How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[spidergoat]

At a young age, the state of the universe violates ALL laws of physics. We also don't have an explanation for inflation, if it even happened. So, I'm going to go with what's behind door #2. The universe always existed in some form or another, but it wasn't always like this.

Besides, it doesn't matter if we have no explanation for the universe. Given the universe as we now experience it, there does not appear to be anything like a God. Since the universe seems to grow more complex with time, the initial cause of it (or the expansion of it) into normal space cannot also be complex.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Think about it... T-H-I-N-K (!!) I gather from your response that you are an evolutionist/theist. care to remark on that?

I am not a theist and I have no idea what an evolutionist is.

I could give you a detailed explanation for each and every thing I posted here, that you brought out. However, I doubt it could do any good so someone with " education" . But tell me.........

Touchy.

here's an example of evidence of the existance of God....


THE THEORIES...
1.) the universe came from nothing ACCIDENTLY
2.) The universe has always been here
3.) The universe does not really exist
4.)The universe came from NOTHING. ie SUPERNATURALLY

THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES
--------------------------------

THE REALITIES
1.) This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, neither matter no energy can be created or destroyed

2.) This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, dealing with the conservation of energy think "entropy"

3.)This theory is the road to drugs and the insane asylum

4.) THIS IS THE ONLY THEORY THAT MATCHES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND ANY REAL SCIENCE ( 1 TIM 6:20 )

( ALL others are "non-scientific" )

Those 'theories' sound like the invention of a creationist. There are many scientific theories. Some of them include:

A) The universe is a cyclic phenomena in a larger system.
B) The universe is a blip of change in a larger system.
C) The universe is steady-state offspring.
D) The universe is some combination of the above.

Keep in mind that for all these theories there is no beginning or end to reality. It simply is. Beginning and end would only apply to temporary local constructs such as time.

God verbally challenges any man to put his words to the test (ISAIAH 41:21-24) By computerized/ mathematical systems (ISA 42:9 , 43:10-13 , 44:6-8 , 45:11 , 46:5 ,9-10 )

And the results of the 'words' are bunk.

In the BOOK, , 48 prophecies are given concerning one individual-- and they are given 400 to 2000 years before HE is born. All come to pass to the last detail. The chances of such a thing happening any time in history, anywhere on earth, under any set of conditions are ONE OUT OF 10 TO THE 157th power 1 out of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
don't trust me, do the research for YOURSELF

The dead sea scroll / septuagint 'Christ' prophesies are the only objective correlary that exists in Christianity (or any religion for that matter). Taking those prophesies and comparing them against older religions shows almost 1:1correlation but with different characters. The implication of course is that the phrophesis and stores of 'Christ's' life are all fantasy ripped off from another religion.

 

[Nutter]

Are you suggesting that faith is irrational? Contemplate all the things that you have faith in.

... are you at all serious we are on a religious sub-forum, discussing religious faith not any other kind, religious faith is blind faith, so yes it is most definitely irrational. what else could it be.

ROTFLMAO.

Now reflect upon all the things that you have faith in - all the decisions that you make each day. Be honest with yourself.

 

[SnakeLord]

Now reflect upon all the things that you have faith in - all the decisions that you make each day. Be honest with yourself.

Like what? Decisions made on a daily basis are generally made because of a level of confidence in the outcome based upon prior observance/testing. That most certainly is not faith.

 

[Nutter]

Like what? Decisions made on a daily basis are generally made because of a level of confidence in the outcome based upon prior observance/testing. That most certainly is not faith.

Some may be, some may not.

However, with respect to the ones that "are," consider who does the observance /testing. Do you see where faith is involved even with the decisions that "are"?

 

[SnakeLord]

Some may be, some may not.

Do me a favour - provide an example.

However, with respect to the ones that "are," consider who does the observance /testing. Do you see where faith is involved even with the decisions that "are"?

'Fraid not. Explain..

