Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank,

So youyr criteria for how you evaluate these theories is the setting in which they are proposed?

So do you remain agnostic about alien abductions and the like? There are a few paranoid folk here who take that seriously.

Let me step in to say that alien abductions would interact with our material world. (Even if the aliens were insubstantial, they would have to become physical somehow in order to manipulate the material people they abduct, probe them.) That has observational potential, and can in theory be confirmed or denied, as it would effect the physical world and provide evidence.

The g-d concept, if wholly immaterial, possibly never has or never will interact with the material world. It would have no physical effect or control. Somthing immaterial not affecting the physical world cannot be observed.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Let me step in to say that alien abductions would interact with our material world. (Even if the aliens were insubstantial, they would have to become physical somehow in order to manipulate the material people they abduct, probe them.) That has observational potential, and can in theory be confirmed or denied, as it would effect the physical world and provide evidence.

Let me step up to do what theists do and alter the theory.

Now the aliens are not physical but certain persons have the ability to transcend the physical and interact with them.

Disbelief in the aliens negates and possibility fo the ability to interact with them.

I will continue to refine the belief to defy 'debunktion' as theists have done for centuries.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

So do you remain agnostic about alien abductions and the like? There are a few paranoid folk here who take that seriously.

I'm not sure about "the like" -- but if you will be more specific, I will comment on other things.

As for alien abductions -- I certainly have expressed doubts about the reliability of these stories -- especially the ones that depend on hypnosis to retrieve memories supposedly surpressed.

BUT: in debate on the Internet, I WOULD BE AGNOSTIC about whether or not they have happened.

To anyone who suggests that they believe such things have not happened, I would acknowledge that anyone has a right to guess either way on the subject.

But if someone were to assert in Internet debate that it has never happened and that it is impossible for it to happen -- I would ask for the evidence upon which that contention is based.

I MIGHT be persuaded one way or the other -- but more likely, I would simply say "I don't really know if anyone has ever been abducted -- or if intelligent aliens from other planets have managed to get here to observe us -- AND I am not persuaded one way or the other by the evidence currently being offered."

I must say this, Craven: The "evidence" that can be mustered in an argument about how unlikely it is that space travel of the kinds of distances we are talking about here can be achieved -- is much persuasive to me than arguments that there cannot be any gods -- and it is much more independent of reliance on the argument "They have no evidence that there are gods (aliens)."

Now that I think this over -- I would not limit what I have said here to just Internet debate. I think it makes sense -- and I would assert it as is if it came up in friendly, casual discussion.

I notice that you ended your question with an observation. You wrote:

Quote:

There are a few paranoid folk here who take that seriously,

Well, I would imagine there are people who are not paranoid who think other intelligent beings might be observing this emerging civilization of ours.

Are you of the opinion that space travel of the magnitude necessary is impossible?

If "yes", are you asserting that as a fact -- or just as an opinion?

Are you asserting that the only people who would think this a possibility -- are paranoid people?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I must say this, Craven: The "evidence" that can be mustered in an argument about how unlikely it is that space travel of the kinds of distances we are talking about here can be achieved -- is much persuasive to me than arguments that there cannot be any gods -- and it is much more independent of reliance on the argument "They have no evidence that there are gods (aliens)."

I do not rely on the lack of converse evidence as evidence to my opinion that there are no gods. I rely on evidence that while you might not consider pursuasive to the tune of changing your religious views is also not an absolute death of evidence. Earler you boldy proclaimed that there is NO evidence and called it laughable.

I post that while there is not empirical evidence that there is evidence nonetheless.

Quote:

Well, I would imagine there are people who are not paranoid who think other intelligent beings might be observing this emerging civilization of ours.

Certainly, the paranoia I referenced is because wolf claimed this forum has a "contract" with "the agency" and that's why we don't agree with his opinion on aliens.

He also made demonstratably false claims about the CIA spying on computers and as such I have considered his theories to be bourne of a paranoia.

Now just because one is paranoid does not mean they arean't really out to get you, so while it's not empirical evidence his mere paranoia is indicative of some level of evidence.

Thankfully I have empricial evidence against some of his claims and did not ever have to reference the obvious paranoia.

