The Problem with Atheists

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 372
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.

However, a surprising number self-described atheists believe in other obviously false concepts without question.

Below are just a few examples of faith based beliefs held by many atheists.

1) Free-Will

This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human happiness" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human happiness".

You will also hear the very common "we can't possibly know therefore I choose to believe". This is exactly the same as the theist that argues for "god in the gaps".

The fact that Free-Will is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.

2) Objective Reality

This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human sanity" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human morality".

The fact that Objective Reality is logically unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.

3) Infinity

Phrases get tossed around like, "infinite potential" and "infinite possibilities" and "the infinite cosmos". Max Planck has shown that our reality is NOT infinitely divisible, and we can extrapolate logically that human potential may be "unknown" but it is certainly not "unbounded".

The fact that Infinity is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific explorationis dismissed out-of-hand.

#2
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I always thought the idea of infinity is more a spiritual persons thoughts of our reality. It is a prerequisite to my overall belief and atheists are always telling me infinity isn't real/possible... which i disagree with, but i always get that contention from the atheists.  
#3
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
....a surprising number self-described atheists believe in other obviously false concepts without question.
The three you listed aren't the only ones. Abiogenesis is another.

#4
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact that Free-Will is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.


The fact that Objective Reality is logically unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.


The fact that Infinity is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific explorationis dismissed out-of-hand.


You've made some silly claims and bald faced assertions, have you got any evidence for the above?
Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
I do love to explore these subjects in excruciating detail.

However, you seem to trying to put me in the position of trying to prove a negative, which is a logical trap.

It would be like someone asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts, or bigfoot.

The natural burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim.

In this case, it would be up to you to present evidence in support of a claim that free will and/or objective reality and/or infinity exists.

That being said, I can offer you some logic -

The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.

And furthermore,

Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action.

#6
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
You should have just said from the get go that your bald faced assertions and silly claims are nothing more than that. Your so-called reasoning is just a bunch more assertions.
Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
You are quite entitled to your opinions, and if you have specific, logical objections, I would be more than happy to address them each specifically.

I would expect you, as a reasonable individual, would understand that if someone claims that you can't prove "god" (or free will in this case) doesn't exist, you would ask them to define "god" more explicitly, and offer some evidence in support of their positive claim that such a thing actually exists.

If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

If you would like to continue to dismiss and characterize my statements without making any specific critiques or inquiries, please feel free.
#8
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

I did, you avoided it, post #4. Go.
#9
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Will you supply proof that MANY atheists believe these things? Will you define many?
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The real problem with atheists is that God means The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which means that atheism against capital "G" God is denial of The Truth.

Atheism against God is a self defeating position that exposes atheism for whatbit really is... an embrace of arbitrariness and pride.

It's pretty much satanism



#11
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So you can't supply evidence, you're just pissing in the wind.
Zeus is capital "G" God, now what?
A grammatical convention proves your god, oh dear how very sad.
Now your holy book is a dictionary; a book written by men to explain to men what the words created by men are meant to convey to men the meaning that men give them.
#12
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
No, The God I worship and believe is The Ultimate and Reality, and this God is the one and only.

If you really wanted evidence, you'd already accept the God I profess as The God I believe. 


The God I believe is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. This is my God. And thisnis your God whether or not you choose to accept it. This is not an arbitrary and vain declaration, but the evident truth. Your unwillingness to accept that there is nothing you can do to undermine the authority of that which is ultimately real means nothing. It is The Lord over your life.


You were born. You will die. Your life is but vapor, smoke, counted as less that dust on a scale. But The Ultimate Reality always was, always is, and always will be, because God is exactly what God is. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.


#13
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
A grammatical convention is your god, you don't have much of an argument do you?
Zeus is capital "g" God, where to now.
Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
When you say, "You've made some silly claims and bald faced assertions, have you got any evidence for the above?" this is an appeal to ignorance.

The implication being that free will, objective reality, and infinity are valid concepts prima facie and do not require evidence themselves.

I then replied with a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.

If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

If you would like to continue to dismiss and characterize my statements without making any specific critiques or inquiries, please feel free.

#15
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
When you say, "You've made some silly claims and bald faced assertions, have you got any evidence for the above?" this is an appeal to ignorance.

Nope, I am asking you to support your claims, but you just keep avoiding it.

The implication being that free will, objective reality, and infinity are valid concepts prima facie and do not require evidence themselves.
But, YOU require evidence to support your claims.

I then replied with a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.

Because you ignored my request for you to support your claims, and you're still avoiding it.

If you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out.
Go back to post #4 and support your claims.
#16
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.
I do consider this statement to be false. Atheists don't always reject the supernatural. Some believe in the supernatural..just not gods. Secondly, they don't always reject the supernatural because of their understanding of science. They might object on logical grounds and physical evidence is unimportant. Lastly, they don't always "reject" these things. They may simply not believe. Any conclusion drawn from this premise is dubious.

