380 replies to this topic

[Ron]

I've been looking for this base as long as I've been interacting with atheists. Can you please enlighten us with the foundational truism of atheists so we can examine it? Please don't cop out with the lame 'Lack of belief' bit because we are looking for the base. You know the foundational principle that the truth of atheism hinges on so it can be tested to see if it actually makes sense of the world.

And, because of a lack of cogent response to the OP in general, I doubt we’ll find a base Adam. I am currently awaiting said response before I take the conversation further.

[jason78]

I've been looking for this base as long as I've been interacting with atheists. Can you please enlighten us with the foundational truism of atheists so we can examine it? Please don't cop out with the lame 'Lack of belief' bit because we are looking for the base. You know the foundational principle that the truth of atheism hinges on so it can be tested to see if it actually makes sense of the world.

How is that a cop out? I see no hard evidence for the existence of any god, therefore I am an atheist. It really is that simple.

[Ron]

How is that a cop out?  I see no hard evidence for the existence of any god, therefore I am an atheist.  It really is that simple.

Whether or not you SEE hard evidence for the existence of God is irrelevant to the OP Jason. And continuing to evade answering the OP with anything but equivocations, time wasting and unsupported assertions (even in the form of a biography) is a cop out. Also, a lack of belief in something or someone is still a belief (it’s just a belief in the opposite direction, and still faith none-the-less).

Also, keep in mind you haven’t “provided hard evidence” for the existence of an answer to the OP.

[Ron]

You are right, you did mention you wanted evidence in the original. My apologies.

No problem, I attempted to keep it as simple as possible so as to eliminate confusion. But many have taken the OP incorrectly.

My question is how scientific can you really be in a forum such as this?  Do you want this to be a Google/Copy-Paste arena where we do nothing but cite evidence that others have found?  Or would you like at least some responses in our own words and original thoughts about the questions you have asked?

As the OP says; mere unsupported opinion is unacceptable. So providing foundational “evidences” are crucial to answering the OP, and therefore autobiographical wanderings cannot substantiate anything. Also, simply copying and pasting someone else’s “autobiographical opinions” and wanderings is no better. Therefore, if you provide “evidences” per the OP, and provide substantiated commentary; this, then, should fit well within the OP.

I daresay that none of the atheists here do any real scientific work (which means observe, hypothesize or infer, test, and repeat) regarding the origins of the universe. 

I would have to disagree with you here menes777, many atheists claim to do such, or post as if they have the authority to do so. Having said that, I have no problem with the layperson providing their evidences, regardless of their professions or educational level, because this then, becomes a learning experience for all of us.

Therefore, the best you are going to get out of us is either opinion or a copy-paste of what someone else has found.

Therefore, any equivocation will be disallowed. This is, for the most part, an exercise in gathering information, separating the chaff from the truth, and deriving an educated opinion. And that’s always a good thing.

Like I said above, the best I am going to be able present to you as evidence for my belief is going to be opinion.  Do I expect you to accept it as evidence?  I would say don't except it at all, I would say dig deeper and discover more for yourself.  That's entirely up to you what you do with it.  I am neither a cosmologist nor a physicist by profession or hobby.  I am however an atheist and was attempting to answer your question to atheists as an atheist.

I will accept actual evidence menes. But, what I won’t accept is built into the OP (for a reason), and is plainly written. As a former atheist, I had to take a critical look at my worldview when many of my questions could not be answered outside that philosophical worldview that I had so dogmatically defended. I have done the digging, and was shocked at what I found. And some of that is being exposed at this thread. So, I would suggest the same thing; “dig deeper and discover more for yourself. That's entirely up to you what you do with it”. And I’m not just saying that to parrot you, so I hope you don’t take it that way.
I do hope we all learn something from this OP, but I cannot guarantee everyone will come to the same conclusion I have.
I have run out of time, so I will respectfully address the rest of your post as I can.

