Snake. that looks interestong but I don't have an account could you sum it up or if possible cut and paste it and pm it it to me.
Thanks.
Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Thanks.
No you're not supposed to place confidence in it. But we have no way of objectively confirming subjective experiences which means NDEs should not be automically dismissed either.
If you think there is actual evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain then provide it.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Because when you get into what consciousness actually means within philosophy and science you realise that what we observationally deduce as being 'concsious' often relates to things that dont have brains atall.
One of the current arguments raging in philosophy is in regards to AI - we're already reaching the point where we can create programs and devices that seem to demonstrate a frightening sense of free-will.
And it looks set to create a huge divide over what consciousness as a process really needs to demonstrate to be worthy of that title.
Of course, which makes absolute sense - the more complex a system becomes the more options for self-agency present themselves.
I think its much more helpful to look at consciousness on a gradient that offers decreasing to increasing options for self-determing expression.
Im wary of just labeling things as 'insentient automations', as i dont think it really gets us anywhere and you cant really prove anything on those terms - as you yourself seem to suggest.
The central problems seems to be - how do we get subjective experience from objective matter. Panpsychists/panexperimentalists offer the solution of experience and 'isness' being innate to all matter, and so this base level of 'isness' creates the fundamental building blocks for higher grades of consciousness.
The central problem with emergent theories of consciousness seems to hinge on the question of how we go from physical matter to this immaterial stuff we call 'subjective experience'
Theyre both such fundamentally opposed realities that its hard to see how one could have emerged from the other - its not like not like taking say; steel and melting it into a liquid, we're going from one kind of fundamental to a completely new kind of fundamental.
It depends on how you think of the term 'immaterial' really, consciousness is certainly immaterial in the sense that you cant measure it subjectivity, even if i could point to a neuron firing in your brain when you were thinking about death - is that physical matter the experience in itself?
Its a mind DELETEDwhen you really start to think about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a total mind DELETED. And I'm starting to think I shouldn't be thinking about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
hehe why do you say that?
I do find though, that in learning new stuff my brain almost requires several months 'up-take period' to fully absorb it all.
Up untill that point i catch myself thinking 'DELETEDhell, im pushing myself way too much here mentally, theres only so much philosophy, sociology, anthropology i can digest in a week'.
Sort of a temporal information over-load i reacon, although as i said once the new information is properly assimilated you almost take it for granted. It starts to feel like youve 'always known this' and the territory doesnt feel so weird and uncharted anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
So finally an atheist admits it, atheists are not authentically seeking the truth, the only reason they ask for evidence is because they enjoy ridiculing religion.
Atheists must specify what type of evidence would be considered undeniable empirical evidence of God or anything supernatural, but they are unable to...therefore ANY type of evidence provided will be denied by atheists....so why atheists do you ask for evidence if you will reject ANY type of evidence?
Take for instance if you said bigfoot was real, and asked me what would be concrete undeniable empirical evidence of bigfoot I would say some biological sample of bigfoot (like a DNA sample). Now in the sameway, what would constitute as concrete undeniable empirical evidence of God or anything else supernatural? This question remains unanswered by atheists, indicating that they believe gathering evidence in itself is impossible, so again...why would you ask for evidence?
This alone proves that atheism is a faith-based belief system since it is not falsifiable by ANY means....
You're just one logical fallacy after another, eh VO? Yet another non sequitur.
It doesn't follow that because you have one atheist figured out (if you, in fact, truly do) that, therefore, all atheists must fit the same criteria.
As for evidence, its quite simple: any testable and tangible bit of empirical data that supports the superstitious claims of the those that make claims about their religions. Its as easy as that. The religiously deluded like to have their claims without evidence, since this gives them their perceived validity: the skeptics can't disprove their claims, therefore they must be true. What complete and utter bollocks.
You can make any magical and supernatural claim you want and then apply the deluded logic that religious nutters apply and come out saying, "well, since you can't disprove it, it must therefore be true."
Even you must see the nonsense in that. Yet you don't. You continue to go on and on with "since you can't say what evidence would be good enough, my claims must therefore be true."
Never once demonstrating a mind open enough to consider that perhaps the skeptics have difficulty telling you what evidence would be good enough because it is hypothetical evidence. Specifying the evidence assumes that the evidence exists. Being unable to specify the evidence could very well mean that no such phenomena exists!
