Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
    #10153797 - 04/12/09 06:48 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
The christian god caused a flood which evidence shows didnt happen - thats evidence against the christian god.  If you move the goal posts further then of course its gonna be harder to say with certainty if that definition of god exists or not.



But that's precisely what Christians do - especially the young earth proponents. "God put fossils there and made them look old" etc.

Quote:

Im curious how a scientific person like yourself can willfully embrace absence of evidence as evidence of absence.  Do you not believe in gravity waves since they have not been observed yet?  Do you not believe in extra solar life since it has not been observed yet?  Do you think the michelson-morley experiment was useless, since there was no evidence of the aether before or after it was conducted?




But there's far more evidence for gravity waves or extrasolar life than there is for a god. In the case of gravity waves, even if they haven't been observed yet, they're still predicted by theories which have successfully predicted other things - which is more than we can say about God.

And there was reason to believe in the luminiferous aether before the Mitchelson-Morley experiment, because there was precedent in the case of sound waves. The experiment quite successfully disproved it, though, which is why no one believes in the aether today.

The reason God is different from the examples above is that he's so ill-defined that it's acceptable for proponents to keep 'moving the goal posts', making it impossible for him to be disproved. You're absolutely correct about the Greek gods. But modern religions tend to avoid mistakes like declaring their god to live on a specific mountain.

I think trying to disprove the existence of God by pointing out the evidence against him is noble but futile. It's also not necessary. Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineganjababy
Stranger

Registered: 01/13/09
Posts: 443
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: MindGorilla]
    #10153839 - 04/12/09 06:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MindGorilla said:
So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.


-
If god created adam and eve was created from adam, wouldn't all of their children be inbred due tot the fact that they are related?

I'm not too familiar with the bible but the earth is 4,000 years old right? Does that mean Adam and Eve populated the earth in 2,000 years?

Not even that but radiocarbon dating can  accurately date back 50,000 years. Doesn't that alone disprove that god created the earth 4,000 years ago?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10153841 - 04/12/09 06:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.




Of course.  Why would you believe anything without evidence?  I think you missed my point...

(btw, if you really do have evidence of extra solar life you should publish that shit!)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
    #10154011 - 04/12/09 07:28 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
Quote:

Without any evidence to support his existence, there's no reason to believe in him.




Of course.  Why would you believe anything without evidence?  I think you missed my point...






This is the fundamental problem with people who have a positive belief that god does not exist- its just as much a faith as believing god exists.


These discussions seemed forever doomed to a back and forth between people who:

a) use different, seemingly novel, definnitions for atheist (no, I just believe there's no evidence of god, the dictionary says that's a fine definition)
b) Don't understand burden of proof (the fallacy that because christians posit that their is a god in an illogical manner that it must be logicaly sound to conclude that there isn't a christian god), and
c)  don't distinguish between a positive belief that god doesn't exist and disbelief in the existance of god




I don't know if zouden's doing c, but the null hypothesis would be to disbelieve in the existance of god, which is much different than believeing god doesn't exist.  EDIT: striek that, its wrong.  The null hypothesis would be that god doesn't exist, and failing to show that god does exist would not be to establish the null hypothesis but rather failing to exclude it from possibility.  In other words- its different to believe god has not been shown to exist than to believe god does not exist.
Quote:

   
Quote:

MindGorilla said:
    So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.






It's very simple: lack of evidence. I don't think that unicorns exist, for the same reason.







If zouden is really saying that he thinks god doesn't exist, it seems that his reasons aren't supportive of this belief.  I don't believe in unicorns because their is no evidence to support their existance.  That doesn't mean I can believe they don't exist.


If we were to imagine unicorns must exist in populations similar to horses only on earth if they exist, these presumptions might allow some reasoned refutation, but the similar presumptions about god are obviously silly.


There is litterally no reasoned way you can believe god doesn't exist without making all sorts of presumptions- changing the definition of god.  People have done this in this thread, because they presumably recognize the impossibility of justfiying their claim that it is logical to believe god doesn't exist- especially in any scientific manner.


Examples are: "there is no evidence of a flood like noah's ark encountered, and the strong possibility that we would have such if it happened, so god doesn't exist".  Even presuming this is valid evidence that the christian god doesn't exist, it is irrrelevant to the question of whether god exists because it is not inherent in the definition of god that a flood would occur that we would have knowledge of if god existed.


