Wrong again, we asign probabilities.
For example, given that there is next to no objective, empirical proof that god(s) exist, you can therefore assign a probability of 99.99% that they do not exist.
Law, education etc… should not be built around or influenced by the basis of something that has 0.01% chance of being correct.
Proof positive right there . You have appealed to the atheists highest authority - Science , and rightly so found that it cannot account for anything that is not within its ability to measure .
Again, for the atheist to sustain this line of reasoning then they must demonstrate infinite knowledge , a hard sell indeed .
This shameful evasion might be more compelling if you had offered anything at all, beyond unevidenced claims, to justify theistic belief.
Over the years it just becomes more and more obvious that religious apologists who use this kind of dishonest evasion are not really interested in honest debate, and they very seldomly open with the most compelling piece of evidence they think they have, which hardly inspires confidence they’re holding anything beyond faith based belief.
That’s not atheism, I don’t believe any deity exists, ipos facto I am an atheist, and even where deities are presented as unfalsifiable concepts, and I must remain agnostic about the claim, I still disbelieve it, as that is the only rational position I see, since believing all unfalsifiable claims would inevitably violate the law of non-contradiction, and believing some, and not others, is too obviously biased and closed minded.
That’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to assert any belief gains any credence because it cannot be disproved or contrary evidenced demonstrated is a textbook argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. This type of fallacy and argument, are a well worn line in religious apologetics on here, from people who don’t realise or don’t care that their arguments are irrational.
I would be an atheist even if science did not exist, since the claim a deity exists outside of the human mind cannot be supported by any objective evidence. You seem to want to ignore this, I can see why as well, as it destroys your claims here.
That science cannot evidence a deity is not an indication of scientific limits either, it can’t evidence any non-existent thing, thus the lack of any data for a deity has a far more probable inference, given no one can demonstrate any objective evidence a deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
Science is not an authority, its a methodology.
Its a tool in which to make hypothesis, test and find an answer to what corresponds to nature and reality.
Proof positive once again - You are inferring that a Creator must be verifiable according to Objective evidence and yet present nothing that quantifies as the so called Evidence you require . You demand evidence which you have already determined is meaningless if it cannot be explained by science . You are not only stacking the deck , you are losing at your own game
Of course Science is the atheists authority. It is the back stop to any debate regarding a Creator and all claims must answer Science’s questions and its decisions are Final . It’s the Proof thing .
False again, science is simply a tool.
There are even fantastic scientist that are theists too.
It is a way to measure a claim and the best methodology in order to assign the most accurate probabilities.
You’re talking bollocks again.
No I am not, you either have a woeful grasp of language or are simply being so strident you have failed to read what is written. I am saying my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated, choosing to set this standard is of course a subjective choice, but the standard is objective as I apply it to all claims and beliefs. If you have a better standard that will help ensure I believe only true things then demonstrate it by all means.
That’s a lie again, or another example of a woeful grasp of English, since I quantified the evidence should be sufficient and objective? I can’t demonstrate the actual evidence for you of course, since I have none and that is why I don’t share your belief, you haven’t even accurately defined what you mean by deity. It’s still funny mind, despite the number of times I’ve seen theists and apologists attempt this kind of sophistry.
Neither of those claims is true, you brought a belief here that you know is not shared by most of the posters, and are ipso facto making a claim, but refusing to offer anything except sophistry and semantics in place of debate.
Again it is my subjective standard, so I can stack the deck as I choose, no one else gets to tell me what my criteria for belief is. Whining in a debate forum predominantly occupied and run by atheists, because you hold a belief based on naught but religious faith, that obviously can’t satisfy this standard, is the very definition of pointless. Either hold your belief and ignore my disbelief by not bringing it to me in an atheist debate forum, or offer something / anything that you think justifies it that can be debated. You seem to want to have your imaginary magic cake, and eat it.
