Favourite Atheist arguments

[SkepticThinker]

I think the problem here lies with determining qwhat the videos are evidence for. For example, the video of the meteorite. The video itself is only evidence that there was a meteorite that entered into the earth's atmosphere and exploded in midair, no more no less. Then once a claim has been made for the explanation for how/why it exploded, that's when there's the need for evidence to support that claim/explanation.

This goes for any and all videos. They're all evidence for the particular event/incident that is captured on video. They're all videos of lights and/or objects in the sky, a thing behind some bushes, a creature walking across a valley, objects flying across the room etc. Once someone suggest that the video is evidence for a particular claim that they're making, the video now becomes a claim itself and must now be analyzed to see whether or not it can be considered as evidence for the initial claim.

Take for example a video of a person shooting another person in the head with a gun. If the video is being used as evidence that the accused suspect murdered the victim, the video has now become a claim. Now it must be analyze to make sure that the video actually shows the accused suspect killing victim. If it shows that the shooter is another person, the one who got shot was not the identified victim or is inconclusive, then it's not evidence for the claim that the accused suspect did indeed shoot the identified victim. The video cannot be evidence for both murder case A and murder case B, two different and separate murder cases. But keep in mind, when it's been confirmed as being evidence for case A, it can either be evidence for or against the suspect, but not both. Evidence leads to only one conclusion, but cannot lead to two opposing conclusions.

Exactly! Thank you!

 

[Skeezy]

Exactly! Thank you!

Exactly why video is used as evidence. From date, time, location, confirmation, witnesses and re-occurance if any, video can be used as evidence to form a solid scientific and beyond shadow of a doubt conclusion.

Some video may not identify a subject, but confirm "someone did get shot". For examples. We don't know what UFOs are but some defy our known technology such as silent faster than sound flight and speeds which can only be calculated.

Spirits, entities, and cryptids can be re occurring or singular. There is enough evidence to prove some of these things exist though we do not know what they all are.

Poltegeists
I Identify poltergeist as as an energy or energies that can control the environment at will. This can be one object or many simultaneously. Encounters usually incite fear/panic or blackouts in the people present. Recordings usually display an unusually high amount of consistent sustained abnormal activity . These cases are rare. They make about 1/20th of the videos on the show.


Residual energy

Energy Shapes, energies of past people, spirtual energy from past. These can manifest at anytime and are usually a re-occuring energy. There is a large abundance of this caught on camera. Most cases are unique.


Cryptids


Bigfoot, rake, little people, encounters with inexplicable beings, all sorts of things that can't be explained.

?

Spirits/cryptid/energy?

There are strange things caught by multiple people confirmed by anyone at the location.


The is evidence but not evidence he wants all im saying is there is evidence of things we cannot explain. It is re-occurring and consistent. There is a lot of fake ufo footage there is a lot of real ufo footage. The real cannot be explained.

There is a lot of fake video of poltergeists there is a lot of real video of poltergeists. The real cannot be explained and only fits into our perception of what a powerful sentient energy or energies who's existence is already beyond our understanding could do.

 

[Koldo]

Exactly why video is used as evidence. From date, time, location, confirmation, witnesses and re-occurance if any, video can be used as evidence to form a solid scientific and beyond shadow of a doubt conclusion.

Some video may not identify a subject, but confirm "someone did get shot". For examples. We don't know what UFOs are but some defy our known technology such as silent faster than sound flight and speeds which can only be calculated.

Spirits, entities, and cryptids can be re occurring or singular. There is enough evidence to prove some of these things exist though we do not know what they all are.

Poltegeists
I Identify poltergeist as as an energy or energies that can control the environment at will. This can be one object or many simultaneously. Encounters usually incite fear/panic or blackouts in the people present. Recordings usually display an unusually high amount of consistent sustained abnormal activity . These cases are rare. They make about 1/20th of the videos on the show.


