Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[BilliardsBall]

Do you even chess bro?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Let's set aside for a second that the overwhelming majority of people that hold you particular set of superstitions also recognise evolution as valid science. Even if every single religious person believed as you do, that would not make it any more true.

The fact is this has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with the fact that the overwhelming bulk of the data confirms evolution as true, with not a single point of falsification that could undermine it.

And even if evolution were to be falsified and overturned, that STILL would not in any way verify creationism; only positive evidence for creationism could do that, of which we have none.

Your quest work is basically the same as that of Sisyphus.

You responded as best you could, yet you didn't counter my assertion.

There was a question as to whether there is some big evolution conspiracy on the part of scientists. There is not, just as there is no worldwide religious conspiracy to make religious people religious.

If YOU believe theists are prone to error, logically, you are saying:

1. Most humans are prone to error.

2. Scientists are all humans.

3. Most scientists are prone to error.

Which syllogism destroys any ground you gain in saying, "Scientists prove their is no God" and other typical atheist nonsense. Scientists must first prove they are not humans before we take everything they say at face value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You responded as best you could, yet you didn't counter my assertion.

There was a question as to whether there is some big evolution conspiracy on the part of scientists. There is not, just as there is no worldwide religious conspiracy to make religious people religious.

If YOU believe theists are prone to error, logically, you are saying:

1. Most humans are prone to error.

2. Scientists are all humans.

3. Most scientists are prone to error.

Which syllogism destroys any ground you gain in saying, "Scientists prove their is no God" and other typical atheist nonsense. Scientists must first prove they are not humans before we take everything they say at face value.

Scientists have never tried to prove that there is no god. You still do not seem to understand the concept of atheism. Here is a hint, the burden of proof is not upon atheists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Vote for me! A True Christian™ I'll run the Hell out of America.

I'll make you my VP.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can deal with two, but one is a false premise. You can ask a nonexistent God anything in prayer, but He won't hear you if He's not there.

To ask a question of a deity which doesn't exist would mean pretending.
I don't think that's worthwhile.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you prove that weight and measurements exist? How can you prove that scales and measuring tools exist?

Seriously? You are certain about gods but agnostic about scales?

Why do you believe only things with mass and energy exist, when logic and math have neither, but exist? No, metaphysical things, God, math, logic, exist.

I have no reason to believe that your god exists.

Nor have you been able to provide one despite claiming that you could.

most of the atheists who post daily on religious forums, in my anecdotal experience, are bitter

You're confusing their rejection of your ideas with bitterness. Most of the atheists posting here seem pretty happy and well adjusted to me.

You come off as bitter. You clearly resent atheists, probably because we tell you that we feel fulfilled without religion.

 

[Polymath257]

Good question! You are separated from good friends by a rock slide. Do you shout to them to see if they're okay, if they can hear you, or do you hold your tongue, feeling it might be silly to call out to people behind too much rock to hear your calls for RESCUE FROM THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROCK FALL.

Get . . . . . . REAL.

Get ... on board with a Schrödinger's cat concept here. Christians and Jews and Muslims and millions more say God is real but invisible. It would be logical to begin with He might or might not exist. Certainly, we can start from He doesn't exist unless I have proof, and then I will say as a Christian that God is hiding from all and their sin and coming to all who seek. I mean, that's what Jesus Christ said on this subject.

OK, I did your experiment. I got no answer. What may I conclude?

I shouted to whoever was out there. I found nothing but an echo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I did your experiment. I got no answer. What may I conclude?

I shouted to whoever was out there. I found nothing but an echo.

Wait for it . . .

 

[Shad]

I wouldn't say denial or rejection. I would say many atheists have never encountered God . . . . . . . . . . . yet.

Sure that is more balanced rather than putting people on the defensive.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, wish I'd seen this before my prior reply, but can you give some details?

Did you pray, "Jesus I want to come to know you by next week," or did you pray something ten years ago and God has led you to a religious forum?!

I see, so we have to wait until we die to know if the experimental question was answered? I call BS.

Nobody lead me to a religious forum. I have been debating in forums like this (and others) for a long, long time. I was asking questions of Christians even before the internet came about. I've heard the same routine evasions to questions for decades now.

Why am I here? Because I find the human behavior of religion to be strange and fascinating. I find that my ability to formulate my thoughts and convey them well is helped by these forums. I find that I learn things (usually from the atheists, mind you) as well as debate techniques. And I want to provide an alternative viewpoint to those who are complacent concerning their religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe I was clear,

No, you were not.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Unless you both enjoy posting to draw attention to your pseudo-sophistry, what is it about Atheists that you both seem to not understand or choose to ignore?

Actually, there is nothing about atheists I 'do not understand' or 'wish to ignore'. If you're unfamiliar with atheism in history, don't get defensive and hostile with me about it. This isn't pseudo-sophistry. It's historical fact.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It is ONLY because of the lack of evidence, that Atheists maintain the absence of a God(s) belief.

Sure. Some intellectually lazy modern people may be satisfied to take that minimalist approach. The ancient atheists were not satisfied, which I have to at least give them credit for. They knew we can't take for granted a negative as verifying a truth. They were familiar with philosophy and argumentation.

