Atheism

  • 472 Replies
  • 19909 Views
*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2016, 03:24:18 AM »
LOL!!!

Just as I expected...

Lots of Words.

But no Microbe.

WHERE'S MY MICROBE, SUCKERS?

Quote
Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions. Proverbs 18:2
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2016, 03:33:57 AM »
Less words, more microbes please!

Because if you cannot Create a microbe using the scientific method, nor even Observe one being Created, then I suggest that Evolution has no scientific basis whatsoever & is simply a matter of Faith...

A Religion, in other words.

And as Evolution is the cornerstone of Atheism's brain-damaged Creed, that makes Atheism a Religion too...

So you'd REALLY better get cracking on that microbe hadn't you, Idiots?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Atheism
« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2016, 04:08:27 AM »
Because if you cannot Create a microbe using the scientific method, nor even Observe one being Created, then I suggest that Evolution has no scientific basis whatsoever & is simply a matter of Faith...

And you're wrong. Direct observation is not the only kind of observation.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2016, 04:21:02 AM »
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2016, 04:36:01 AM »
Direct observation is not the only kind of observation.

Nice strawman!

But, as no-one has ever, via any kind of Observation, witnessed a live microbe being created out of the elements of the periodic table, plasma, etc, my point very much stands.

There is no scientific basis for evolution whatsoever.

None.

Thus, it is a matter of Opinion, or Faith, & ergo a Religion.

Just like Atheism is.

A Religion for brain-damaged emotional cripples, as it goes...

As you all are Proving with every brain-damaged, emotionally-crippled & evidence-phobic post you make.

Let me show you something Conker wrote to drive home my point:

it is my opinion that science is the best and most reliable method to ascertain information about reality.

He claims that, yet I have just Proved that Evolution has no scientific basis.

Will he change his Opinion then?

No; of course not.

Instead, he will spam endless tl;dr streams of WORDS at me in an attempt to make his desired REALITY become 'scientific fact'.

This is what you all do.

And it is why I have said, right from the start, that you all mistake WORDS for REALITY.

Neutrals might wonder why you do that...

I do not.

I know.

And it is Lulzy as all get-out!

Toodle-pip, JREF Losers!

Oh & p.s:

Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Quite.

Which is why I'm in for a VERY long & boring wait for my microbe...

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Atheism
« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2016, 05:13:05 AM »
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, it doesn't apply to the question.

But, as no-one has ever, via any kind of Observation, witnessed a live microbe being created out of the elements of the periodic table, plasma, etc, my point very much stands.

To witness something implies direct observation. Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

By the way, you're not talking about evolution, you are talking about abiogenesis.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2016, 05:31:32 AM »
"Burden of proof is a legal concept,..." etc. Are we trying to avoid the hole we have dug for ourselves? My point is that it is incumbent upon you to prove yours.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2016, 05:46:00 AM »
Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, it doesn't apply to the question.

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

Or perhaps the burden of proof is on the atheist. Since one normally assumes that a thing had a creator, to assume otherwise requires strong justification as to why.
I assume nothing. You claim that everything has a creator. I do not know that, and it goes against what I know of the world (no one creates grass, it grows out of seeds, etc). But it doesn't matter, since the null hypothesis is NOT to believe in a creator until it is proven. Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.
EDIT: a godlike creator, that is.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2016, 05:49:08 AM »
Which in itself is a positive claim.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2016, 05:50:23 AM »
I assume nothing.

You assume everything.

Especially that a single word you wrote makes sense.

As ever, you assumed wrong.

Now; MICROBE PLEASE!

Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

LOL!!!

What next; the dog ate your homework?

Anyhoo; sorry but I don't have a Time Machine, & neither do you.

So you'll just have to rustle me up that microbe in the here & now, via the scientific method, or accept that your 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis' or whatever the hell you want to call it is simply a matter of Opinion, NOT science.

Again: MICROBE PLEASE!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2016, 06:02:55 AM »
Which in itself is a positive claim.
Could you please state the positive claim that Im making?

I assume nothing.

You assume everything.

Especially that a single word you wrote makes sense.

As ever, you assumed wrong.

Now; MICROBE PLEASE!

