Nope this is called a false dichotomy fallacy. One more time then:
Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. It is not a claim or a belief, thus it follows that it carries no burden of proof. What does your lack of belief in Thor explain? What does your lack of belief in unicorns explain?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is illogical to imply your belief a deity did it is in any way evidenced because it cannot be disproved or an alternative offered.
Again then, religious faith is defined as âstrong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proofâ so this is the very antithesis of atheism. I have no idea what âend to end knowledge drivenâ even means, it sounds like gibberish to me.
No there doesnât, and again this reasoning is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I have explained the fallacy to you before, more than once, but I have inked an explanation again.
Donât be silly, a god of the gaps polemic is when you cite gaps in our knowledge and claim they require a deity. Atheism doesnât need to explain anything, anymore than not believing in mermaids does.
You are claiming a deity created everything, and have failed to offer any objective evidence or rational argument to support your claim, thus I need do nothing in order to remain dubious about your claim.
You use the word created. That implies a creator. I see no repeatable, testable evidence for a creator of any kind, neither divine nor extraterrestrial. You are simply incorrectâŚthat is not something I believe.
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?
Yes, there are gaps in knowledge. Being willing to provide âI donât knowâ as a response to questions is perfectly acceptable. âI donât knowâ does not equal faith. I accept the information provided by the scientific process thus far as reliable, even if incomplete in some areas. To do so requires no faith because it instead, is supported by data.
Could it be, @WhoAreYou, that you are overlaying your seeming inability to be comfortable without answers onto me, thereby positing that I have some sort of faith. Thatâs just not the case. I hope youâre not so egotistical as to insist you know how I think better than I do.
This is an equivocation fallacy at best. Atheists, those wise enough to understand distinctions, tend not to use the word faith. In its loosest form, the word covers a wide variety of meanings. When atheists assert that they do not have faith, they are specifically referencing âReligious Faith.â The faith of the Bible as taken from Hebrews 11:1-6 NKJV, " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen .(Faith is not, and has never been, evidence of anything.) Every religion on the planet operates with faith. Faith is not a path to truth. There is nothing in faith that tells us anything at all about the real world around us. (Specifically we are speaking of Religious faith. "The evidence of things not seen.)
Other interpretations of faith include hope, trust, belief, confidence conviction, expectation, credence, reliance, dependence, and more. Certainly atheists trust, hope, and have beliefs. (A side note, there are no 'beliefs in atheism.) So to say, âAtheists have faith.â Well, to some degree we are in agreement. What atheists donât have is âReligious Faith.â We do not treat any faith as evidence for things unseen.
RE: No beliefs in Atheism: One does not convert to atheism. One does not adopt a set of beliefs and âbecome atheist.â While people identify as atheist, this simply means âI do not believe in God or gods.â It carries with it no more meaning than that. Atheism is not a belief system. There is no dogma, no rituals, and no rites. There are no atheist leaders, no holy church of atheism, and no official books containing the atheist cannon. Atheists have also been around since long before your Christian faith. Euhemerus (c. 330â260 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers, conquerors, and founders of the past, and that their cults and religions were in essence the continuation of vanished kingdoms and earlier political structures. The âGodsâ in all there forms, have always been questioned by those willing to actually look up and do the research.
Atheism is quite literally, the letting go of religiosity. It is the letting go of belief in God and gods. It is not accepting anything. It is as if you were carrying a backpack full of religious dogma, and you simply put it on the ground and walked away from it. We get that the theist mind has difficulty with this idea. A theistâs reality has been born of faith and belief. Believing is seeing. They have on Jesus colored glasses and everything in the world is shaded by the glasses they are wearing. The atheist is the person willing to take off those glasses, set them on the table, and walk away from them. That is all. Putting down religion, setting it down and walking away, says nothing at all about oneâs future beliefs. Atheism is not holding out an alternate set of beliefs for anyone to grab onto. It is not a thing. There is nothing here. It is simply âThe letting go of religion.â and nothing more.
Sure I do. Demonstrate your god exists. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when that evidence is logically expected to follow a proposition. For example, if I tell you there is a dead body in the trunk of my car, and you tell me that you do not believe me, we can go and look at the car. When we look at the car, we see no evidence of body fluids. We find no hair. We do not find an indentation in the carpet where the body might have been laid. We find no signs of struggle. There are no rope fibers or tape. We find no DNA evidence supporting the claim that there was a body in the trunk of the car. We can conclude, in all likelihood, there was not a body in the trunk of the car.
To make the assertion, âGod did it.â you must first demonstrate that there is such a thing as a god. You must show me the body in the turn of the car. You must provide some sort of evidence for your claim. Failing that, there is absolutely no reason to believe anything you have said. Absent any concrete evidence for your claim of a god, I can certainly make the claim that this god thing you are talking about did not do it. At least not in the way you are imagining. Perhaps you could try again differently. Perhaps god was in the glove-box and we can re-examine the evidence. Perhaps he was in the front seat. Again, we are willing to look at the evidence. At the same time, there comes a point when your inane claims, which have all been debunked, become tiresome. The burden of providing evidence falls on your shoulders, not on ours. If you think God did it, it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim. Requiring us to debunk such nonsense is called âShifting the burden of proof.â We are not required to debunk every inane idea you have. If you think your god did something, demonstrate it.
Yes, some people were lucky enough, or smart enough, to just not pick up the bag in the first place. Beware of strange bags lying in the street. ⌠Or being offered for free on late night TV.
Oh look, itâs this tiresome and sleazy brand of apologetic duplicity being deployed again ⌠mythology fanboys like you just canât help yourselves, can you?
