What type of atheist are you?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, i framed the such that good is defined as the creator of the universe. (a timeless spaceless inmaterial personal being who created the universe)

For the purpose of this thread anything that fits this description would be" God"

That's what I was getting at: you defined "God" in terms of your beliefs about gods, and defined atheism in terms of that God. This is chauvinistic.

With that said, can you answer the OP?

Not until I'm satisfied that you're asking the question in good faith. So far, signs suggest you aren't.

Edit: scratch that. Your OP is too full of false statements and bad assumptions about Santa, aliens and the extinction of the dinosaurs. I can't be bothered to sort out that mess; I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

 

[leroy]

That god created humans as they are now, with no evolution from early hominids

Yes that was stablished 150 years ago....

Remember the original challenge?

Can you name a single scientific discovery from the las 100 years that made the Gap smaller

I agree in the 1800s and 1700s many gaps where getting smaller, those where hard times for theists..

But within the last 100 years there are no scientific discoveries that make the existence of god less likelly and many discoveries from the last 100 years had made the existence of god more likely...... (the universe had a begining, the universe is FT, life is complex etc) these are all discoveries that make the existence of god more likely.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes that was stablished 150 years ago....

Remember the original challenge?



I agree in the 1800s and 1700s many gaps where getting smaller, those where hard times for theists..

But within the last 100 years there are no scientific discoveries that make the existence of god less likelly and many discoveries from the last 100 years had made the existence of god more likely...... (the universe had a begining, the universe is FT, life is complex etc) these are all discoveries that make the existence of god more likely.

although dna was possibly discovered over 150 years ago its significance was not discovered until the 1950. The discovery of that significance is what closed the god magic gap


I would like you now to act on your own words, you made the several claims so please provide falsifiable evidencefor your claims.

 

[exchemist]

Ok no data therefore we don't know if God is the cause of the universe or not....... Agree?...... Does that represent your view?

Or would you say that there is data / evidence that strongly and conclusively show that God is not the cause of the universe.... In the same way there is conclusive data that shows that Santa is not the cause of presents in the Christmas Tree?

We don't even know if the idea of the "cause" of the universe has any meaning, in a scientific sense.

Since, according to the (speculative) singularity model, time itself would have started at the singularity, there would have been no "before" . Without any "before", it is hard to attach meaning to the idea of "cause".

So you are trying to get me to answer a non-scientific question in terms of science. This, I cannot do, obviously.

Personally, I am happy with the idea of a Creator God (...."born of the Father before time began" starts to sound interesting, doesn't it?) , but there is no scientific evidence for this: it's just an aesthetic idea.

 

[Heyo]

What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.

4) What is that god thingy you keep talking about?
OK, that is because I'm an Agnostic.

I'm also an atheist as a consequence of my Agnosticism and as such my answer (in light of your clarification) would be #2.
There is no reason to believe in a deos as
1) it unnecessarily duplicates entities,
2) there are alternative explanations with similar (lack of) evidence,
3) a deos has no explanatory power and therefore
4) no consequences.

Having said that, there is also no reason to oppose deism. It is an absolutely harmless belief as, as stated above, it has no consequences. Deists can't and don't rest demands on their belief, typically don't proselytise and most are quick to agree to disagree (as, as stated above, it has no consequences).

 

[Altfish]

Ok how did any of that made the gap smaller.... Or to put it in different words, how did any of that made the existence of God less likely tham before the discovery?

I cannot add anything to what Christine added earlier

but do you know thay God is not the cause of the universe? In the same way we know thay santa is not the cause of presents?

But that doesn't help; because I then want to know, "Who created god?"
Don't you see, you are just adding another layer.

 

[Valjean]

So do you know that God is not the cause of the universe? (in the samecway we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts in the Christmas Tree?

What kind of cause are you talking about? Four causes - Wikipedia

By "explanation, We mean mechanism, like the sum of interactions between the spring, gears, escapements, &c of a Swiss watch. We're asking how, not who.


Strawnman..... I dont reject the big bang.[/QUOTE]Very expansive of you.

 

[Valjean]

Ok how did any of that made the gap smaller.... Or to put it in different words, how did any of that made the existence of God less likely tham before the discovery?



Ok but do you know thay God is not the cause of the universe? In the same way we know thay santa is not the cause of presents?

Is the cause of a present the guy who came up with the idea of a particular toy? The designer of the toy? The manufacturer of that toy? The distributer? The seller? the Father who bought it?
Science is asking for a mechanism, not magic; not a magical agent.

 

[Valjean]

I think that's how they see themselves in relation to their environment. If they do something bad, they feel all bad people deserve to get punished. So, when they do "sin" they feel they are worthy to be punished. The inherent sin factor leaves them in a state of avoiding judgement. It has less to do with an anthropomorphizating father being and more to do with father as an authority of judgement as would him to a child not an unseen being.

What do they see as the function of a punishment? What is it supposed to achieve?

 

[Valjean]

Lol.

I guess I make a real poor athiest since I don't believe or disbelieve in anything. I do see evidence for "God" and no evidence for the non-existence of "God" but then I still can't compute the odds in my near total ignorance.