But if it does, there should be evidence for it. Period. It should be empirical and testable. Otherwise it doesn't exist in the universe. Since we live in a material and natural universe, evidence that doesn't exist within it therefore is evidence of non-existence. Therefore you gods do not exist if evidence for their existence cannot be produced. Whatever this evidence is, it must be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.
You can go on and on about how since the big, bad atheist can't tell me what the evidence is, my gods must exist all you want. But if your gods are delusions, the only evidence for their existence must, therefore, be in the minds of men and their myths, written and oral. For these, we have abundant quantities of evidence.
It doesn't follow that because you have one atheist figured out (if you, in fact, truly do) that, therefore, all atheists must fit the same criteria.
As for evidence, its quite simple: any testable and tangible bit of empirical data that supports the superstitious claims of the those that make claims about their religions. Its as easy as that. The religiously deluded like to have their claims without evidence, since this gives them their perceived validity: the skeptics can't disprove their claims, therefore they must be true. What complete and utter bollocks.
You can make any magical and supernatural claim you want and then apply the deluded logic that religious nutters apply and come out saying, "well, since you can't disprove it, it must therefore be true."
Even you must see the nonsense in that. Yet you don't. You continue to go on and on with "since you can't say what evidence would be good enough, my claims must therefore be true."
Never once demonstrating a mind open enough to consider that perhaps the skeptics have difficulty telling you what evidence would be good enough because it is hypothetical evidence. Specifying the evidence assumes that the evidence exists. Being unable to specify the evidence could very well mean that no such phenomena exists!
But if it does, there should be evidence for it. Period. It should be empirical and testable. Otherwise it doesn't exist in the universe. Since we live in a material and natural universe, evidence that doesn't exist within it therefore is evidence of non-existence. Therefore you gods do not exist if evidence for their existence cannot be produced. Whatever this evidence is, it must be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.
You can go on and on about how since the big, bad atheist can't tell me what the evidence is, my gods must exist all you want. But if your gods are delusions, the only evidence for their existence must, therefore, be in the minds of men and their myths, written and oral. For these, we have abundant quantities of evidence.
True it does not make "all atheists" this way, but most atheists in general are this way....
All this talk and you nor any other atheist has yet to provide an example of what would constitute as concrete undeniable empirical evidence of God or anything else supernatural....indicating that either you believe gathering evidence is impossible...thereby making atheism impossible to falsify...and thereby making atheism exactly the same as any other faith-based belief system...
As for your flawed argument "if something exist, there should be evidence for it" thats simply laughable....
I'm not going on about that, I'm going on about how atheism isn't falsifiable...all this talk not yet one example of what would be evidence for God....SkinWalker said:
Its funny you talk about the non-sequitor logical fallacy, yet atheists use it all time in attempts to disprove God....
You are truly dense. Obviously you either didn't read my post or didn't comprehend it. The evidence is your problem. Whatever evidence it is, it is going to be testable and at least potentially falsifiable.
Religious nutters have been trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics for years, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is your claim that there are gods. You get to provide the evidence. Asking the skeptic what that evidence is, is the same as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, its is the tactic of the intellectual coward.
I can tell you what the nature of the evidence will be: it will be testable and at least potentially falsifiable. If your god exists, it will have evidence. No, the onus is yours to produce it. Without evidence for such and extraordinary claim, the rational conclusion is that you are deluded or lying about your gods. Period.
Your argument is flawed to the core.
By the way, show me one thing that exists without evidence.
Religious nutters have been trying to shift the burden of proof on the skeptics for years, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is your claim that there are gods. You get to provide the evidence. Asking the skeptic what that evidence is, is the same as shifting the burden of proof. In other words, its is the tactic of the intellectual coward.
I can tell you what the nature of the evidence will be: it will be testable and at least potentially falsifiable. If your god exists, it will have evidence. No, the onus is yours to produce it. Without evidence for such and extraordinary claim, the rational conclusion is that you are deluded or lying about your gods. Period.
Your argument is flawed to the core.
By the way, show me one thing that exists without evidence.
Cultural differences.
could just as well mean a higher power used evolution to shape his creation
Actually not the center of his tinterest, just a favored creation
Well, if you have ever noticed these are psychological tool. Each gives us a place to put our anxiety and worry so we can focus on other things.
The billions of years there was No life at all.
Easily the fault of faulty oral history or interpretation.
So, would you write about something you have no clue about?
So and good things happen to bad people. And good things happen to good people and babd things happen to bad. So? One cannot appreciate happiness unless they have been sad.
