Has atheism made the world a better place?

[Albrenia]

Oh, I never said they didn't have their issues. Just that religious intolerance was not among them. Now fear of the magical homosexual ghosts on the other hand....

It really be a bruh moment

Bruh

[Tabor-Zion]

That's just intellectually dishonest to the truth of what happened. How does the existence of religion negate what the evolutionary religion of atheism did to aborigines by the way? https://creation.com/missing-the-link-b ... and-racism

Go ahead and add the OKC bomber and the Columbine shooting to that list btw

Lmao evolutionary religion? Evolution is a fact that has been proven by decades of carbon dating, whereas your faith comes from an ancient scroll that wasn't peer reviewed or based on numerous studies and experiments. Racism isn't a result of religion. That's the real intellectual dishonesty here, considering there was racism in America before Charles darwin formed his theory of evolution. And what better alternative does religion have to offer to racial conflict? Holy wars? Give me a break

Carbon-dating doesn't prove evolution. It's used to "prove" the age of the Earth but is based on faulty assumptions as are all dating methods.Obviously a book written by God doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. Evolution is based on faith, it's not science by definition, no origin science is. Science must be testable and repeatable and origins is not by definition. I never said Darwin started racism, but his theory was the largest factor in its justification. I assume you mean the crusades at the end? True Christians don't go to war regardless of what Catholics did long ago, to blame Christians for that under the umbrella of "religion" is like blaming Republicans for the actions of Democrats because they're both under the umbrella of "politics"

[VoVoDoCo]

Racism and aboriginal oppression happened while religion was still a thing and the rest wasn't done in the name of atheism

Let's see, medieval Europe was super religious and also hella violent and post enlightenment Europe is a peaceful, more United continent. Looks like secularism has been great for them

That's just intellectually dishonest to the truth of what happened. How does the existence of religion negate what the evolutionary religion of atheism did to aborigines by the way? https://creation.com/missing-the-link-b ... and-racism

Go ahead and add the OKC bomber and the Columbine shooting to that list btw

It’s easy to find in history religious justifications for racial segregation. But that’s besides the point. Darwin had some bad ideas. After periods of skeptical inquiry, they were disregarded. That’s all there is to it. We used to believe in a flat earth, now we don’t. We used to believe in spontaneous generation, now we don’t. We used to believe that earth was the center of the universe, now we don’t. We used to believe that there was a scientific basis for racial discrimination. Now we don’t.

His other ideas, that of natural selection and evolution, stood the test of time. No one ever said that Darwin got everything right.

Also the OKC bomber did it because of anti-government sentiment. The motives of the columbine shooters is inconclusive, although most people think it was because of extensive bullying.

[Neanderthaland]

Dude. That's just reality. Atheism is not an equal opposite to theism. It never has been, and generally doesn't try to be.

Didn't think it was per se. I was making a comparison to the man who says what denomination he is part of, and says he is non-denominational. Which is just another denomination. Atheism is independent all of its own. Yet to claim it is the null position is a play on words. Agnosticism is the null position, not atheism.

A person who had never heard of the concept of a god would be an atheist. Lacking belief in a god/gods. So it is a null position. Agnosticism has more to do with confidence.

Your argument would be correct. If we were discussing agnosticism, but not for atheism. I mean, what is your definition of atheism?

Disbelief/lack of belief in a god/gods.

And you can't see that as being intrinsically less than agnosticism concerning truth.

No.

Seeing as agnosticism is by definition: "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."?

Agnosticism, as you describe it, is actually a position that's sort of anti-truth. "You will never know the truth, so don't even try." If you're talking about a search for truth then this should be something you object to strongly.

Where does that leave atheism? A lack of belief in god (regardless of human knowledge) must be the conclusion.

No. It's just a lack of belief. You're reading far too much into it.

Proving my point about assumptions.

Only in your mind.

If your atheism is based on knowledge then you go beyond the definition you provided.

K.

No, the objective reality before reality itself is not objective. You have to assume what it is like.

I've tried reading this several times. I'm not convinced it is a coherent thought. But in response to the sentiment, "there are four lights."

Fine. You live in a world where nothing exists beyond the universe and it's always been here even though it's utterly dependant on something else to exist.

Could you stop telling me what I must believe for five seconds?

You're wrong, by the way. I'm capable of entertaining all kinds of possibilities. I just don't accept any of them as true without evidence.

Does the Christian have a different perception of the Big Bang? The formation of the earth? The formation of man? Maybe in the utter minutiae, but nothing that deviates in such a massive way until the existence of man. So when I discuss assumption, I don’t mean the universe, the concrete, the touchable, I mean the before. The quality of the universe before the universe Eve was. That’s where the assumptions lie.

