I don’t respond to angry posts.
A couple of things - I was intentionally open-ended in some remarks because a complete reply (for instance, providing a definition of God, and why I chose that definition as sopposed to others) would try the patience of a reader. Not sure how the editor works on this form so I’ll respond later when I have a bit more time.
Cognostic is NOT angry.
He is just responding to vapid posts that are both unoriginal, vague and really not well thought out.
We get those a lot here.
1 Like
What? Could you fucking say that again?
1 Like
Well implying atheism is based on faulty arguments is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which we see used relentlessly on here.
Not providing an accurate definition for a deity, or evidence to support the claim is also a hallmark of the apologetics we see used on here.
You also didn’t answer any of my three simple questions, and it’s fair to say that they would only take seconds to address.
Providing objective evidence for any deity would be the follow up if you claim you can demonstrate such evidence.
- What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
- What beliefs do you hold without any objective evidence, but that form no part of your religious beliefs.
- What is your criteria for disbelief?
I think you had time to answer those, with the post you left in response tbh…
2 Likes
So you intentionally make stupid remarks and then get pissy when someone calls you on it. Here we go with another sinking ship fallacy. Just give up and go away! You already have one foot in your mouth, I honestly believe you are capable of shoving the other one in there beside the first but I really don’t want to see it and neither does anyone else on the site. Just STOP. Go back to square one. Think about what you really want to say, and try starting a new thread. YOU HAVE FUCKED THIS ONE UP!!!
3 Likes
Sheldon –
Here are my responses. Before beginning, let me say I like to think out answers before responding which takes some time. However, like everyone else, I have a life outside of online discussions so I have to limit the time I can spend. What that means is that if you respond, and I hope you will, it might be a few days or even next weekend before I can answer back.
Here we go – your comments are in quotes -
Setting aside questions of what is meant by God,
“Not a very auspicious start, to try and argue for something you cannot define”
I didn’t say I couldn’t offer a definition, just that I wanted to skip it to make some other points. However, for present purposes, let’s assume the attributes under discussion are an omnipresent (in both space and time), omnipotent, omniscient, Creator of the universe who is all good.
kw31416:
arguments from personal experience, which atheists discount as subjective and hence unreliable
“Well if they’re solely personal experience then they are subjective by definition, why single out atheists for pointing out a plain fact.”
No one’s being singled out; this is a forum that’s mainly for atheists, so I was simply acknowledging that it might not be a relevant argument here (although for some, like myself, it could be).
kw31416:
Atheists, based on what I’ve seen, rely on four,
“What an atheists thinks does not change the fact that atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief, and therefore carries no burden of proof, or any need for counter claims or arguments.”
OK – but I distinguish between the various forms of agnosticism (I can think of two) which asserts we can’t know whether God exists, and atheism, which makes a definitive claim that God does not exist. And I’m not making any claims about where the burden of proof should be. I just wanted to bring up the four objections I have observed atheists make towards God’s existence and my responses to them.
kw31416:
The Reign of Terror, the Third Reich, and Stalinism/Maoism were all based, philosophically, on what certain individuals considered to be science, broadly defined
“Rubbish, facile nonsense. Science is the study of the natural physical world and universe, it is an objective method for gathering and testing data and hypothesis. Nothing more.”
I disagree with the nonsense assertion, although perhaps the word science should be clarified to mean a rational, naturalistic approach to acquiring knowledge which excludes divinity. The Reign of Terror had associations with the Enlightenment, The atrocities Third Reich with a perverted form of racial science, and Stalinism/Marxism with a rationalist/naturalist view of economics. The point here being that good ideas (in this case, reason and the scientific method) have always been misused to bad consequences. That does not indict the original idea.
“I’ve skipped your irrelevant objections to arguments that atheists present, as these are a) not necessary to disbelieve the claim for any extant deity, and b) don’t remotely evidence or validate any arguments for any extant deity. Like nearly every theist who comes here, you are putting the cart before the horse, by trying to reverse the burden of proof.”