Really? Have proof?
First of all a believer does not know there is a God(s), they merely believe there could be one. They have no testable evidence or they would be Knowers. It is their Belief that shapes them.
Second of all the skeptic that goes "There is NO god(s)" is making an absolute statement. To make such a statement needs proof. If they said "I believe there is no God." then nobody would really mind.
Finally in -200BC there was no evidence humans had of black holes, yet they existed
Religious adherents do NOT say "I believe there could be a God".
I was raised an RC and never once in the Apostle's Creed or any other statement of beliefs does it mention "there could be". Everything is "there IS".
"I believe in one true God" etc.
Many atheists (at least on this site, I think) think "there could be" a God - but just that there is no evidence to support it.
Most of us Atheists are also Agnostic.
To believe there is when you actually feel merely that "there could be" would make you a believer out of nothing other than Pascal's Wager.
VitalOne said:
People have already told you. Any event of 'biblical proportions' to happen in the age of information, media and technology would go a long way to constituting proof of god. At least if such an event happened today, it would not rely on word of mouth to survive, and thus, could be trusted more than what rational people will otherwise call myth or propaganda.
TWScott said:
Hire a statistician.
TW,
But religionists do not take any rational position. The evidence and proofs for gods remains absent so to then assert (state a belief) that they exist is without merit. The best we can do and the only rational position is speculate about the concept of gods.
Without knowledge that belief is of little value. Why is that any different to simple delusion?
And hence their belief can only be based on fantasy, right? Why should that position attract any respect?
And how many skeptics say that? That's what you think they say in your attempt to erroneously shift the burden of proof.
A belief is a conviction that something is true. There is no difference in your two statements. If you have no proof for the belief then your assertion that something is true, i.e. belief, is without value.
And how many people back then asserted that black holes existed? The best they could have done would be to conceive of the concept and only speculate about their actuality. That is the only rational position.
But religionists do not take any rational position. The evidence and proofs for gods remains absent so to then assert (state a belief) that they exist is without merit. The best we can do and the only rational position is speculate about the concept of gods.
Cris:- I think your post highlights the nature of the theist. 'Prophets' claim they know what god has had for breakfast, and that he hates 'fags', and theists of X religion will believe that. Now TW Scott is saying it's just belief? Just belief that god hates fags because some nomad wrote it to papyrus a while ago?
From direct quotes from god himself, to a mere belief that we exist due to careful planning from a sentient being... The line is blurred, and it seems easier to believe that from one extreme to the other, neither is true.
From direct quotes from god himself, to a mere belief that we exist due to careful planning from a sentient being... The line is blurred, and it seems easier to believe that from one extreme to the other, neither is true.
You just contradicted yourself.
You can't be serious?? I can pull 1203 peer-reviewed articles from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health linking consciousness directly to the physical attributes of the brain. That's only one source.
Again, that is why I asked you your level of education for the brain. Only a complete ignoramus would ask for evidence of such a thing and actually believe consciousness is some supernatural phenomenon.
There are many articles that state that consciousness is linked to the brain but no one has yet solved the "hard problem of consciousness" which is what causes this awareness of experience....if you say it is matter (chemical reactions) then you are essentially saying that matter = consciousness, chemical reactions are in themselves consciousness, and that we have no free will.....
Ofcourse atheists, using their blind atheistic faith conclude that there is no chance of a soul or mind independant of the brain, when anyone who has studied neurology will tell you that there is a great chance that there is....
Last edited:
But according to atheists the only reason they do not believe in God is to quote Dawkins is because "there is not a single shred of evidence". So evidence is both the theists' and atheists' problem....
Therefore the conclusion is obvious, atheism is just another faith-based belief system since atheism is not falsfiable....
No you're wrong, I'm not shifting the burden of proof on the atheists and asking them to prove that God doesn't exist, I am rather asking that what would constitute as undeniable evidence. Atheists claim that if there was undeniable evidence of God then they would be theists, but at the sametime reject any evidence or claim that gathering evidence is impossible....SkinWalker said:
The reason I ask atheists what would constitute as undeniable evidence is because the atheists are the ones who will be the most critical of any evidence for God.....
It is not something of the intellectual coward, rather thats what atheism is since atheism is based off of "ask people for evidence yet at the sametime say that gathering evidence is impossible, then ridicule them for believing in something without evidence" this is what atheism is based off...