There are no good arguments for atheism

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 178
#121
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
They are all weak evidence to begin with bc they are all anecdotal. I am talking about personally how you should look at your own experiences. You said you had experiences. Those experiences can be and should be categorized by you. Plus, if you don't think that last example i gave regarding the dream is a spiritual experience at the very least, i don't think you are very interested in changing your perspective by any experience you could have.  
#122
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
I am interested in things that are testable in controlled laboratory conditions. Personal experience and anecdotal testimony are not good pathways to truth.

#123
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
But you understand the limitations to this sort of testing right? 
Topic's author
#124
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you believe the big bang happened? If so, why would you believe this even though we cant we have it tested in a lab?

#125
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
Yes that is precisely why it us beyond human epistemology to answer such questions
#126
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I believe that the cosmic microwave background points to the earliest event we have evidence for. I believe it because the findings are verifiable and repeatable.
#127
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Just to be clear if we are wrong about the big bang that wpuld not in any way add support to the idea that some deity had created the universe it would 9nly mean that we are wrong about the big bang.
Topic's author
#128
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If the findings are verifiable and repeatable then I await your source that shows where the big bang has been replicated.
Topic's author
#129
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I thought you only believed things that were verifiable and replicable? Clearly we cannot replicate the big bang under laboratory conditions.
#130
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
The findings are replicatable not the event. Independent research teams have verified the cmb.
#131
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If you'd rather stay skeptical until something can be proven... that is up to you and i don't fault you for it... it reasonable. I acknowledge there is no method to prove these things objectively for everyone. However, i have spent years using what i can in my arsenal, logic, reading, reasoning, anecdotal experiences to formulate my thoughts. For me, that is enough. I must say however, i haven't come to any one conclusion in regards to which spiritual platform is right, but i am almost certain something is going on that we can attribute to spirituality. 
#132
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
Weather was once thought to be caused by god(s). Earthquakes and disease as well. We have come to understand what causes these phenomena and they are no longer regarded as coming from a spiritual source. Unexplainable does not necessitate spiritual. In fact unexplainable is by its very nature impossible to describe. You may relate events if you like. Depending on the nature of the claim I may take you at face value or if the claim is more extraordinary I may be skeptical. In either case however if the cause is unexplainable or unknowable then we cannot make any positive claim about it.

#133
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I would be happy to learn more if this is not the case otherwise I am pretty sure what you are describing is purely hypothetical and only described mathematically. As for this formless awareness of which you speak I don't think we can detect it and so I'm not sure it exists.

Wait a minute, now all the sudden you are skeptical of mathematics, accurate predictions and theory? you haven't made the quantum leap yet lol? do you study unification theory, grand unified theory, quantum physics ect ect anything like that?

As for this formless awareness of which you speak I don't think we can detect it and so I'm not sure it exists.

First of all you don't need anyone to detect formless, conscious awareness for you...you ARE that, your awareness controls the physical body not the other way around. Now all you need to do is face the hard questions and deal with them in a rational way. Allow yourself to be open to what spiritual sources have been proposing for ages about reality and the nature of creation long before any technological advances as well as metaphysical studies which have the potential to reach outside what you currently accept. Ask yourself how energy is able to stabilize itself on a level of frequency to create form and act as if it had some intelligence or awareness? why, does it do that? why does it create forms where intelligence and awareness can manifest into environments, when you become aware of what is going on you will be forced to transcend your current mental barriers because no longer does a narrow perspective cut it anymore, it does nothing to answer the hard questions of our experiences. This is the road to spiritual progress though, you have to be willing to leave behind old paradigms in favor of broader ones.

#134
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Wait a minute, now all the sudden you are skeptical of mathematics, accurate predictions and theory? 
No now I would like to know more sorry thatis the first thing. I Just want to read up about this if you have a link. Sorry if I tend to cone of argumentative even when I don't mean to be sometimes. And I am also more argumentative then perhaps I would like to be. Could be part of why I'm here.

