5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Ayaan]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Good point, FBM.

BTW...isn't it past your bedtime.

[cowiz]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

How about you make your god appear to me in my room now - and no excuses about "god not working that way"

[FBM]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Good point, FBM.

BTW...isn't it past your bedtime.

WAAAYY past!!! I have to work 4 hours tomorrow!!!

[Ayaan]

"So here is my contention: you and I each work from presuppositions."

That's why you're failing here. You don't discriminate between facts and assumptions.

Startle me then. Use facts to disprove the existence of God and no excuses about the absence of any good methodology to prove a negative, not being able to do something doesn't mean the opposite must be true.

You're the one stating that bullshit is true. It's up to you to prove it.

Good point, FBM.

BTW...isn't it past your bedtime.

WAAAYY past!!! I have to work 4 hours tomorrow!!!

Four whole hours. That's just terrible.

[Theophilus]

you can't create your own playground.

Well, I actually did. It shows that that the default position (the null hypothesis if you will) is entirely dependent on the subjective starting point. No null hypothesis is more valid than another - you can pick anything you wish to as a null hypothesis. My null hypothesis is "there is a God". You can overturn my null hypothesis of course, if you have evidence. But you can't just reject a hypothesis (well you can, but you have to appreciate you're rejecting it rather than refuting it. You have to say "that is not a place I am willing to start from").

O.K. I've been deliberately provocative. But hopefully you get the point - where you end up depends on where you start, and both theism and atheism build internally consistent paradigms around a certain starting point (our presuppositions). Presuppositions are very powerful - they are where we each start and what we each take for granted, and we challenge others that they must work from our own presuppositions (our own null hypothesis) in order to convince us to change our minds. You hunker down in your own presuppositions (that there is no God until proved otherwise) and I hunker down in mine (that there is a God until proved otherwise) and we talk across each other.

Anyway, back to work for the evening (grant applications approaching deadline). Enjoyed it. Catch y'all later.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

you can't create your own playground.

Well, I actually did. It shows that that the default position (the null hypothesis if you will) is entirely dependent on the subjective starting point. No null hypothesis is more valid than another - you can pick anything you wish to as a null hypothesis. My null hypothesis is "there is a God". You can overturn my null hypothesis of course, if you have evidence. But you can't just reject a hypothesis (well you can, but you have to appreciate you're rejecting it rather than refuting it. You have to say "that is not a place I am willing to start from").

O.K. I've being deliberately provocative. But hopefully you get the point - where you end up depends on where you start, and both theism and atheism build internally consistent paradigms around a certain starting point (our presuppositions). Presuppositions are very powerful - they are where we each start and what we each take for granted, and we challenge others that they must work from our own presuppositions (our own null hypothesis) in order to convince us to change our minds. You hunker down in your own presuppositions (that there is no God until proved otherwise) and I hunker down in mine (that there is a God until proved otherwise) and we talk across each other.

You might think you have, but you just dug yourself a hole. While you're down there, look for the body of that dead Jew.

[Feck]

you can't create your own playground.

Well, I actually did. It shows that that the default position (the null hypothesis if you will) is entirely dependent on the subjective starting point. No null hypothesis is more valid than another - you can pick anything you wish to as a null hypothesis. My null hypothesis is "there is a God". You can overturn my null hypothesis of course, if you have evidence. But you can't just reject a hypothesis (well you can, but you have to appreciate you're rejecting it rather than refuting it. You have to say "that is not a place I am willing to start from").

O.K. I've being deliberately provocative. But hopefully you get the point - where you end up depends on where you start, and both theism and atheism build internally consistent paradigms around a certain starting point (our presuppositions). Presuppositions are very powerful - they are where we each start and what we each take for granted, and we challenge others that they must work from our own presuppositions (our own null hypothesis) in order to convince us to change our minds.

Yes we know that ...but "There is a god, he is the christian god, the bible is true (even the bits that are not ) is not a null hypothesis is it ? Honestly do not apply terms like null hypothesis to a faith Null hypothesis is used as a way to statistically prove a theory ! Even without experimentation your theory is not tenable ...and has no evidence other than hearsay that wouldn't stand up in a court room never mind a scientific journal .

Now never use those words again eh or I will demand your raw data = nothing zip nada .

[AshtonBlack]

"
Me:I have a dragon in my garage. So give me some respect.
You: It's improbable that you do, but OK, prove it.
Me: Don't have to!!! You have to prove that I don't
You: (Looking in garage.) Erm... there's nothing here.
Me: It's invisible.
You: Oh, well look, I can't prove it then. If has no effect on the physical world, how I am to be sure of the data?
Me: It's written in this book "Ashton's Dragon." All these guys saw it, but they're dead now.
You: Erm, it's a book. That's not proof, it's a BOOK.
Me: Not, just any book, it's true and I've some rules from that book, you should follow.
You: Wait, what? Huh?
Me: Well, you can't prove that I don't have a Dragon, so therefore what's written in this book must be true. Now, some respect if you please.



(Apologies to Carl Sagan.)

[Feck]

All of these words because the human brain tries to find patterns and reasons that are not there ...... I'm away to put on my lucky socks and buy a lottery ticket .......oh no lucky socks not work maybe I should Pray .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

All of these words because the human brain tries to find patterns and reasons that are not there ...... I'm away to put on my lucky socks and buy a lottery ticket .......oh no lucky socks not work maybe I should Pray .

"Pray in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up faster."

[Feck]

All of these words because the human brain tries to find patterns and reasons that are not there ...... I'm away to put on my lucky socks and buy a lottery ticket .......oh no lucky socks not work maybe I should Pray .

"Pray in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up faster."

Sorry I think I moved the argument again ... Oh well never mind ... the power of prayer is another stumbling block for theists. (Starting to feel like we are kicking puppies here, Theo')

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(Starting to feel like we are kicking puppies here, Theo')

The problem is Theo wants to debate. The only thing people "win" in debates is the debate. We, on the other hand, insist on facts. So the usual theistic sophistry falls flat with me.

[Feck]

(Starting to feel like we are kicking puppies here, Theo')

The problem is Theo wants to debate. The only thing people "win" in debates is the debate. We, on the other hand, insist on facts. So the usual theistic sophistry falls flat with me.

I'm not even asking for provable facts even a remotely credible story would be nice for a change .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

(Starting to feel like we are kicking puppies here, Theo')

The problem is Theo wants to debate. The only thing people "win" in debates is the debate. We, on the other hand, insist on facts. So the usual theistic sophistry falls flat with me.

I'm not even asking for provable facts even a remotely credible story would be nice for a change .

You'll have to wait until somebody gets new batteries in their remote.

[colubridae]

You guys just never get it.


You cannot prove anything using science.

You cannot prove that god does not exist.

You cannot prove that god does exist.

I cannot prove that the earth is not flat.

I cannot prove it is flat.


However…

there is an enormous amount of evidence that the world is round.
There is zero evidence that the world is flat.
(but it could still be flat – for example; that wily creature, the devil , could be ‘fixing’ our brains to make us think it’s spherical when it’s flat… etc)

There is zero evidence that god exists….
His existence is on a par with the theory that the earth is flat.

Non-existence of evidence is evidence of non-existence. Especially when there should be oodles of evidence.


Strange you don’t understand that when:-

Hi colubridae

I had 25 years in physiology, pharmacology, molecular biology with some involvement in clinical trials. Now I am in the more applied field of clinical systems (which historically has not been too scientific, but now we are trying to bring in more science and evidence-based approaches).