Quote:

Are you of the opinion that space travel of the magnitude necessary is impossible?

No. I simply find it unlikely that intelligent life would both have evolved to that level AND have the means by which to support themselves for billions of years in a spacecraft.

Were they to ahve developed the technology to travel at the speed of light it'd still take thousands of years to get here.

A lifeform that can accomplish that would be spectacular.

Not impossible, just unlikely.

I consider it even more unlikely that they have made contact with earth.

Quote:

Are you asserting that the only people who would think this a possibility -- are paranoid people?

Certainly not.

0 Replies

"It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs." -- Malaclypse 2

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I must say this, Craven: The "evidence" that can be mustered in an argument about how unlikely it is that space travel of the kinds of distances we are talking about here can be achieved -- is much persuasive to me than arguments that there cannot be any gods -- and it is much more independent of reliance on the argument "They have no evidence that there are gods (aliens)."

I do not rely on the lack of converse evidence as evidence to my opinion that there are no gods. I rely on evidence that while you might not consider pursuasive to the tune of changing your religious views is also not an absolute death of evidence. Earler you boldy proclaimed that there is NO evidence and called it laughable.

I did????

I don't think so.

But I am willing to give you a chance to produce a quote where I did.

MY GUESS: At best, you will find that I have at times said -- "I personally see no evidence..." or "I see no unambiguous evidence..." ...

...but I seriously doubt that I "boldly proclaimed that there is NO evidence..." ...

...AND I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE A QUOTE WHERE I DID.

As I mentioned earlier to Monger, Craven, quoting is preferable to paraphrasing.

Quote:

I post that while there is not empirical evidence that there is evidence nonetheless.

And I am sure I responded that I am not asking for empirical evidence -- I am simply asking for unambiguous evidence -- or evidence that persuades.

In fact, I have asked if you would be willing to share with us the "evidence" upon which you base this notion of yours that "the evidence" points rather dramatically toward there being no gods...

...and I've asked for that several times...

...and you have never produced.

How about it, Craven. What is the evidence upon which you base this serious conviction of yours?

And remember, you said it was not "converse" evidence.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you of the opinion that space travel of the magnitude necessary is impossible?

No. I simply find it unlikely that intelligent life would both have evolved to that level AND have the means by which to support themselves for billions of years in a spacecraft.

What makes you think it would take billiions of years?

Quote:

Were they to ahve developed the technology to travel at the speed of light it'd still take thousands of years to get here.

Really!

Even though there are at least 30 suns within 20 light years of Sol -- and hundreds within 50 light years?

Perhaps you would like to reconsider that?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did????

I don't think so.

But I am willing to give you a chance to produce a quote where I did.

MY GUESS: At best, you will find that I have at times said -- "I personally see no evidence..." or "I see no unambiguous evidence..." ...

...but I seriously doubt that I "boldly proclaimed that there is NO evidence..." ...

...AND I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE A QUOTE WHERE I DID.

As I mentioned earlier to Monger, Craven, quoting is preferable to paraphrasing.

Frank, thing is you leave up to yourself the position of judge jury and executioner about what constitutes evidence.

Whether you phrase it as a personal opinion "I personally see NO evidence " or not is irrelevant because the whole discussion is about personal opinions.

In response to some well put evidence you responded:

"that would not be evidence (and certainly not proof) that there are no gods."

This is not true. It is indeed evidence. Maybe not empirical and yes evidence needs to be held up to the loght but it was evidence nonetheless. But you declare it invalid. Here is a quote from you in which you do not state it as an opinion:

"But not one thing here is evidence that there are no gods. "

It wasn't proof but it was evidence. Not empirical evidence and quality of evidence is subject to interpretation but it is still evidence.

HHEre you make a more reasonable claim and qualify it with a "virtually"

"evidence for both sides of that issue is virtually non-existent. "

It's not true, there are reams of evidence that your interpretation has decided was not valuable enough to influence your opinion. That is fair to do but to call evidence you consider weak to be the absense of evidence is going a bit far.

"You have almost no evidence that there are no gods -- and such "evidence" as you do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.."

