Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (3 Viewers)

[magnifier661]

You are moving off-topic here. You asserted that YOU had evidence that proved atheism untenable. I am telling you that the evidence is bad. I am not trying to prove that God does not exist (which is impossible), I am merely showing you that your usage of scientific principles to argue for the certain existence of God is not viable.

Yes, I do have evidence that atheism is not a sound belief. If you can't explain or prove that the universe is without design; then how can atheism be sound? Sound would mean that you have evidence there is no God; therefor being an atheist is sound.

 

[magnifier661]

And please, if you are going to cite one of the most important concepts in all of science, at least call it by its correct name! Calling it "thermal dynamics" is like me making Biblical references to the "Gospel of LaMarcus".

Excuse me on my mistake on the semantics of science. So correct me anytime. I want to learn!

 

[Denny Crane]

Your logic is a house of cards with the bottom cards based on utter bogosity.

All of the "facts" in your first post are factually, scientifically, and logically bogus.

You ask questions, get perfectly good answers, then ignore them, only to throw out more bogus assertions and argue against those.

 

[magnifier661]

That is not a closed system.

Try a test tube with a cork on it placed inside a lead box so no light or sound or other external things can affect what's in the test tube.

Thank you. Outside the realm of the "self replicating molecule" becomes the control. Everything inside this supposed self replicating molecule becomes the "Closed System".

 

[RR7]

You want to learn, you want to learn, teach me, I want to learn. But then when told, you ignore what is said.

 

[magnifier661]

Your logic is a house of cards with the bottom cards based on utter bogosity.

All of the "facts" in your first post are factually, scientifically, and logically bogus.

You ask questions, get perfectly good answers, then ignore them, only to throw out more bogus assertions and argue against those.

All your opinion. And I am reading the questions Denny. Your opinion on me; ignoring the evidence; show you clearly don't want to hear my questions. I have tried to understand and I've read up on the "Big Bang" on that link you approved. I am questioning the lack of proof; which becomes my proof. When I say the universe is a closed system; you tell me I am bogus.

Problem is; you are basing that opinion on your lack of knowledge. Stating that you know, or the science world knows, is like the "blind man saying purple doesn't exist". So just because most of the scientific world doesn't believe God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thank you. Outside the realm of the "self replicating molecule" becomes the control. Everything inside this supposed self replicating molecule becomes the "Closed System".

Wrong.

In fact, the lack of a closed system is what makes life from non-living material occur. The chemistry worked on a clay surface at a temperature of 100 degrees, but fails on a basalt surface at 99 degrees. The exact combination of EXTERNAL effects may not be known, but what is known is there was some combination that succeeded. And there was no closed system involved.

Now ignore this truth and throw out your next straw man.

 

[magnifier661]

You want to learn, you want to learn, teach me, I want to learn. But then when told, you ignore what is said.

wrong... I have learned more in the last month on these threads that I have my entire life. And how can you prove I'm ignoring the facts? First of all, in science it's not facts; it's evidence, theory and testing. I am questioning the orgin of life and Atheism. And I still haven't had "evidence" that supports that God doesn't exist. So I do want to learn. I don't know in the science world. And I am looking for evidence to give me proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[magnifier661]

Wrong.

In fact, the lack of a closed system is what makes life from non-living material occur. The chemistry worked on a clay surface at a temperature of 100 degrees, but fails on a basalt surface at 99 degrees. The exact combination of EXTERNAL effects may not be known, but what is known is there was some combination that succeeded. And there was no closed system involved.

Now ignore this truth and throw out your next straw man.

Wait so we are talking about Earth or the Universe?

 

[TripTango]

Yes, I do have evidence that atheism is not a sound belief. If you can't explain or prove that the universe is without design; then how can atheism be sound? Sound would mean that you have evidence there is no God; therefor being an atheist is sound.

You are again lumping all atheists into the "strong atheism" category. Please get this straight:

• Abence of belief in something doesn't require proof of nonexistence. In fact it is COMPLETELY impossible to prove that ANYTHING does not exist!
• Ignorance is not evidence of a higher power -- it is simply evidence that we do not have all of the answers.

 

[magnifier661]

You are again lumping all atheists into the "strong atheism" category. Please get this straight:

• Abence of belief in something doesn't require proof of nonexistence. In fact it is COMPLETELY impossible to prove that ANYTHING does not exist!
• Ignorance is not evidence of a higher power -- it is simply evidence that we do not have all of the answers.

Ah okay, so then calling someone ignorant because they believe in God is justified then? So would you agree that this is false?

 

[TripTango]

Ah okay, so then calling someone ignorant because they believe in God is justified then? So would you agree that this is false?

I think it's completely unjustified to call theists any more or less ignorant than anybody else.

EDIT: On average, I mean. There are educated minds and total buffoons within both camps.

 

[magnifier661]

You can call me "straw man" for claiming the Universe is a "Close System"; but I call you blind man arguing the color purple doesn't exist. If the universe is "infinite" then anything outside this universe becomes the "Open System". Everything inside the universe is now the "Closed System". Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Also, for those of you that think I'm closed minded; I got news for you. Before we started talking about "God" I believed the world was 10k years, I also believed the universe was 7 (God days old). I also believed that evolution cannot be possible. I also didn't think about anything outside the Earth.