Again, not claiming atheists have a burden of proof – I’m simply recounting the arguments I have heard in the past, my responses, and seeing what additional thoughts there might be.
kw31416:
No one can claim that a particular act is more or less moral than another in the sense of being consistent without some principle which transcends individual desires, and I believe there must be a source for such a principle
“I’d agree, and the evolved human intellect is a sufficient source. All animals that have evolved to live in societal groups are capable of morality, and this is supported by valid scientific research.”
Your position is not an unreasonable one, given your exclusion of an outside agent which defines what is moral. But it leaves no justification for personal responsibility or a sense of “ought” since everything is ultimately chemistry and physics. I can do whatever gives me pleasure, as long as I can get away with it, and if I have a conscience it is no more than a evolutionary thing that, if I wish, can discard.
kw31416:
In the end it comes down to this. Both positions (theism and atheism) give rise to explanatory problems
“Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. This “position” doesn’t need evidence or argument, since it is not a belief, a claim, an ideology nor a worldview.
Try honestly addressing the following questions.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?”
I take the complexity of the universe and it’s ordering to be evidence that something more than random, mindless accidents are responsible for creation. I take the inherent drive for purpose and to aspire to the good in humans to be evidence of an agent for that purpose. I take the life of Christ to be evidence of God’s desire for reconciliation with humankind. But these are very abbreviated statements and if anyone wants to really debate them to the nth degree this is going to be a very long discussion.
Do these constitute objective evidence in the sense that, say, a certain pH factor indicates alkalinity, or that a spectroscopy reading indicates the presence of certain elements? Of course not, but most of the important choices we make in life (e.g., whom to marry, how national policy should balance economic growth, rewarding entrepreneurial opportunity, and maintaining a reasonable distribution of income) are made without such objective evidence. We still need to choose, though. I don’t think it’s a good idea to expect certitude before making a choice.
“How many beliefs do you hold without any objective evidence to support them, but that form no part of your religious beliefs?”
A very good question. Quite a few, actually.
For example, there are many assumptions we make which could be characterized as beliefs which we take as foundational but which, in the end, have no evidence other than direct intuition, and I don’t consider intuition to be objective evidence. Mathematical proofs start with axioms, for example.
Assumptions behind logic were taken as true over the centuries, without being able to prove them, and it was seen as reasonable until an Austrian mathematician named Kurt Godel turned them over in the 1930’s.
There’s another one which I used to think of quite a bit which will take some time to explain. Were you and I looking at the same male cardinal, I would have an experience of “redness”. How do I know that you, when looking at the same cardinal, are having the same “red” experience? I don’t have any particular evidence – no instrumentation, for example. And consciousness is a very private affair; it cannot be shared. So there is no objective evidence, that is to say, external evidence we can both apprehend, to say your experience of red is the same as mine. What you describe as your red experience could very well be what I would describe as a green experience.
The counter to my example is that, since humans share many observable characteristics; limbs, organs, etc., it is reasonable to assume that if we have those in common our internal experiences will have commonality as well.
But, the counter-counter to that objection by inferential reasoning is that, since every time I have seem an act where something new and complex appears (such as an automobile or piece of code) there has been a designing agent (in this case, humans), it is reasonable to infer that in order to generate something with the order and complexity of the universe there must have been a similar designing agent which had some purpose to the activity, setting aside the question as to how human-like the designing agent would be.
“Lastly what is your criteria for disbelief?”
Another good question. I assume you specifically mean disbelief in my Christian faith. I suppose if someone could create a time machine which would return me to 1st Century Judea and I could observe a Jesus of Nazareth very different from the one presented in the Gospels that would change my opinion. Or if someone unearthed a 2d century conspiracy to forge the Gospels. Or if by the wizardry of DNA we could determine that some recently unearthed remains in that part of the world belonged to Jesus, and hence He could not have been resurrected.
“I have found these there question are sufficient to expose theism as inherently biased. Since they are setting different standards for belief for their theism.”
Guilty as charged. I have an inherent bias towards a morally ordered universe which has some purpose beyond it’s own existence.
I think, though, many positions are inherently biased. That does not automatically disqualify a position from being correct.
“Deism of course offers nothing, as such a deity would be indistinguishable from a non existent deity.
My criteria for disbelief is that insufficient, or in the case of theism no, objective evidence can be demonstrated for the belief.”