[Ron]

It would appear that you guys don't really understand the basic tenets of atheism. 

Equivocation as per #’s 2, 4, 5 & 6

I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

Equivocation as per #’s 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6

[falcone]

Also, keep in mind you haven’t “provided hard evidence” for the existence of an answer to the OP.

Do you want one of us to provide hard evidence that there is no god? Examples, verifiable experiments, testable observations, that kind of thing? All of which converge to give the irrefutable conclusion that there is no god. Is this the 'foundation' for atheism you're looking for?

[Ron]

Do you want one of us to provide hard evidence that there is no god?

No, because you are:

1- Incapable of doing so (and therefore should open a new thread for said question).

2- Not responding with anything that has to do with the questions of the OP (and therefore should open a new thread for said question).

[falcone]

No, because you are:

1- Incapable of doing so (and therefore should open a new thread for said question).

2- Not responding with anything that has to do with the questions of the OP (and therefore should open a new thread for said question).

Okay. Well, there have been several attempts to answer the OP which you apparantly don't like (and in at least one instance, deleted). And as martimius points out:

I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

We are all apparantly singing from different hymn sheets, so in an attempt to resolve the stalemate why don't you tell us what you think the atheistic answers to the questions might be? Perhaps we can then make some headway.

[Ron]

Okay. Well, there have been several attempts to answer the OP which you apparantly don't like (and in at least one instance, deleted).

These attempts falcone (which weren’t really attempts at all) have not met the OP. This OP was set up to omit equivocations. Only equivocations were removed as per the OP (and there were many more than one). Therefore, if you cannot answer the OP without equivocating, please see #3

And as martimius points out:

I'm not sure that explaining it beyond what we already have would be of much use..

Actually, it is of great use. Because; there has been absolutely no explanation (thus far) posited by atheists here (no, not even one), andthat shows either:

1- Atheists cannot answer the OP without equivocating.

OR

2- Atheists have no origins foundations, and are living the “materialist’s world-view” by faith alone (which is fine, if that is the stance you want to take).

Whitch is of great use...

We are all apparantly singing from different hymn sheets, so in an attempt to resolve the stalemate why don't you tell us what you think the atheistic answers to the questions might be? Perhaps we can then make some headway.

The resolution to the stalemate (actually, there is no stalemate on this end) would be for at least one atheist to answer the OP questions falcone. And, maybe, to build up to those answers, you can answer these questions with a “yes” or “no” answer (remember to use the criteria of the OP before posting to these questions):

1- Do we exist now?

2- Have we ever observed something coming from nothing using the scientific method?

[Adam Nagy]

So few atheists understand the ramifications of this exercise that it truly exposes the indoctrination needed to convince people of atheism and her main pillar; evolution.

I've sought out conversations with people from different cults and the aggravation starts in the same way. The person trying to get you to believe their false religion is very excited to convince you of what they believe until they realize that you understand too much about their faith.

I can't help but sense the same thing about the religion of materialism.

Don't worry, atheists, there is one who has a battle cry to make you feel good about not investigating the problems because there is no need...

Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun. - Richard Dawkins

[falcone]

Atheists have no origins foundations...

Correct. Origins is irrelevant to atheism.

...and are living the “materialist’s world-view” by faith alone

I'm afraid I don't see how that automatically follows. I'm not even sure what it means. Perhaps you could explain?

And, maybe, to build up to those answers, you can answer these questions with a “yes” or “no” answer (remember to use the criteria of the OP before posting to these questions):

Okay dokey
1- Do we exist now? Yes

2- Have we ever observed something coming from nothing using the scientific method? No

[Ron]

Correct. Origins is irrelevant to atheism.

Its not that it is irrelevant, but that it is inexplicable and therefore unexplainable for the atheist. So then the atheist will punt on fourth down because they have no answer. In other words, they have given up and copped-out with statements like “Origins is irrelevant to atheism”.