 

[VitalOne]

Hey VO, give me a few testable ideas about god. Go on. Let's see what you got.

Humans had testable ideas about matter. They had testable ideas about EM. They tested them. We now can use both in predictable ways.

Before they were testable, we thought they were caused by gods. But even so, there were measurable things going on (rocks were hard, sparks flew from amber rubbed with wool (electron is the Greek word for "amber"), and so on).

We used god as the cause. Now, you need to show some phenomenon that is currently unexplained, test it, and show that the only remotely reasonable explanation is the hand of god.

Go on. Put the fuck up, or shut the fuck up.

ROFL!!!!!!!! Now let me ask you a question superluminal...did we always have testable ideas about matter or EM, or were they untestable for a very long period of time?

Also about the sparks from amber, do you think they knew it was electrons or just a spark?

The irrationality these little atheists go to preserve their faith-based belief system is beyond comprehension....

My argument has always been that as long as its untestable its unverifiable and thus unknown according to logic and rationality, the atheists argument is that its untestable and unverifiable and therefore false...what fools

 

[VitalOne]

Simple chemical reactions are effects of atoms, although it wasn't known thousands of years ago when the same effects were taking place. However, you'll notice that the effect came first, and the explanation came second. This is because atoms were around even then, and their effects, although the explanation/cause was unknown, were observable.

Right...so its just as I said...the effects of God although always existing are unknown because there is a lack of knowledge....just as you stated...the effects always existed but were unknown until it became verifiable

You're claiming the exact opposite, that we should accept your explanation even though we can't observe any effects.

Is it that hard to see why I have trouble swallowing that?

No I'm not, you must be retarded, I'm claiming that the rational response is that its UNKNOWN until it is verifiable...ROFL it must be your thick atheistic skull + your atheistic faith blinding you again...atheists CANNOT say its unknown they must say "oh its an imaginary fantasy, its false, there is no God" etc...because their FAITH prevents them from choosing the rational, logical explanation

 

[VitalOne]

You can accept 'God's existence as truth without evidence and you can trust 'God' unconditionally. The distinction is how the word is used within a grammatical context.

There's no distinction dumbass, I said using YOUR definition I can accept God's existence and have no unconditional trust, and thus using YOUR definition it would require no faith...

Atoms were asserted as theory until they could be objectivley detected... and now they are asserted as truth as a result. 'God' has always been asserted as truth. It is a claim and not a theory.

No it was also theory, you obviously no NOTHING about theology...

It doesn't matter if 50% of scripture claims are true. 'God' is an infallable life form. Being incorrect contradicts that notion.

God is NEVER incorrect, scripture written by man is...can you point me to what Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna that was discovered to be false?

Atheists aren't claiming every assertion of modern physics to be absolute truth.

If thats true why don't they say what happens after death is unknown? I mean one small discovery (the many-worlds interpretation being proven true) would make an afterlife a scientific fact

It shows you what 'God' is. A psychological phenomena... and of course by knowing what it is, you know what it is not.

ROFL!!!! So you agree, it has no relation to the existence or non-existence of God...

I think it shows what you just stated here:

It shows that people value their psychological needs more than truth.

Atheists do not value the truth, they value fantasy, which is why they insist whatever the current evidence shows is the absolute truth, even though historically its shown over and over again that its NEVER the absolute truth nor is it anything expected...

 

[ashura]

No I'm not, you must be retarded, I'm claiming that the rational response is that its UNKNOWN until it is verifiable...ROFL it must be your thick atheistic skull + your atheistic faith blinding you again...atheists CANNOT say its unknown they must say "oh its an imaginary fantasy, its false, there is no God" etc...because their FAITH prevents them from choosing the rational, logical explanation

Yes you are. Something being unknown doesn't lean it towards being true or false. Because of that, there's no reason to believe in it. It's that simple. Thus the default position should actually be atheism (although not strong atheism, I don't give positive assertions that God doesn't exist any more credit than you do). Do you constantly have to defend your faith in other religious entities not existing?