I mean, millions of them do, yeah. Not just in the minutia.

Also, you are increasingly beginning to sound like a Deepak Chopra, and not in a good way.

I literally just agreed to the Big Bang, the formation of the Universe, the evolution of man. I'm just asking about your understanding of the bit before all that.

We don't have an understanding of the "bit before that." Maybe someday we will, but in the meantime anyone who pretends to is lying.

presumably, you make no assumptions on that subject at all. I don't see how that has to do with a man who promotes alternative medicine. It's not exactly a nice term for someone who agrees with you on the vast majority of history.

I don't know why you think you deserve credit for accepting scientific fact, but okay. Kudos for accepting scientific fact.

I said you sound like Deepak Chopra because you started talking about speculative nonsense.

It’s very easy to prove that atheism has assumption: what got the nothing to the universe. What got something within the nothing, to begin within the nothing?

Uh... I don't know. I'm not even sure if I know what the hell you're talking about. I'm not sure if you know what the hell you're talking about.

What? It's literally the oldest question. What existed before the universe...

Oh, is that what you're on about?

Well, time didn't exist before the universe. So you're sort of asking me to point to a spot on a map that's south of the south pole.

I don't know if anything exists beyond/outside/before/between/whatever the universe. Maybe. But like a man educated in the critical habit of thought, I reserve judgement.

You’ll make assumptions about the nothing. Assumptions necessary for your atheism to be intellectually fulfilling in this point. That’s not a description of objective reality, that’s an assumption to get an idea to work.

I'm pretty sure I don't.

Sure you don't.

What assumptions am I making about, "the nothing?" Go on, tell me. Is it going to swallow up Atreyu?

Using Hypatia is pretty bad.

Killing Hypatia was pretty bad.

I know. So did the Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder at the time. But whose murder you used to smear Christian philosophers of the time.

Go ahead and quote those Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder. I'm honestly curious.

Comparing peasant mobs to atheistic philosophers is pretty lowkey insulting. Especially seeing as Christian thinkers denounced such actions. But I too remember the debates between the Christians and Platonists and Stoic in Athens. I know who won too.

According to the records preserved by the Christians.

How convenient. Yet scholars have recreated a strong record of ancient philosophies from Christian records.

And Muslim records, let's be fair.

One has to wonder why such a strong tradition of obvious intellectual truth died out so spectacularly.

You do realize atheism was a crime, right? Even in the Roman Empire?

In fact Romans frequently accused Christians of it.

[VoVoDoCo]

Lmao evolutionary religion? Evolution is a fact that has been proven by decades of carbon dating, whereas your faith comes from an ancient scroll that wasn't peer reviewed or based on numerous studies and experiments. Racism isn't a result of religion. That's the real intellectual dishonesty here, considering there was racism in America before Charles darwin formed his theory of evolution. And what better alternative does religion have to offer to racial conflict? Holy wars? Give me a break

Carbon-dating doesn't prove evolution. It's used to "prove" the age of the Earth but is based on faulty assumptions as are all dating methods.Obviously a book written by God doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. Evolution is based on faith, it's not science by definition, no origin science is. Science must be testable and repeatable and origins is not by definition. I never said Darwin started racism, but his theory was the largest factor in its justification. I assume you mean the crusades at the end? True Christians don't go to war regardless of what Catholics did long ago, to blame Christians for that under the umbrella of "religion" is like blaming Republicans for the actions of Democrats because they're both under the umbrella of "politics"

That is some Gish galloping nonsense. Like, to the point that I think this is just a troll account. Not enough to report, but enough to not warrant responding.

[Albrenia]

People do seem to have trouble with the idea that Atheism doesn't come with additional rules. It's not a religion with tenets and codes, it's just a lack of belief in any religion.

Social Darwinism isn't a part of Atheism, nor is support of Human Rights, or Liberal politics, or Communism, or being a jerk to believers, or watching Rick & Morty.

Atheism doesn't even need an outright denial of gods, just the conclusion that none have been proven to you yet.

[Tabor-Zion]

That's just intellectually dishonest to the truth of what happened. How does the existence of religion negate what the evolutionary religion of atheism did to aborigines by the way? https://creation.com/missing-the-link-b ... and-racism

Go ahead and add the OKC bomber and the Columbine shooting to that list btw

It’s easy to find in history religious justifications for racial segregation. But that’s besides the point. Darwin had some bad ideas. After periods of skeptical inquiry, they were disregarded. That’s all there is to it. We used to believe in a flat earth, now we don’t. We used to believe in spontaneous generation, now we don’t. We used to believe that earth was the center of the universe, now we don’t. We used to believe that there was a scientific basis for racial discrimination. Now we don’t.

