what are our Origins"?

If you do finally go back and read the OP, you'll soon realize the difference between stating facts, and equivocations.

#288 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 December 2010 - 12:31 PM

Most atheists will tell you that their atheism is based on there being no evidence to support the existence of God. This point has been explained time and time again on this forum, and has consistently been misrepresented by theists.
Ron, what you're asking for is evidence that there no evidence. It doesn't make sense. If leprichauns don't exist, then show some evidence to demonstrate this. Otherwise, athei-leprichaunism is one big faith statement.

View Post

I thought that anti-leprichaunism was established as a faith statement. We have no proof of the non-existence of leprechauns.

View Post


Where Falcone errs here is that he’s attempting to analogize the persona of God, with that of leprechauns. This is unfortunate for a few reasons:

First: Unlike leprechauns, there is not only many-many lines of reasoning for God (Anthropic Argument, Teleological Argument, Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, The Euthyphro Dilemma , etc…) and irrefutable eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection of Jesus. Not to mention the life, ministry, miracles, death of his apostles.

And, as for the leprechauns… Zilch!

Second: Falcone is doing nothing more than equivocating, wasting time and ignoring the many warnings given him for doing this previously. Not to mention his repeated violations to this OP.

Of course. But that doesn't make it reasonable to say that leprichauns might be real.

View Post

That is a good point.

View Post


Again, there is no good evidence, and therefore reason, to believe in leprechauns. And Falcone knew this before he attempted this fallacious argument. And he is doing this, for no other reason than to protect his dogmatic defense of atheism (for which there is absolutely no foundational evidence).

View Post

Thank you for doing a good job of pointing out the difference for everyone Ron.

#289 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2010 - 09:26 PM

Would you say a miracle is evidence of God?  When I say miracle--I don't mean the "miracle" of birth, or  a statue of Mother Mary (which is an idol--no offense Catholics) crying.  I mean a scripturally patterned miracle.  Namely, instantaeous healing, total disappearance of cancer, a cripple walking, or blinded eyes seeing. 

What about signs?  These could be signs of the times, or personal signs--things that happen to someone that greatly impress them they are being led by God.

Answers to prayer.  Some of these can be explained as coincidence.  Others are very persuasive.  My sister is a Christian, and likes to sing publicly.  She is kind of popular in local country and gospel circles in Illinois.   One time, we had gone to watch her, and I was with a pastor who believed in the power of prayer.  My sister was to sing outside "People Need the Lord."  We were excited that this would be an oppurtunity of "seed sowing," as not everone there (it was like a small town fair) was a believer.  Just minutes before she was to come on stage, there was this huge front of very dark clouds that just came up--straight toward us.  It was obvious that we were going to have to seek shelter.  The pastor, myself, and a group of friends decided to pray that this front would go arouund us, so that my sister could sing this gospel song to unbelievers. 

I am not kidding--this huge front actually took a perpendicular path, went a little off to the side and continued in the direction it had been going.  Now, if this were the only thing I had ever seen in response to prayer, one could say it was coincidence.   But I have served the Lord for 28 years.  I have seen some really amazing answers to prayer---not just mine--more often other people.  That's why we are to testify.

Jesus said, All things are possible to those who believe.  The difference between true faith and a superstition is that faith has power.  It produces things.  I have seen people's cancer disappear after corporate (church group) prayer.  WHen they to the doctor, there is NO sign of cancer--not remission--it was there and now the doctor is just befungled--it's gone.

When I was in Africa, people die alot, because there is alot of infectious disease, and most people can't afford medicine or vaccines.   When you say you are sick, you are saying I might die.

We (the congregation) would pray in agreement for the sick in people's famillies who were not even at church, a sick relative of someone in the congregation.  They would come back the next week and say they got well.  It happened a number of times.  As I said, we are not talking colds--more like yellow fever, malaria, rheumatic fever, hepatitus, cholera, and dysentary.  These are things you don't get over without medicine.  Most of these people wer poor--that's why they asked for prayer.

View Post


The problem with miracles is they're largely anecdotal. For example, in Africa you were hearing from people about their families regarding diseases that, with the exception of malaria, are rarely fatal.