I do believe that religion is a confusion of ancient knowledge when it was summarized in three words "knowledge > understanding > creation". While this ancient knowledge had the benefit of being applicable to man and his life it was still quite primitive in many ways. None of our knowledge is applicable to individuals but too many think it is and reject knowledge of themselves and fail to see their ignorance.

I'm curious. What evidence for God do you see? Is it real evidence? Do others propose a different, natural explanation of your evidence?

 

[Valjean]

That's what I was getting at: you defined "God" in terms of your beliefs about gods, and defined atheism in terms of that God. This is chauvinistic.


Not until I'm satisfied that you're asking the question in good faith. So far, signs suggest you aren't.

Edit: scratch that. Your OP is too full of false statements and bad assumptions about Santa, aliens and the extinction of the dinosaurs. I can't be bothered to sort out that mess; I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Chauvinistic?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Chauvinistic?

He's trying to reframe atheism as a response to his particular god and religion as if they're the gold standard of theism.

 

[leroy]

We don't even know if the idea of the "cause" of the universe has any meaning, in a scientific sense.

Since, according to the (speculative) singularity model, time itself would have started at the singularity, there would have been no "before" . Without any "before", it is hard to attach meaning to the idea of "cause".

So you are trying to get me to answer a non-scientific question in terms of science. This, I cannot do, obviously.

Personally, I am happy with the idea of a Creator God (...."born of the Father before time began" starts to sound interesting, doesn't it?) , but there is no scientific evidence for this: it's just an aesthetic idea.

But in the case of santa we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

In the case of God, "we dont know" if he is the cause of the universes

So Santa and God are not comparable


Agree?

 

[ChristineM]

But in the case of santa we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

In the case of God, "we dont know" if he is the cause of the universes

So Santa and God are not comparable


Agree?

Hiw do you know?

 

[leroy]

4) What is that god thingy you keep talking about?
OK, that is because I'm an Agnostic.

I'm also an atheist as a consequence of my Agnosticism and as such my answer (in light of your clarification) would be #2.
There is no reason to believe in a deos as
1) it unnecessarily duplicates entities,
2) there are alternative explanations with similar (lack of) evidence,
3) a deos has no explanatory power and therefore
4) no consequences.

Having said that, there is also no reason to oppose deism. It is an absolutely harmless belief as, as stated above, it has no consequences. Deists can't and don't rest demands on their belief, typically don't proselytise and most are quick to agree to disagree (as, as stated above, it has no consequences).

So there is no evidence nor good arguments for nor against God.... Does tjis represent your view?

 

[leroy]

Hiw do you know?

We can show empirically and conclusively that parents is a better explanation than Santa for gifts

 

[ChristineM]

We can show empirically and conclusively that parents is a better explanation than Santa for gifts

Parents were not in question, you stated

But in the case of santa we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

You made thw claim to to paraphrase your own sentiment, please show me evidence

 

[leroy]

What kind of cause are you talking about? Four causes - Wikipedia

ou.

Efficient cause

 

[leroy]

. I can't be bothered to sort out that mess; I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

All I whant to know is in what category would you put God

1 you know with high degree of certainly that god doesn't excist....... You would put god in the same category you would put Santa Clause, (this view requires a burden proof)

2 you dont know ... You would put God in the same category you would put aliens.... Perhaps he exists perhaps he doesn't. We dont have sufficient evidenve to conclude ether way (this doesn't require burden proof)

 

[cladking]

I'm curious. What evidence for God do you see? Is it real evidence? Do others propose a different, natural explanation of your evidence?

Certainly there are "natural explanations" for things like why water is most dense at 4 degrees but such explanations are always "convenient" and based on observation rather than experiment. The explanations would be just as glib if it were most dense at 0 degrees except there would be no life in the entire universe probably. That we can invent a means to quantify logic and so long as we keep the logic sound it always works is not evidence for "God" either, but it could be considered indicative. The fact that we are never able to predict the future and it is not noticed can be laid at the feet of numerous causations but it certainly proves reality is far more complex than the human brain for which our science lacks a working definition of its products and function.

I am far more amazed at the vastness of human ignorance than our knowledge but this amazement pales in amplitude to the amazement that no one else ever seems to notice and all the vocabulary to express the awe and wonder has been usurped by religions and no one ever noticed this either. I find it remarkable that humans are infinitely flexible and have multiple modes of operation and many ways to adapt any mode to circumstances. We can pile up bodies of those who are different and find it no more unnatural than hunting for sport or slaughtering for sustenance.

I believe there are natural explanations for everything but those explanations have nothing to do with modern science. Reality itself is digital and logical and this is why science and math work. This isn't to say that science has any answers but it has a great deal of knowledge and asks some of the right questions. There are no "laws of nature" and there is no "survival of the fittest". These are delusions generated by our assumptions and beliefs. But we still have no means to know if a "Creator" exists or not. We have no means and might never have means to design an experiment to show no creator exists or that that hypothesis is in error.

In our and my own vast ignorance all I can do is speculate. I wonder at the beliefs that drive people to reject evidence and embrace beliefs though we all do it.

It appears to me that Babel was real and we are still confused about it and most everything else and this is CAUSED by our language which brooks no ignorance and no gaps in our knowledge. We are mistaken about everything and are blind to it because we each see what wee believe and what we expect.