What exactly is it you think I have lost, by you coming here to seek atheists out for debate, and failing to do so? Indeed failing to offer anything tangible in defence of your beliefs, like knocking my door and saying nothing, then glibly telling me over and over I am wrong about something, bizarre?
Nonsense, the efficacy of science is indepenatant of beliefs or the lack thereof, that is manifest.
A lie, all anyone need do is scroll up and see you have offered precisely nothing in defence of your chosen superstition, and though this does not in and of itself disprove your magic man, the inference that the “emperor has no clothes” is a pretty obvious one.
No one has claimed this, and again you are free to offer anything, yet have offered nothing.
Science can’t evidence mermaids or unicorns, it is irrational to assume this is an indication that science has it’s limits in examining reality.
Offer some data anything for a deity, anything beyond unevidenced subjective faith based belief - you have the floor. if you can’t muster any shred of objective evidence, then give the best you think you have. In short “stop your grinnin, and drop your linen.”
Endlessly.
It is not an appeal to science. You have made an erroneous assumption.; It is a appeal for information. If you have a methodology that is better than science at determining that which is real and not real, we are all ears. Please demonstrate this new methodology you have and we will discard the scientific method. So stop pointing fingers and respond to the question.
At this moment just demonstrating any method for the belief he is peddling here so we can in any way assess its efficacy would be a start. So far he has simply implied belief is justified by not being able to disprove it, which is demonstrably irrational, as it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
If science didn’t exist, and I had no concept of any method for evaluating any belief, I would still be an atheist, how could I be anything else if I had no method for evaluating a belief’s validity? The alternatives would be blind bias, or believe everything, not a sound rationale at all.
@Sid, second verse, you make the claim god(s) exist. Ergo, you are by common definition a theist. I make no claim that god(s) exist. I am called atheist. Period.
Are you asking why I make no claims? If so, are you then asking why?
Yeah, at the risk of over-inflating an already gargantuan level of self-satisfaction…I am compelled to wholeheartedly agree.
.
.
Edit (“We’d all love to see the plan”
)
As far as I can tell: Calilasseia has not asked you for proof (on any subject). Are you a compulsive liar?
Well there’s the rub innit . The implication from your post is that only science is capable of determining what you call “Real “ . This is completely circular reasoning . Science determines what is “ Real “ and anything that science cannot measure is not real . Not very scientific at all in my humble opinion.
NO! The implication from my post is that science has shown itself to the most reliable method. It has stood the test of time, put men on the moon, explored the galaxy, prolonged life on this planet, feed the poor, cared for the sick, and fully demonstrated its usefulness. The implication was, ‘science works.’ And it was followed up with a very clear qualifier. When you demonstrate something that works better than science, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO THROW SCIENCE IN THE TRASH AND USE YOUR METHODOLOGY. So what do you have that will replace science and support your assumptions?
You really need to work on your fallacies. There is nothing circular about anything stated above. Do you actually know any of the logical fallacies? What do you do spin a bottle and whichever fallacy the opening points at you cite that? You are so far off the mark as to be completely absurd.
Why get rid of Science , it’s not an all or nothing proposition. Yes , science works , that’s not in question . The question is whether Science and Science alone can answer the questions that humankind has asked from its very beginnings .
The Atheist and the Theist/ Deist have the same the question - What is the ultimate fact ? For the Atheist it is the universe and for the Theist/ Deist it is God .
If Science has shown that there is no need for God it certainly doesn’t appeal to Big Bang cosmology . The facts of contemporary cosmology are more than consistent with the God hypothesis.
How did you determine that this is the question…what method did you use to determine that there is an ‘ultimate fact’?
NO. The question is what in the hell do you think you have that is better than science. Please share your new and amazing methodology that can explain stuff that science can not.
As far as questions humans have been asking, science builds models from all the available facts. What have you got that does a better job? Stop avoiding the question and share this amazing methodology you have discovered that can outshine the scientific method. We are all waiting.
Hawkings central mission in his book A Brief History of Time is to find a Unifying Theory of the Universe which will predict how everything works and in essence be the ultimate fact .