Residual energy

Energy Shapes, energies of past people, spirtual energy from past. These can manifest at anytime and are usually a re-occuring energy. There is a large abundance of this caught on camera. Most cases are unique.


Cryptids


Bigfoot, rake, little people, encounters with inexplicable beings, all sorts of things that can't be explained.

?

Spirits/cryptid/energy?

There are strange things caught by multiple people confirmed by anyone at the location.


The is evidence but not evidence he wants all im saying is there is evidence of things we cannot explain. It is re-occurring and consistent. There is a lot of fake ufo footage there is a lot of real ufo footage. The real cannot be explained.

There is a lot of fake video of poltergeists there is a lot of real video of poltergeists. The real cannot be explained and only fits into our perception of what a powerful sentient energy or energies who's existence is already beyond our understanding could do.

What do you mean when you say 'energy'?

 

[ChristineM]

Wait explain this to me.. an air burst? Air?.. air took a shape and Blew apart a large meteorite at the exact necessary moment to save lives beyond human control?.... news to me

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly why video is used as evidence. From date, time, location, confirmation, witnesses and re-occurance if any, video can be used as evidence to form a solid scientific and beyond shadow of a doubt conclusion.

Evidence of what???

What beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusion? How did you conclude anything at all??

Some video may not identify a subject, but confirm "someone did get shot". For examples. We don't know what UFOs are but some defy our known technology such as silent faster than sound flight and speeds which can only be calculated.

Here's the thing. A UFO is something unidentified. You are trying to identify and label it without being able to demonstrate what it is in the first place.

Spirits, entities, and cryptids can be re occurring or singular. There is enough evidence to prove some of these things exist though we do not know what they all are.

Oh, they can? How do you know this? How can you demonstrate this?
When did you demonstrate that "spirits, entities and cryptids" even exist in the first place?

That's the problem here. You simply declare these things exist, and then go ahead and attribute all kinds of qualities and characteristics to them when you've never demonstrated that they even exist in the first place! In other words, you're just making stuff up.

Poltegeists
I Identify poltergeist as as an energy or energies that can control the environment at will. This can be one object or many simultaneously. Encounters usually incite fear/panic or blackouts in the people present. Recordings usually display an unusually high amount of consistent sustained abnormal activity . These cases are rare. They make about 1/20th of the videos on the show.

So how do you know that something is being manipulated by a poltergeist? What is "abnormal activity" and how did you demonstrate that it's connected to poltergeists? How do you know poltergeists have a "will?" Doesn't a "will" require a functional brain? Do poltergeists have functional brains, and if so, how?
Energy isn't a very specific description, after all.

Residual energy

Energy Shapes, energies of past people, spirtual energy from past. These can manifest at anytime and are usually a re-occuring energy. There is a large abundance of this caught on camera. Most cases are unique.

What on earth is an "energy shape?"
How does the energy of "past people" maintain the form of a "past person?"
What is "spiritual energy from the past" and how did you demonstrate there is such a thing?


Sorry but this all sounds like a whole lot of word salad to me.

Cryptids

Bigfoot, rake, little people, encounters with inexplicable beings, all sorts of things that can't be explained.

What are these things and when did you demonstrate their existence?

And here again we come to my point. You've just said these things "can't be explained." But again, here you are declaring that these unexplained things exist as you describe them, complete with all the characteristics you've made up about them.

They're either explained or they're not.
All you're doing is taking unexplained things and then declaring that they are caused by other unexplained things. In other words, you're explaining nothing. And if this is the way we went about acquiring knowledge about the world, we'd be believing in all kinds of things that aren't true or demonstrable. We'd have to believe everything anyone ever claimed to exist, as you apparently do. I'm not interested in that; I'm interested in believing true things.

Spirits/cryptid/energy?

There are strange things caught by multiple people confirmed by anyone at the location.

Strange things? That's about as vague as it gets, no?
I've seen strange things that I couldn't explain. That doesn't mean I get to make up any old explanation I want.