Thanks for the personal attacks by the way, very civil of you.

 

[VitalOne]

Yes you are. Something being unknown doesn't lean it towards being true or false. Because of that, there's no reason to believe in it. It's that simple. Thus the default position should actually be atheism (although not strong atheism, I don't give positive assertions that God doesn't exist any more credit than you do). Do you constantly have to defend your faith in other religious entities not existing?

Thanks for the personal attacks by the way, very civil of you.

Man, what an idiot...ahahaha...the default position is to neither believe NOR disbelieve (I wonder why foolish atheists conviently leave out that there's also no reason to disbelieve), this isn't atheism, this is more correctly defined as agnosticism...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There's no distinction dumbass, I said using YOUR definition I can accept God's existence and have no unconditional trust, and thus using YOUR definition it would require no faith...

Please provide evidence where I asserted a definition of faith and explicitly stated that no other definitions can co-exist.

Your attitute as a thread starter seems rather poor. I get the impression that you are more interested in trolling than providing any value... so are you bringing any value to the table? If so what is it?

No it was also theory, you obviously no NOTHING about theology...

Please provide evidence from an academic theological source that states 'God' is only a theory.

God is NEVER incorrect, scripture written by man is...can you point me to what Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna that was discovered to be false?

According to scripture, it is 'God's word. Are you stating that everything that might be true in scripture is 'God's word and everything that is false in scripture is man's writing?

Of course I can point you to objective assertions made by 'God' (btw buddha is not a 'God') that are false. Let's take Jesus for example (seeing as you appear interested in that 'aspect' of 'God'. Similar quotes to this one:

"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it."

are found all over the bible. A believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it and Jesus even states that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. Despite many attempts by believers, none are able to do so. Logically speaking, if a single believer prayed for all atheists to be converted to Christianity right at this very second then it would be so. Clearly that has not worked.

If thats true why don't they say what happens after death is unknown? I mean one small discovery (the many-worlds interpretation being proven true) would make an afterlife a scientific fact

Please explain how the MWI would result in an 'afterlife' being a fact? What happens after death is very well known. The matter and energy that made you up are converted to other forms of energy during the process of decomposition. Consciousness consequently ceases due to insufficient brain activity (or absence of brain as it decomposes).

ROFL!!!! So you agree, it has no relation to the existence or non-existence of God...

I think it shows what you just stated here:

Incorrect. It shows exactly what any human claim of 'God' is. Anthropomprhization of reality. Is an objective psychological phenomena. It also shows exacly what any human claim of 'God' is not (i.e. real).

Atheists do not value the truth,

Seeing as the bulk of scientists (people who dedicate their lives to the discovery and implementation of truth) are atheists, you are incorrect. Unfortunately for you, you made a claim of absolute truth that is incorrect. You are therefore a liar.

they value fantasy,

Everybody value's fantasy. The important question is where is that value exist in someone's heirarchy of values?

which is why they insist whatever the current evidence shows is the absolute truth, even though historically its shown over and over again that its NEVER the absolute truth nor is it anything expected...0

Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. For example, it is absolutely true that you can type in English. The evidence shows this conclusively. It is not absolutely true that M-theory is correct even though various pieces of physical and alot of mathematical evidence shows this inconclusively. If you understand the distinction, you will understand why your statement is false.

 

[ashura]

Man, what an idiot...ahahaha...the default position is to neither believe NOR disbelieve (I wonder why foolish atheists conviently leave out that there's also no reason to disbelieve), this isn't atheism, this is more correctly defined as agnosticism...

Again, thanks for the personal attack.

This distinction you're creating that rests in between belief and disbelief doesn't exist. If one doesn't believe, that's being in a state of disbelief. You can't reject both.

dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef]
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

The inability to believe due to lack of evidence is disbelief.

C'mon VitalOne, there's no good argument here. And there's no reason why agnosticism and atheism can't mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Again, thanks for the personal attack.