I’ve given my responses to these; I realize you do not accept them. But I hope they were clear.
I apply this unbiased and open minded criteria to all claims. The theists i have read and engaged with however do not”
But I am going to throw some open ended shit in here anyway just to fuck with you!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!
Lets begin by “NOT” talking about god. Yea, I’m talking about it by talking about not wanting to talk about it but I don’t really want to talk about it so lets pretend I am not talking about it and move on from here. I would talk about it if I had a definition but I didn’t say don’t have a definition, I just don’t want to share it and so I want to skip it. Okay?.. You are a lot nicer than that Cognostic bastard!!!
But this is not… NOT NOT NOT god. Because, remember, we are not talking about him. And this is NOT NOT NOT NOT my definition of god. It’s just something I am throwing out there for no reason at all because I have no time. My time is very important to me and I don’t want to waste it.
Omnipotent: unlimited power, can do anything. Even make a burrito so big he can not shove it up his ass.
Omnipresent: The fucktard is always watching. When women are getting raped he is standing there in the corner watching. As babies starve to death, he watches. He is a watcher. That’s what he does. He is watching you now. He is always there. He spoons with you when you sleep at night.
Omniscient: He knows everything. He knew those kids were going to suffer and starve when he made them. He knew your sister would be raped. He made the world this way and not that way. He knew you were going to be an atheist and he knows he will torture you for an eternity in Hell for your choice which he also knew you were going to make before he made you. There is no free will because God already knows the outcome of everything. He is omniscient!
DON’T BE SO FUCKING STUPID. I don’t want you to kill my family. (an individual desire) The fact that we agree not to kill one another’s families and live together in a community is more moral than whether or not we cross the street against a red light. I need no transcendence what so ever. YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG.
NO IT IS NOT REASONABLE — This has already been debunked. Go back and revamp your argument or just go the fuck away. You do not get to INFER design.
We know things are designed because we compare them to things that occur naturally. Cars and buildings are designed. Babies, trees and universes occur naturally. There is no reason to assert God Done It. This is a god of the gaps fallacy. We need nothing beyond the natural world to explain the natural world.
Complexity is not a characteristic of design… Simplicity is. Complexity is a demonstration of poor design when design is involved.;
Lack of reasonable evidence that can stand up to critical inquiry. Objective empirical evidence. You got any? Stop mucking about and lets have it.
Don’t get distracted by the capitalised words or the swear words, read what he is writing, comprehend his meaning and produce a worthy reply to put him on his arse, if you can. Getting all butt hurt because the mean man used words that offended you does nothing to support your arguments or position.
Try to understand he is really engaging with you and wants a reply to better understand. His choice of words is meaningless. Surprising things happen when you deflect the unimportant stuff and address the meat of the discussion.
Don’t be such a snowflake. Its only words. Discipline yourself to filter out your emotional bias and seek the raw meaning of them.
You should see when Cog is really angry… its bloody hilarious.
3 Likes
Nope, I’m not prepared to accept claims based purely on assumption, that’s a given, why would I?
You quite specifically singled out atheists as discarding unevidenced claims of personal experience as being subjective. It’s in your post, I quoted the relevant text. And as I said, it is subjective by definition, so if you accept it as relevant, then on what basis could you possibly justify disbelieving any claim by anyone?
Well you’re simply wrong. I suggest you consult a dictionary, as agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity, whereas atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, **AND NOTHING MORE. ** It is not a claim that no deity exists.
You literally just did so? As all claims carry an epistemological burden of proof, and just wrongly defined atheism as a claim that no deity exists.
Then you’re wrong again, and I can only suggest you Google the definition of science.
Now that is nonsense sorry, like so many theists who come here you seem to want to make up arbitrary meaningless definitions that suit your own bias. Science is defined in any dictionary, it’s more specific definition can be obtained in seconds with any search engine. Are you going to include all unevidenced claims like the Loch Ness monster and the Bermuda triangle in this new definition of science?