Observations made in the present can provide evidence for what happened in the past.

LOL!!!

What next; the dog ate your homework?

Anyhoo; sorry but I don't have a Time Machine, & neither do you.

So you'll just have to rustle me up that microbe in the here & now, via the scientific method, or accept that your 'evolution' or 'abiogenesis' or whatever the hell you want to call it is simply a matter of Opinion, NOT science.

Again: MICROBE PLEASE!
Evolution nor abiogenesis state you should be able to produce microbes in 2016. Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes, edit their DNA, etc. Your claim that we should be able to create microbes using abiogenetical mechanisms is like saying we should be able to create a particle accelerator using rocks and sticks. After all, that's the only technology humans had, and yet it has evolved to become today's technology. Life is a continuum, and it has not only been shaped by the evolutionary proccess. It IS the evolutionary proccess. To point at individuals is missing the bigger picture. Nevertheless, even having sayed that, it is very possible that we may be able to build cells out of "nothing" before we are able to create protolife (which may even be impossible currently).
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2016, 06:16:02 AM »
Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Wondered how long it'd take you to start outright Lying.

'Not Very' being the answer.

'Unfortunatelly' for you...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2016, 06:21:23 AM »
Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Wondered how long it'd take you to start outright Lying.

'Not Very' being the answer.

'Unfortunatelly' for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
A lab team created a non existing DNA string, which implanted into a bacteria, creating a partly artificial bacteria.
And the implantation/edition of DNA into other living beings is pretty much industry standard nowadays. I've noticed you ignored the rest of the post.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2016, 06:34:04 AM »
LOL!!!

Here is my original request, Liar:

So; here is your task, Atheists:

*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.

*Do not get back to me until you have.

Thank you please!

Here is what you wrote in the post before last, Liar:

Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

Yet here is what you have now flip-flopped to like the Liar you are:

A lab team created a non existing DNA string, which implanted into a bacteria, creating a partly artificial bacteria.

So NO, Liar, 'we' CANNOT Create living microbes from scratch using basic materials from the periodic table & plasma.

We can just dick about with ALREADY-CREATED ones...

Which everybody knew already & was NOT the point I was making.

You're done here now, Liar; why you chose to Lie so blatantly in defence of your Religion of evolution is up to others to judge...

I already know.

Pathetic little thing, ain't you?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Atheism
« Reply #74 on: April 26, 2016, 06:39:24 AM »
The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".

Re: Atheism
« Reply #75 on: April 26, 2016, 07:01:24 AM »
"Burden of proof is a legal concept,..." etc. Are we trying to avoid the hole we have dug for ourselves? My point is that it is incumbent upon you to prove yours.

Only insofar as the point is to convince someone. This is an open discussion, God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".

No, it quite obviously is not. Are you trying to redefine language and/or logic here?

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

There is a subtle difference between the concepts. Burden of proof resolves a non-liquet situation by ruling against the party who bears it, but it does not answer the question. A null hypothesis is the default answer if the alternative theory cannot be established. Neither technically applies to metaphysical questions, since that would imply that we always have a definitive answer, and agnosticism would hence be illogical.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2016, 07:27:07 AM »
Forget it, Yaakov; Conker's already proved he doesn't deserve a seat at the big kid's table through his blatant lying & spamming of illiterate, oxymoronic twaddle like this:

Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.

He's just a brain-damaged time-waster.

And Ecthy-baby (lol!) is another; here he is strawmanning for dear life again:

God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

No-one said He would, you crook.

And there's no 'if' about your failure to support your Religion of Atheism.

Because of this: WHERE'S MY MICROBE?

However, what would be an interesting subject is the similarities between the concepts of the Creator in Voodoo & Deism, & to what extent these similarities are shared with the Judaic concept of G-d.

Do you have any thoughts?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Atheism
« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2016, 07:44:45 AM »
God will not simply spring into existence if I fail to support my atheism.

No-one said He would, you crook.

No? So you do have to independently prove His existence first?

Re: Atheism
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2016, 07:51:55 AM »
Ecthy Baby Brain, trying to excuse yourself by saying, "I can't defend my argument, I have my head in my arse, but I am still right anyway, WAAAAH!" is about as stupid a thing as I have EVER seen on the Flat Earth Society, and that's really saying something! So take your ball and go home, Ecthy-Baby-Brain. The adults are talking now.