Thank you for demonstrating something I say often enough though. That new atheists are pretty well philosophical illiterates. You think lack of evidence should stop you from investigating any subject? Think again...

Science would never get anywhere with that approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. Some intellectually lazy modern people may be satisfied to take that minimalist approach. The ancient atheists were not satisfied, which I have to at least give them credit for. They knew we can't take for granted a negative as verifying a truth. They were familiar with philosophy and argumentation.

Thank you for demonstrating something I say often enough though. That new atheists are pretty well philosophical illiterates. You think lack of evidence should stop you from investigating any subject? Think again...

Science would never get anywhere with that approach.

Whoa nelly! Who said that atheists are not interested in investigating the topic of whether there is a god or not? They simply take the reasonable position that without evidence for a god that there is no rational reason to believe in one. If anyone is philosophically lazy it seems to me that that accusation applies more to most theists than atheists. They are inconsistent in their approach to their own beliefs. They refuse to believe in other religions based upon the same arguments that they should apply to their own beliefs.

Now tell me, how does one determine whether a god exists or not?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Whoa nelly! Who said that atheists are not interested in investigating the topic of whether there is a god or not?

The person I was responding to didn't sound too interested.

They simply take the reasonable position that without evidence for a god that there is no rational reason to believe in one.

The position that there is no reason to believe in god- or the position that there isn't one? These are in fact different positions.

If anyone is philosophically lazy it seems to me that that accusation applies more to most theists than atheists.

You might think so, but not always. I'll grant you evangelicals are pretty unreflective about their positions, but most theists are not. Some atheists are also not, but I definitely see the new atheists/militants as being. Their typical answer to questions about morality and worth is individual preference. That's quite frankly, weak.

They refuse to believe in other religions based upon the same arguments that they should apply to their own beliefs.

According to an outside perspective, it may appear that way. Is that why religions say they reject rival claims though?

Now tell me, how does one determine whether a god exists or not?

Try asking one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The person I was responding to didn't sound too interested.

Perhaps it was the way you approached the subject.

The position that there is no reason to believe in god- or the position that there isn't one? These are in fact different positions.

No reason to believe. The "there is no god" is a stance usually taken by what are called hard atheists. They appear to be in the minority today.

You might think so, but not always. I'll grant you evangelicals are pretty unreflective about their positions, but most theists are not. Some atheists are also not, but I definitely see the new atheists/militants as being. Their typical answer to questions about morality and worth is individual preference. That's quite frankly, weak.

Frankly I do not see that. But then most theists I see are on forums. And please note that earlier I did say most and not all. At any rate most do not apply the same reasons for disbelief of others gods to their own. If they did so they would be militant atheists. As to morals most atheists that I know of have a far better grasp than most theists since they realize that a valid source needs to be found. Speaking of that have you heard of the "Veil of Ignorance"?

According to an outside perspective, it may appear that way. Is that why religions say they reject rival claims though?

Most religions simply state what they believe. They do not tend to give a reason why. Reasons are usually given on an individualistic level.

Try asking one.

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. No reply given. That of course is not evidence for a lack of a god. But I was hoping that you might have something new.

 

[Revoltingest]

The person I was responding to didn't sound too interested.

Is interest in the existence of gods necessary or even useful?
Has it led anyone anywhere better than where disinterest has led me?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Is interest in the existence of gods necessary or even useful?
Has it led anyone anywhere better than where disinterest has led me?

Well if gods be true, what do you think?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if gods be true, what do you think?

It's always an "if", since it's non-disprovable.
But without any evidence to investigate, why should it be interesting?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if gods be true, what do you think?

If you want others to join you in a conversation it is a good idea to answer their questions if you want an answer to yours.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Perhaps it was the way you approached the subject.

How should I approach the subject? I offered historical facts about ancient atheists and got lambasted as a sophist.

No reason to believe. The "there is no god" is a stance usually taken by what are called hard atheists. They appear to be in the minority today.

That is good at least.

As to morals most atheists that I know of have a far better grasp than most theists since they realize that a valid source needs to be found.

What if no valid source of morals can be found in materialism? What then? This is one of the areas I'm talking about by the way- that I question how much thought atheists give morals and logical proofs.

How do you get morals and worth out of chemical processes in the brain?

Speaking of that have you heard of the "Veil of Ignorance"?

Heard of, but refresh me.

Most religions simply state what they believe. They do not tend to give a reason why. Reasons are usually given on an individualistic level.

Oh religions don't give reasons as to why? Divine revelation isn't a reason why? Awakening to higher reality isn't a reason why? Reasons atheists won't accept is a different matter, isn't it?

But I was hoping that you might have something new.

What do you want me to say?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's always an "if", since it's non-disprovable.
But without any evidence to investigate, why should it be interesting?

If it's non-disprovable, then that's as good as an admission there might be something to it.

Now we come to evidence. What kind of evidence? Yes this really does have to be asked, though I know it'll get me accused of shifting the goalposts. What kind of evidence do you accept?