I must say it is a bit tireing to see the same arguments thrown out repeatedly in these forums- suggesting that showing the unlikliness of the biblical god has anything whatsoever at all to do with the liklihood of god existing.  If this logic made any sense i'm confident one of the many people who've advanced it so many times would have come up with some reason why by now.

Edited by johnm214 (04/12/09 08:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
    #10154097 - 04/12/09 07:45 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

I think the statement "I believe there is no god" is nonsensical. You don't need to believe in the absence of something.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwyfty Swyf
Shrugsy Shrugs


Registered: 02/20/09
Posts: 7,113
Loc: North Alabama
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: MindGorilla]
    #10154228 - 04/12/09 08:06 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

MindGorilla said:
I was brought up my whole life as a Catholic. Never believed in God primarily because of Catholicism and the fact that science is pounded into your head as truth, from early elementary. Only until a few months ago could I ever realize how brainwashed I was. The only truth you can have is subjective, yet man continues to try and make the subjective, objective.  Time into numbers, music with lyrics.




You can throw away all your clocks and listen to instrumental music, but it doesn't make God real.

Quote:

If you can understand in your mind the idea of a God being something that none greater can be thought of.

By not believing it exist in reality creates a contradiction. For if your idea of nothing greater than god still remains, you have created something greater. A being that exist in your mind, and in reality.


 

What if I imagine an all powerful purple ostrich?  That doesn't make it come to pass.

Quote:

The Big Bang created everything in this universe that is physical. So to say that something that created everything is physical is impossible, which means it must have been personal.




By implying that the Big Bang was put in motion by a personal touch from God, you create more questions than answers.  From where did God come?  If God is all powerful, why would he even need to show an effort in the matter?  Are you suggesting that he bent the rules of physics up until the moment of the Big Bang?


Quote:

True relationship with God does not begin with experiencing, rather understanding. By understanding god, things like evolving or being created in some fashion become irrelevant to the infinite itself.




What is it you think you understand about something that is not proven to exist?



Quote:

With the matter of having a relationship, those who don't believe in God can not understand. God is personal, which also makes it subjective, as something that can only be subjectively understood. And like our relationship with the external world which we never truly know, their is no uncertainty in god. If you could reach out and grasp god, would you believe?




Why would God want me to believe something that he would agree was totally illogical, if he did exist, and created the "illusion" of his absence?  I believed in God once, now I don't.  What makes your belief more valid than my previous belief?


--------------------
If you build it they will shrug.
:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154274 - 04/12/09 08:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
I think the statement "I believe there is no god" is nonsensical. You don't need to believe in the absence of something.





So what?  You don't need to believe wool is scratchy, but you may, and you may be right.



I don't understand the difficulty.


Saying you believe god does not exist is a quite clear statement.

In the relevant distinction, the statement that you find it logically held that god does not exist is quite different than saying it is illogical to hold that god logically exists.




It is the distinction that underpins scientific experimentation-  Just cuz you fail to establish your hypothesis does not mean that you've established the null hypothesis.  If the hypothesis was good exists and the null hypothesis was god does not exist and the results show that the hypothesis was not established it would not establish the null hypothesis.  It would only show that it could not be shown to whatever degree of certainty that god exists.  If these were the definitive results then, you could logically say that you find it illogical to hold that god exists, but you could not go so far as to adopt the null hypothesis and say you find it logically held that god does not exist.


The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.



This is the distinction that is being drawn here, and it is quite relevant to the burden of proof and establishment of what someone is actually claiming.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
    #10154387 - 04/12/09 08:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

>The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.

In other words, just because God hasn't been proven to exist, it doesn't mean he's been proven to not exist. And I completely agree.

What I'm trying to argue, though, is that you don't need to prove he doesn't exist in order to believe that he doesn't. This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.

It's exactly the same with unicorns. We don't need to prove they don't exist in order to say that they don't. The default position is that they don't exist.

That's precisely the definition of the null hypothesis, isn't it?


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154534 - 04/12/09 09:01 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.