Legba, I think that the Creator in Voodoo as such can BE compared to Deism in the sense that He ordinarily lets lesser divinities worries about mundane matters. And yet he can BE compared to the Judaic G-d insofar as he can and does intervene in human history when he deems it appropriate. Really, folk Catholicism was a perfect match for Voodoo. Judaism would not have worked so well. We have no lesser beings to whom we go a and seek intercession and aid. Catholicism does. The Creator, as understood in Voodoo, if he had tried to be understood in Judaism, would have gotten very busy, I think.

Ecthy-Baby-Brain, his existence has already been proved.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2016, 08:34:34 AM »
And yet he can BE compared to the Judaic G-d insofar as he can and does intervene in human history when he deems it appropriate.

It depends on the source, but most interpretations of the Creator in voodoo (usually called 'Bondye') emphasise that, after creating the world, he left forever & is now unreachable. I'm inclined to agree with this &, as far as I am aware, this is precisely the same concept as Deism.

It is interesting that Deism became popular around the time that Europeans were 1st venturing into Africa, & that Deism was popular amongst the founding fathers of America, many of whom were slave-owners... I believe there may be a connection there.

Also, many of the founding fathers were also Freemasons, who I believe employ a crude version of Kabbalah (though it's hard to say with those cranks!); the congruities between the Sephirot of Kabbalah & the Voodoo pantheon have already been noted by myself...

Much food for thought in that, I'd say; but, as you point out, Judaism states that G-d can & does intervene in human affairs, so there the similarities end.

Unless, perhaps, we view the voodoo Loa as methods through which Bondye can intervene in human affairs?

Hmm... Not sure about that; my gut says the old fella upped sticks & buggered off for good.

Still, such musings are a pleasant way to while away the time whilst we wait for our Magically-Manufactured Microbe, eh?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Atheism
« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2016, 08:41:32 AM »

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2016, 09:50:43 AM »
The positive claim is that, "There is no Creator".
It is a good thing, then, than neither I nor science does that claim, as I already explained. I simply not believe the claim that there is, because there is no evidence, and follow the evidence to its conclusion.

Here is what you wrote in the post before last, Liar:

Unfortunatelly for you, we CAN produce microbes,

No, that's not what I wrote, as evidenced by you cutting the phrase just after a comma. I'm sorry you don't understand what it says.

Quote
So NO, Liar, 'we' CANNOT Create living microbes from scratch using basic materials from the periodic table & plasma.
Good thing no one claimed we can. We probably will on the future, but this is pure speculation from my part.

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material. In a more general sense, existance of an explanation or entity must be proven, but disbelief requires none (as it is the null hypothesis).

There is a subtle difference between the concepts. Burden of proof resolves a non-liquet situation by ruling against the party who bears it, but it does not answer the question. A null hypothesis is the default answer if the alternative theory cannot be established.
I think you misunderstand what we mean with burden of proof here. The null hypothesis is, in any existance claim, NOT to believe, by definition. Therefore, any claim of the form "There is" or "There is not" is opposing the null hypothesis ("Not to believe there is/is not"), so it requires proof. The null hypothesis is chosen this way preciselly because it is NOT an answer, it solves no conflict, has no explanatory value, and in general is nothing more than a placeholder for knowdlege we do not know or can know.

Quote
Neither technically applies to metaphysical questions, since that would imply that we always have a definitive answer, and agnosticism would hence be illogical.
Which is why I specifically restricted it to the material world:

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material.

Metaphysical claims are by definition not knowable by physical means, so they are outside the explanatory power of science.

Forget it, Yaakov; Conker's already proved he doesn't deserve a seat at the big kid's table through his blatant lying & spamming of illiterate, oxymoronic twaddle like this:

Remember, atheists do not necesarilly believe that things dont have a creator, they simply not believe they do.