Of course. But that doesn't make it reasonable to say that leprichauns might be real.

View Post


Yeah, but we define a leprechaun is an little man dressed in green, who lives on Earth, and keeps a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. We've never seen one and based on that definition it's reasonable to say leprechauns don't exist.

That logic can't be applied to God.

#290 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 05:03 AM

The problem with miracles is they're largely anecdotal.  For example, in Africa you were hearing from people about their families regarding diseases that, with the exception of malaria, are rarely fatal.

View Post


I suppose one could attempt to apply that to the New Testament as well. Unfortunately, it doesn’t apply as hearsay, (unreliable, sketchy, or anecdotal etc…) if the sources are trustworthy (as in the New Testament sources), or you witnessed them yourself.

Having witnessed miracles myself, I can personally say that there is absolutely nothing “largely anecdotal” about them at all. But, then again, one may attempt to say that my testimony is unreliable, (sketchy, untrustworthy, undependable, or anecdotal etc…) but they would be wrong.

Yeah, but we define a leprechaun is an little man dressed in green, who lives on Earth, and keeps a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.  We've never seen one and based on that definition it's reasonable to say leprechauns don't exist. 

View Post


Which is why arguments like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Orbiting Tea Pot, Venusian spotted Geese (etc…) are so easily debunked as logically fallacious.

That logic can't be applied to God.

View Post


All true

#291 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:14 PM

I am not an atheist but will offer a materialist perspective.

From where did we come (what are our Origins)?


We came from the same source as all the other matter in our solar system: a gravitationally-collapsed nebula. Stars forming in a nebula and even proto-planets have both been observed. If you look up on a cloudless night there is an 8% chance that any given star is a stellar sibling of our own Sun (from the same nebula).

What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


Empiricism and scepticism.

#292 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 December 2010 - 12:48 PM

I am not an atheist but will offer a materialist perspective.
We came from the same source as all the other matter in our solar system: a gravitationally-collapsed nebula.  Stars forming in a nebula and even proto-planets have both been observed.  If you look up on a cloudless night there is an 8% chance that any given star is a stellar sibling of our own Sun (from the same nebula).
Empiricism and scepticism.

View Post


To avoid equivocation, you may want to read the OP prior to posting.

#293 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 17 December 2010 - 12:19 PM

To avoid equivocation, you may want to read the OP prior to posting.

View Post


Where and how have I equivocated? I have given direct answers to the questions in your OP to which you have not responded.

#294 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 December 2010 - 03:00 PM

Where and how have I equivocated?  I have given direct answers to the questions in your OP to which you have not responded.

View Post


In post # 291, did you adhere to the below OP stipulations?

I have a few questions for the atheists. But before I ask, I will make the following stipulations for the discussion within this thread, to keep the fluff out of this thread:

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!
2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).
3- If you don’t know, simply say “I don’t know”! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) “there is no God”; because you said “I don’t know”. This includes making statements like (for example) “there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God” because; you said “I don’t know”. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
4- If you are going to make a “Negative” assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.
7- If you post links to other people’s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).

View Post


Here's a hint... No, you didn't....

#295 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:41 AM

Okay so your asking where did we come from and where do we go
(i would also like to not that one could answer "i don't know" to these questions and still logically remain a atheist.)

To your first question "where did we come from"
Now theres a couple of ways you can interpret that question. Now i'm going to assume you don't mean how are physical bodies grow or where humanity as a species comes from (a topic we could discuss but i get the feeling its not what your trying to address here)

"where did the universe come from"
Personally i believe the "big bang" theory around gives a pretty good picture. Its of course not observed directly or recreated but circumstantial evidence does support it. Its a work in progress though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"where did life come from"
Don't know. There are some theories but there's a problem with lack of evidence and lack of results when attempting to recreate it.
(how ever this does not mean i can't say "there is no god" but i think we'd be going off topic there)

"where did we as human beings come from"
Well so far our brains have been been shown to similar to circuit boards. Opening and closing connections allowing signals through. With things like hormones changing certain functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain


as for "where do we go"
Simple answer, no where. You broke down. Our body and brains are biological machines and computers when we lose certain components or structure we cease to function. Its like when a computer of car breaks down. You don't ask "where did they go". there right there there just broken


I know wiki isn't the best source but it gives a comprehensive summary

As for "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?"
thats simple. Something needs to be proven to be believed and will believed until disproven. Depending how complete the model of proof is your certainty of belief in it may vary.

