The Atheism Thread - Part 6

[Marvolo]

There are two schools of thought on that:

1. Many atheists are, in fact, open to possible evidence - provided that it’s sufficiently compelling and unambiguous. (Lack of ambiguity is rather crucial. A beautiful sunset can be offered as evidence of god. But it could also just be the physics and psychology of “pretty colors” that a natural Universe produces.) The clichéd example of compelling evidence is the 600ft Jesus descending through the clouds, accompanied by angels and heavenly choir music. Sure, this could be a hallucination or aliens who’ve done their homework. But a number of atheists agree that such a sight would lend impressive, provisional credence to the (Christian) god hypothesis.

2. On the other hand… there are atheists who outright reject any possibility of god. But this is not close-mindedness to evidence in the typical sense. Rather, their notion is that no coherent or non-self-contradictory definition of god has ever been produced. So it’s analogous to the claim that square circles exist. Based on the understood definitions of “square” and “circle,” it’s not close-minded to repudiate a concept that’s - essentially - a nonsense phrase. And for some atheists, “god” is equally nonsensical/incoherent; and can be dismissed for that reason.

This post...I like it!

 

[Marvolo]

Crap.

I hate that this is even happening.

I do to. Creationism should not be legitamized in any way no matter how miniscule that way is. Giving it a platform to debate against a proven scientific theory is nonsensical. It doesnt have enough imperical evidence to be taken seriously and would be rejected from any scientific journal. For that matter no scientist should publically acknowledge it as a scientific theory. Further, Nye doesnt have the fire to take this creationist down at the knees and entirely discredit him.

If Nye makes anything abundantly clear he needs to make sure the audience and the creationist understand the difference between the definition of a scientific theory and a layman theory and why creationism is not a scientific theory.

 

[The End]

There are two schools of thought on that:

1. Many atheists are, in fact, open to possible evidence - provided that it’s sufficiently compelling and unambiguous. (Lack of ambiguity is rather crucial. A beautiful sunset can be offered as evidence of god. But it could also just be the physics and psychology of “pretty colors” that a natural Universe produces.) The clichéd example of compelling evidence is the 600ft Jesus descending through the clouds, accompanied by angels and heavenly choir music. Sure, this could be a hallucination or aliens who’ve done their homework. But a number of atheists agree that such a sight would lend impressive, provisional credence to the (Christian) god hypothesis.

2. On the other hand… there are atheists who outright reject any possibility of god. But this is not close-mindedness to evidence in the typical sense. Rather, their notion is that no coherent or non-self-contradictory definition of god has ever been produced. So it’s analogous to the claim that square circles exist. Based on the understood definitions of “square” and “circle,” it’s not close-minded to repudiate a concept that’s - essentially - a nonsense phrase. And for some atheists, “god” is equally nonsensical/incoherent; and can be dismissed for that reason.

The "what sort of evidence would it take to convince you?" discussion is very vital and gets to the crux of the issue.

The thing is that because of the nature of the claim that god exists, it may very well be impossible to demonstrate. Because of the nature of what god is (in monotheism, literally the most powerful being in the universe, the creator of everything), it is unfalsifiable.

Consider - The 'best case scenario' alternate universe (using christianity as an example).

There is not only historical verification that Jesus Christ existed, but that the 'miracles' actually happened, verified independently across multiple sources. We are as certain that Jesus Christ turned water into wine as we are that George Washington existed.

Okay, what then?

"He turned water into wine, therefore he has to be the most powerful being in the universe (and is his own son)".

Do we believe who he says he is, because he can do extraordinary things?

The issue is that practically any alternate hypothesis you can think of would require LESS assumptions, than assuming that he has to be the most powerful being in the universe.

Maybe he's an undiscovered split off from humanity, an 'X-Man', who is not necessarily lying about who he is but has simply become deluded into thinking he's the son of god.

Maybe he's an alien.

Maybe he's a time traveller with access to technology we can't yet imagine.

All of these are extraordinary claims, sure, but are they any MORE extraordinary than the claim "he is the most powerful being in the universe - he is the creator of everything".

An alien, would at least be a natural explanation.

It would be feasible in such a 'best case scenario' universe that there would be competing groups arguing over just who or what influenced the events in the bible. It would even be feasible that there would be skeptics that don't agree with either the theists or the alienists and take a position that one explanation may be more likely than another, there may be other alternative hypothesis still, but there is no real conclusion.

Okay.

How could god convince me he's real?

God could instantly fill me with certainty that he is real. Direct mental realization with no doubts.

What then?

How would I then be able to convince others? How would I be able to differentiate myself from someone that was simply deluded? Likewise if I had a personal vision of 400ft god. I simply wouldn't be able to objectively convince anyone that the experience was genuine.

