Aethist corner of Elakiri

[DJvodka]

If you claim that there is a god, you need to prove it.

I didn't have to, because I didn't claim anything for or against the concept of god here.

If someone claims that there is NO god with 100% certainty, yes I agree that THEY need to prove it.


But this is NOT what most learned atheists do. We are not on a mission to DISPROVE God.

Then what is your mission exactly?

We are not 'claiming non-existence'. We are just asking for evidence for your claim before we accept it.

If you tell met that you saw a green alien last night, I will ask you for evidence. I am not going to just take your word for it. Does this mean that I am 'claiming nonexistence'?


If someone says that unicorns exist, and if I say that I don't believe what you say because there is no evidence, who do you think should give proof?


Also, my earlier question that you did not answer

We reject unicorns and tooth fairies because there is no evidence for them. Is rejecting unicorns a 'belief'? Do you think people who reject unicorns are part of a religion?

PS - you might go off on a tangent about a definition of a word now, just adding this as a precaution

[/QUOTE]

Yes. If you reject unicorns it's a belief. Simply because lack of evidence is not proof.

 

[daprinze]

If you claim that there is a god, you need to prove it.

If someone claims that there is NO god with 100% certainty, yes I agree that THEY need to prove it.


But this is NOT what most learned atheists do. We are not on a mission to DISPROVE God.

We are not 'claiming non-existence'. We are just asking for evidence for your claim before we accept it.

If you tell met that you saw a green alien last night, I will ask you for evidence. I am not going to just take your word for it. Does this mean that I am 'claiming nonexistence'?


If someone says that unicorns exist, and if I say that I don't believe what you say because there is no evidence, who do you think should give proof?


Also, my earlier question that you did not answer

We reject unicorns and tooth fairies because there is no evidence for them. Is rejecting unicorns a 'belief'? Do you think people who reject unicorns are part of a religion?



PS - you might go off on a tangent about a definition of a word now, just adding this as a precaution

Stop equating the claim for tooth fairies and unicorns to the argument for God. The argument for God is a scientific , philosophical and even psychological one. Just because you bracket the arguments together it doesn't mean they are same. To think that the argument for God and the argument for fairies and unicorns is the same is a shortcoming on your part.

In brief The universe , the existence of life , the innate intuition within us to worship a higher diety is all proof of the supernatural . These are just tips of the iceberg , if you dig deep down there is clear scientific evidence of intelligent design .

 

[Tom Riddle]

I didn't have to, because I didn't claim anything for or against the concept of god here.

I said If

Then what is your mission exactly?

To make it clear that atheism is not a religion.

Because atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position

Yes. If you reject unicorns it's a belief. Simply because lack of evidence is not proof.

If you say that your father turned into the hulk yesterday, and I don't believe you, that's a belief? Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?

No one is making the claim that unicorns don't exist, or that God does not exist.

My position is NOT

'Unicorns don't exist'

It Is

'You may claim unicorns exist. However there is no evidence for unicorns so I'm not going to believe your claim. If you want me to believe your claim you'd better give me evidence.​

Please try to understand this.

Also, please answer my questions

If someone says that unicorns exist, and if I say that I don't believe what you say because there is no evidence, who do you think should give proof?

 

[Tom Riddle]

Stop equating the claim for tooth fairies and unicorns to the argument for God.

Why should I? Each claim has the same amount of evidence to support it.

Zero.

 

[wingman]

what is Atheism ?

 

[lprj]

I think we can't prove everything scientifically as science still in primitive level to explain things. But if you have any problem regarding buddhist lessons, I will try to explain it . (But I can't prove those things using science because I am not good as einstein)

 

[daprinze]

Why should I? Each claim has the same amount of evidence to support it.

Zero.

Are you saying there is zero evidence for intelligent design behind the universe ? behind existence of life ?

 

[DJvodka]

I said If


To make it clear that atheism is not a religion.

Because atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position


If you say that your father turned into the hulk yesterday, and I don't believe you, that's a belief? Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?

No one is making the claim that unicorns don't exist, or that God does not exist.

My position is NOT

'Unicorns don't exist'

It Is

'You may claim unicorns exist. However there is no evidence for unicorns so I'm not going to believe your claim. If you want me to believe your claim you'd better give me evidence.​

Please try to understand this.

Also, please answer my questions

If someone says that unicorns exist, and if I say that I don't believe what you say because there is no evidence, who do you think should give proof?

Also, please answer my questions

If someone says that unicorns exist, and if I say that I don't believe what you say because there is no evidence, who do you think should give proof?