Quote:

And I am sure I responded that I am not asking for empirical evidence -- I am simply asking for unambiguous evidence -- or evidence that persuades.

Frank, you can say that the available evidence is not pursuasive to you, I agree. Where I disagree is the absense of evidence claims. There is evidence.

Quote:

In fact, I have asked if you would be willing to share with us the "evidence" upon which you base this notion of yours that "the evidence" points rather dramatically toward there being no gods...

...and I've asked for that several times...

...and you have never produced.

I have never said that the evidence points "dramatically" at there being no gods. Frank, you get upset when people misquote you right?

I have in fact provided evidence to you in the past. I have not done so again because I know you will dissmiss anything that is not empirical.

Quote:

What makes you think it would take billiions of years?

Distance.

Quote:

Even though there are at least 30 suns within 20 light years of Sol -- and hundreds within 50 light years?

Perhaps you would like to reconsider that?

No I wouldn't. There are not 30 "suns" within 20 lightyears of us. There are stars but what qualifies sol as a sun is a bit more than being a mere star.

Furthermore in 20 scenarios I find it unlikely that an inhabitable planet will be at the correct distance from teh star to support life.

If there is life I find it statistically unlikely that it is nearby.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did????

I don't think so.

But I am willing to give you a chance to produce a quote where I did.

MY GUESS: At best, you will find that I have at times said -- "I personally see no evidence..." or "I see no unambiguous evidence..." ...

...but I seriously doubt that I "boldly proclaimed that there is NO evidence..." ...

...AND I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE A QUOTE WHERE I DID.

As I mentioned earlier to Monger, Craven, quoting is preferable to paraphrasing.

Frank, thing is you leave up to yourself the position of judge jury and executioner about what constitutes evidence.

Whether you phrase it as a personal opinion "I personally see NO evidence " or not is irrelevant because the whole discussion is about personal opinions.

In response to some well put evidence you responded:

"that would not be evidence (and certainly not proof) that there are no gods."

This is not true. It is indeed evidence. Maybe not empirical and yes evidence needs to be held up to the loght but it was evidence nonetheless. But you declare it invalid. Here is a quote from you in which you do not state it as an opinion:

"But not one thing here is evidence that there are no gods. "

It wasn't proof but it was evidence. Not empirical evidence and quality of evidence is subject to interpretation but it is still evidence.

HHEre you make a more reasonable claim and qualify it with a "virtually"

"evidence for both sides of that issue is virtually non-existent. "

It's not true, there are reams of evidence that your interpretation has decided was not valuable enough to influence your opinion. That is fair to do but to call evidence you consider weak to be the absense of evidence is going a bit far.

"You have almost no evidence that there are no gods -- and such "evidence" as you do have is so ambiguous it is only the charity in me that causes me to call it evidence.."

But Craven, I was responding to your comment:

Quote:

Earler you boldy proclaimed that there is NO evidence and called it laughable.

I maintain I did not "boldly proclaim" that there is NO evidence.

Quote:

Quote:
And I am sure I responded that I am not asking for empirical evidence -- I am simply asking for unambiguous evidence -- or evidence that persuades.

Frank, you can say that the available evidence is not pursuasive to you, I agree. Where I disagree is the absense of evidence claims. There is evidence.

You are absolutely correct here -- and I apologize if I have ever characterized it as "no evidence."

I try to be careful with my wording. If I screwed up and actually wrote "there is NO evidence" -- I was way out of line.

Quote:

Quote:
In fact, I have asked if you would be willing to share with us the "evidence" upon which you base this notion of yours that "the evidence" points rather dramatically toward there being no gods...

...and I've asked for that several times...

...and you have never produced.

I have never said that the evidence points "dramatically" at there being no gods. Frank, you get upset when people misquote you right?

I have in fact provided evidence to you in the past. I have not done so again because I know you will dissmiss anything that is not empirical.

I do not remember the exact wording, but the jist was that you think the evidence favored the notion that there are no gods.

I honestly do not remember you offering any evidence in response to my requests, Craven.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would like to know the two most significant pieces of evidence that point to there being no gods. Once again, we are excluding any evidence that is a variation on "They have no evidence that there are gods."

I don't know of any evidence that could be consdered persuasive -- and I would sorely love to hear what evidence you consider persuasive.

