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

[Tim the plumber]

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!

So your lack of replies here is not you evading the obvious but you doing so somewhere else?

 

[Tim the plumber]

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

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.

Yes. There is something creating gravity which is unaccountable for by the stuff we can see.

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.

No it does not. Just because the surface world we live in is a tiny fraction of the whole mass of the earth does not change our universe or our importance within it. We are not all that significant on a universal scale. We never were.

 

[code1211]

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

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.


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," "кра�ный," etc.

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?

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?


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

Red is understood on various levels and in various Ways. There is almost nothing in any human experience which is only perceived in one way. Red. Mother. Father. Gun. God.

Simply describing what something else, in this case, light, does in concert with other stuff is not Red in the understanding of humans. What you have described is also Green, Blue, Yellow and Purple.

You can describe a woman, as an example, and that description would not be the definition of Mother or Wife or Daughter. EVERYTHING in human understanding is an interlocking web of interrelated meanings.

Your contention is not any more provable than mine. However, I am experiencing mine first hand and you are merely standing at a distance thinking about my experience.

Cool language application, by the way!

 

[code1211]

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

In who?

Scientist.

 

[code1211]

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

You can thank science when the lights go on.

I am very grateful for all of the world's convenience and understand that Scientists have figured this stuff out. Louis XIV, richest man on Earth when he lived, would have loved to have had a toilet inside that flushed. Or AC.

I knew a Master Electrician in my past.

He noted: "The Lord said, 'Let there be light, and there was light!' From that moment forward, electricians have been His favored people!"

 

[code1211]

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

Yes. There is something creating gravity which is unaccountable for by the stuff we can see.


No it does not. Just because the surface world we live in is a tiny fraction of the whole mass of the earth does not change our universe or our importance within it. We are not all that significant on a universal scale. We never were.

A thought just occurred to me. If Jenny Craig could figure out a way to eliminate the Dark Matter from a person, the weight lose might be significant.

This could be the dawn of a new understanding of fitness.

If the NFL could figure out how to ADD Dark Matter to interior linemen, that could be the dawn of a new understanding of run defense.

Practical applications.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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

A thought just occurred to me. If Jenny Craig could figure out a way to eliminate the Dark Matter from a person, the weight lose might be significant.

This could be the dawn of a new understanding of fitness.

If the NFL could figure out how to ADD Dark Matter to interior linemen, that could be the dawn of a new understanding of run defense.

Practical applications.

Joke understood.

But just to explain for those not aware;

The amount of mass in you is known. There is none of this dark matter stuff in you. Nor is there any of it making up all the stuff we can see around the place, no componet of stars, dust cluds or anything else has any dar matter doing anything other than perhaps passing through at random.

The galaxies are much heavier than they should be when all the stuff we can see is added up. Not only that this extra matter (well stuff that creates gravity the same as matter...?) obays orbital mechanis and will, when 2 galaxies collide (often happens over billions of years) will pass through the other galaxy as though it hardly noticed any effect other than gravity. That is when the "normal matter" of the galaxies collides it will come together as the friction of the other galaxies dust and stuff slows the 2 of them down to swirl along together as per most galaxies. The dark stuff just swings on throgh with only slight (really slight) notice of anything. Like a bouncing ball that will not stop buncing.

Matter (normal) has atoms that have a positive charge at the center and negatively charged electrons flying around the outside. Anti-matter has it the other way around. When you touch somethoing the force that stops you pushing throuh the table is the repulsion of the electrons of your hand vs the electrons of the table.

Dark matter does not bother with any such forces so goes through anything.

Beyond that I don't think anybody knows anything at all about the stuff.

 

[zyzygy]

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

Red is understood on various levels and in various Ways. There is almost nothing in any human experience which is only perceived in one way. Red. Mother. Father. Gun. God.

Spot the odd one out.

 

[zyzygy]

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

I am very grateful for all of the world's convenience and understand that Scientists have figured this stuff out. Louis XIV, richest man on Earth when he lived, would have loved to have had a toilet inside that flushed. Or AC.