Item One: as I have stated here repeatedly, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. Mythology fanboy attempts to misrepresent atheism as being something else are all steamingly dishonest, just like your latest outing in this vein.
Item Two: aside from informing you that it would be a very good idea, to stop posturing as being in a position to dictate to us what we think, without bothering with the inconvenience of asking us about this, you would do well to learn some basic facts before posting drivel of the sort youâve just posted above.
First of all, those of us who paid attention in class, do not regard pre-scientific mythologies as even remotely competent to provide answers to questions on cosmology. For that matter, said pre-scientific mythologies are incompetent to answer questions on any rigorous scientific topic, but cosmology happens to be a particularly glaring example.
Second, those of us who paid attention in class, do not even share the pathetic excuse for a âmethodologyâ mythology fanboys deploy in this regard. Mythology fanboy methodology can be summed up as âItâs true because my favourite choice of pre-scientific mythology says soâ, which is not merely lame in the extreme, but has been demonstrated time and time again to be a dismal failure with respect to the matter of obtaining genuine, substantive knowledge. Indeed, those of us who paid attention in class discard belief itself as a purported means of obtaining knowledge. Instead, we look for evidentially supported postulates, a process that is manifestly alien to mythology fanboys, who routinely demonstrate that they have zero understanding of this process.
Third, mythology fanboys have never presented any evidence that the universe and its contents were âcreatedâ, in the sense of being poofed into existence by a cartoon magic man waving its magic todger about. As a corollary, that assertion is safely and eminently discardable, in accordance with the rules of proper discourse.
Fourth, those of us who paid attention in class, learned some time ago that several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are SUFFICIENT to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past centuries, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Fifth, Iâm on public record here as having presented several peer reviewed scientific papers from the cosmological physics literature, and as a corollary, am operating from a basis far removed from ignorance. Those presentations include ideas that mythology fanboys are incapable of even fantasising about, just as the authors of the favourite mythologies of said fanboys were incapable of so doing. This and the previous paragraph will have bearing upon your subsequent nonsense - be patient and stay tuned.
Bullshit. See âFourthâ and âFifthâ above.
Oh look, itâs the resurrection yet again, of the creationist bullshit and lies known as âonly a theoryâ. Quelle fucking surprise, boys and girls!
Once again, Iâll deliver the requisite schooling you manifestly need, as yet another reminder of how duplicitous this apologetic bullshit youâve served up is.
In the realm of science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of entities and interactions of interest, that has been TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY to determine its accord with observational reality, and found via said testing to be thus in accord.
As a corollary, a scientific theory is as far removed from the creationist caricature of âmade up shit guessâ as itâs possible to be, outside the realm of pure mathematics, PRECISELY BECAUSE THE POSTULATES THEREOF HAVE BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIED EXPERIMENTALLY.
So you can shove that bullshit and lies of yours back into the same rectal passage you pulled it from.
More bullshit and lies from you. What CyberLN was referring to was mythology fanboy lack of knowledge and understanding, and your duplicitous apologetic twisting thereof is typically creationist of you.
Indeed, once again, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of pre-scientific mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about, and the scientists in question have placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, that the authors of pre-scientific mythologies would have regarded as magic.
Far from a âlack of knowledge/understandingâ, scientists have delivered knowledge and understanding quite literally on a cosmic scale. If you printed out the sum total of scientific knowledge in all its exquisite detail, the resulting encyclopaedia would run to several tens of millions of volumes. You would need a fleet of freight trains to transport it all from point A to point B.
You really have no idea of the scale of the task youâre facing in trying to hand-wave away this colossal body of knowledge, do you?
Bare faced lie. What part of âdirect experimental test and verification of postulatesâ do you keep dishonestly pretending isnât a part of science?
Garbage.
Incompleteness does not invalidate the rigorously verified. Learn this lesson.
Empirical observation says everything goes from high energy to low energy and order to disorder. Wonder how this is overcome for life to exist, needs external help.
Oh look, itâs the resurrection via stealth of that well known creationist canard, the lie that testable natural processes involved in life purportedly âviolateâ the laws of thermodynamics. They donât.
See that big yellow thing in the sky? Itâs pumping terajoules of energy into the Earth every second.
Youâre not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? Youâve been brainwashed with all of this crap, maybe if you tried rinsing it off a few times, youâd be able to take the hint.
Repeating the same rhetoric over and over again wonât ever make you right.
Only in an enclosed system genius, and the earth is not an enclosed system, so not only is this yet another of your false dichotomy fallacies, Youâre misusing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as have countless theists who regurgitate this same canard before you without fucking checking their facts.
As for life requiring external help, have you not noticed the large fiery star (external) to earthâs ecosystem, giving it light and heat? Dear oh dear, the same idiotic poorly researched and weakly argued old canards trotted out over and over again, and not one apologist has the integrity to accept their spiel is bs, before they roll onto their next idiotic assertion.
The only life that has been observed (here on Earth) exists at relatively low energy compared to the Sun, and relatively high entropy compared to the Sun. What is the problem/hurdle/obstacle?
All you did was present a God of the Gaps fallacy and insert God. On the other hand, modern physicists are actually working on an understanding of the origin of life. There are other possibilities out there but Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, directly addresses your specific question.
This is what I keep trying to tell them: when entropy increases, complexity increases; and entropy increases spontaneously. So when they tell me X is too complex to have happened spontaneously, it just leaves me shrugging my shoulders. Nature works more or less opposite to how they believe it does. Of course nothing makes sense to them! It shouldnât!
