beowulf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    5,102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by beowulf

  1. The whole premise is laughable. The claim that Russia "swayed US election" by providing the US public with an inside look into the Hillary campaign by way of Podesta and DNC emails is just silly. No evidence has been provided to support this. All we have are claims by US Intelligence that have a long history of lying to the US public and politicians who have a vested interest in blaming Russia. Giving the US a more honest look at Hillary and her campaign is a good thing. She really needs to look in the mirror to find who to blame for her loss.

  5. rehmwa

    ***I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

    I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.



    nope - the faithful are atheists, I believe this without qualification - you've convinced me. I shall go forth and proclaim it to all the nations

    Good Luck! I am sure they will enjoy that

  6. I am just enjoying the discussion. Whether or not you are playing devils advocate doesn't matter to me.

    I agree faith is not evidence but many of the "faithful" consider it to be so even though I agree it makes them hypocrites. But I can't call them atheists because they believe based on their own faulty logic and really bad evidence. Nor would they fit the definition of an atheist because the definition only speaks to what someone doesn't believe. I based my opinion of the previous poster being an atheist on the statements that were made.

  7. "Whilst I personally believe that there is no god, I don't profess to have much evidence to back that up."

    This statement right here pegs this person as an atheist in my opinion. But the need to have evidence to back up his "belief" is not necessary and logically impossible. In order to say something exists evidence is necessary. But for those questioning the existence an absence of evidence is required. It's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything.

  8. I think you miss understand what I said. Everyone has different levels of evidence that will convince them of a claim. Those that rely on faith to believe have what I consider the lowest possible of level of evidence. It wouldn't qualify as evidence for me. But it convinces them. So it isn't as broad as you interpreted.

  9. The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's logically inconsistent in regards to the need to have evidence to support the non existence of God.

    It's not logically possible to have any evidence of the non existence of anything. So because of this I think your logic falls apart.

    The crux of the matter is what is your level evidence or logic for believing something? What does it take to convince you to believe a claim? The answer to this is different depending on the claim being made. The more outlandish the greater the level of evidence and the stronger the logic needed to convince.

    So to me the question of whether or not you are an atheist comes down to one simple question. Are you convinced of the existence of God or gods? It's a yes or no question. Saying 'I don't know if I am convinced of the existence of God' is simply avoiding the question. If you say there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, it's also avoiding the question. Why? Because it's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything. This is not to say that I would not change my mind if evidence of the existence of gods were to come to light. I would.

    But considering that many define God as being omnipotent and omniscient which is contradictory and is like saying you have a round square. It simply can not exist as a God defined in such a way also can not logically exist.

    I would consider you to be an atheist based on what you have written.

  10. mr2mk1g

    You're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

    Agnostic's don't profess to know and therefore don't hold any particular firm belief one way or the other. They don't have any, (over perhaps a mildly held), belief in the existence or non-existence of a god.

    Atheists believe that there is no god. They positively believe something to be true - that there is no god. That's a belief.

    The clue is in the ancient Greek roots of each word: "a theos" = "without god" vs "a gnostos" = "without knowledge".




    I don't agree with you at all.

    You can say atheists believe that there is no god just like they believe there are no leprechaun's. But it's still not a belief. You are simply wording it in a way to make the claim that it is a belief. In reality it's a disbelief which is the opposite. Disbelief can not be a belief. While this is all semantics you are misrepresenting what atheists believe in an effort to make agnosticism seem more reasonable. When someone identifies as an Atheist the only thing that tells you about that person is that they don't believe in one specific claim and that is they don't believe that any gods exist.

    Agnosticism is simply avoiding the question all together. Because either you believe there is sufficient evidence to convince you there is a god or there isn't but aren't willing to give your opinion.

  11. http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

    Not impressed. One of William Lane Craig's favorite arguments is the "First Mover" argument of Thomas Aquinas. I have heard him make this argument among others but haven't read the original writings of Thomas Aquinas till now. I wasn't impressed by Dr Craig's rehashing of one of Aquinas's arguments and I am not impressed by the original arguments. The simplest problem that I have with all of the arguments by Thomas Aquinas is that they all assume God to exist. An example is the "First Mover" argument, could there have been some "First Mover" that started this universe into existence? Possibly, but no one really knows for certain. There are different ideas based on what we know about physics. For argument's sake lets assume there is a "First Mover", we can't simply assume that a god must be the "First Mover" or that the Christian God was the "First Mover". The "First Mover" could be a dog in another universe taking a shit on a side walk that caused this universe to exist for all we know.

    So here are the assumptions made by Thomas Aquinas in the First Mover argument.

    1. That there is a First Mover
    2. The First Mover is a god
    3. The First Mover god is the Christian God

    I don't find any of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for the existence of God to be valid or all that impressive.

  13. gowlerk

    Really? Now you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned. Especially since my main belief is that I don't know. What I don't like is rude people who don't respect other's beliefs. I didn't think you were one of those, was I wrong about that?

    If someone believes something how can that not be a belief? I believe that my grasp of English is strong enough to know the meaning of the word believe. Therefore that is one of my beliefs. My turn to be didactic.



    I find it rude for you to complain about atheists asking for evidence on a thread about arguments for god. If an atheist can't do that in this thread then where can they?


    Let me rephrase your question.

    If someone disbelieves something how can that not be a belief?

    Does that really make sense to you? Is disbelief a belief? Those two words are opposites.