As for this
First of all you don't need anyone to detect formless, conscious awareness for you...you ARE that, your awareness controls the physical body not the other way around. 
How have determined this to be the case? Since the rest of this statement rests on this presuposition do you have a link to a peer reviewed study that shows this?



#135
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't fully disagree with you but you keep saying "we cannot say" ... I can say, and i can categorize my experiences since i've experienced them. It's more on the lines of 'you' can't say or categorize. I don't like saying this bc i don't like pretending i'm something special, but it is the truth. In one way or another, i'm the expert at this point. All you can do is give me ideas of what you think it could be, and i've asked and considered your points and people like you who aren't in my shoes. I just don't find them to be compelling enough to change the way i define my experiences, as something spiritual. 
#136
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
No now I would like to know more sorry thatis the first thing. I Just want to read up about this if you have a link. Sorry if I tend to cone of argumentative even when I don't mean to be sometimes. And I am also more argumentative then perhaps I would like to be. Could be part of why I'm here.

As far as what I'm referring to in quantum mechanics you can check out this relatively short video where it gives you a basic understanding of where we are currently at with understanding the fundamentals of life down to the microscopic level and beyond, before the particle and atom ect ect, down to the actual "fabric" of the universe prior to that . Really cool stuff, normally it might bore someone to death but this guy is kinda funny and easy to understand. 
One thing to consider when talking with me, is that I gather information from all sides and legit sources (well legit IMO) and so while I can show you things that are factually known in say quantum mechanics I can take you a step further with spirituality when putting things together. But anyways watch this video if you get a chance and we can discuss it if you would like. 

44 days later

#137
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry it took me awhile to get back. Yes if the superstring hypothesis is correct then we are all composed of the same.eneegy. I am uncertain how this suggest a any conciousness that exists without matter ( a particular kind of energy) as every conciousness ever observed is connected to a brain made of matter and stops being observable if the brain in question is destroyed or ceases to function .
#138
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry it took me awhile to get back. Yes if the superstring hypothesis is correct then we are all composed of the same.eneegy.

No worries, it is correct. To me it is obvious but that's irrelevant of course.

I am uncertain how this suggest a any conciousness that exists without matter ( a particular kind of energy)

It aligns with my theory that all of creation and all life/energy come out of a singular Reality was my main point. That's a good start eh? first I had to get you to recognize the material/physical part of it. From there it's all about arguments, commons sense, logic, cross referencing and even on one level evidence. Evidence being that which indicates a proposition true or valid. But, I won't even go there (with evidence) because you know what type of evidences I correlate with and we will probably only argue in circles over that aspect. Having said that, creation is not just an empty claim or belief, it has sufficient warrant to accept or embrace it. That wouldn't be the final card though since spirituality is about experience and learning from experiences not just believing in things, but first one has to come to a place where they can accept that a Creator most likely exists then they can play with getting involved at a much deeper level.
But again, you have to be asking yourself why energy is acting as intelligence and not just inanimate matter. Why does energy create like it is sentient, how could inanimate matter create animation/intelligence? so why is it so hard to accept that there was first an intelligent Source that establishes the universe and creates forms and embodiments? it seems to me you have to accept more of an absurd conclusion/belief to be a materialist/atheist when I thought the whole point was to follow where truth and logic lead, that rarely happens to be quite frank.

 as every conciousness ever observed is connected to a brain made of matter and stops being observable if the brain in question is destroyed or ceases to function .

This claim gets repeated by materialists but it's false, it is a poor assumption TBH. You could only claim that if NDE's, OBE's, soul travel, spirituality and religion never existed, and never made claims of experiences that are flat out contrary to that. So I don't know where you get the confidence to say that, as it doesn't come across as honest, even though you are being sincere. You can't pretend that all the sources that claim otherwise don't exist, if you wanted to be honest with yourself you would have to include all of that in your evaluations.
I've been taking a break from the forums lately but I got your response through my email so I'd figure I would at least get back to ya just in case you were actually interested in something we are discussing. 