Quote:

Quote:
What makes you think it would take billiions of years?

Distance.

Quote:
Even though there are at least 30 suns within 20 light years of Sol -- and hundreds within 50 light years?

Perhaps you would like to reconsider that?

No I wouldn't. There are not 30 "suns" within 20 lightyears of us. There are stars but what qualifies sol as a sun is a bit more than being a mere star.

Furthermore in 20 scenarios I find it unlikely that an inhabitable planet will be at the correct distance from teh star to support life.

If there is life I find it statistically unlikely that it is nearby.

[/quote]

Craven, there are hundreds of stars within 60 light years of Earth -- and thousands of stars within 100 light years of Earth.

Your guess that it would take thousands of years travelling at the speed of light is way off base.

And it supposes that travel would have to be confined to the speed of light between those distances -- something that really is by no means certain.

In any case, you seem to consider the notion that intelligent beings from alien worlds might be checking us out as illogical. That may be. But no more illogical than supposing it could not be happening.

This is just one more thing that we truly do not know enough about to make reasonable guesses for or against. Either guess might be right -- and neither guess is made on enough unambiguous evidence to take seriously.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would like to know the two most significant pieces of evidence that point to there being no gods. Once again, we are excluding any evidence that is a variation on "They have no evidence that there are gods."

I don't know of any evidence that could be consdered persuasive -- and I would sorely love to hear what evidence you consider persuasive.

I do not think there are "two most significant" pieces. I do think that there are many many small details that point to a conclusion. BTW, you seem to overrate my certainty. I have said that there is evidence. I have rarely qualified it so positively.

Here is a quickie, selected at random:

"Too good to be true", the creation of a diety satisfies man's desires so much that the "too good to be true" factor comes in. Sure, "too good" does not preclude "true" but when I earlier mentioned the understanding of the nature of your friends I was referencing this.

Understanding human nature is to know that humans want a god. Our long history of making them up shows that this satisfies some basic needs.

I suggest that this is evidence as to their human creation and evidence that points to human creation is evidence against a god (BUT NOT PROOF).

Quote:

Craven, there are hundreds of stars within 60 light years of Earth -- and thousands of stars within 100 light years of Earth.

Your guess that it would take thousands of years travelling at the speed of light is way off base.

No it is not. I do not believe intelligent life exists outside of our solar system.

If it were to exist I think the laws of probability indicate that with such vast distances it would be very alarming of a coincidence for there to be another inhabitable planet so close to us AND that it will host intelligent life. Id o not consider my opinion to be "way off base".

I find several things improbable:

A) That other intelligent life has evolved
B) That a nearby planet is inhabitable
C) That the technology to travel at the speed of light has been developed.

Now I rate these on the basis of probability, it's possible that all the stars could align.

Life might exist, the universe is vast. I consider the vastness the greatest argument in favor of another life form having evolved.

It is not an unreasonable opinion to state that if there is life out there, it's probably far away.

Quote:

And it supposes that travel would have to be confined to the speed of light between those distances -- something that really is by no means certain.

I never claimed it was certain. I do however claim to believe that life forms would have difficulty enduring travel at the speed of light and that the technological advancements to enable travel at the speed of light are such that it's fair to consider it a statistical improbability.

Quote:

In any case, you seem to consider the notion that intelligent beings from alien worlds might be checking us out as illogical. That may be. But no more illogical than supposing it could not be happening.

To state something as within the realm of possibility is not illogical.

Neither is it illogical to suggest that due to the series of improbable factors one has arrived at the conclusion that the sum of improbability is.. improbable.

Quote:

This is just one more thing that we truly do not know enough about to make reasonable guesses for or against. Either guess might be right -- and neither guess is made on enough unambiguous evidence to take seriously.

Frank, yes, we do not have empirical evidence. Yet we do indeed ahve enough information to suggest that travel at the speed of light is a very tricky issue.

We do indeed have enough evidence to know that an inhabitable ecosystem is based on presise conditions.

We do have enough information to know that precise conditions are rarely repeated in proximity when theya re aleatorily determined.

We do have enough information to know that life forms that we know of would ahve great difficulty travelling at that speed.