Human beings can be mistaken. Human beings can hallucinate. Human beings tend to find patterns where they don't exist. Human beings have cognitive biases and beliefs that colour our views and experiences with the world. We need a better method for discovering true things that's something more than "well I can't explain that so it must be my grandmother's residual past energy visiting me to say hello." You need to actually demonstrate that, and not just assert it. Even if you've got a video with a hazy shape in the corner or whatever.

The is evidence but not evidence he wants all im saying is there is evidence of things we cannot explain. It is re-occurring and consistent. There is a lot of fake ufo footage there is a lot of real ufo footage. The real cannot be explained.

Yep, they are unexplained things.
Why do you think you can explain them?

There is a lot of fake video of poltergeists there is a lot of real video of poltergeists. The real cannot be explained and only fits into our perception of what a powerful sentient energy or energies who's existence is already beyond our understanding could do.

As far as I'm concerned, until someone can demonstrate that poltergeists even exist in the first place, there is no reason whatsoever to assume poltergeists have ever been responsible for anything. What if it's actually those snerflebergs I was talking about?

Ah, now you pull out the "their existence is beyond our understanding" card. Well then, I guess you should stop making all these assertions then, since it's so impossible to understand and all.

You're all over the board here, "dude."

 

[ChristineM]

A real, true ghost story.

A friend of mine had a strong believe in spirits, ghosts, supernatural etc. He is an actor, not an A lister by any means, he makes his living on stage, with the occasional TV bit part to make ends meet. He is essentially unrecognisable as an actor which is why this job offer came his way.

One of the ghost hunter type programs requested his service. Overjoyed that he will be among professionals in the location and filming of spirits. He may actually be lucky enough to see one in real life, something he has yearned for as long as I've known him.

The big day came. He turned up at the "haunted castle" in plenty of time, picked up his script and settled down to learn it, excitement bubbling from him.

Close to the end if his study he screwed up the script and headed for his car, tossing the offending paper into a waste bin on the way. He drove away from that fateful place that had changed is outlook on spiritual matters with the simple notification in the script...

Ghost.. floats past end of passage.

The ghosts were scripted.

 

[Meow Mix]

I remember loving arguments and apologetics when I was a teenager/young adult (32 now haven't been young for a while .)

So I was curious what do atheists think is there most convincing argument against God?

The best anti-theistic arguments depend on definitions of God.

For omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods, the Problem of Evil.

For claims that morality is founded in God, Euthyphro's Dilemma (really just a microcosm of the Aseity-Sovereignty paradox).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The best anti-theistic arguments depend on definitions of God.

For omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods, the Problem of Evil.

For claims that morality is founded in God, Euthyphro's Dilemma (really just a microcosm of the Aseity-Sovereignty paradox).

And for Pacific Island cargo cults who worship Prince Phillip, it's probably just a matter of asking the man himself if he's a God. At least, it was until recently (RIP).

 

[Skeezy]

Evidence of what???

What beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusion? How did you conclude anything at all??


Here's the thing. A UFO is something unidentified. You are trying to identify and label it without being able to demonstrate what it is in the first place.


Oh, they can? How do you know this? How can you demonstrate this?
When did you demonstrate that "spirits, entities and cryptids" even exist in the first place?

That's the problem here. You simply declare these things exist, and then go ahead and attribute all kinds of qualities and characteristics to them when you've never demonstrated that they even exist in the first place! In other words, you're just making stuff up.


So how do you know that something is being manipulated by a poltergeist? What is "abnormal activity" and how did you demonstrate that it's connected to poltergeists? How do you know poltergeists have a "will?" Doesn't a "will" require a functional brain? Do poltergeists have functional brains, and if so, how?
Energy isn't a very specific description, after all.


What on earth is an "energy shape?"
How does the energy of "past people" maintain the form of a "past person?"
What is "spiritual energy from the past" and how did you demonstrate there is such a thing?


