Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

1…3233353738…141

Comments

  • #1022
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Eating bad mushrooms is known, objectively, to cause people to hallucinate. It's a very likely cause for what Paul experienced (if the experience isn't itself made up, again we only have Paul's account for it, not that of his companions).
    Yes, I know the account doesn't mention the bad mushrooms, or any other hallucinogens, but it's called being a detective, it's called looking for the most likely explanations. Just because a guy comes up to you and says he experienced something miraculous and doesn't mention anything that would explain it away as being non-miraculous, doesn't in and of itself mean that the non-miraculous explanation is without merit.
    Even if there were no actual hallucinogens, there's a myriad of other likely scenarios. He had mental issues etc.

    I can also turn the "you're not being objective" claim right back at you. You and I are both human. Neither of us can be objective, although we can and ought to certainly try to get as close to that as possible. However, when you read the account of the 500 people appearance and believe it happened, solely based on it being mentioned just once by one person, you yourself are not being objective. Your standards of evidence are contradictory.
    There are myriads of other supernatural and fantastical claims that are mentioned by just one person just once, just like the 500 people claim. However you don't believe them. Doubtlessly you've read claims like these and yet, you never believed them. But for the 500 people claim...that you do.

    So you have determined that Paul ate bad mushrooms based on the following:
    a) There is not a single piece of evidence that Paul ate mushrooms.
    b) 'Being a detective' in your opinion means determining something for which you lack even one solitary piece of evidence.
    c) You don't believe Paul's account, so rather than accept that you don't know what happened, you have a compulsion to invent something and present it as something you have determined.

    Thanks for clearing that up.


  • #1023
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    My that was fast, first line, jumping straight from criticising the post, to criticising the poster, and from then on it doesn't change much.

    My first line was "Have you ever studied it though? Ever read up on it?"

    Two questions that, instead of answering, you have turned in to alleged criticism. What?

    What are the "claims of atheism"?

    Again, using a phrase like this creates a very strong impression that you do not understand what Atheism is.

    Atheism is a lack of belief. Can you understand that people are saying "you have not provided enough evidence for your claim that your God exists therefore I cannot believe your claim is true"?

    Or do you think that the "claims of Atheism" are that there is no God?

    Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. It makes no claims other than "I do not have belief in your God".


  • #1024
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    If I'm ever presented with any evidence for the claims of atheism, made here or anywhere else, or even a single sound solid argument for atheism, where none of the premises are false, I'll gladly change my views, but in quite a few years I've never see one. Do you have anything ?

    There is no reliable evidence that any deity actually exists or needs to exist PLUS humans have a strong tendency to make up deities based on how our brains default to modelling the world around us

    We have a lack of any evidence they exist, plus an strong explanation for why humans would think they do even if they don't.

    That seems very strong argument for atheism, does it not?


  • #1025
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Nick Park wrote: »
    So you have determined that Paul ate bad mushrooms based on the following:
    a) There is not a single piece of evidence that Paul ate mushrooms.
    b) 'Being a detective' in your opinion means determining something for which you lack even one solitary piece of evidence.
    c) You don't believe Paul's account, so rather than accept that you don't know what happened, you have a compulsion to invent something and present it as something you have determined.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    On the other hand, you read it in a book so, it must be true.


  • #1026
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    If I'm ever presented with any evidence for the claims of atheism, made here or anywhere else, or even a single sound solid argument for atheism,
    Atheism, in it's strictest sense, doesn't make claims. It's a rejection of someone else's claim, to be specific, someone else's claim "There is a god..."
    What you've done there is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. You've just declared you'll believe in the positive claim by default, until one of us proves it wrong. Nope, that's not how it works.
    So you have determined that Paul ate bad mushrooms based on the following:
    a) There is not a single piece of evidence that Paul ate mushrooms.
    b) 'Being a detective' in your opinion means determining something for which you lack even one solitary piece of evidence.
    c) You don't believe Paul's account, so rather than accept that you don't know what happened, you have a compulsion to invent something and present it as something you have determined.

    Think of it this way. You believe Paul's account that he did experience something during his road trip and are ready and have dismissed any and all other possible explanations.
    Tell me...how is it you ruled out all other possible explanations? How is it you've come to the conclusion that anything natural, such as hallucinogens or mental problems or anything else that we know can and does cause people to believe in the same kinds of things as what Paul records aren't in fact the correct one?
    Do bad mushrooms cause hallucinations? Yes. They do. Were they available during Paul's time period? Yes they were. Did people back then ingest them? Yes they did. Did many people, both then and in the modern era, hallucinate after ingesting them? Yes. Is there anything at all that rules out bad mushrooms as an explanation for what happened to Paul?
    No.
    If you're willing to dismiss any and all possible natural explanations in favour of a supernatural explanation, but only when doing so for christianity, then you yourself have exposed your complete lack of objectivity.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    orubiru wrote: »
    My first line was "Have you ever studied it though? Ever read up on it?"