  14. Generally those that say "There is no God" when you press them are on the side of "there is no evidence of any god". I have yet to meet anyone that doesn't believe in any god that isn't on evidence side.

    The lack of evidence is not a reason to believe anything. If it were then we would have to believe everything that anyone imagines regardless of how silly. Asking for evidence before believing anything is purely logical. If there is no evidence or the evidence provided is not compelling then it only makes sense to disbelieve.

  15. Also you are very wrong when you characterize atheism as a belief. By definition it is not a belief but the very opposite. It is disbelief in the claims of the existence of gods. I can only conclude that fairies don't exist because of the lack of evidence. The same can be said for gods or unicorns.

    Here is a fairly short read the explains very clearly pretty much what I think. I put it in a previous post but it's worth repeating. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html

  16. So what you are saying is you don't like anyone who questions your belief and wants evidence to back it up.

    I have a bridge to sell you but don't you dare question anything I say about it!!


    The whole point of this thread was "Arguments for (or against) the existence of God", so what the fuck are you doing here if you don't like people poking holes in the claims for the existence of God???

  17. If your central concept was that no one knows then why did you include C. S. Lewis paraphrase "I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason." Which is a very poorly thought out attempt at trying to claim that a soul is something real rather then imagined. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive and in this context contradictory by definition.

    The biggest problem is that religion claims to know what they can't possibly know. People who claim their particular god is real are simply pretending to know things they can't possibly know. Having faith in God is simply wishing really hard that God is real. I am not making any claim to knowledge when I disbelieve the claims that God exists. All I am saying is those making the claim have failed supply sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof for their claim.

  20. Quote

    Look, it's pretty obvious that everything we see around us could not just have happened, without any reason, all by itself.



    No it's not obvious. It's very possible that this world could have developed naturally with out any omnipotent force directing it.

    Quote

    Clearly, the Universe was created intentionally by an omnipotent force.



    Also false. There is no evidence to support that this universe was intentionally created by some unknown being.

    Quote

    -That is orders of magnitude more complex and extensive than anything we can detect.

    -That provides no trace of its existence.

    -That for no particular reason just kind of did all this.



    If this being is entirely undetectable and leaves no trace then how do you know it exists? Just because this universe exists does not automatically mean there was some being that created it. You can't just assume.

  22. We have no evidence to support the idea that there is some "force or higher power that engineered" this world. If what you imagine does not resemble what is commonly defined as god then why do you call it that? It's far more honest and logically consistent to simply say I don't know then to try and come up with an answer like "higher power" or "force".

  23. gowlerk

    ***Also I don't simply choose not to believe. My belief is based on the evidence available. When someone sells me a used car I don't base choice of buying the car entirely on what the seller says about the car. I examine it and make my determination on the best available evidence in front of me.



    There is indeed no evidence to support belief in God. Yet a substantial percentage of people profess to believe. They are probably wrong, but it is possible that in some form there is actually a Creator of some sort. We can not know one way or another. It is not possible to be certain. It is not, and I believe it will never be possible for mankind to understand the nature of his existence. God cannot be ruled out.

    I am not sure that god can not be ruled out. Many definitions of god are self contradictory and therefore can be ruled out. Just like a round square is a contradiction so is an omniscient and omnipotent being. Stefan Molyneux makes a very good logical argument for this. https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/against_the_gods.html

  24. rehmwa

    *** there isn't sufficient evidence to support the argument



    and,,,, based on this what do you choose? (i would agree with your logic. But you do choose, no matter how silly you might hold the choice of those that you disagree with in such disdain)

    it's not rocket science


    I do my best to base my beliefs on the best available evidence and scientific reasoning. Those that choose to believe in deities do so despite all evidence and sound reasoning.

  25. markharju

    ***No matter how good or well thought out an argument for something is... if there is no evidence that can be independently and scientifically tested there is no reason to believe and it is worthless. That's why the independent confirmation of scientific claims are so important. With out them they are meaningless and can not be taken seriously. Religion makes claims about the real world that can not be confirmed in any way. So there is no good reason to take their claims seriously. All of the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those claiming God exists.



    I like what C.S. Lewis said about this (I am paraphrasing because I do not have the actual quote handy) in relation the Thermodynamics (Lewis Apologia, et al)--

    We human beings exist as both matter and energy. By our own physical laws, backed with science, logic, reason and mathematics, we can prove scientifically that we possess these characteristics.

    We know that matter and energy co-exist and cannot be created or destroyed under normal physical law (see Richard Feynman on "The Character of Physical Law").

    That the matter and energy exist is without question.

    We know that when a person dies, the matter of which they are comprised begins to break down into its constituent elements (read: decompose).

    The big question (according to Lewis) is where does that energy go? I believe Lewis was remarking that the energy comprises what we think of as the soul, and he struggled mightily to reconcile faith with reason.

    That remark by Lewis amazed me: that anyone of faith would care enough about it to try to explain it in scientific terms instead of just "well, the Bible says so".

    And it definitely gives one pause if one thinks it through scientifically - there is a place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can, noodly appendages notwithstanding B|

    mh
    .


    What you wrote only vaguely resembles thinking scientifically. This "place where science, logic and reason cannot go, only faith can" is called imagination. While it may seem real to you and others it's just all in your mind. We have no evidence that the mind can live with out a physical body. C. S. Lewis is just bullshitting you.