Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 3
  • Darwins +0/-1

Hi Materialgirl and welcome to the forum.

Shifted from agnostic atheist to gnostic atheist recently based on overwhelming evidence imo of no God. Creation is sufficiently becoming explained,

Doesn't that depend on what god is being defined? If it's the literal Biblegod who never deceives and creates the world in 6 days 6000 years ago etc, then we can say that god doesn't exist because the evidence points to a different model. However, if it's a simple deist god with no real strings attached, void of ever being able to be falsified, then it follows that there can't be evidence that this god doesn't exist.
man has no interest in a god that is/says/does nothing and such a god is not even  worth wasting a thought on or debunking... as if it has no agency then its essentially a non entity. This conceptualisation is just moving goalposts to tangent off any helpful inquiry. I think atheists are better dealing with real illusions being propagated by the orthodox and new age religions - this involves understanding how they are packaging their gods to occupy the ever shrinking  margins of science
life is understood and supernatural type experiences are covered by neurobiological and psychiatric explanations.

Correct... to an extent. Any "supernatural" experience is immediately swallowed up by a natural explanation and therefore at least becomes indistinguishable from a natural experience. To experience the supernatural is akin to reaching tomorrow. However, just because the supernatural is beyond experience doesn't mean that it's existence is eliminated, only that it's indistinguishable from not existing.

Which gives it a weak evidential strength - beyond weak actually, pitiful. It is a reasonable leap and not large to say that if it is indistinguishable from something nonexistent it probably is non existent. Knowing in many cases must be about probabilities not absolute proof, sufficient info should enable a non tentative claim to know imo or else we would be paralysed in many ways

It is not reasonable to claim doubt when science furnishes us with about 99.99999999... percent proof of no God (as characterised by typical God proponents) and no proof whatsoever of God/s.

I disagree, for the same reason I explain to theists. It is beyond the scope of science to provide evidence for gods existence or non-existence. The only way it can contradict a god is if that god is defined as creating the world a certain way yet the evidence points to the world working a different way.
However, we could explain how everything in the universe works using the scientific method, but that method will not eliminate a god being behind all of those naturalistic explanations.

REASONABLENESS - we could demonstrate that every Santa Xmas is a mum or dad over 100 years, that doesn't exclude a real Santa who hasn't been on the job in a century but its fairly conclusive. If you still believe in Santa despite 100 yrs peer reviewed research and video surveillance footage let me sell you some real estate on Xenu where L Ron Hubbard awaits

I think to fence sit with agnosticism atheism is symptomatic of holding out hope due to some kind of psychological difficulty with truth... some sort of God wish hangover caught from world culture!

Not at all, for me anyway. It's just intellectual honesty because epistemology is a slippery fish. This doesn't just apply to gods - this applies to anything anyone can ever conceive or imagine up that has no evidence of existence in the world that can be perceived. God is the hangover because god is just flavour of the month, but this also applies to universe creating pixies, the FSM, spiritualism, mermaids, leprechauns, jkgsh84t4hg and anything else indistinct from made up bullshit.

Sory but I see it as a failure of honesty given the weight of evidence against any God of normal human ascribed attributes or of any other sort for that matter, say evidence dictates  there is only a chance in a billion billion that in some universe there is a pink unicorn and because we can't get there to falsify - this is not a good reason to leave the door on this open, it is more intellectually deluded than to close it imo - or be accused of being a crazy dreamer

Paradoxically (tho not really) it is transcendent (some might call it spiritual) experiences of sudden insight that came to both me and patients as I nursed the dying that gradually... yet powerfully convinced me there is no God. One life, no soul, a unitary brain/mind.  :police:The "explanatory gap" is fabricated BS, our brain is fully capable of producing qualia.

I don't find personal experiences to be a good way of establishing what is real/true, regardless of whether they are personal experiences of god, personal experiences that convince someone there is no god or something else, say personal experiences of seeing dead people. Such subjectivity just puts everybody on a level playing field.
So, if you don't find someone's personal experience of god to be convincing, then any you have yourself should be given the same consideration.

Im not asking you to be persuaded by my experience, merely relaying it. You cant falsify that my miraculously complex brain has not fired off at some synapses creating a perfect model that proves God does not exist, however one so complex I was able to pattern intuit its meaning yet am unable to annotate and communicate the model - so if you want to maintain consistency with not closing the door on a non falsifiable God in interets of intellectual fussiness then I dont think you should deny the capacity of my brain to have solved the question in such a way I lack the language capability to communicate. Our language and manifest culture lags markedly behind our cognitive capabilities
Changed Change Reason Date
Nam stupid ass red text; oh, and the actual text. February 11, 2014, 09:15:27 AM