    Two questions that, instead of answering, you have turned in to alleged criticism. What?

    What are the "claims of atheism"?

    Again, using a phrase like this creates a very strong impression that you do not understand what Atheism is.

    Atheism is a lack of belief. Can you understand that people are saying "you have not provided enough evidence for your claim that your God exists therefore I cannot believe your claim is true"?

    Or do you think that the "claims of Atheism" are that there is no God?

    Atheism is not a belief system. It is a lack of belief. It makes no claims other than "I do not have belief in your God".

    No claims now ? Great, any sound arguments for atheism yet ?

    Just one where all the premises are true will do.


  • #1028
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    galljga1 wrote: »
    On the other hand, you read it in a book so, it must be true.

    Where in this thread have I stated that?

    I'm simply pointing out the abysmal logic some other posters present here.


  • #1029
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Atheism, in it's strictest sense, doesn't make claims. It's a rejection of someone else's claim, to be specific, someone else's claim "There is a god..."
    What you've done there is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. You've just declared you'll believe in the positive claim by default, until one of us proves it wrong. Nope, that's not how it works.



    Think of it this way. You believe Paul's account that he did experience something during his road trip and are ready and have dismissed any and all other possible explanations.
    Tell me...how is it you ruled out all other possible explanations? How is it you've come to the conclusion that anything natural, such as hallucinogens or mental problems or anything else that we know can and does cause people to believe in the same kinds of things as what Paul records aren't in fact the correct one?
    Do bad mushrooms cause hallucinations? Yes. They do. Were they available during Paul's time period? Yes they were. Did people back then ingest them? Yes they did. Did many people, both then and in the modern era, hallucinate after ingesting them? Yes. Is there anything at all that rules out bad mushrooms as an explanation for what happened to Paul?
    No.
    If you're willing to dismiss any and all possible natural explanations in favour of a supernatural explanation, but only when doing so for christianity, then you yourself have exposed your complete lack of objectivity.

    I keep an open mind. But I'm happy to point out how poor an argument you present when you invent stuff (the eating of bad mushrooms) for which you have no evidence. It is nothing but a faith proposition that you are presenting.

    You have no objectivity whatsoever.


  • #1030
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Atheism, in it's strictest sense, doesn't make claims. It's a rejection of someone else's claim, to be specific, someone else's claim "There is a god..."
    What you've done there is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty. You've just declared you'll believe in the positive claim by default, until one of us proves it wrong. Nope, that's not how it works.

    I explained why I don't believe the many claims made by atheists about theism made on this forum and elsewhere, that are presented as a reliable reason for atheism. And why ? because they have yet to present to me an argument that is not based on a misrepresentation, a false premise, or a fallacy.

    Have you got a single solid argument yet, i.e. one not based on a misreprentation, or a fallacy, and where the all the premises it is based on are actually true ?


  • #1031
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    No claims now ? Great, any sound arguments for atheism yet ?

    Just one where all the premises are true will do.

    What do you mean "sound arguments for Atheism"?

    You claim that God exists.
    You have no evidence to back up your claim but you believe it is true.
    Due to the lack of evidence I cannot accept your claim is true.
    It follows that I lack belief in your God.
    Therefore I am an Atheist.

    I do not need claims, arguments or premises. You do not have proof so I lack belief therefore I am an Atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    Something doesn't come from nothing. Nothing does not create or cause anything.

    What did God create the universe out of? A pre-existing universe? Ok, what did he create that universe out of? etc etc


  • #1033
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Cen taurus wrote: »
    '
    Reduced to Ad hominem already ?, my that was quick.

    I explained why I don't believe the many claims made by atheism about theism made on this forum and elsewhere. And why ? because they have yet to present to me an argument that is not based on a false premise or a fallacy.

    Have you got a single solid argument for atheism or against theism yet, i.e. one not based on a fallacy, and where the all the premise it is based on are actually true ?

    What part of "Atheism is a lack of belief" do you not understand?

    I do not believe that Atheism is true. Atheism makes no claims. Atheism makes no arguments.

    I lack belief in God and so it follows that I am an Atheist.

    I lack belief because there is no evidence.

    What "claims" or "arguments" do you think I am making?


  • #1034
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    orubiru wrote: »
    What part of "Atheism is a lack of belief" do you not understand?

    Perhaps the bit where "a lack of belief" motivates someone to make up faith propositions about mushrooms?