Now I am open to evolution, believe the universe can be 17 billion years old and the Earth can be a few billion years old. So who is closed minded here?

 

[magnifier661]

I think it's completely unjustified to call theists any more or less ignorant than anybody else.

Okay, so then you can agree that theism could be right?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

How is it "dishonest"? Am I as dishonest as those that believe God doesn't exist?

Because it is equating an indefensible claim (those phenomena happened via intelligent design) with a claim that needs no defense (we don't know how those phenomena happened). People that believe that God doesn't exist only do so because there is no way of testing for God, and have this belief in the same way that they do not believe that the Invisible Space Pickle exists.

 

[magnifier661]

Because it is equating an indefensible claim (those phenomena happened via intelligent design) with a claim that needs no defense (we don't know how those phenomena happened). People that believe that God doesn't exist only do so because there is no way of testing for God, and have this belief in the same way that they do not believe that the Invisible Space Pickle exists.

Now you are getting it! And hopefully you can have respect for those that have faith in God. Because Atheism requires a bit of Faith as well. Because in reality; Atheism cannot prove theism wrong. Am I reading you correctly?

 

[magnifier661]

EDIT: On average, I mean. There are educated minds and total buffoons within both camps.

I totally agree with this statement. I've seen some wacko theists and atheists.

 

[TripTango]

Okay, so then you can agree that theism could be right?

Absolutely. And (contrary to popular opinion, it seems) I think most atheists would agree with me that there is always a "could be" in there.

And before we get into another semantic shitstorm, "agnosticism" (as defined by Huxley, the guy who invented the term) is a methodology of separating fact from fiction, based on the concept that we are all ignorant. It is not separate and incompatible with atheism. It is a statement of knowledge, while atheism is a statement of belief:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

Of course I realize that the popular definition of the word has gotten warped, and that many use it as synonymous with "soft atheism". Whatever. If you want to call an atheist an agnostic because they don't have proof of god's nonexistence, that's up to you -- just be aware that these are not the strict or originally intended meanings for either of these words.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Now you are getting it! And hopefully you can have respect for those that have faith in God. Because Atheism requires a bit of Faith as well. Because in reality; Atheism cannot prove theism wrong. Am I reading you correctly?

A lack of belief in God(s) doesn't require faith. That's like saying thinking that the tomato I bought isn't the reincarnation of Hitler requires faith. There's absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting it is Hitler, and the crazy man down the street who shouts it into my window every morning isn't a valid source of evidence. There are no faith-based beliefs required for me to come to this conclusion because it is readily apparent that the tomato isn't Hitler due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

Atheism isn't there to "prove theism wrong," theism holds the burden of proof, since atheism is the default position.

 

[magnifier661]

Absolutely. And (contrary to popular opinion, it seems) I think most atheists would agree with me that there is always a "could be" in there.

And before we get into another semantic shitstorm, "agnosticism" (as defined by Huxley, the guy who invented the term) is a methodology of separating fact from fiction, based on the concept that we are all ignorant. It is not separate and incompatible with atheism. It is a statement of knowledge, while atheism is a statement of belief:

Which is why my arguments on "Atheism is not a sound Belief". I am not saying being "Agnostic" isn't sound. I am explaining the belief of "Atheism" is not sound.

Of course I realize that the popular definition of the word has gotten warped, and that many use it as synonymous with "soft atheism". Whatever. If you want to call an atheist an agnostic because they don't have proof of god's nonexistence, that's up to you -- just be aware that these are not the strict or originally intended meanings for either of these words.

Which I 100% agree on. I am bringing up an argument and it is up to those that read to make up their own mine. I believe I have logically given a case. I find it funny that people think I'm some looney for questioning the Atheistic belief.

I still have 7 others, and I will put them down later tonight. I have my notes at home, so I can't give it here at work.

 

[magnifier661]

A lack of belief in God(s) doesn't require faith. That's like saying thinking that the tomato I bought isn't the reincarnation of Hitler requires faith. There's absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting it is Hitler, and the crazy man down the street who shouts it into my window every morning isn't a valid source of evidence. There are no faith-based beliefs required for me to come to this conclusion because it is readily apparent that the tomato isn't Hitler due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

Atheism isn't there to "prove theism wrong," theism holds the burden of proof, since atheism is the default position.

You got it 100% backwards. If Atheism is a belief, than the burden of proof IS ON THEM. If you are telling me God doesn't exist; yet you have no evidence God doesn't exist; then you are telling me in Faith.

 

[Pokemanzdood]

You can call me "straw man" for claiming the Universe is a "Close System"; but I call you blind man arguing the color purple doesn't exist. If the universe is "infinite" then anything outside this universe becomes the "Open System". Everything inside the universe is now the "Closed System". Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Also, for those of you that think I'm closed minded; I got news for you. Before we started talking about "God" I believed the world was 10k years, I also believed the universe was 7 (God days old). I also believed that evolution cannot be possible. I also didn't think about anything outside the Earth.