I knew a Master Electrician in my past.

He noted: "The Lord said, 'Let there be light, and there was light!' From that moment forward, electricians have been His favored people!"

Of course he provided no proof of the existence of this lord.

 

[code1211]

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

Joke understood.

But just to explain for those not aware;

The amount of mass in you is known. There is none of this dark matter stuff in you. Nor is there any of it making up all the stuff we can see around the place, no componet of stars, dust cluds or anything else has any dar matter doing anything other than perhaps passing through at random.

The galaxies are much heavier than they should be when all the stuff we can see is added up. Not only that this extra matter (well stuff that creates gravity the same as matter...?) obays orbital mechanis and will, when 2 galaxies collide (often happens over billions of years) will pass through the other galaxy as though it hardly noticed any effect other than gravity. That is when the "normal matter" of the galaxies collides it will come together as the friction of the other galaxies dust and stuff slows the 2 of them down to swirl along together as per most galaxies. The dark stuff just swings on throgh with only slight (really slight) notice of anything. Like a bouncing ball that will not stop buncing.

Matter (normal) has atoms that have a positive charge at the center and negatively charged electrons flying around the outside. Anti-matter has it the other way around. When you touch somethoing the force that stops you pushing throuh the table is the repulsion of the electrons of your hand vs the electrons of the table.

Dark matter does not bother with any such forces so goes through anything.

Beyond that I don't think anybody knows anything at all about the stuff.

Beyond that? Are you sure the best and brightest "know" that? As of now, It is my understanding that they have no actual proof that Dark Matter is even matter.

That is, if we assume that matter is made up of component parts or particles.

 

[code1211]

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

Spot the odd one out.

Are you saying that there is one item in the listed group is universally experienced in only one way and that is not experienced on various levels of understanding?

 

[code1211]

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

Of course he provided no proof of the existence of this lord.

He didn't have to do so, nor was that his intent.

He was making a joke.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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

Beyond that? Are you sure the best and brightest "know" that? As of now, It is my understanding that they have no actual proof that Dark Matter is even matter.

That is, if we assume that matter is made up of component parts or particles.

All that is known is that it causes gravity like matter. If it is or is not matter is not known, it certainly does not appear to be the same as normal matter.

 

[zyzygy]

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

Are you saying that there is one item in the listed group is universally experienced in only one way and that is not experienced on various levels of understanding?

I am saying that there is no proof of the existence of one of the items.

 

[zyzygy]

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

He didn't have to do so, nor was that his intent.

He was making a joke.

Tell him not to give up his day job.

 

[soylentgreen]

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

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?

Where as you appear to be ignorant of claims that have been made by theists. I am not holding you accountable for them i am saying that they happen regardless of whether you agree or not.

I am the one stating there has never been give a good reason for considering a god. I leave it open to theists to do that part of the work. The onus is on them to come up with reason, not me.

 

[Angel]

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

Where as you appear to be ignorant of claims that have been made by theists. I am not holding you accountable for them i am saying that they happen regardless of whether you agree or not.

But code1211 is not posting in defense of other theists. He's posting reasonable questions of atheism based on his personal exploration of spiritual and physical realities.

I am the one stating there has never been give a good reason for considering a god. I leave it open to theists to do that part of the work. The onus is on them to come up with reason, not me.

All you have a rational right to state is that there has never been given a good reason for you to accept the existence of God. Theists have their own "good reasons," and they suffer no mandate to convince you of their belief.

 

[soylentgreen]

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

But code1211 is not posting in defense of other theists. He's posting reasonable questions of atheism based on his personal exploration of spiritual and physical realities.


All you have a rational right to state is that there has never been given a good reason for you to accept the existence of God. Theists have their own "good reasons," and they suffer no mandate to convince you of their belief.

Actually no. He is pretending that any claim made about a theist activities are to be taken personally by himself and if he then claims he does not do it that is supposedly to be taken as it does not happen.

I am not asking you to defend your belief in a god. However if you appear on a thread here and say that you have a reason and share it. Then atheists will respond by pointing out the flaws in your reason. Also, if you or any theist demands that their beliefs should be made into a law then atheists will also respond with many good reasons as to why theist superstitions are best kept to themselves.