Sorry but this all sounds like a whole lot of word salad to me.


What are these things and when did you demonstrate their existence?

And here again we come to my point. You've just said these things "can't be explained." But again, here you are declaring that these unexplained things exist as you describe them, complete with all the characteristics you've made up about them.

They're either explained or they're not.
All you're doing is taking unexplained things and then declaring that they are caused by other unexplained things. In other words, you're explaining nothing. And if this is the way we went about acquiring knowledge about the world, we'd be believing in all kinds of things that aren't true or demonstrable. We'd have to believe everything anyone ever claimed to exist, as you apparently do. I'm not interested in that; I'm interested in believing true things.


Strange things? That's about as vague as it gets, no?
I've seen strange things that I couldn't explain. That doesn't mean I get to make up any old explanation I want.

Human beings can be mistaken. Human beings can hallucinate. Human beings tend to find patterns where they don't exist. Human beings have cognitive biases and beliefs that colour our views and experiences with the world. We need a better method for discovering true things that's something more than "well I can't explain that so it must be my grandmother's residual past energy visiting me to say hello." You need to actually demonstrate that, and not just assert it. Even if you've got a video with a hazy shape in the corner or whatever.


Yep, they are unexplained things.
Why do you think you can explain them?

As far as I'm concerned, until someone can demonstrate that poltergeists even exist in the first place, there is no reason whatsoever to assume poltergeists have ever been responsible for anything. What if it's actually those snerflebergs I was talking about?

Ah, now you pull out the "their existence is beyond our understanding" card. Well then, I guess you should stop making all these assertions then, since it's so impossible to understand and all.

You're all over the board here, "dude."

So your saying the problems is I give a general description of certain known attributes of a certain piece of evidence, while maintaining that the subject is explained?

Your just being trivially combative while trying to sound smart. just stop guy.

Asking me to define things you haven't observed. Then when I offer descriptions of things unexplained you accuse me of defining them.

Whatever

You would have to observe evidence to say whats a given and wether i am defining or not. You already said no... soooo

 

[SkepticThinker]

So your saying the problems is I give a general description of certain known attributes of a certain piece of evidence, while maintaining that the subject is explained?

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

I'm saying that the "explanations" you are providing for these phenomena are not explanations at all, because you still cannot explain them!

What you're doing is replacing a mystery ("what is this thing that has occurred?) with another mystery ("it's a poltergeist") and then declaring that you've provided an explanation for the thing that has occurred, when you actually have not. Saying something occurred because of a "poltergeist" doesn't actually explain anything at all. You'd have to first demonstrate that poltergeists exist in the first place before you can even begin to attribute anything to them at all. Please go back and read my snerfleberg example, and this time maybe reflect on it for more than 2 seconds.

Your just being trivially combative while trying to sound smart. just stop guy.

I'm trying to explain how burden of proof and logic works to someone who doesn't even think he has the burden of proof in the first place.

Asking me to define things you haven't observed. Then when I offer descriptions of things unexplained you accuse me of defining them.

Boy, you seem to be really hung up on this one which indicates to me that you still aren't understanding how burden of proof and logic work.

I'm asking you to define your terms and demonstrate the veracity of your claims. I've been begging you to define your terms since we began conversing. This isn't anything out of the ordinary here. It seems you are becoming increasingly more frustrated with that request because it doesn't appear that you can demonstrate the veracity of your claims. You just want to assert them without having to do any of the work.

"Oh something weird happened that seems to lack explanation? Must be ghosts."
Sorry, but that's not how we actually explain things. You have to actually do the work in demonstrating what ghosts are, and that the most likely explanation for the phenomena in question is that ghosts did it.

Whatever

You would have to observe evidence to say whats a given and wether i am defining or not. You already said no... soooo

I've never said no to any evidence.
The problem is, you don't appear to know what evidence is.