Now I am open to evolution, believe the universe can be 17 billion years old and the Earth can be a few billion years old. So who is closed minded here?

The big bang doesn't contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all that has to be true is that there is less energy in the system afterwards (through loss of heat). Since we don't have any singularities of mass to test for their energy level we have to theorize that the original singularity had more total potential energy than the current universe. So you can have order from chaos, you just have lost energy from the system in the form of heat. Also, the heat doesn't disappear it just dissipates into space similar to how you could take a blowtorch to the ocean and never perceive a difference on the entirety of the ocean.

 

[TripTango]

Which is why my arguments on "Atheism is not a sound Belief". I am not saying being "Agnostic" isn't sound. I am explaining the belief of "Atheism" is not sound.

Which I 100% agree on. I am bringing up an argument and it is up to those that read to make up their own mine. I believe I have logically given a case. I find it funny that people think I'm some looney for questioning the Atheistic belief.

I still have 7 others, and I will put them down later tonight. I have my notes at home, so I can't give it here at work.

Well, you are certainly attempting to prove that it is unsound... I think you've received some very good reasons why these initial proofs are seriously flawed.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

You got it 100% backwards. If Atheism is a belief, than the burden of proof IS ON THEM. If you are telling me God doesn't exist; yet you have no evidence God doesn't exist; then you are telling me in Faith.

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. God is not a thing in which I believe exists. I'm not telling you God doesn't exist, because that is an indefensible claim (as is "God exists.) I am telling you that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God does exist, so on a matter of pure pragmatics, I don't believe.

Again, lack of belief in God(s) is the default position of human animals. There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to suggest such a thing exists. Those who insist one does exist hold the burden of proof.

 

[TripTango]

You got it 100% backwards. If Atheism is a belief, than the burden of proof IS ON THEM. If you are telling me God doesn't exist; yet you have no evidence God doesn't exist; then you are telling me in Faith.

Again, be careful with your terminology. Not all atheists claim proof of God's nonexistence. Call it "weak atheism", or "negative atheism", or "agnostic atheism", or whatever -- I think the majority of atheists fall into these categories, and do not need to prove a damn thing.

 

[blazerboy30]

Atheism is not a belief.

Yes it is.

It is a lack of belief.

No it's not. You're describing being agnostic.

God is not a thing in which I believe exists. I'm not telling you God doesn't exist, because that is an indefensible claim (as is "God exists.) I am telling you that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God does exist, so on a matter of pure pragmatics, I don't believe.

So, again, you're agnostic, not an atheist.

I still don't get why so many agnostics find it so much cooler to call themselves atheist than agnostic. It's what the cool kids do nowadays.

 

[magnifier661]

The big bang doesn't contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all that has to be true is that there is less energy in the system afterwards (through loss of heat). Since we don't have any singularities of mass to test for their energy level we have to theorize that the original singularity had more total potential energy than the current universe. So you can have order from chaos, you just have lost energy from the system in the form of heat. Also, the heat doesn't disappear it just dissipates into space similar to how you could take a blowtorch to the ocean and never perceive a difference on the entirety of the ocean.

Okay I am going to reply in laymen's terms because I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Tell me if I understand this correctly.

The big bang doesn't contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all that has to be true is that there is less energy in the system afterwards (through loss of heat).

In the beginning; there must of had a centralized mass or/and energy much greater than what is measured now?

Since we don't have any singularities of mass to test for their energy level we have to theorize that the original singularity had more total potential energy than the current universe.

There are many definitions of this. Does it mean "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume", or "theorems in general relativity theory about when gravitation produces singularities such as black holes". Before I can answer that, I need to have a more specific definition of "signularity".

So you can have order from chaos, you just have lost energy from the system in the form of heat. Also, the heat doesn't disappear it just dissipates into space similar to how you could take a blowtorch to the ocean and never perceive a difference on the entirety of the ocean.

I need to specifics of your definition os signularity before I can agree or disagree with this statement. BUT... I will say I respect this answer because it sounds logical.

 

[magnifier661]

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. God is not a thing in which I believe exists. I'm not telling you God doesn't exist, because that is an indefensible claim (as is "God exists.) I am telling you that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God does exist, so on a matter of pure pragmatics, I don't believe.

Again, lack of belief in God(s) is the default position of human animals. There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to suggest such a thing exists. Those who insist one does exist hold the burden of proof.

blazerboy30 explains it well. I don't want to overlap the rebuttle.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, be careful with your terminology. Not all atheists claim proof of God's nonexistence. Call it "weak atheism", or "negative atheism", or "agnostic atheism", or whatever -- I think the majority of atheists fall into these categories, and do not need to prove a damn thing.

"Atheism" is a belief. You even said it above. You can have modifications like "agnostic" or "weak atheism" etc. But the true definition of "Atheism" is a belief. Yes?

 

[magnifier661]

Well, you are certainly attempting to prove that it is unsound... I think you've received some very good reasons why these initial proofs are seriously flawed.

What has happened in 1 day, cannot determin the outcome of the thread. Yes, some of the "logical explanations" are worth noting. I will not discredit the rebuttles. I question them. There is a difference; yes?