Free will: As an atheist, I don't believe in it. If another consciousness were to be dropped into my body and live my life from start to finish I've no reason to think they would choose different paths and every reason to think the experiences of my life would inform their decisions and mould their personality to be exactly like mine. I believe Sam Harris rejects free will as well (and I probably was influenced by his argument). 

Objective reality: I'm not sure I understand this term as you do. It seems we have a reality that we share. I see no reason to doubt this. 

Infinity: I don't understand your objection here. "Infinity" is not an actual size or number, but a a place marker for something bigger than we can measure, understand, or imagine. I do believe such things exist. I don't know that infinity can be understood in a strictly literal sense though (eg.  A literal infinite universe makes no sense to me)




Topic's author
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
The three you listed aren't the only ones. Abiogenesis is another.

Good point.  I'd say abiogenesis is more of a hypothesis.
#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
I have scripture and thousands of years worth of theological thought backing me up, much of which was not in English.

Your argument is nonsensical. I know my God. The Ultimate Reality.



Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
You pretend to demand evidence to support my claims and I have provided a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.

Since your rush to disqualify was so capricious and vague, I chose a single item to use as an example.

You have simply chosen to employ an argument by repetition.  You asked for logical support and I provided logical support.


Your claim that I have not provided logical support is provably false.

I have little faith that you are actually reading any of this and yet I will attempt to provide another example for you.

If someone says god(s) do not exist, do you demand evidence that god(s) do not exist?

No.

You either ask them to define more precisely what they mean by god(s) or you provide some sort of counter evidence in support of a god(s) supposed existence.

If they refuse to rigorously define god(s) and insist on a purely vague definition, then they are making an appeal to ignorance and I believe we both agree that "god(s) in the gaps" is not a sound logical argument.

In this case, you can ask me to define more precisely what I mean by free will or you can provide some sort of counter evidence in support of free will's supposed existence.

If you refuse to rigorously define free will and insist on a purely vague definition, then you are making an appeal to ignorance and I believe we both agree that "free will in the gaps" is not a sound logical argument.
#20
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
You pretend to demand evidence to support my claims and I have provided a well known standard logical refutation of free will, and you ignored it.

I see you choose to avoid supporting your claims. There's nothing more to say, your claims stand empty.
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I have scripture and thousands of years worth of theological thought backing me up, much of which was not in English.

Your argument is nonsensical. I know my God. The Ultimate Reality.

I have books much older than the Torah and thousands of years worth of theological thought backing me up, much of which is not in English.

Your argument is nonsensical.  I know Vishnu.  The Ultimate Reality.
Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
I applaud your ability to ignore logic while pretending to demand logic - and your panicked rush to declare victory.
#23
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem may be one of reading comprehension. I did not demand logic nor pretended to do so. I asked you to support your claims which you have refused to do. You may want to take some remedial reading classes to help you understand the written word. Go.
#24
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You have an English language grammatical convention that you claim makes your god the real god, you have absolutely nothing you poor thing.
Zeus is capital "g" God where do you go now?
Topic's author
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
The problem may be one of reading comprehension.[ad hominem] I did not demand logic nor pretended to do so.[hairsplitting] I asked you to support your claims which you have refused to do.[strawman, playing dumb] You may want to take some remedial reading classes to help you understand the written word.[ad hominem] Go.

That being said, I can offer you some logic -

The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.

And furthermore,

Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action.
#26
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument. You need to support your claims, which you have yet to do.
Topic's author
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Goldtop
Repeating the same thing over and over is not an argument. You need to support your claims, which you have yet to do.
So your REPEATED claim that I haven't provided logical support is somehow valid, and yet my logical support (which you have repeatedly asked for) is somehow invalid now that you have ignored it multiple times?

Please provide an example of what you are asking for.

Perhaps we don't share the same definition of "logical support".


That being said, I can offer you some logic -

The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.

And furthermore,

Even non-physical, ghosts, angels, and gods take actions that are (EITHER) part of a causal chain, (OR) NOT part of a causal chain. Any action that is NOT part of a causal chain (first cause or causa sui) is a de facto random event. A random action is not a free action. 

#28
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps we don't share the same definition of "logical support".

Ah, so it is a reading comprehension problem, as I suspected.

I never said anything about logical support. I asked you to provide evidence for your claims, which you have yet to do. If you don't understand the written word, you have a big problem that no one here can solve other than you.
#29
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Zeus

noun
  • : the king of the gods and husband of Hera in Greek mythology — comparejupiter

Nowhere in the definition of Zeus does it say that he exists outside of greek mythology or is God.

#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Just a heads up, Goldy is a well known troll from DDO. Don't take him too seriously.