Correct it was unscientific, it was based on biased racial stereotypes and had nothing to do with science. Though what this has to do with any deity escapes me, beyond the genocide of 6 million Jews being an obviously religious persecution of course. In a national census in Germany in 1939 over 96% of the populace identified as Christian, so this desire by theists to label the Nazis crimes as somehow atheistic is a woefully dishonest piece of nonsense. However even were all of them atheists what on earth has that to do with atheism? You are simply using a stereotype fallacy, since atheism has no doctrine or dogma, unlike theism, and centuries of virulent European antisemitism was the precursor to the Nazi Holocaust, imagined and actioned by Hitler who claimed repeatedly to be a catholic, was baptised a catholic and was an alter boy. Not once ever did he claim to be an atheist.
Did you know that all members of the German SS had to be theists? It was a requirement before they could join, and the SS ran the death camps.
Not always, there are always people ready to do bad things, and who don’t care about the suffering of others, science is simply a method for understanding how the physical world and universe works, when the technology it enables is used go commit atrocities the fault lies with those who commit those atrocities and not with science AS YOU ORIGINALLY IMPLIED. Though you now reverse the claim inexplicably. Either way this doesn’t remotely evidence a deity, and for someone whose time is limited you’re wasting an awful lot of it on irrelevant and dishonest propaganda to smear or denigrate science and atheism. I wouldn’t care if all atheists were utter amoral cunts to a man, as this wouldn’t evidence a deity at all, and the demonstration of objective evidence is the criteria I set for accepting claims, all claims.
Again you are, since you defined atheism as a claim IN THIS VERY POST, which it is not. As for the straw man arguments you’ve assigned to atheism, why bother if atheism doesn’t need them as you now tacitly admit? Indeed why waste time presenting these arguments to atheists rather than asking us if we think they’re valid in the first place.
Well I’m not sure I exclude anything, I merely withhold belief from claims when insufficient objective evidence is offered in support of them.
I never said it did, but since you make the point, neither do subjective religious beliefs, which are based on naught but subjective opinion. Simply following a set of garbled archaic laws isn’t my idea of morality anyway, and since there’s no objective evidence for a deity religious “morality” is just as subjective as secular morality.
Well you may find that disconcerting, but it is nonetheless a fact. A deity isn’t going to be evidenced by wishful thinking. Besides there is a large body of longstanding research in multiple countries that shows atheist are at least as moral as theists when compared on a level playing field, despite the lies to the contrary many theists try to peddle, like your insinuations about totalitarian regimes like nazism and Stalinism somehow reflecting on an atheist’s potential to be moral.
Dear oh dear, do you see the word objective in my question? How is your subjective opinion on your perception of the universe remotely objective evidence?
No, since by definition they are by your subjective opinion. And obviously flawed at that, for instance we only have one universe to observe, so how can you claim it is deliberately ordered? As for order requiring an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic from an archaic superstition, this is not just subjective, its an absurd claim, if you have even a cursory understanding of Occam’s razor or probability theory. Since we know natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, but you can’t demonstrate a shred of objective evidence that an extant deity is even possible. Let alone how probable it is. So to claim it is more likely that an as yet undiscovered natural phenomenon or phenomena is obviously irrational.
The fact humans make subjective decisions is true, how does this evidence a deity exactly? That sounds like rank nonsense to me, besides it gets you no closer to a theism, as if we’re relying on subjective opinion I could choose to worship any deity I please, and claim, as you’re doing, that it is real.
Just to recap the answer to my first question is clearly no then, you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Which can be demonstrated to be mathematically consistent, hence the term proof. You’re reaching there I feel.
Yes, human reason is fallible, which is starkly at odds with the theistic claims to absolute truths? That’s why science and logic, with their inbuilt robust methods to go where the evidence leads, even if it turns over previously accepted ideas, always advances our knowledge. Whereas religions often cling to ideas and beliefs, like creationism for example, that are demonstrably at odds with objectiveevidence, even in the face of overwhelming objective evidence to the contrary.
However you seem to have missed the point of the question, since those ideas were believed based on the best evidence at the time, but always are subject to revision in the light of new evidence, this part of scientific rigour makes it a very robust and objective method, and of course this is in stark contrast to religions.
No, I meant the question to highlight the fact that theists often apply a special pleading fallacy to their own religious beliefs, in contrast to other religions, which based on their arguments would be equally valid, and yet cannot be.