This distinction you're creating that rests in between belief and disbelief doesn't exist. If one doesn't believe, that's being in a state of disbelief. You can't reject both.

dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef]
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

The inability to believe due to lack of evidence is disbelief.

C'mon VitalOne, there's no good argument here. And there's no reason why agnosticism and atheism can't mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

ashura,

I think what he might be getting at is a person can have a positive belief (assertion is true), a negative belief (assertion is false), or an absence of belief (don't know / dont care).

 

[ashura]

ashura,

I think what he might be getting at is a person can have a positive belief (assertion is true), a negative belief (assertion is false), or an absence of belief (don't know / dont care).

My problem is that he refuses to believe an atheist can be in the last category. Disbelief due to lack of evidence is the same as an absence of belief. Were he only arguing against strong atheists who fit in the second category I'd probably be agreeing with him.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

My problem is that he refuses to believe an atheist can be in the last category. Disbelief due to lack of evidence is the same as an absence of belief. Were he only arguing against strong atheists who fit in the second category I'd probably be agreeing with him.

Disbelief is often associated with negative belief (i.e. assertion is false) instead of absence of belief. It can also be associated with absence of belief. The distinction unfortunatly is contextual in present language and grammar. I understand your frustration that he refuses to understand and / or acknowledge that atheists can be in an absence of belief category. I saw an argument from him that such people are agnostic and not really atheist. The differences between a weak atheist and an agnostic are actually pretty big. Agnostics issue a positive claim that man can never know if a 'God' exists or not and therefore eliminate probability and enquiry. Agnostics also value not scrutinizing a person's belief. Weak atheists do no such thing. On a sidenote, there are logical flaws to agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism (the only one I have found no flaw with is 'firm' atheism - positive evidence-based belief that all human claims of 'God' do not exist and absence of belief for a generic 'God' existing-... but that is probably far beyond the scope of this thread).

 

[ashura]

Disbelief is often associated with negative belief (i.e. assertion is false) instead of absence of belief. It can also be associated with absence of belief. The distinction unfortunatly is contextual in present language and grammar. I understand your frustration that he refuses to understand and / or acknowledge that atheists can be in an absence of belief category. I saw an argument from him that such people are agnostic and not really atheist. The differences between a weak atheist and an agnostic are actually pretty big. Agnostics issue a positive claim that man can never know if a 'God' exists or not and therefore eliminate probability and enquiry. Agnostics also value not scrutinizing a person's belief. Weak atheists do no such thing. On a sidenote, there are logical flaws to agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism (the only one I have found no flaw with is 'firm' atheism - positive evidence-based belief that all human claims of 'God' do not exist and absence of belief for a generic 'God' existing-... but that is probably far beyond the scope of this thread).

I'd actually be interested in hearing about firm atheism, just out of curiosity as I'd never heard the term before. I don't think it's possible for such a thing to exist in real life.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'd actually be interested in hearing about firm atheism, just out of curiosity as I'd never heard the term before. I don't think it's possible for such a thing to exist in real life.

It's the in-between of weak and strong atheism . The term is something I invented and have peddled from time to time. It describes the position that any claim of 'God' is presently disproven and that no human has any idea if some generic omnipotent life form exists or not (although IMO its very unlikely and probably unimportant). The position does exist in real life as I am living proof of that .

 

[ashura]

It's the in-between of weak and strong atheism . The term is something I invented and have peddled from time to time. It describes the position that any claim of 'God' is presently disproven and that no human has any idea if some generic omnipotent life form exists or not (although IMO its very unlikely and probably unimportant). The position does exist in real life as I am living proof of that .

How would you know/prove that no human has any idea if some generic omnipotent life form exists? (I know, I'm nitpicking )

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Heh. I don't mind . Human psychology is the answer. In a world riddled with 'Gods', if someone attained evidence that a real omnipotent life form existed, that evidence would make front page news world wide.