His other ideas, that of natural selection and evolution, stood the test of time. No one ever said that Darwin got everything right.

Also the OKC bomber did it because of anti-government sentiment. The motives of the columbine shooters is inconclusive, although most people think it was because of extensive bullying.

Darwin certainly didn't get everything correct, and I don't even say that as a Creationist, every serious evolutionist today will tell you many of his ideas were incorrect. Regardless, the point isn't that there needs to be an actual scientific basis for racism, the point is that there WAS supposedly one and it WAS used as a basis for discrimination whether true or not.

Columbine is far from inconclusive though (https://creation.com/inside-the-mind-of-a-killer) just read his statements there.

[Neutraligon]

Lmao evolutionary religion? Evolution is a fact that has been proven by decades of carbon dating, whereas your faith comes from an ancient scroll that wasn't peer reviewed or based on numerous studies and experiments. Racism isn't a result of religion. That's the real intellectual dishonesty here, considering there was racism in America before Charles darwin formed his theory of evolution. And what better alternative does religion have to offer to racial conflict? Holy wars? Give me a break

1)Carbon-dating doesn't prove evolution. It's used to "prove" the age of the Earth but is based on faulty assumptions as are all dating methods.2)Obviously a book written by God doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. 3)Evolution is based on faith, it's not science by definition, no origin science is. 4)Science must be testable and repeatable and origins is not by definition. I never said Darwin started racism, but his theory was the largest factor in its justification. I assume you mean the crusades at the end? 6)True Christians don't go to war regardless of what Catholics did long ago, to blame Christians for that under the umbrella of "religion" is like blaming Republicans for the actions of Democrats because they're both under the umbrella of "politics"

1)Correct, carbon dating does not prove religion, as except in math there is no such thing as poof in the sciences. Carbon dating however is useful in dating the ages of objects to around 50,000 years. For older samples, other methods of dating is needed. So no, carbon dating is in fact not used to demonstrate the age of the earth, because carbon dating does not work for that long.

2) Prove there is a book by god

3) Odd, I thought that faith would be a good thing according to you. Is it a bad thing? Also, nope it is not based on faith, but rather a reading of all the evidence presented, including the fact that we have witnessed speciation events. Origin science is not a thing, science is science.

4) Yep, though testable probably does not mean what you think it means. For instance we know how long it takes pluto to orbit the sun despite that fact that we have not observed it take 1 full rotation due to it being discovered so recently. Oh and, the experiments have been tested and repeated.

5) Given that racism was already strong long before Darwin existed, his theory cannot be a strong justification for it.

6) NO true scotsman

[Neanderthaland]

I mean, I see how you think it works. It's not a rationally sound or honest position, but I imagine you think offending me is more important.

Unfortunately, it doesn't offend me. It tends to work to my advantage when my opponents behave dishonestly.

Offend? No. But you pride yourself on that lack of faith in your position, as you yourself admit.

Quote me admitting that.

I haven't claimed you of any dishonesty. It's rather rude to claim of someone else dishonesty.

Well then don't use dishonest arguments.

[Albrenia]

It is kind of nice to briefly feel like I'm back in the 2000s though, arguing with a real (maybe) Creationist.

[Neutraligon]

It’s easy to find in history religious justifications for racial segregation. But that’s besides the point. Darwin had some bad ideas. After periods of skeptical inquiry, they were disregarded. That’s all there is to it. We used to believe in a flat earth, now we don’t. We used to believe in spontaneous generation, now we don’t. We used to believe that earth was the center of the universe, now we don’t. We used to believe that there was a scientific basis for racial discrimination. Now we don’t.

His other ideas, that of natural selection and evolution, stood the test of time. No one ever said that Darwin got everything right.

Also the OKC bomber did it because of anti-government sentiment. The motives of the columbine shooters is inconclusive, although most people think it was because of extensive bullying.

Darwin certainly didn't get everything correct, and I don't even say that as a Creationist, every serious evolutionist today will tell you many of his ideas were incorrect. Regardless, the point isn't that there needs to be an actual scientific basis for racism, the point is that there WAS supposedly one and it WAS used as a basis for discrimination whether true or not.

Columbine is far from inconclusive though (https://creation.com/inside-the-mind-of-a-killer) just read his statements there.

True, scientists have improved on Darwin's original theory due to experimentation. Kinda like we have improved on Newton's original laws due to experimentation. Not that Darwin has anything to do with atheism.

[Neanderthaland]

It is kind of nice to briefly feel like I'm back in the 2000s though, arguing with a real (maybe) Creationist.

You know, I was just thinking that.