#139
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
You use the word theory when you clearly mean hypothesis (or more likely conjecture). I don't know what you mean by energy acting as intelligent. NDEs are impossible to observe except to the one experiencing them and we cannot confirm or deny them as humans without the observations of an organic brain i.e. the person who supposedly had the nde telling us about their experience.
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't believe there are any. "Lack of evidence for God" refers to theism's lack of arguments on offense.
Please make a positive statement and present your evidence in a logical fashion.

This isn't itself an argument that God doesn't exist.
Only ontological idiots claim "there is absolutely and positively no possible god".

Spinoza actually calculated and presented an irrefutable proof of god in 1677.

Pointing out how beliefs in a deity have been formed throughout history to invalidate or make it less likely that any particular defintion of God exists is a genetic fallacy. 
You might call this a problem of inductive reasoning (Hume), but it is not a genetic fallacy.

A genetic fallacy would be, "Stalin once said all people should brush their teeth every day, and since Stalin was evil, I refuse to brush my teeth".

Your implied counter argument, that evidence does not "disprove" your particular god is a naked appeal to ignorance.
#141
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You use the word theory when you clearly mean hypothesis (or more likely conjecture).

Theory- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,

 I don't know what you mean by energy acting as intelligent.

Really? that's weird, you ARE intelligence lol.....

NDEs are impossible to observe except to the one experiencing them and we cannot confirm or deny them

That's why I count them as evidence not facts, meaning a proposition that indicates whether something is true or valid....you do know what indicates means right? however I don't need them in my own examination as I have had my own direct experiences. I use other experiences as a source of cross referencing. 

as humans without the observations of an organic brain i.e. the person who supposedly had the nde telling us about their experience.

Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss something.

#142
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Theory- a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,
This is not how the word is used in scientific endeavours. Please do not conflate your personal "theories" with scientific theory.
Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss something.
My first question is what makes you an authority on NDEs? To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena.
#143
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not how the word is used in scientific endeavours. Please do not conflate your personal "theories" with scientific theory.

Read that again. 

My first question is what makes you an authority on NDEs? To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena.

I'm not an authority but I definitely can speak from experience as well I study NDE's. If you would like to call me an authority on that, that is fine but that is not what I said. Perhaps if you stick with what is said this could be pleasant rather than hostile. 
#144
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena

Is this supposed to be funny? if not, then we have a long way to go.
#145
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not how the word is used in scientific endeavours. Please do not conflate your personal "theories" with scientific theory.
For example, a hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable. [LINK]

My first question is what makes you an authority on NDEs? To my knowledge there is no real laboratory data on the phenomena.
NDEs are like eye-witness-testimony in a court of law.  They may be unreliable, but if someone has their own first-hand experience that can be described with similar terminology, they might very likely consider these second-hand accounts as corroboration of their experiences. [LINK]
#146
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is this supposed to be funny? if not, then we have a long way to go.
No comedy meant. Do you have a citation to share?

#147
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Unfortunately testimony is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence is insufficient to claim knowledge.
#148
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I study NDE's. 
Not to quibble but don't you mean you study the secondhand testimonial/anecdotal evidence provided by those who claim to have had such an experience?

#149
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not an authority but I definitely can speak from experience
You have had a near death experience?

#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Unfortunately testimony is anecdotal evidence and anecdotal evidence is insufficient to claim knowledge.
Here's an example.

I once got drunk and saw flying pink elephants.  Not everyone who gets drunk sees flying pink elephants, but I have spoken to other people who report having similar experiences and I find them credible because they reflect my own experience.

This is not a "scientific fact" but it does appear to be "evidence" that corroborates (and validates) my own experience.

To be perfectly clear, it does not "prove" that flying pink elephants really and truly, quantifiably exist.  It merely corroborates a qualitative experience.