    Simply not believing in something is normal - heck, there's dozens of fora on boards.ie that are devoted to stuff I don't believe in. But that doesn't cause me to indulge in mental gymnastics to try to zealously convert others to me lack of belief.


  • #1035
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    Perhaps the bit where "a lack of belief" motivates someone to make up faith propositions about mushrooms?

    Simply not believing in something is normal - heck, there's dozens of fora on boards.ie that are devoted to stuff I don't believe in. But that doesn't cause me to indulge in mental gymnastics to try to zealously convert others to me lack of belief.

    It is "mental gymnastics" to suppose that Paul had a hallucination (common, recorded, relatively well understood human event) than to suppose a deity was talking to him?

    Atheists tend to take the most plausible explanation for something. If you decide that Paul is telling the truth simple because he said he was, you are then forced to apply that logic to every other person who has ever claimed to have experienced something supernatural and believe them just because they said it was what happened to them. That road leads to ridiculousness.

    Most Christians in my experience are very happy to conclude that the claims of followers of other religions are probably not what happened to them. Few Christians think Mohammad actually saw angels in his cave for example, and are happy with idea he was probably dehydrated.

    Atheists just take this reasoning one religion further.


  • #1036
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Nick Park wrote: »
    I keep an open mind. But I'm happy to point out how poor an argument you present when you invent stuff (the eating of bad mushrooms) for which you have no evidence. It is nothing but a faith proposition that you are presenting.

    You have no objectivity whatsoever.

    How is my hypothesis faith based? I have evidence that hallucinogens exist, evidence that they cause hallucinations, evidence that people do ingest them. How have you ruled out that this is what happened? Simply because Paul doesn't mention them?


  • #1037
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    TheLurker wrote: »

    Atheists tend to take the most plausible explanation for something. If you decide that Paul is telling the truth simple because he said he was, you are then forced to apply that logic to every other person who has ever claimed to have experienced something supernatural and believe them just because they said it was what happened to them. That road leads to ridiculousness


    Leads to Damascus surely


  • #1038
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    How is my hypothesis faith based? I have evidence that hallucinogens exist, evidence that they cause hallucinations, evidence that people do ingest them. How have you ruled out that this is what happened? Simply because Paul doesn't mention them?

    Again I would be interested to see if this logic is applied by Nick to any other religion? After all Mohammad never said he wasn't suffering dehydration hallucinations?


  • #1039
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    TheLurker wrote: »
    It is "mental gymnastics" to suppose that Paul had a hallucination (common, recorded, relatively well understood human event) than to suppose a deity was talking to him?

    It is mental gymnastics to claim to have determined something for which you have no evidence.

    If you simply lack a belief in something, then the logical thing to do is to accept that there could be any one of a number of explanations. It takes a particularly high level of active faith to pick one of those out and declare on a message board that it is something you have determined.
    Atheists tend to take the most plausible explanation for something.
    Not at all. If atheism is simply lack of a belief in a god or gods, then you should accept that people with such a lack of belief include many different kinds of people, with varying degrees of accepting plausible explanations.

    You seem to want to define atheism as something minimalistic (a lack of belief) but then to ascribe all kinds of qualities to people who happen not to believe in a god. I think you want to have your cake and eat it.


  • #1040
    Cen taurus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 476 ✭✭Cen taurus


    orubiru wrote: »
    What do you mean "sound arguments for Atheism"?

    You claim that God exists.
    You have no evidence to back up your claim but you believe it is true.
    Due to the lack of evidence I cannot accept your claim is true.
    It follows that I lack belief in your God.
    Therefore I am an Atheist.

    I do not need claims, arguments or premises. You do not have proof so I lack belief therefore I am an Atheist.

    Good, that's a better attempt.
    orubiru wrote: »
    What do you mean "sound arguments for Atheism"?

    One where afterwards I say, you know what, finally an argument/evidence, not based on any fallacies or false assumptions, or misrepresentations, and where all the premises are true, I think I'll no longer believe in God, I now lack belief as well.

    Have you got anything ?
    orubiru wrote: »
    You claim that God exists.

    No, just in the same way you have explained, you do not claim that God does not exist. I believe God exists, it's not a claim that he does exist, it's a belief.
    orubiru wrote: »
    You have no evidence to back up your claim but you believe it is true.

    Again it's not a claim, it's a belief, see above. I have no evidence that an atheist will accept, if they did accept it as evidence, they would not be an atheist.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    Many people for example believe in alien life being out there somewhere (myself included), but, to date, there is no evidence for alien life.