#296 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 06:08 AM

Okay so your asking where did we come from and where do we go
(i would also like to not that one could answer "i don't know" to these questions and still logically remain a atheist.)

To your first question "where did we come  from"
Now theres a couple of ways you can interpret that question. Now i'm going to assume you don't mean how are physical bodies grow or where humanity as a species comes from (a topic we could discuss but i get the feeling its not what your trying to address here)

"where did the universe come from"
Personally i believe the "big bang" theory around gives a pretty good picture. Its of course not observed directly or recreated but circumstantial evidence does support it.  Its a work in progress though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"where did life come from"
Don't know. There are some theories but there's a problem with lack of evidence and lack of results when attempting to recreate it.
(how ever this does not mean i can't say "there is no god" but i think we'd be going off topic there)

"where did we as human beings come from"
Well so far our brains have been been shown to similar to circuit boards. Opening and closing connections allowing signals through. With things like hormones changing certain functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
as for "where do we go"
Simple answer, no where. You broke down. Our body and brains are biological machines and computers when we lose certain components or structure we cease to function. Its like when a computer of car breaks down. You don't ask "where did they go". there right there there just broken
I know wiki isn't the best source but it gives a comprehensive summary

As for "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?"
thats simple. Something needs to be proven to be believed and will believed until disproven. Depending how complete the model of proof is your certainty of belief in it may vary.

View Post


I hate to keep saying this in this thread, but:
Did you not read the OP????

#297 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 06:16 AM

I hate to keep saying this in this thread, but:
Did you not read the OP????

View Post

I did, and i thought i was following it.

I would like to save us all some trouble and not do it again or perhaps correct any mistakes i made. could you tell me which of your 7 points i did wrong and in what part of my answer?

#298 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:04 PM

Okay so your asking where did we come from and where do we go
(i would also like to not that one could answer "i don't know" to these questions and still logically remain a atheist.)

View Post


NO, as I said, had you read the OP, you’d realize that I said I wanted “facts”, not mere suppositions, or “a priori” opinion.

To your first question "where did we come  from"
Now theres a couple of ways you can interpret that question. Now i'm going to assume you don't mean how are physical bodies grow or where humanity as a species comes from (a topic we could discuss but i get the feeling its not what your trying to address here)

View Post


Again, I asked for facts, not “faith statements”. Therefore, again, you either didn’t read the OP, or you are purposefully attempting to evade the questions. READ THE OP!!! and don’t’ equivocate.

"where did the universe come from"
Personally i believe the "big bang" theory around gives a pretty good picture. Its of course not observed directly or recreated but circumstantial evidence does support it.  Its a work in progress though.

View Post

The big bang model doesn’t address where we (or the universe came from), at best, it theorizes about the vehicle that “may have gotten us here. The only empirical evidence it provides is that the universe had a beginning! And everything else is deduced from that.
Therefore, once again, you are making faith statements, not providing facts!

"where did life come from"
Don't know. There are some theories but there's a problem with lack of evidence and lack of results when attempting to recreate it.
(how ever this does not mean i can't say "there is no god" but i think we'd be going off topic there)

View Post


When you said you “didn’t know” where life came from, that was the only meaningful thing you utterd in the above post.

"where did we as human beings come from"

View Post

Yes…

Well so far our brains have been been shown to similar to circuit boards. Opening and closing connections allowing signals through. With things like hormones changing certain functions.

View Post

Well, this is another equivocation, because it doesn’t apply to this OP. But you did raise a good point. Circuit Boards are a product of design. But this isn’t the OP for that discussion.

#299 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2010 - 01:05 PM

as for "where do we go"
Simple answer, no where. You broke down. Our body and brains are biological machines and computers when we lose certain components or structure we cease to function. Its like when a computer of car breaks down. You don't ask "where did they go". there right there there just broken

View Post

Again, the above is merely a faith laden dialogue. And, therefore an equivocation.
Further, your analogy fails on many fronts, and is therefore a bad analogy (i.e. is NOT analogous). For example:
When a computer or a car breaks down, we fix or replace them.
Neither computers nor cars are self sustaining, or self cognizant.
Both computers and cars are products of design.