God. Is. Unfalsifiable. Religious arguments for the existence of god are futile, even in the 'best case' universe.

And, we don't live in the best case universe. We live in a universe in which faith healing is dangerous because it doesn't work, in which people that claim to be psychics fall apart at the merest pressure from scepticism, in which the evidence that Jesus even existed at all is weak (which some of you may have seen me deal with recently) never mind that he performed the miracles that its claimed he performed, we don't go around firing spells at each other like in Skyrim or Harry Potter... we live in a universe in which naturalistic explanations are parsimonious, in which the scientific method has made it possible to live well beyond the average life expectancy of our desert tribe ancestors who were afraid of demons causing disease, in which people are much more literate than they were in the middle east 2000 years ago...

The most simple explanation for the stories of the bible is that they are just stories and nothing more. That's the universe we live in. That people state with such certainty, and arrogance, that if you don't believe as they believe based on this book then your soul is doomed for eternity... is pathetic, its an utter embarrassment to our progress.

 

[Marvolo]

Courtesy of Mondragon:

“Dinosaurs in Eden” a book by Ken Ham...

This is the "science" he wants taught in schools.

 

[regwec]

God I love that kind of ****!

 

[redhawk23]

Wait, why would young earth creationism require vegetarian T-rexes?

 

[The End]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

http://debatelive.org/

Live in just a minute.

 

[Feenix]

As an atheist, if you post in the Jesus Christ thread, the Christians call you a troll or a whiner and tell you to leave the thread.

If a Christian posts in the Atheist thread and atheists tell them to leave, they're called close minded and rude.

Ah, double standards.

 

[regwec]

Christians are a cowardly, superstitious lot.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Christians are a cowardly, superstitious lot.

"...so my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I must be a creature of hell, black, terrible..."

 

[Breogan]

Wait, why would young earth creationism require vegetarian T-rexes?

Ugh I feel stupider for even "knowing" this (damn debate exposed me to creationist garbage) I think something to do with before sin or the flood or some crap all creatures lived happily and together in peace with like koalas riding polar bears, and human children riding t-rex, so they were all vegetarian. And only after sin creatures now had to suffer and kill for their food.

Just typing that made me want to stab that part of my brain out.

 

[SV Fan]

Wait, why would young earth creationism require vegetarian T-rexes?

Thing I don't get is what the hell did god have against dinosaurs that he let them rot in the big flood

All that being said I think by the creationists view of dinosaurs they been watching to much of this

 

[Breogan]

Thing I don't get is what the hell did god have against dinosaurs that he let them rot in the big flood

He didn't, some were apparently on the ark too.

Then spread with their pal man across the earth...

 

[Thundercrack85]

I have actually never asked any creationist this, but why are there no dinosaurs anymore?

I have heard some like Hovind say that small dinosaurs still exist, and another cited the Loch Ness monster as evidence.

Anyone ever ask that?

 

[Thundercrack85]

As an atheist, if you post in the Jesus Christ thread, the Christians call you a troll or a whiner and tell you to leave the thread.

If a Christian posts in the Atheist thread and atheists tell them to leave, they're called close minded and rude.

Ah, double standards.

That's why they started the Cthulhu worship thread.

 

[chaseter]

I have actually never asked any creationist this, but why are there no dinosaurs anymore?

I have heard some like Hovind say that small dinosaurs still exist, and another cited the Loch Ness monster as evidence.

Anyone ever ask that?

Ask a Creationist if he/she believes that a duck walked the Earth with a T-Rex. It shuts them up.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I just found this interesting little nugget.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...eport-their-miscarriages-to-police/?mobile=nc

 

[KevanG]

What the ****?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm as anti-abortion as the next guy, but this is ridiculous and offensive.

 

[regwec]

The next guy is not anti abortionist.

 

[enterthemadness]

The next guy is not anti abortionist.

And neither is this one, pro-choice. This is something that should be left for a woman to decide.

 

[KalMart]

I have actually never asked any creationist this, but why are there no dinosaurs anymore?

I have heard some like Hovind say that small dinosaurs still exist, and another cited the Loch Ness monster as evidence.

Anyone ever ask that?

Dinosaurs evolved into birds...and there are plenty of those still around. A creationist would probably say they turned into Muslims.

 

[Feenix]

According to Ken Ham:

After the Flood, around 4,300 years ago, the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out.

 

[KalMart]

 

[regwec]

According to Ken Ham:

Is there no mention of disease in the Bible prior to Exodus?

Not that it matters, but it amuses me when Christians get their own book wrong.