    I would be really intrested in getting an answer to this question :

    You ask for evidence : What would, for you, be an example of evidence that God exists, can you give any practical examples, and explain to us how and why that example would be evidence ?
    orubiru wrote: »
    Due to the lack of evidence I cannot accept your claim is true.
    It follows that I lack belief in your God.
    Therefore I am an Atheist.

    It's not a claim, see above.
    It's not my God, whether God exists or not, does not depend on me.

    Your lack of belief, is not my problem, I'm not asking you to believe.

    But, when someone makes a claim or argument about theism or what theists believe, as a reason and argument for atheism, I examine it to determine is it based on any fallacies, false assumptions, or misrepresentations, and are all the premises true.

    I've yet to see one advanced here or elsewhere so far from any atheists.

    So, I'm all ears . . . Have you got one ?


  • #1041
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    TheLurker wrote: »
    Again I would be interested to see if this logic is applied by Nick to any other religion? After all Mohammad never said he wasn't suffering dehydration hallucinations?

    I've never once suggested that Mohammed was suffering from dehydration hallucinations. I have no evidence to suggest any such thing, and I'm far too intelligent to make an idiot of myself by pretending I am capable of determining such faith statements based on zero evidence.

    You're welcome to do a search on the Islam Forum to see if I've ever done anything so weird.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    I've never once suggested that Mohammed was suffering from dehydration hallucinations.

    Do you believe Mohammad was talking to an angel?


  • #1043
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    How is my hypothesis faith based? I have evidence that hallucinogens exist, evidence that they cause hallucinations, evidence that people do ingest them. How have you ruled out that this is what happened? Simply because Paul doesn't mention them?

    It is faith based because you have no evidence for it.

    I haven't ruled anything out or anything in. I've simply pointed out that you have claimed to determine something based on zero evidence.

    You seem to be confusing my lack of belief in your mushroom theory with an active assertion that the mushroom theory is untrue. Given what else is going on this thread that's actually quite funny.


  • #1044
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    It is mental gymnastics to claim to have determined something for which you have no evidence.

    There is more evidence he was having a hallucination that talking to a god.

    I would imagine the OP would be happy to state that the magic mushroom is a plausible guess as to what caused the hallucination. I imagine he is also open to the idea that it wasn't a hallucination but rather simply that Paul lied.

    You seem to be confusing "All these things are more plausible that him talking to Jesus" with "we know for a FACT that he took magic mushrooms"
    Nick Park wrote: »
    If atheism is simply lack of a belief in a god or gods, then you should accept that people with such a lack of belief include many different kinds of people, with varying degrees of accepting plausible explanations.
    I do. I'm sure other atheists have other explanations for Paul's claims that don't include magic mushrooms, and I'm not going to tell them they are wrong.


  • #1045
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    TheLurker wrote: »
    Do you believe Mohammad was talking to an angel?

    I don't have enough evidence one way or the other to make a confident claim on it. He may well have been talking to an angel. On the other hand he may not have. It makes no difference to me.


  • #1046
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    It is faith based because you have no evidence for it.

    Paul's description is consistent with hallucination. What is that if not evidence for hallucination?


  • #1047
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    I don't have enough evidence one way or the other to make a confident claim on it. He may well have been talking to an angel. On the other hand he may not have. It makes no difference to me.

    You don't think it matters if Islam is true or not?


  • #1048
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    TheLurker wrote: »
    I do. I'm sure other atheists have other explanations for Paul's claims that don't include magic mushrooms, and I'm not going to tell them they are wrong.

    I know you haven't, which is why I addressed my posts, not to you, but to the person who confidently claimed that they had determined that Paul ate bad mushrooms.

    I think you can probably see that such a claim was foolish, but you don't want to let the side down by admitting that a fellow atheist was making a faith proposition. Group think is like that.


  • #1049
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    TheLurker wrote: »
    You don't think it matters if Islam is true or not?

    That isn't what I said.

    I don't think it matters if Mohammed was talking to an angel or not.


  • #1050
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    I know you haven't, which is why I addressed my posts, not to you, but to the person who confidently claimed that they had determined that Paul ate bad mushrooms.

    I think you can probably see that such a claim was foolish, but you don't want to let the side down by admitting that a fellow atheist was making a faith proposition. Group think is like that.

    I think you are purposefully over stating the confidence that the comment was made in order to attack a straw man. I don't think the OP was stating with certainty that Paul took magic mushrooms, and I think you also dont think that.

    Far easier to attack that straw man than to defend the idea of believe Paul's claims.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    TheLurker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    Nick Park wrote: »
    That isn't what I said.

    I don't think it matters if Mohammed was talking to an angel or not.

    I Mohammad was talking to an angel as he claims then Islam is true. I think that would matter a great deal to Christians since their entire religion is based on a falsehood.


Advertisement