Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116,971,997]

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

https://www.space.com/36991-most-sensitive-dark-matter-detector-online.html

I think it's cute that they can't detect this stuff and yet believe that it's comprised of particles.

It seems that, if this was comprised of particles, it might be detectable. The "Xenon1T" is about the coolest name ever!

Anyway, that said:

From your link:

<snip>

The XENON1T detector hasn't found any dark matter particles yet, but it has carried out a 30-day science run, and project scientists are optimistic about the future.

<snip>

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I am not talking about anyone but me when I speak of faith. Will you please confine your talking points to our discussion and not bother to unpack your baggage on others?

When scientists began the consideration of Quantum Physics, it was obvious to them that the physics of of Einstein which had replaced those of Newton were not satisfactory. At that time they did not conjure up Dark Matter.

Again, I feel no need to convert you. Why do you feel the need to convert me?

you dont need to the worst zealots and you seem to believe for the same reasons and find their beliefs just as likely because its what you guys want

im not pushing wish fulfillment as evidence you are

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

When scientists began the consideration of Quantum Physics, it was obvious to them that the physics of of Einstein which had replaced those of Newton were not satisfactory. At that time they did not conjure up Dark Matter.

Wrong.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/a-history-of-dark-matter/
The Early History of Dark Matter - IOPscience
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/19/the-dark-history-of-dark-matter/#2fbb30cd1894

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

you dont need to the worst zealots and you seem to believe for the same reasons and find their beliefs just as likely because its what you guys want

im not pushing wish fulfillment as evidence you are

I'm sorry. Could you please edit your post. I'm not understanding.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Wrong.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/a-history-of-dark-matter/
The Early History of Dark Matter - IOPscience
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/19/the-dark-history-of-dark-matter/#2fbb30cd1894

As I said, out physicists can assume that something is there because things they can see are reacting to it.

As demonstrated by your previous post, they cannot show us Dark Matter.

Are you saying they can?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

"The flawed reasoning of Theism". I didn't realize I was employing any reasoning at all.

Defining anything in positive terms is not using negative terms.

You seem to be very upset by this. This might be a good topic for you to avoid.

So you are setting yourself up as the speaker for all theists then?

Just because you do not use reason is not an argument that it is not used.

But you do make it obvious that reasoning is something you have little skill at as you have failed to follow the reasoning. Pointing out you are not an apacker or apatriot fan is not defining in a positive term.

Upset, no but understandable you would get that wrong. After all your comment on my emotions is nothing more than a cheap trick to make yourself feel superior.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

As I said, out physicists can assume that something is there because things they can see are reacting to it.

As demonstrated by your previous post, they cannot show us Dark Matter.

Are you saying they can?

I am confident that they will. It is not magic, it is science.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

As I said, out physicists can assume that something is there because things they can see are reacting to it.

As demonstrated by your previous post, they cannot show us Dark Matter.

Are you saying they can?

Can you show me god? Are you building a detector? What is your explanation for the behaviour of galaxies?

 

[devildavid]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

All I did was point out that even our most sciencey folks simply make up crap to justify their beliefs. Their equations tell them that there must be something that they cannot in any way perceive.

They can prove that the physical world must act in ways that it does not act, and yet, there it is. Poof! Dark matter.

Out of curiosity, why is it important to you that I DON'T have faith in things in which you don't have faith?

I have seen and felt the comfort provided by faith and yet I cannot demonstrate existence of the object of that faith in any way: Just like Dark Matter. Poof!

"Sciencey folks"? No, science doesn't just make things up. Science attempts to explain physical reality and the mechanics of physical things. It does this with physical evidence and testing, and constantly repeats and refines this. It goes where evidence and testing leads. It does not followa belief to a conclusion, ven if contrary to evidence and testing.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I am confident that they will. It is not magic, it is science.

And your faith in science is unshakeable, as should the faith of any true believer be..

Can you show me god? Are you building a detector? What is your explanation for the behaviour of galaxies?