[/QUOTE]

Proof should be given by the persuading party. Your whole interpretation of Atheism is more lean towards agnosticism than athiesm.(marked in orange)

 

[Tom Riddle]

Proof should be given by the persuading party. Your whole interpretation of Atheism is more lean towards agnosticism than athiesm.(marked in orange)

Question 1

So is it

1. The person who said that unicorns exist?
2. The person who said that he does not believe the claim because there is no evidence?

Is it 1 or 2?



Question 2

Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?





Remember this? "PS - you might go off on a tangent about a definition of a word now, just adding this as a precaution"


I predicted correctly. OK so here goes.

Almost every person who claims himself to be an 'atheist' is actually an agnostic to at least some degree.

If you go around and ask 'atheists' whether they are '100% certain that God does NOT exist' you will not find too many people who say yes.

Strictly speaking, I am an 'agnostic' about God. That being said, I am also an agnostic about green aliens, the flying spaghetti monster, the fact that the earth is being held up by a giant tortoise, unicorns, gnomes, witches, ghosts, invisible revolving teacups in space and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

What you have to understand is that those calling themselves 'atheists' are doing so because that is the common term used, not because they are 100% sure and can prove that God does not exist.

 

[DJvodka]

Question 1

So is it

1. The person who said that unicorns exist?
2. The person who said that he does not believe the claim because there is no evidence?

Is it 1 or 2?



Question 2

Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?





Remember this? "PS - you might go off on a tangent about a definition of a word now, just adding this as a precaution"


I predicted correctly. OK so here goes.

Almost every person who claims himself to be an 'atheist' is actually an agnostic to at least some degree.

If you go around and ask 'atheists' whether they are '100% certain that God does NOT exist' you will not find too many people who say yes.

Strictly speaking, I am an 'agnostic' about God. That being said, I am also an agnostic about green aliens, the flying spaghetti monster, the fact that the earth is being held up by a giant tortoise, unicorns, gnomes, witches, ghosts, invisible revolving teacups in space and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

What you have to understand is that those calling themselves 'atheists' are doing so because that is the common term used, not because they are 100% sure and can prove that God does not exist.

I'm more stuck to the point than you are here. You are the one came up with the philosophical burden proof and other straw man's arguments when my whole point is about belief. If Atheism is completely opposite of some concept that can not be proven, then both the parties should bring about facts to support their theories. You can not simply shake it off by saying burden of proof. And at some points, not even you are changing subjects but also your own statements contradict with each other. For eg: in the beginning you've mentioned that Atheism is simply rejecting any deity or any supreme power, and now you are saying that it is hard to find people with such emphatic views (much like secular vs sacred in religions). But in the end you are saying that you are agnostics about the concept altogether. But being agnostic about god is again contradicting because clearly Atheism and Agnosticism is very different. In agnosticism you can not make such statements and also agnostic people would not argue about things that can not be proven in the first place. May be it's best that you read your own posts before further going on about burden proof. Because after all that's not my initial argument was about.

So here is the bottom line.

1. If a concept is not provable then both parties with opposing ideas should provide reasonable evidence to back up their position.
2. If a concept is provable then only the claiming party needs provision of reasonable evidence to back up their claim.

Eg:

Let's say there is a box of marbles in different colors. If some one says the color of the marble that is being picked up next is such and such color, then that prediction must be supported with facts because it could have been a lucky guess. But when it comes to something that can not be evaluated, all propositions of all parties must be supported with valid facts.

 

[daprinze]

Question 1

Strictly speaking, I am an 'agnostic' about God. That being said, I am also an agnostic about green aliens, the flying spaghetti monster, the fact that the earth is being held up by a giant tortoise, unicorns, gnomes, witches, ghosts, invisible revolving teacups in space and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

What you have to understand is that those calling themselves 'atheists' are doing so because that is the common term used, not because they are 100% sure and can prove that God does not exist.

That fact that you analyze the argument for God and the argument for flying spaghetti monster as one shows that you have preconceived notions and that you are not objectively rational.

How in the world are these arguments the same ? The arguments for God is made on so many fronts ; philosophical , scientific and theoretical to name a few. Proof of intelligent design, the creation of the universe , the existence of life and the argument for a soul are to name a few. When you keep thinking and accepting that all these arguments are the same as arguments for tooth-fairies, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters then it just shows that you have preconceived notions .