Thats a type of confirmation bias, appealing to your preconceived notions in lieu of evidence.  In a binary system, with no evidence associated with it, there is no reason to assume either state.  If there is no evidence in such a system, then the default position is 50% probability of T or F.  It doesnt matter what the system is, only what evidence you have.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
    #10154608 - 04/12/09 09:17 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

It may be a 50/50 split between "there is no God" and "there is a God" - but in the latter case, we have to consider all the different Gods that people believe in. So it's not a 50/50 split between the Christian god and no god.

If you're going to argue that the Christian god is real, you'd have to first argue for the existence of a deity, and then argue that Jehovah is real while Brahma isn't. And even then, what are the chances that God is just as he's described in the bible?

There's no way that's a 50/50 split.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154625 - 04/12/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
It may be a 50/50 split between "there is no God" and "there is a God" - but in the latter case, we have to consider all the different Gods that people believe in. So it's not a 50/50 split between the Christian god and no god.

If you're going to argue that the Christian god is real, you'd have to first argue for the existence of a deity, and then argue that Jehovah is real while Brahma isn't. And even then, what are the chances that God is just as he's described in the bible?

There's no way that's a 50/50 split.



More broadly, we can include all religions by giving 50/50 odds on materialism being true.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154626 - 04/12/09 09:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Sure, evidence against the christian god has long been had.  I dont know why people always focus on the christian god...  I guess its cause there atheism is a reaction against christians.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
    #10154698 - 04/12/09 09:29 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

I'd say it's because most attacks on atheism come from Christian groups. I don't remember any Muslims complaining about the "there's probably no God" adverts.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154732 - 04/12/09 09:35 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
I'd say it's because most attacks on atheism come from Christian groups. I don't remember any Muslims complaining about the "there's probably no God" adverts.



Nah, they just riot when someone draws an image of Mohammed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10154743 - 04/12/09 09:37 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
>The failure to establish the hypothesis does not establish the null hypothesis.

In other words, just because God hasn't been proven to exist, it doesn't mean he's been proven to not exist. And I completely agree.

What I'm trying to argue, though, is that you don't need to prove he doesn't exist in order to believe that he doesn't. This is because the default position is (or should be) that there is no god unless proven otherwise.

It's exactly the same with unicorns. We don't need to prove they don't exist in order to say that they don't. The default position is that they don't exist.

That's precisely the definition of the null hypothesis, isn't it?






I agree with qubit.  This is confirmation bias.  (it isn't like you know its a 50% chance, I'm sure qubit didn't mean that, its just that for all you know, nothing untill you do your experiment, you have a 50/50 chance)


The default position is making no presumptions that aren't proven- percisely the distinction I and i believe qubit are making.  You don't say there are no unicorns you say you don't believe in them.  (again, it may be logical to think they don't exist if you presume things like nobody's seen one and we would have if the unicorn hypothesis were true, however; none of these are relevant to the god thing so they can be ignored- there's no reason god may be presumed anything at all).


The null hypothesis may be considered valid or not, I don't know, but it isn't really relevant as its an assumption for the purpose of the stats/experiment.  The fact is, the failure to demonstrate the experimental hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis.  You could have a 1% certainty that the experimental hypothesis was true and it wouldn't establish the null hypothesis (unless you make presumptions that aren't relevant, like other data).



This is the difference between asserting that god doesn't exist (null hypothesis) and not believing in god's existance (unlikely or inconclusive experimental hypothesis).  In this example it would be as if all the inromation on the matter was rolled into one experiment.  You have a complete failure to establish the existance of god.  This may be because the experiment was punching a rock and seeing if god intervense.  God not intervening doesn't establish anything.  All it shows is you cannot be confident the experimental hypothesis is true- it says nothing about the null except it cannot be excluded. 

Maybe you should check out some quick stats definitions and such?  This is exactly what we are talking about, and its the basis for stats and proper scientific conclusions.  another example:  If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct.  And this is obvious- it establishes nothing.  And yet it would show a very low liklihood (0 or whatever you interpret it as) that you can exclude the null hypothesis when you do your stats.  This is like your assertion that you'd presume the null to be correct if you can't establish the experimental.  While it may be a choice between the two, you are not saying it is one or the other by your experiment, you are saying the probability that you can exclude the null or not, which is quite different.  Just like the god thingy- in you don't have evidence that god exists it is just like asking a blind guy what color rock you have.  The fact that you have no data doesn't mean shit, it only means you cannot exclude your null hypothesis (that god doesn't exist).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleTODAY
Battletoad
Male

Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,218
Loc: Metropolis City, USA
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
    #10154772 - 04/12/09 09:43 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

i don't believe in god and i don't believe in no god.  i don't believe in anything and i don't give a shit.