 

[Angel]

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

Actually no. He is pretending that any claim made about a theist activities are to be taken personally by himself and if he then claims he does not do it that is supposedly to be taken as it does not happen.

I don't see him doing what you say he is doing, but your misconstrual of code1211's posts is really none of my business, code1211 is more than capable of defending himself, and my apologies for butting in.

I am not asking you to defend your belief in a god. However if you appear on a thread here and say that you have a reason and share it. Then atheists will respond by pointing out the flaws in your reason. Also, if you or any theist demands that their beliefs should be made into a law then atheists will also respond with many good reasons as to why theist superstitions are best kept to themselves.

Atheists, agnostics and others are invited to point out flaws in my reasoning, I would in fact welcome such engagement, though this has yet to happen as it is usually the case that interlocutors are merely dismissive, which I hope you recognize as not the same thing at all. As to your reference to legislation, I have no idea what that has to do with me or code1211 or with any topic that has appeared in "Beliefs and Skepticism" for that matter.

 

[pinqy]

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

Red is understood on various levels and in various Ways. There is almost nothing in any human experience which is only perceived in one way. Red. Mother. Father. Gun. God.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an objective definition of anything?

Simply describing what something else, in this case, light, does in concert with other stuff is not Red in the understanding of humans. What you have described is also Green, Blue, Yellow and Purple.

Well, Red has a wavelength of 625-740 nanometers. Green has a wavelength of 495-570 etc. etc.

There IS an objective definition of Red that is applicable everywhere at all times. What people feel, perceive, emote, whatever, has nothing to do with it's actual, real existence.

Your contention is not any more provable than mine. However, I am experiencing mine first hand and you are merely standing at a distance thinking about my experience.

By refusing to answer whether or not you think God is an independently existing entity, and by refusing to even attempt at an objective definition of a god, you're supporting my position.

 

[soylentgreen]

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

I don't see him doing what you say he is doing, but your misconstrual of code1211's posts is really none of my business, code1211 is more than capable of defending himself, and my apologies for butting in.


Atheists, agnostics and others are invited to point out flaws in my reasoning, I would in fact welcome such engagement, though this has yet to happen as it is usually the case that interlocutors are merely dismissive, which I hope you recognize as not the same thing at all. As to your reference to legislation, I have no idea what that has to do with me or code1211 or with any topic that has appeared in "Beliefs and Skepticism" for that matter.

There is a world of difference in pointing out a flaw and getting someone to see it.

The reference to legislation was to point out the difference between being an atheist and being a militant atheist. One is simply a lack of belief. the other is an opposition to theists trying to make their beliefs into laws.

 

[Angel]

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

... Also, if you or any theist demands that their beliefs should be made into a law then atheists will also respond with many good reasons as to why theist superstitions are best kept to themselves.

... As to your reference to legislation, I have no idea what that has to do with me or code1211 or with any topic that has appeared in "Beliefs and Skepticism" for that matter.

...
The reference to legislation was to point out the difference between being an atheist and being a militant atheist. One is simply a lack of belief. the other is an opposition to theists trying to make their beliefs into laws.

This reference to legislation gets less intelligible the more you explain it. At the risk of asking for more obfuscation, would you kindly explain again why you brought up legislation in this thread and in this forum and in conversation with me and code1211? Please.

Namaste.

 

[devildavid]

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.

Electricity is not incomprehensible. Neither is how it used in lighting. Just ask an electrician.

 

[devildavid]

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

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.

No, scientists don't just make something up. You are wrong that this is the first step. They also do not try to prove things. You don't understand science, so you create a strawman version of it.

 

[Ikari]

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

No, scientists don't just make something up. You are wrong that this is the first step. They also do not try to prove things. You don't understand science, so you create a strawman version of it.

You can't really discuss science with the those looking to make science look as if it were a religion. It's always going to be something to twist the ways things are, and usually they don't quite grasp the concepts of what they are talking about in the first place.