If you find a watch in the middle of the desert and some one told you that all the elements of the universe evolved and came together over millenniums and precisely came together to form a watch you will tell me I am crazy and yet when I tell you that this world we live , the universe that exists , and all the complex laws that govern it has a Creator you reject it.

 

[Tom Riddle]

I'm more stuck to the point than you are here. You are the one came up with the philosophical burden proof and other straw man's arguments when my whole point is about belief. If Atheism is completely opposite of some concept that can not be proven, then both the parties should bring about facts to support their theories. You can not simply shake it off by saying burden of proof. And at some points, not even you are changing subjects but also your own statements contradict with each other. For eg: in the beginning you've mentioned that Atheism is simply rejecting any deity or any supreme power, and now you are saying that it is hard to find people with such emphatic views (much like secular vs sacred in religions). But in the end you are saying that you are agnostics about the concept altogether. But being agnostic about god is again contradicting because clearly Atheism and Agnosticism is very different. In agnosticism you can not make such statements and also agnostic people would not argue about things that can not be proven in the first place. May be it's best that you read your own posts before further going on about burden proof. Because after all that's not my initial argument was about.

So here is the bottom line.

1. If a concept is not provable then both parties with opposing ideas should provide reasonable evidence to back up their position.
2. If a concept is provable then only the claiming party needs provision of reasonable evidence to back up their claim.

Eg:

Let's say there is a box of marbles in different colors. If some one says the color of the marble that is being picked up next is such and such color, then that prediction must be supported with facts because it could have been a lucky guess. But when it comes to something that can not be evaluated, all propositions of all parties must be supported with valid facts.

Such a long answer, and you still don't answer my questions directly.​

Anyways, addressing what you've said here....

What you seem to think is



Atheism - ‘We claim that no God exists’
Agnostics - ‘We don’t think the claim for God is acceptable’



It would be great if the concepts were as cut and dried as this. But in the real-world, they are not.

There is a whole spectrum or continuum of Atheism. What you are describing as Atheism is just a small subset called Explicit and Strong Atheism.

Not many people would call themselves Explicit Atheists. They will still identify themselves as Atheists, though you may insist on calling them agnostics.

If your definition of Atheism is ‘Claims that no God exists’, then you can call me an agnostic. Please bear in mind though that this means that I am an ‘agnostic’ about unicorns as well, because I can’t disprove their existence.

Atheism is an umbrella term that covers many people who hold views of differing strength. Saying that all Atheists claim, explicitly, that no God exists is like saying everyone in the LGBT community is a Transgender person.

Please read up on Atheism and realize that it's not as simple as saying that ‘An atheist is someone who claims the non-existence of God’


Also, please answer my questions, which I have repeated here again for your convenience. You hardly have to put much effort into typing 1 or 2 and yes or no.

Question 1

So is it

1. The person who said that unicorns exist?
2. The person who said that he does not believe the claim because there is no evidence?

Is it 1 or 2?



Question 2

Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?

 

[Tom Riddle]

That fact that you analyze the argument for God and the argument for flying spaghetti monster as one shows that you have preconceived notions and that you are not objectively rational.

How in the world are these arguments the same ? The arguments for God is made on so many fronts ; philosophical , scientific and theoretical to name a few. Proof of intelligent design, the creation of the universe , the existence of life and the argument for a soul are to name a few. When you keep thinking and accepting that all these arguments are the same as arguments for tooth-fairies, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters then it just shows that you have preconceived notions .

If you find a watch in the middle of the desert and some one told you that all the elements of the universe evolved and came together over millenniums and precisely came together to form a watch you will tell me I am crazy and yet when I tell you that this world we live , the universe that exists , and all the complex laws that govern it has a Creator you reject it.

Humankind is not in the middle of a desert. We have evidence for evolution. That's why we accept it.

We don't have any objectively verifiable and scientific evidence for a personal creator God. That's why we call you crazy.



PS - I don't normally argue with religious nuts as I've found that they are so blinded by their faith that they will never see reason. So don't mind me if I decide to stop responding to you all of a sudden, OK?

 

[lprj]

What is aethism ? this is what I found in internet. Seems to be they are struggling to define it while heavily insulting the believers of God.

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_6ZIkCTZM

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion.

 

[greenthunder]

Humankind is not in the middle of a desert. We have evidence for evolution. That's why we accept it.

We don't have any objectively verifiable and scientific evidence for a personal creator God. That's why we call you crazy.



PS - I don't normally argue with religious nuts as I've found that they are so blinded by their faith that they will never see reason. So don't mind me if I decide to stop responding to you all of a sudden, OK?