I'm afraid I don't see how that automatically follows. I'm not even sure what it means. Perhaps you could explain?

No problem. By following the logical trail of the answers to the below questions, in conjunction with the logical trail answers of the OP questions, you’ll soon realize; for one to believe in the unproven, and live their life as if it were true, it “logically follows” that they are living by faith.

Okay dokey
1- Do we exist now? Yes

2- Have we ever observed something coming from nothing using the scientific method? No

Good, now answer the OP questions (within the parameters of the OP). You may want to re-read the first post of this OP prior to attempting to answer, so it is clear within your mind.

[Ron]

Not unexplainable,

If that were the case, it would have been explained by now. Therefore the above is equivocation as per #’s 2, 4, 5 & 6

but not answerable through religion, divine revelation ect.

Answering through religion, divine revelation ect… would be against the OP, therefore the above is equivocation as per #’s 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6

That is all atheism states about origins.

This is basically because (as proven so far in this thread) atheists have no answers for its origins, and will not attempt to account for their faith in atheism. Therefore the above is equivocation as per #’s 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6

[Ron]

So few atheists understand the ramifications of this exercise that it truly exposes the indoctrination needed to convince people of atheism and her main pillar; evolution.

This is what we're basically seeing so far (amongst other things).

[falcone]

Good, now answer the OP questions (within the parameters of the OP). You may want to re-read the first post of this OP prior to attempting to answer, so it is clear within your mind.

I tired that already and you deleted my post. Since you apparantly already know the answers to the OP, why don't you just tell us?

[Ron]

I tired that already and you deleted my post. Since you apparantly already know the answers to the OP, why don't you just tell us?

The only posts that were removed were those with repeated equivocating as per the thread OP falcone, and they will continue to be removed as per the OP. It's not that hard, just follow the first post in the OP...

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).

<edited by Ron 01/01/2010> any repetitive equivocations, and/or repetitive equivocating statements will be removed to keep the fluff down, and hopefully, meaningful conversation flowing.

[falcone]

The only posts that were removed were those with repeated equivocating as per the thread OP falcone,  and they will continue to be removed as per the OP. It's not that hard, just follow the first post in the OP...

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.

I don't know, I said that already. I give up all right to say, "There is no God". What now?

[Ron]

I don't know, I said that already. I give up all right to say, "There is no God". What now?

If you’ll notice, the point of the OP is NOT whether or not there is or isn’t a “God”, so to posit such makes it incumbent upon the poster of said statement the “need” to provide evidence “either way”.

The point of the OP is to discuss, and attempt to discover the foundations (or origins) of all we see, feel, taste, and otherwise experience in this life to make said origins comport with the world view of atheism.

As I stated; “we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.”

I further posited two additional (and simplistic) questions to the original questions:

1- Do we exist now?
2- Have we ever observed something coming from nothing using the scientific method?

These questions were asked, as a device to further narrow (or funnel) the reader to the original two questions, by cutting through the chaff, minutia and Phlegm-flam that is equivocation.

So… We do now exist! And, we know from inductive and deductive empirical scientific evidence that we could NOT have come from NOTHING. Therefore; WE HAD AN ORIGIN! WE CAME FROM SOMEONE OR SOMETHING (all said with emphasis so as to ensure there os NO posturing, equivocation and side-tracking)!

Now, back to the original two questions:

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

If the atheist cannot answer the above two questions, they (the atheists) must admit that they live their world view by as much faith as those who believe in a God or gods, or the faith of the agnostics who claim to simply not know.

Now, I’m not saying the atheist cannot answer the questions. But, it has not yet been adduced (here, or in the history of the world). And this speaks volumes!

[jason78]

If the atheist cannot answer the above two questions, they (the atheists) must admit that they live their world view by as much faith as those who believe in a God or gods, or the faith of the agnostics who claim to simply not know.

Is this another weak attempt to paint atheism as a religion?