As for "What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?"

View Post


Yes, but remember, you need to provides facts!

thats simple. Something needs to be proven to be believed and will believed until disproven. Depending how complete the model of proof is your certainty of belief in it may vary.

View Post


Hmmm, I guess it’s not so simple. You haven’t provided any evidence for atheistic foundations. In fact, bay your own definition, Atheistic philosophy needs to be believed the same as religion then.

#300 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 02:12 PM

NO, as I said, had you read the OP, you’d realize that I said I wanted “facts”, not mere suppositions, or “a priori” opinion.
Again, I asked for facts, not “faith statements”. Therefore, again, you either didn’t read the OP, or you are purposefully attempting to evade the questions. READ THE OP!!! and don’t’ equivocate.
The big bang model doesn’t address where we (or the universe came from),  at best, it theorizes about the vehicle that “may have gotten us here. The only empirical evidence it provides is that the universe had a beginning! And everything else is deduced from that.
Therefore, once again, you are making faith statements, not providing facts!
When you said you “didn’t know” where life came from, that was the only meaningful thing you utterd in the above post.
Yes…

Well, this is another equivocation, because it doesn’t apply to this OP. But you did raise a good point. Circuit Boards are a product of design. But this isn’t the OP for that discussion.

View Post

I provided sources when i made a factual claim, is there a problem with my scources?


Again, I asked for facts, not “faith statements”. Therefore, again, you either didn’t read the OP, or you are purposefully attempting to evade the questions. READ THE OP!!! and don’t’ equivocate.

View Post

I merely explained why i wasn't addressing those points, i made neither a faith nor a factual claim there. Nor was i equivocating. Perhaps you should ask your questions more clearly next time. Just a suggestion.


The big bang model doesn’t address where we (or the universe came from),  at best, it theorizes about the vehicle that “may have gotten us here. The only empirical evidence it provides is that the universe had a beginning! And everything else is deduced from that.
Therefore, once again, you are making faith statements, not providing facts!

View Post

Actually it does provide a origin, in the form of virtual particles and the uncertainty principle. It also provides observable proof these partials as well as the expansion rate of the universe. Its not perfect but its better then anything else we got.


When you said you “didn’t know” where life came from, that was the only meaningful thing you utterd in the above post.

View Post

I appreciate your constructive criticism :)

Well, this is another equivocation, because it doesn’t apply to this OP. But you did raise a good point. Circuit Boards are a product of design. But this isn’t the OP for that discussion.

View Post

So its both a good point and a lie? interesting
And its not equivocation its neuroscience, you can literally see observe this for your self.

And yes they have a designer but we can see that designer.


Again, the above is merely a faith laden dialogue. And, therefore an equivocation.
Further, your analogy fails on many fronts, and is therefore a bad analogy (i.e. is NOT analogous). For example:
When a computer or a car breaks down, we fix or replace them.
Neither computers nor cars are self sustaining, or self cognizant.
Both computers and cars are products of design.
Yes, but remember, you need to provides facts!
Hmmm, I guess it’s  not so simple. You haven’t provided any evidence for atheistic foundations. In fact, bay your own definition, Atheistic philosophy needs to be believed the same as religion then.

View Post


No its not, you can see a dead body, you can see it decompose. You can't see it do anything else. Saying anything other then that WOULD be a faith claim.

Yes we try to fix cars, and we try to fix people, some times we fail.
Yes cars and computers are not self sustaining, but this is simply a result of how we function. How our "hardware works" so to speak.

And while computers are not self cognitive like us, you can have them work like the intelligence of a much more primitive animal.
And like i said before we know this because we can see the designers.

Hmmm, I guess it’s not so simple. You haven’t provided any evidence for atheistic foundations. In fact, bay your own definition, Atheistic philosophy needs to be believed the same as religion then.

View Post

I'd say the lack of evidence for a god is the proof in support of my atheism.
Unless your asking me to prove a negative which you should know is impossible.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users