Yes I know, I have found this to be the case with all theists. That’s one of the reasons I can’t share their beliefs. Bias is not a good way to validate claims, that’s axiomatic.
That implies I’m taking a subjective stance, when in fact as you freely admit your beliefs cannot be supported by any objective evidence, and you hold an inherent and subjective bias in favour of them.
1 Like
Whoooaaaa - lets not assume anything (ass out of u and me). I like getting to what is true.
I reject your proposal and offer my own:
Let’s assume a deity thingy died in the effort to bring about time and space.
The Deity’s thingy died. That sucks! No wonder there isn’t a Mrs. Deity.
1 Like
In the Heliopolitan creation myth, Atum was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu).[6] Early myths state that Atum created the god Shu and goddess Tefnut by spitting them out of his mouth.[7] Atum did so through masturbation, with the hand he used in this act representing the female principle inherent within him.[8] Other interpretations state that he has made union with his shadow.[9]
Shot his load - 
that was it! 
Unfortunately, incorrect. Science examines all the data, it does not exclude anything divine. If there is no evidence of divinity, that is not the fault of science.
1 Like
There was you know. Her name was Asherath and she was YHWH’s missus. I think she became a demon. However, statues of her have been found in Israel dating to the third century bce. (? hundreds of statues of a female deity)
“Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, (Eerdmans, ISBN 0-8028-2852-3, 2005),[1] is a book by Syro-Palestinian archaeologist William G. Dever, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Archeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Did God Have a Wife? was intended as a popular work making available to the general public the evidence long known to archaeologists regarding ancient Israelite religion: namely that the Israelite god of antiquity (before 600 BCE), Yahweh, had a consort, that her name was Asherah, and that she was part of the Canaanite pantheon.”
Sorry for this late reply Ivy,
Yes, I have to agree, we should not relent talking openly with the religious. In the uneven and extremely hopeful struggle to free mankind of the negative excesses of religion, its the only proven method.
I don’t utterly condemn Christians or anyone for their faith. I know that their faith provides them comforts that my ideas could not. Indeed I’m sure my thoughts, unfiltered, would cause most of them great distress. I do allow others a lot of lattitude.
Its when they start voicing discriminatory unevidenced criticisms and judgements or insanely stupid comments, against others of different religious, social, political, sexual views, that makes me want to shut them down. Otherwise I just exercise my right to say what I believe where and when ever.
The real hope is for dropping a seed of doubt in their mind that leads to them dropping the whole presumption that everything thing begins with a god. I was told I would go to hell for that. It didn’t seem to distress the guy who told me one little bit, lol.
Yeah, some Christians seem to show an unseemly amount of schadenfreude, even undisguised glee, when thinking of unbeliever in hell.
When considering the numbers of arseholes who are pretty sure of going to heaven, what sane person would want to go there?
1 Like
Thanks for the feedback and I’ll keep that in mind.
It’s not a matter of protecting my tender snowflake ego as much as it trying to avoid wasting time. My experience with that style of response is that the sender is not really interested in a useful exchange of viewpoints but really wants to engage in a bunch of posturing. So the conversation ends up being a lot of shouting over the internet – pretty useless.
But, admittedly, that’s an assumption of mine, and it’s not a bad thing to check one’s assumptions every now and then so I might re-read his responses over the next day or so, come back with a question, and see what he says.
Sheldon – thanks for taking time to read through my response. I understand you do not accept my reasoning or responses but, for me, they are sufficient.
To summarize, though, the primary reason I believe in a Supreme Being comes down to the basic idea that, if you have two propositions:
- A
- Not A
Exactly one will be true. Quantum physicists will dispute that but for me it’s a workable way to approach the question.
So if “A” is the hypothesis that a Supreme Being exists, and “Not A” is its negation, then only one can be true.
For me, a foundational belief is that there exists a purpose, and a morality, within the Universe which is transcendent. And I can’t conceive of how that purpose and morality can exist in the absence of a Supreme Being. So the proposition “Not A” cannot be true, based on my reasoning, which means the Proposition “A” must be true.
Again, thanks for the dialog.
A classic presuppositional argument with special pleading and argumentum ignorantum thrown in to sweeten the pot. sigh
2 Likes