We do have enough information to know that travel at that speed would require a significant amount of energy.

Simply put, there are a lot of tough hurdles to clear. I simply think it's highly improbable that they have been cleared and in our back yard.

I find it more likely that it's wishful thinking. Just as kids don;t dream of toys that maintain a distance humans like to keep their aliens close enough for playtime.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Portal Star wrote:

Let me step in to say that alien abductions would interact with our material world. (Even if the aliens were insubstantial, they would have to become physical somehow in order to manipulate the material people they abduct, probe them.) That has observational potential, and can in theory be confirmed or denied, as it would effect the physical world and provide evidence.

Let me step up to do what theists do and alter the theory.

Now the aliens are not physical but certain persons have the ability to transcend the physical and interact with them.

Disbelief in the aliens negates and possibility fo the ability to interact with them.

I will continue to refine the belief to defy 'debunktion' as theists have done for centuries.

That doesn't change the statement I made, it only adds a second interaction to the problem. If the people have the ability to transend the physical this can theoretically be observed - they would at one point be material, and then they would be immaterial. There would have to be some effect in the physical universe to have the immaterial interaction take place. If somthing material went immaterial, it would
a. not be able to be sensed (with human senses or instruments)
b. would create a matter vaccum where somthing material became immaterial.
Cause and effect. It would be theoretically observable.

This is where mr. Apisa is wrong and why an agnostic can deny the existence of individual dieties (they are attributed interaction with the material world), but not the general concept of g-d.

0 Replies

Yes it DOES change the statement you made. Watch:

You: "alien abductions would interact with our material world"

Me: "the aliens are not physical but certain persons have the ability to transcend the physical and interact with them"

Maybe I should just make the weaseling clearer:

Me: "Oh, interaction with the material world is a problem? Fine they don't interact with the material world. But they still exist and make sweet love to my spirit every night."

The point is that as long as you are allowed to make claims without substantiation you just need to tweak your theory. It can't be disproven.

0 Replies

Your first statement was the same because there was still interaction with the physical world from the immaterial (assuming your aliens were immaterial - to apply to the g-d argument).

"spirit" -is- somthing entirely different. So, in order for me to be agnostic about your statement, it would have to be:

"completely immaterial aliens who never interact with the material universe
make sweet love to my spirit (which is immaterial and I cannot sense in any way.)"

Then, yes. That would have no effect on the physical world, and I would be agnostic about it.

0 Replies

Nope, in it, the people TRANSCEND the material world.

0 Replies

In order for them, their physical brains, to know somthing happened, there would have to be a physical-to-nonphysical interaction point.
There is no physical qualia of "spirit" just so you know, the use of the word "spirit" implies immateriality.

So, this contact point would be physical. That's why I mentioned the pinneal gland, what Descartes believed was the interaction point between the body and mind/soul. (The pinneal gland was later observed, and the pinneal gland theory was disproven.)

0 Replies

Nah, but their brains don't "know" anything. Their spirits hold all the awareness.

Portal, this is ridiculous. I( can always weasle it a fit further away.

1/2 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 7/8 8/9 9/10.... you'll still never get to one if I have such liberties.

0 Replies

if the spirits are unobservable, they are immaterial.

What are you doing with numbers?

0 Replies

What the computer did with tic-tac toe in War Games.

It didn't work.

Anywho, the spirits ARE observable. But only if you believe in them.

10/11

0 Replies

I liked that movie.

The brains of the people who believe could be studied. It wouldn't have to be present in all people. And you're forgetting double blind studies, where the observers don't know what the study is about.
Like I said, for awareness in the person, there would be physical difference in the brain. The brain is a physical thing, as evidenced by neurosceince. You haven't presented any new information, or a physical-nonphysical excuse or contact point.

0 Replies

I hereby present the new information that everything we thought about the brain is wrong and that new evidence (only knowable by true believers) clearly demonstrates that the brain is just for show, real thought is inspired by the aliens.

11/12

0 Replies

Okay, give me the evidence.
(burden of proof lies on the person making the claim)
(yes, this is standard logical procedure in the field of history, science, philosophy, computer science, art history... )

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know