The Folly of Atheism, part 2

Not really. I presented evidence. It speaks for itself. Now it is up to the naysayers to prove otherwise.

 

Wrong. You have plenty of beliefs they just turn out to be wrong.

 

There is proof.

 

Well if you think you presented evidence rather than an opinion I would suggest you do some research as to what constitutes evidence.

 

We can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist either. And you can't prove that god is not evil either. And you can't even define god with any specificity.

If there is no evidence for something it is only rational to assume it doesn't exist.

 

Of note here is how discussion and debate are traditionally meant to function.

1) A claim is made.
2) The claim is disputed'
3) Evidence is offered to confirm the claim.
4) Debunking or confirmation ensues.

Theists end this after #2 and try to change the subject until it is repeated.

 

It's a lack of integrity, they don't care how foolish they look as long as they think the Sky Daddy is pleased.

 

Ah, an expert!

Please settle this trifling argument and tell us, O Great One:

1. How old is the universe?
2. How large is the universe?
3. When did the universe 'begin'?
4. Did anyone or anything create the universe?

Oh, and please do be good enough to supply some credible links to your 'wisdom'.

Eternally grateful,
the Unwashed, unlearned, and, the 'rejected'

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool".... (Anonymous Arabic Proverb)

 

Stop. Your well-known 'assumption-leaps' are showing once again.

I have not tried to push any kind of "Creator" paradigm on anyone in this thread. But, you have repeatedly assumed that I have done this.

What I have tried to get any true "atheist" here to do is tell us with the certainty that all true atheists must surely have (since, after all, they aren't 'agnostics') a few things that they KNOW to be true about the universe.

You can see my short, simple list of questions in the post before this one.

If you can't answer these questions with the self-assured certainty that all true atheists must surely have, then you KNOW nothing more than any of the rest of us. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop you from treating the rest of us as stupid, gullible imbeciles.

I would not presume to try to push an anthropomorphic "father-god" on you -- so why do you presume to condemn what you see as my ignorance for daring to ask whether you really believe that no one and nothing created anything you see when you go out at night and look up in the sky....

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...we-know-the-age-of-the-universe/#4ebebec26155

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160610-it-took-centuries-but-we-now-know-the-size-of-the-universe

And of course we do know that the universe was created by the big bang.

 

Yet another non sequitur because you cannot address the absurdity of your allegation.

 

In which post did you "present evidence"?

 

Ironic coming from someone who believes in an imaginary "creator".

 

But you cannot provide this imaginary "proof" of yours.

 

From your link:

"So all in all, we have two methods — one from our cosmic history and one from measuring local stars — that show us our Universe’s age is between 13 and 14 billion years old. It wouldn’t surprise anyone if we turned out to be as little as 13.6 or as much as 14.0 billion years old, or maybe even as little as 13.5 or as much as 14.1 billion. But we’re not 13.0 or 15.0 billion years old, and we've determined that with extreme certainty. Say we’re 13.8 billion years old with confidence, and now you know how we’ve figured it out!" (Ethan Siegel, Ph.D)

Good! We're making progress! If we accept Dr. Siegel's set of assumptions, the universe may indeed be between 13.6 and 14 billion "years" old. Are you disappointed that a 'rejected' retard like myself doesn't try now to convince you that the universe is really only a few thousand years old... the 'calculation' made by Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th-century? Surely a God (or a "god") capable of creating the universe can have accomplished this 13.6 billion years ago, or, as Ussher would have it, merely a few thousand years ago! Es spielt keine Rolle.

Down to it: You are not an idiot, and neither am I. I understand how a person can be 'agnostic', but how one can be an "atheist" puzzles me. I'm not trying to 'convert' you to anything... I'm trying to find out how your mind works, given all that we do know about the universe....

 

You did exactly that in your post #704 above.

That you are denying your own posts now says volumes.

If you insist upon posting utterly false allegations about me I will be forced yo report you for baiting and taunting. If you cannot refrain from such puerile comments you will effectively disqualify yourself from any further interaction with me on this topic.

Inane strawman since I never accused you of any such thing.

Per your theist based questions;

1. In the CURRENT STATE of the universe it is approximately 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang event. Prior to that event there was the Singularity state of the universe and we have no idea how long the universe was in that state or any other states but given the laws of physics the universe is as "old" as eternity.

2. The size of the universe is based upon the limitations of our abilities to observe and measure. In that regard we are unable to state with any absolute knowledge that it has a finite size since it could well be infinite.

3. That is a theist fallacy that the universe had a "beginning". Modern science is now coming around to the concept of the a cyclical universe that expands and contracts in cycles.

