Hyperbole much? I do assume they have equal grounding. We have a frame of reference to assume an elephant wouldent be in your bedroom. We have no frame of reference relating to whether god would exist or not
When/ how did you become an atheist?
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
Hyperbole much? I do assume they have equal grounding. We have a frame of reference to assume an elephant wouldent be in your bedroom. We have no frame of reference relating to whether god would exist or not
No. Illustration.
Why? (Apart from general ignorance, I mean).
Please stop misusing the terminology "frame of reference".
You mean other than the fact that after 2,000 years of claims there's still no evidence to indicate that he actually does?
I am not sure that a probability can be put on this issue. Too many unknowns. 50/50 is as good as any, but to claim it is so is ridiculous.
If some real evidence could be produced to support the belief in God then a probability could be more supported. Until then, why believe?
If some real evidence could be produced to support the belief in God then a probability could be more supported. Until then, why believe?
But we can't know for sure if the door is closed.
Just like the elephant.
We have no logical reason to assume a god exists. It might... So might the elephant.
Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?
I don't need any evidence to indicate he doesn't.
I simply don't believe in god, I don't claim that he doesn't exist.
The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?
You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?
You say "stop" misusing the frame of reference which implies more than one occurance??
Can you help me out by explaining how I am using the term incorrectly?? I would like your expertise on the subject. Thanks.
There is no evidence for and a lot of evidence against the classic religions. Joey made up his own story that takes scientific advances into consideration. So he builds his belief on what we already know to be true. That's why he thinks that his belief is somehow more likely to be true than the classic stories about God(s).
Right.
Evidence for: none (despite 2,000 years of claims and concerted effort to prove he does).
Evidence against: none specifically, but many things once attributed to god have been shown to be entirely natural. I.e. his "duties" (and the necessity for him to exist - and consequently the likelihood of him existing*) reduce all the time.
* This is not to say that he couldn't exist, but that he seems to become less and less relevant. He may exist but have nothing whatsover to do, with anything. Which, I suggest, in addition to his general undetectability puts him in the category of "so what?" if he does exist. We can't prove it, can't point to any consequence of his existence... He may as well NOT exist (whether he does or not) for all the impact he has.
And it is a stance that is unable to be questioned no doubt. But it doesn't make it true, and he shouldn't pedal it as irrefutable. Beliefs are just assumptions without evidence.
Why is that?
Let's see... apart from your use of it in other threads/ posts you DID use it twice in the one post to which I replied.
Frame of reference.
(Assuming you weren't trying to use it in the physics sense).
You're using the term very loosely (but then again, you're not that rigorous in your choice of wording generally).
So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.
Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.
Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.
Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.
Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.
Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.
Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.
So true. Evidence against is tricky though because a cobbled together new theory could be outside of any review and avoid finding of evidence to prove god doesn't exist by simply moving the theory down to the infrascopic and beyond.
We will never be able to prove he doesn't exist because boundaries of theories can always be moved.
Like I said, too many unknowns to generate an accurate probability.
I was hoping to learn something from you for once. Let's see..
Definition of frame: A frame is a structural system that supports other components of a physical construction.
Definition of reference: A references can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other[2], spacetime coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection; but, other concrete and abstract contexts exist as methods of defining references within the scope of the various fields that require an origin, point of departure, or an original form. This includes methods that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.
Wow I think my statements were used properly in context. Care to try again? Ah I see you put "loosely based"
so I'm not wrong? I want to see specific examples dwy. Please show me how im misusing the term or retract your allegation.
Except that we have proven evolution exists. Oh wait! Are you claiming there's historical evidence for god? Go ahead...
In other words you're not actually interested in a genuine answer.
One more time: no. I'm using the generally understood term.
Which means what? God is just nature taking its course?
Still misreading. I don't have a position: I'm questioning claims that others make.
One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change. If you want to meet 'Mr Evolution' you will be sadly diasappointed lol.
And we aren't talking about a physical construction: we're talking about concepts.