You can see God in the behavior of the galaxies. Was this a softball?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

And your faith in science is unshakeable, as should the faith of any true believer be..


You can see God in the behavior of the galaxies. Was this a softball?

Again you are lowering the bar to meet your own expectations.

I can point to things where science works. Your computer for example. I have yet to see your faith accomplish anything but a belief in superstitions.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Again you are lowering the bar to meet your own expectations.

I can point to things where science works. Your computer for example. I have yet to see your faith accomplish anything but a belief in superstitions.

What you "have yet to see" merely points to limitations in your perceptions and exaggerations in your expectations.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

What you "have yet to see" merely points to limitations in your perceptions and exaggerations in your expectations.

No, it more points to how useless superstition is to understanding how the world works in comparison to science.

Your attempt to lower the standard of science to your level of belief is in fact your lack of perception and an extremely low level of expectation.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

No, it more points to how useless superstition is to understanding how the world works in comparison to science.

Your attempt to lower the standard of science to your level of belief is in fact your lack of perception and an extremely low level of expectation.

Peeweehermaneutics and question-begging are not much of an argument.

Namaste.

 

[pinqy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your post changing its meaning and then presents it as if it had not been edited?

Yep. which is why I make sure I never do that. I do get annoyed when others quote my entire post and only respond to part of it, so if I am not responding to the entire post, then I only quote the part I am responding to.

With respect, you described how Red is perceived by those with normal sight. You did not describe Red.

The question was how to describe red to a blind person. Which I did. Red is the term used to apply to a certain wavelength in the visual spectrum. That exists independently of people....that wavelength still occurs with no one around..is the same regardless of whether we call it "red," "rojo," "rouge," "rot," "красный," etc.

Red has various meanings, on levels like the visual which you described, but also on the instinctual and the emotional. Blood is Red and experiencing Red visually opens the door to the instinctual responses of alarm as well.

Those are denotative meanings that derive from the color. They are symbolic meanings, and have little or nothing to do with the actual color. A blind person can understand "seeing red" as meaning "getting angry" with "red" being a symbolic word meaning angry.

But is that how you understand God? As a symbol and not as an independently existing entity?

I am not trying to make you believe there is a God or even asking that you do. I am only saying that I have perceived God and I like what I perceive. I don't pretend to understand the methodology or the mechanism.

My contention is that you have perceived something that you have assigned the label of "God" to. Is there such an independently existing entity, or is it just a label for your feelings? You don't know. Is it even possible to know?

Why is it important to you that you make me understand that there is no God?

Where do you think I've tried to do that?

 

[Sanluis]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Hi everyone, long time no post.

I just came from Atheistrepublic.com. I got blocked there - and I thought that the guys there are truly after truths . . .

This is my annotation in my list of forums where I joined in:

"The account with username Marius Dejess and email mdejess@gmail.com is blocked."
Atheist Republic | Community & Support for Atheists Worldwide

Hahahahaha! End of my sojourn with Atheistrepublic.com.

And I thought that they are truly after truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence; but they are only after hiding inside their turtle shell, in order to indulge in their fear and phobia and taboo of truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.
041518sun0744h

My last stats with Atheistrepublic.com
The Debate Room
Title of my thread: What is the best atheists' argument against God existing? (Page: 1, 2, 3 … Last Page)
by Dejess » Tue, 04/03/2018 - 19:12

Replies 302 ! Views 3,735 ! Last post Sat, 04/14/2018 - 14:28


Dear colleagues here, Look up Atheistrepublic.com for my last post there.
041418sat0649h What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?
What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?


And I was thinking of getting them atheists over there to work with: me as to concur between them and me, on what is the biggest ultimate picture of things in the totality of reality which is existence.

What about you atheists here, what do you think is the biggest ultimate picture of things in the totality of reality which is existence?


If this forum bans posters who bring in their experiences in their sojourns in other forums, then I guess it is also good-bye for me here.