4. The fallacy of the imaginary "creator" is one you should address to theists. There is zero evidence for any imaginary "creator" to be found in the universe.

 

1. The evidence suggests more than 13 billion years old, go look at some 'sciency' stuff.
2. The evidence suggests it is bigger than 46 billion light years, go look at some 'sciency' stuff.
3. See 1
4. The evidence suggests that the Universe had a beginning, if you believe that 'goddidit' produce your god.

My mind is open to evidence. Evidence would change it. What would change your mind?

Your lame sarcasm attempt and your application are rejected.

PS - it's ignorance all the way down, you lose.

 

In my post #704, I wrote:

"Ah, here's another one who can walk out into his back yard, gaze up into the densely-packed night sky, and say to himself, "Yup, I'm sure of it -- nothing, and no one created any of this!"
... and all the rest of it is simply in someone's imagination... right?"

Where did I 'evangelize'? Where did I preach a 'gospel'? I posed the question which asks how anyone could consider the entire universe and out-of-hand completely rule out even the merest possibility that it had all been created or brought-into-being by something or someone. That is, after all, exactly what true atheists do....

Feel welcome to report anything you wish. I can 'stand my ground'. You have dismissed anyone who disagrees with you in the most cavalierly doctrinaire, dismissive ways, so don't be offended if I don't reply in some obsequious, 'kumbaya' manner...("inane"?). Example: you continually try to ram it down my throat that I'm a 'theist', evidently on some mission to convert you and the other atheists to God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Krishna...(?). Not a chance!

Nevertheless, according to you, all my questions are "theist" questions (which therefore must not even be considered or discussed in this thread) -- when in fact, I'm only trying to get you to explain how it is that you can explicitly and completely deny even the possibility that all THIS may have been 'created' by something, or some 'one'....

One last time -- I understand what it is to be 'agnostic', but atheism, per se, remains mysteriously opaque, empty, and anti-intellectual....

 

Why would an atheist have evidence, they are not making a claim, the theist claims gods exist, all they need do is provide evidence.
We have seen Pollycy only has a feeling that something has a creator, he just ignores the question Which bit it created?
Doombug unable to show his observable proof of intelligent design, questions his own existence, he thinks that it is only opinion that boiling his own head will hurt him. He further claims that anyone who calls him a fool for not recognising this makes them a loser!
Fakers claim that the Oxford University Press is simply wrong because a coffee table philosopher and failed internet author say so!
Not looking good for theists or fakers.

If theists wish to claim their gods created the universe, then first define what they mean by gods and then provide some evidence of the things existence.

 

I'd say that 'author' is s stretch but, 'failed' is accurate.

 

I find it quite easy to be an athiest

1) There have been thousands of gods man has believed in and pretty much by definition at the best possible result all but one must be wrong. So whatever god you believe in the overwhelming probability is that you are wrong.

2) There is no evidence to support the existence of any god. Just because there are things man doesn't understand yet does not make it rational to ascribe them to a god.

3) I don't accept the premise that denying the existsnce of a god requires that one proves that no god exists. As said many times I can deny that unicorns exist and I will be correct but I could not prove it beyond any doubt.

 

You are incorrect. Atheists do indeed, and most emphatically make "a claim" -- that there IS NO GOD -- PERIOD!

The agnostic mind is open, but the mind of the atheist is not! And, from what I have read in this thread, 'they're damned proud of it!"

You have not read what I wrote. In this thread, I did not write that I have "a feeling that something has a creator...." Instead, I have posed a question (a dilemma, really): given that all THAT is out there, is it logical, intellectual, or even sensible to absolutely and resolutely reject, totally, the concept that it was created by something or someone? This is exactly what atheists do....

. . . -- "Naw, mine is clearly superior!"

 

It is interesting how parochial the understanding of atheism is on this forum, the term gods is meaningless, hence I lack belief. Whilst the old perceptions of atheism are quaint, they are no longer relevant in the modern world. Atheism is simply the condition of being without an idea of god that is not simply somebody's assertion.(Bill Cooke)
Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. Christian Apologetics and fakers would have you cling to a definition of atheism that follows the western understanding of religions and gods.

If you think that the universe may be created by a creator, just indicate which bits, surely not that hard, then you can show evidence of this creator. But frankly I think you are suggesting a more deist idea of god, even then you have just increased your knowledge shortfall since if the universe was created by a creator, what created the creator?

 

Evidence is evidence. That must be difficult for you to take.

 

You are making zero sense. No wonder math baffles you.