Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Page 3 of 16 [ 242 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

30 Apr 2009, 3:17 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Whenever I see an argument against the existence of God, against the Bible, against Christianity, or yet another ploy of "it's not my job to provide proof!", I wonder to myself, "has this been said before?". And the answer to that question is almost certainly, "yes".

For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.

Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."

If you've got something NEW to say, or better yet some New Evidence that your claims are more than just blind faith then I'd be interested in seeing it.

anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

30 Apr 2009, 3:44 pm

CanyonWind wrote:

I can't understand the logic of demanding physical proof for the existence of non-physical entities.

how about if people get killed, abused and oppressed in the name of this non-physical entity?

_________________
not a bug - a feature.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

30 Apr 2009, 4:34 pm

Dussel wrote:

(bold by me): That's exactly the point I wanted to make; I thought it would be clear.

Sorry

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

30 Apr 2009, 4:44 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Dussel wrote:

(bold by me): That's exactly the point I wanted to make; I thought it would be clear.

Sorry

No problem - Perhaps I should be more explicit:

Such a line of arguments can be set up for the most main religions to any time in history. The Roman Gods were just an example. Because the argument would conclude that each of those religions were true to certain point in time, but those religions also make claims which are exclusive (Jupiter or Jesus - not both), the line of arguments must false.

ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

30 Apr 2009, 5:03 pm

greenblue wrote:

ZEGH8578 wrote:

why do atheists need to provide proof for anything?

well, it depends on which atheist, some may be respectful and consistent and others may not, and some think those should probably shut up as some arguments seem flawed or dishonest, and of course, the same applies to Christians.

Quote:

religion IS NOT A DEBATE for me.
its not something i am insecure about, or need to discuss. debating back and forth wether or not i need to mix my world view with manmade fiction, is absolutely NO issue for me.

Then it all comes down to.... to each to their own, right?

aggreed and aggreed.

greenblue wrote:

Quote:

im an atheist.

I'm an alcoholic.

im a "hashoholic". different, i know. usually way less drama, since stoners just sit put :]
you can BE a lot of things tho. i am also norwego-peruvian.

_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Apr 2009, 5:53 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Actually, just about everything has been said before. I mean, very few people have genuinely new ideas, but rather proceed from past idea to new idea. I might be surprised if I have said something original, but I shall try here:

asdfasofjsahfsal;juhlllofkasdjlfjnawrr002michkadlfjlwiajflasnnsloordonlkajsdlfjslafnaslk dafjsk |asfd\afdsaflsdajfl;/?,>>fajdskfanvzio2347982nadajp ajdflajdsfjal+_)_)_ajdfkljalkfsd_++== adsf@#$@ ojfkasjflajsdklf;a `~~^234sklafjlsdjflansn 290342,afjsalfjdslkaj^*&*+-0-0 MMMADFWEAjljknadlkfIOUOE PURPLESKINS dfsajwdhfrh2op13242kjlajdsfkl

Now, it may be possible that this string of letters has been used before, but it is worth doubting that it has. As for the content of this message? I doubt it is new.

Quote:

For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.

Actually, we think them up, but don't use them. New thoughts are a paid service. Free thoughts are cheap though, and you pay for what you get.

Quote:

Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."

Hey! That isn't fair. We've only seen one internet generation, as it hasn't been 2 decades yet or anything like that.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

30 Apr 2009, 6:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Quote:

Hey! That isn't fair. We've only seen one internet generation, as it hasn't been 2 decades yet or anything like that.

Actually, I think a generation on the internet is a bit shorter than a generation cycle for reproduction (which is limited by time leading up to puberty.) As people are separated by age and grade in school, so it would be online. Also, it is how some people get tired of the arguing and others take their place. Additionally, it is not merely on one forum, such as WrongPlanet, but this arguing goes on in all forums (whether one side is surpressed or both are free.) The quote was taken from Ecclesiastes 1, which the word "earth" is replaced by "chatter".

"Only the dead have seen the end of arguing."
-Plato.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Apr 2009, 6:11 pm

CanyonWind wrote:

I can't understand the logic of demanding physical proof for the existence of non-physical entities.

Physical entities all that exists. Demokritos and Lukippus were right, even if they were a bit premature.

ruveyn

MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

30 Apr 2009, 6:24 pm

Philosophy and metaphysics are two different things when you talk about religion or anything to do with phenomonal beliefs and so on.

So because they are intangible they are bound for scrutiny since science can't prove otherwise. This is why I mainly stay out of topics having to do with religion atheist or not. We've had our fair share of fundamental members here who put their belief systems onto everyone else without using any substance except reactive anger to back up their claims.

_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan

Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

30 Apr 2009, 7:04 pm

CanyonWind wrote:

Science is one more beautiful and fascinating mythology, but that's all it is, a product of a brain that evolved for survival and reproduction in a dangerous and desperate environment, a primate living on the ground in a world full of predators and enemies.

It is NOT a mythology, it is a methodology. Please familiarize yourself with the definitions of words before you use them.

Quote:

Comprehending ultimate truth has little value in survival or reproduction. It did not shape the human brain.

Truth requires VERIFICATION! If you cannot verify something than it is NOT truth!! It is just an figment of your mind which is created by your brain.

Quote:

I can't understand the logic of demanding physical proof for the existence of non-physical entities.

God is a supposedly non-physical entity that allegedly controls the PHYSICAL reality.If such is correct than physical proof of his existence is possible.

Last edited by Haliphron on 30 Apr 2009, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Apr 2009, 7:05 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Well, I don't see how this kind of division really happens online. Do long time forum posters just flunk their grade?

I know that you were quoting Ecclesiastes.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

30 Apr 2009, 7:54 pm

Atheism has little less to offer than an accurate view of our world. We can't just keep making up random stuff like you theists do.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

30 Apr 2009, 8:04 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:

"hashoholic".

This made a drunken David Hasselhoff come to mind.

On topic: I have always liked the assertion of there being no such thing as an original thought, so does anyone have anything new to say? I do not know about the atheist, but as for me...I am thinking no.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

30 Apr 2009, 9:16 pm

Haliphron wrote:

Truth requires VERIFICATION! If you cannot verify something than it is NOT truth!!

Can you verify this statement? If you can't, then the statement is self-negating and therefore false.

Quote:

It is just an figment of your mind which is created by your brain.

Have you ever heard of Solipsism?

Quote:

God is a supposedly non-physical entity that allegedly controls the PHYSICAL reality.If such is correct than physical proof of his existence is possible.

God is a supposedly non-physical entity with supposedly infinite intelligence and unlimited power over physical reality. God also supposedly wishes not to be detectable.

If God is real and has these characteristics, then no conceivable physical experiment can detect him. He knows the thoughts of every individual completely, so you can't sneak up on him; he can meddle with any experiment you make in any way he likes; and finally, he can simply refrain from acting in any way that would cause him to become detectable.

So no, you can't physically prove God is real (or unreal).

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

30 Apr 2009, 9:21 pm

claire333 wrote:

On topic: I have always liked the assertion of there being no such thing as an original thought, so does anyone have anything new to say? I do not know about the atheist, but as for me...I am thinking no.

It depends on what you consider to be original. The above sentences may not contain extraordinary new philosophical insights, but odds are, that exact combination of words hasn't been used in the history of the English language.

History does repeat itself, but never in the exact same way.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

30 Apr 2009, 9:21 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

God also supposedly wishes not to be detectable.

second funniest thing ive heard all day, thanks :lol:

Page 3 of 16 [ 242 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16 Next

Jump to:

Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say? Post Reply New Topic

Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?