So atheist basically don't believe in God right? what about aliens? (as in the possibility of their existence)

 

[Tom Riddle]

What is aethism ? this is what I found in internet. Seems to be they are struggling to define it while heavily insulting the believers of God.

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV_6ZIkCTZM

OMG Thanks for this link

DJVodka you should visit this link. It explains why Atheism is not a religion much better than I can.

http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

 

[daprinze]

Humankind is not in the middle of a desert. We have evidence for evolution. That's why we accept it.

We don't have any objectively verifiable and scientific evidence for a personal creator God. That's why we call you crazy.



PS - I don't normally argue with religious nuts as I've found that they are so blinded by their faith that they will never see reason. So don't mind me if I decide to stop responding to you all of a sudden, OK?

Mate it is the 'theory' of evolution and not a 'fact' of evolution. There are many scientists who still do not agree with it . Besides hypothetically speaking that it is indeed a fact , how would you use it to explain the first living cell ? Evolution might explain the evolution of a species but how does it explain the origin of life ? Read "Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Spetner, Lee M. .

Humankind is indeed in the middle of a cosmic desert. Our world is a tiny dot when compared the size of the cosmos. Answer me this though , would you accept that if you found a watch in the middle of the desert you think it would have evolved into one ? And do you think that elements of nature combined by itself over a period of millenniums to form the complex human body made up of intricate chemical , biological and mechanical laws ?

There are so many evidences of fine tuning in the universe. Life conducive constants such as level of oxygen , distance of earth from sun , tillt of the earth , mass of the universe and so much more that even if it were to differ by sometimes even .0000001 percent , life would not be possible. HAve you heard of the fibonacci sequence ? How can you explain the fact that something (the universe) came out of nothing ?

Its easy branding these terms such as religious nuts , spaghetti monsters, blinded by faith here and there and paint a stereotypical picture but even if a madman says 2+2 is 4 you have to accept it !

 

[Tom Riddle]

Mate it is the 'theory' of evolution and not a 'fact' of evolution. There are many scientists who still do not agree with it . Besides hypothetically speaking that it is indeed a fact , how would you use it to explain the first living cell ? Evolution might explain the evolution of a species but how does it explain the origin of life ? Read "Not by Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Spetner, Lee M. .

Humankind is indeed in the middle of a cosmic desert. Our world is a tiny dot when compared the size of the cosmos. Answer me this though , would you accept that if you found a watch in the middle of the desert you think it would have evolved into one ? And do you think that elements of nature combined by itself over a period of millenniums to form the complex human body made up of intricate chemical , biological and mechanical laws ?

There are so many evidences of fine tuning in the universe. Life conducive constants such as level of oxygen , distance of earth from sun , tillt of the earth , mass of the universe and so much more that even if it were to differ by sometimes even .0000001 percent , life would not be possible. HAve you heard of the fibonacci sequence ? How can you explain the fact that something (the universe) came out of nothing ?

Its easy branding these terms such as religious nuts , spaghetti monsters, blinded by faith here and there and paint a stereotypical picture but even if a madman says 2+2 is 4 you have to accept it !

See this is why I don't debate religious nuts. You are so clueless and your knowledge of science is so bad that it hurts.

The 'evolution is just a theory' argument is sooooo old and childish and so easily broken, you are just embarrassing yourself.

In short,

Because 'theory' means something completely different in science when compared to what it means in day to day life. Kind of like 'weight' and 'mass'. Read this.

See what a 'theory' means in science? It's not even just a fact, it is an evidenced fact.



There are other things that you accept, that are also 'just theories'. Like

So, I suggest you do this...

Also,

1. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. Science does not have a definitive answer (as far as I know).

That does not mean that your fairy tale is true.


2. If I was in a desert, I would have no evidence to support either the claim of evolution of the watch or creation of the watch.

Humankind does have evidence for evolution. That's why we accept it.


3. Read up on the anthropic principle if you want to understand how science explains the 'fine-tuning' of values of the universe.


Peace out. Learn some science and then try to argue.

 

[y2j2]

a great reply mate, but dont waste ur time and energy to reply these nut cases. No matter how many evidence they see, they won't think freely as they've blinded by their thousands of years old religious scriptures

 

[y2j2]

How can you explain the fact that something (the universe) came out of nothing ?

actually it's less complicated than explaining god. you say something came out from something , that something is god. I ask where did that something came from.? did god created him self or did he always been there all along.? either way explaining it, is harder than explaining something from nothing