Hope to get your comments to this post, if I don't get blocked out without ceremony - hahahahahahahahaha!

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Peeweehermaneutics and question-begging are not much of an argument.

Namaste.

Trying to lower everything to your standard of faith based belief is no argument at all.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Trying to lower everything to your standard of faith based belief is no argument at all.

What was it Eliot said about strawmen in that apocalyptic 1925 poem?

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Hi everyone, long time no post.

I just came from Atheistrepublic.com. I got blocked there - and I thought that the guys there are truly after truths . . .
...

Welcome home, Sanluis. We were wondering what had happened to you.

Listen, don't fret the bad experience at that other site. Slumming it always has its drawbacks, you know, and they're no doubt New Atheists over there -- serious-minded atheists wouldn't be caught dead making public displays of their beliefs.

New Atheism is to Millennials today what the hula-hoop was to Baby Boomers back in the '50s. It's a craze, you know. Let it go.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

So you are setting yourself up as the speaker for all theists then?

Just because you do not use reason is not an argument that it is not used.

But you do make it obvious that reasoning is something you have little skill at as you have failed to follow the reasoning. Pointing out you are not an apacker or apatriot fan is not defining in a positive term.

Upset, no but understandable you would get that wrong. After all your comment on my emotions is nothing more than a cheap trick to make yourself feel superior.

You seem to be claiming that someone else said something and that I must be held accountable for something you've heard in the past. That seems odd. Why do you say this?

You are claiming that my reasoning is flawed. My reasoning is entirely absent on this. I don't recognize a use for it in this application. Asking for physical proof of the spiritual is like asking for spiritual proof of the physical.

Does a hammer have a spiritual presence in its soul? Not likely. You are free to ask it, though. If you find it there and you feel enriched, that is good for you.

I know of no logical argument using physical terms for the existence the spiritual. Do you know of one?

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I am confident that they will. It is not magic, it is science.

So, then, you are saying you have faith in them.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

So, then, you are saying you have faith in them.

In who?

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Can you show me god? Are you building a detector? What is your explanation for the behaviour of galaxies?

No. If you're lucky, He wont need to be shown to you by anyone else.

No. Perhaps the detector the folks are building to find Dark Matter will produce some results in that area. It seems odd that they can't detect any Dark Matter Particles whatever and so have determined that Dark Matter is comprised of particles.

I really don't need to explain the behavior of the Galaxies. I'm not even sure why the lights come on when I flip the little switch on the wall.

I'm just glad they do.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

No. If you're lucky, He wont need to be shown to you by anyone else.

No. Perhaps the detector the folks are building to find Dark Matter will produce some results in that area. It seems odd that they can't detect any Dark Matter Particles whatever and so have determined that Dark Matter is comprised of particles.

I really don't need to explain the behavior of the Galaxies. I'm not even sure why the lights come on when I flip the little switch on the wall.

I'm just glad they do.

You can thank science when the lights go on.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

"Sciencey folks"? No, science doesn't just make things up. Science attempts to explain physical reality and the mechanics of physical things. It does this with physical evidence and testing, and constantly repeats and refines this. It goes where evidence and testing leads. It does not followa belief to a conclusion, ven if contrary to evidence and testing.

The Scientific Process is the phrase you seek.

A scientist will make something up, usually based on very good reasoning, and then will try to prove it. In essence: Poof! After that, a Thesis is produced for review by others.

The reviews will either support the Thesis or undermine it.

Dark Matter is still in the embryo stage of this consideration. Poof!

Nobody has proven it yet. Nobody has disproven it yet. I don't even know if there is a test for falsification. At this point, it may not even have been presented as a Thesis.

It seems like scientists have determined that Dark Matter must be there AND that it must comprise about 80 or 90% of the Universe's mass. I've seen estimates in that range.

Of course, what this means is that our version of the Universe, the one we can perceive, is little more than an afterthought. A 10 to 20% off the whole kind of an afterthought.