--------------------

ca'rouse (k-rouz)
intr.v.
To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: johnm214]
    #10154854 - 04/12/09 09:55 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

another example:  If null is the rock is not red and the exp. hypothesis is the rock is red and your experiment is to ask someone what the color is, cuz your blind or something, if that person doesn't talk that doesn't establish the null to be correct.




No, it doesn't establish it to be correct, but it leaves the status of the rock as "probably not red". There's usually a reason why you set H0 to be "the rock is not red", rather than the other way around. Let's say it's because most rocks aren't red. So for this particular rock, you assume it is not red unless proven otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Quote:

In statistical hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis (H0) formally describes some aspect of the statistical behaviour of a set of data; this description is treated as valid unless the actual behaviour of the data contradicts this assumption.




A lack of evidence disproving the null hypothesis doesn't prove the null hypothesis to be true, but it makes it reasonable, and rational, to believe the null hypothesis to be true.

Most rocks aren't red. I don't have evidence that this particular rock is red, so it's reasonable to assume it isn't.

Most gods aren't real. I don't have evidence that the Christian god is real, so it's reasonable to assume he isn't. (Substitute with Allah or Brahma as appropriate).


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
    #10155396 - 04/12/09 11:42 PM (14 years, 11 months ago)

What's interesting is that a true believer has no need to prove the existence of God because it's self-evident.  A rational person who has not experienced the presence of God will naturally be skeptical, and rightfully so.  We should not accept claims that are not supported by present evidence; unfortunately, a fair amount of atheists live their lives without ever experiencing substantiation.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: LSDreamer]
    #10155671 - 04/13/09 12:47 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

LSDreamer said:
The Ultimate Boeing 747 argument is fairly sound IMO. The Problem of Evil is pretty damaging to the concept of an omnibenevolent god. Also, free will and omniscience aren't too compatible. Et al. Nothing you haven't heard before, I'm sure.




Who said God was omnibenevolent?  God's attributes are omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.  Consciousness cannot be created without the possibility of evil.

The criticisms as well as the argument for the airplane are found in the link below.  It is hardly sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Icelander]
    #10155689 - 04/13/09 12:52 AM (14 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
    They would say that if you can explain the universe without God, then God is not necessary, and therefore there is no reason to assume that God exists.



A feat no one has mastered.  Though some turn to evolution, the other creation story.



I'm sorry, your comment makes no sense. What do you mean by mastered? I know people who have mastered it. Veritas your nemesis in fact and she can adequately defend her position to boot, and I'm pretty close myself.




No one here, or anywhere, can explain the nature of consciousness without positing an immaterial entity as the mind.  All V could state after our conversation was the materialist position was default.  I don't call that much of an explanation.  And for the record, I have no nemesis'.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* questions for the atheist.
( 1 2 all )
whiterastahippie 4,755 36 08/01/02 05:01 AM
by MAIA
* atheist vs agnostic vs deist looner2 1,952 14 10/29/05 10:48 AM
by Deviate
* Omnibenevolence controlling omnipotence?
( 1 2 all )
ny2casports89 2,391 23 05/05/08 07:38 PM
by ray40cal
* Omnibenevolence vs. Maximal Goodness sonamdrukpa 415 11 02/21/13 05:38 PM
by sonamdrukpa
* God Exists
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Zahid 11,637 113 03/18/03 03:57 PM
by falcon
* the Muslim and the Atheist Zahid 1,247 9 07/26/02 02:13 PM
by Anonymous
* Agnostics and atheists will you succumb just before the end?
( 1 2 all )
Scarfmeister 3,646 25 04/23/03 06:18 PM
by CeeEssGee
* how can athiests exist?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
beatlesrock 9,221 191 05/04/09 10:20 PM
by Mr. Mushrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,833 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.