I'm so, so sorry you don't understand the diference between believing it not to be and not believing it to be. It may have something to do with how english speakers find double negatives confusing.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2016, 10:16:47 AM »
Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2016, 10:23:54 AM »
Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.
In a jury, the veredict is "Guilty" or "Not guilty". Why? Because Not Guilty is not the same as Inocent. The judicial system does NOT judge inocence, and you CAN think someone is NOT inocent, yet Not Guilty too. It is the prosecutor's job to PROVE that the accused is guilty. We could also judge innocence, and then the same would apply. Someone would be Not Innocent until proven otherwise. The same applies to existance claims. I don't believe fairies exist, but that doesn't mean I believe they dont exist. They could. After all, they are way more plausible than a god.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2016, 10:29:38 AM »
I think you misunderstand what we mean with burden of proof here. The null hypothesis is, in any existance claim, NOT to believe, by definition. Therefore, any claim of the form "There is" or "There is not" is opposing the null hypothesis ("Not to believe there is/is not"), so it requires proof. The null hypothesis is chosen this way preciselly because it is NOT an answer, it solves no conflict, has no explanatory value, and in general is nothing more than a placeholder for knowdlege we do not know or can know.

But not believing, in the realm of empirical knowledge, implies believing something else. There are no blank spots in the empirical. Which is why I conclude the null hypothesis actually does answer the question, since if the hypothesis cannot be proven, the result isn't a non-liquet, the result is another, positive claim.

I understand that you say the null hypothesis is just a placeholder - the way I understand it, it is merely chosen to give the hypothesis something to disprove. But nevertheless, if the hypothesis ends up falsified, then some other theory takes it's place. The null hypothesis may not precisely be that other theory, but it is the placeholder.

Which is why I specifically restricted it to the material world:

Wrong, it does apply to any sort of claims on the material.

Metaphysical claims are by definition not knowable by physical means, so they are outside the explanatory power of science.

Ah sorry, I overlooked that. No disagreement here.

Ultimately, the point I wanted to make is that just throwing around "Burden of proof" isn't an argument. If we have an empirical question, claiming your opponent hasn't satisfied their "burden of proof" is meaningless unless you have a better alternative theory. If we have a metaphyiscal question, the concept is meaningless altogether since metaphysical truths either follow by deduction from a-priori knowledge or are unknowable.

Given that I speak Spanish fluently, double negatives are not a problem for me. Nevertheless, by refuting a claim, you are making a claim, whether you admit it or not.

But not a positive claim. If you want to work with burden of proof, there is a difference.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2016, 10:32:50 AM »
You are clearly not an attorney in the Anglo-American system of Jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven Guilty." But if not proven guilty, innocence is presumed. It is not guessed at or debated. The innocence is assumed. In Spain, which operates under the Code Napoleon, I know things work differently.

Ergo, if you say there is no G-d, that IS a positive claim.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2016, 10:41:15 AM »
You are clearly not an attorney in the Anglo-American system of Jurisprudence. "Innocent until proven Guilty." But if not proven guilty, innocence is presumed. It is not guessed at or debated. The innocence is assumed. In Spain, which operates under the Code Napoleon, I know things work differently.

But "innocence" isn't a defined attribute. It is simply the absence of guilt.

Ergo, if you say there is no G-d, that IS a positive claim.

That is simply not what "positive claim" means.
X is Y is a positive claim
X is not Y isn't
X is not-Y is a synthesis of positive and negative claim in that it contains a positive attribution of an undefined ("negative") attribute.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2016, 10:44:33 AM »
He is NOT making the claim that X is not Y. He is claiming that X does not exist. That is a positive claim, Ecthy Baby Brain.

*

Kali

  • 45
Re: Atheism
« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2016, 10:56:47 AM »
All of you blasted heathen Christcucks, kikes, and weed-smoking degenerates will face a reckoning when Noire-sama's holy fury bears down upon you. Leave your self-righteous baboonery behind you or come to terms with the termination of your sorry existence; either way there won't be any of you low beasts left when the furnaces of Lastation blaze a smoking trail into the new millennium.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2016, 10:57:21 AM »
He is NOT making the claim that X is not Y. He is claiming that X does not exist. That is a positive claim, Ecthy Baby Brain.

I can reformulate "X does not exist" as "X is not existing". There is a "not" in there. That usually means it isn't a positive claim.