Nostalgic. Anyone want to link to an AronRa video?

[Neutraligon]

It is kind of nice to briefly feel like I'm back in the 2000s though, arguing with a real (maybe) Creationist.

You know, I was just thinking that.

Nostalgic. Anyone want to link to an AronRa video?

I love his more recent videos about the Systemic classification of life

[Tabor-Zion]

1)Carbon-dating doesn't prove evolution. It's used to "prove" the age of the Earth but is based on faulty assumptions as are all dating methods.2)Obviously a book written by God doesn't need to be peer-reviewed. 3)Evolution is based on faith, it's not science by definition, no origin science is. 4)Science must be testable and repeatable and origins is not by definition. I never said Darwin started racism, but his theory was the largest factor in its justification. I assume you mean the crusades at the end? 6)True Christians don't go to war regardless of what Catholics did long ago, to blame Christians for that under the umbrella of "religion" is like blaming Republicans for the actions of Democrats because they're both under the umbrella of "politics"

1)Correct, carbon dating does not prove religion, as except in math there is no such thing as poof in the sciences. Carbon dating however is useful in dating the ages of objects to around 50,000 years. For older samples, other methods of dating is needed. So no, carbon dating is in fact not used to demonstrate the age of the earth, because carbon dating does not work for that long.

2) Prove there is a book by god

3) Odd, I thought that faith would be a good thing according to you. Is it a bad thing? Also, nope it is not based on faith, but rather a reading of all the evidence presented, including the fact that we have witnessed speciation events. Origin science is not a thing, science is science.

4) Yep, though testable probably does not mean what you think it means. For instance we know how long it takes pluto to orbit the sun despite that fact that we have not observed it take 1 full rotation due to it being discovered so recently. Oh and, the experiments have been tested and repeated.

5) Given that racism was already strong long before Darwin existed, his theory cannot be a strong justification for it.

6) NO true scotsman

1) This is partially correct, except it does supposedly calculate the age of the Earth to a degree as you said (up to 50,000 years) but again it's based on faulty assumptions and assumes a constant rate of decay. Carbon dating is good evidence against an old Earth as diamonds and dinosaur bones have been carbon-dates which should've been impossible if an Old Earth is accepted

2) The Bible is it's own defense. The resurrection of Christ is as solid as any historical fact could ever be and a simple google search will suffice unless you want me to press the point.

3) Never said Faith was bad. Your reading of evidence is called a worldview, it's based on faith. You're correct science is science and science is repeatable and observable. The past is not and must be interpreted through a worldview based on faith

4) This isn't a argument against anything i've said. We see Pluto now. We don't see the creation of the universe

5) Thats a weak argument. The reality is that it WAS. The historical fact is Darwin's theory was far and wide used as a justification for racism whether scientifically accurate or not

6) A Christian who is inconsistent with his own worldview can't rightfully be considered to be acting in a Christian way (again, it's like blaming Republicans for Democrat's actions because they're both political parties and then when the Republicans explain they're not Democrats saying it's a No True Scotsman Fallacy)

[Genivaria]

Also to say Christianity played a role in the Holocaust is completely laughable. (https://creation.com/review-hitlers-religion-weikart)

The Holocaust was clearly based on the Atheistic teaching of evolution. Christianity played no role in Nazism other than a sort of cultural cover.

Mao and Stalin not driven by Atheism? Maybe u guys aren't thinking hard enough? (https://creation.com/the-darwinian-foun ... -communism)

Oh god it's been forever since comments like this, I missed these dumb posts.

[Neanderthaland]

You know, I was just thinking that.

Nostalgic. Anyone want to link to an AronRa video?

I love his more recent videos about the Systemic classification of life

Who knew I could enjoy hearing a terrifying-looking Texan rattle-on in monotone about feliforms so much...?

[Neutraligon]

I love his more recent videos about the Systemic classification of life

Who knew I could enjoy hearing a terrifying-looking Texan rattle-on in monotone about feliforms so much...?

Not sure I would call that a monotone.

[Albrenia]

4) This isn't a argument against anything i've said. We see Pluto now. We don't see the creation of the universe

Well, technically we can both see and hear the leftovers of said creation if we turn on a poorly-tuned radio or old tv.

A random place online talking about it: https://www.slashgear.com/one-percent-o ... -24492754/

[VoVoDoCo]

1)Correct, carbon dating does not prove religion, as except in math there is no such thing as poof in the sciences. Carbon dating however is useful in dating the ages of objects to around 50,000 years. For older samples, other methods of dating is needed. So no, carbon dating is in fact not used to demonstrate the age of the earth, because carbon dating does not work for that long.

2) Prove there is a book by god

3) Odd, I thought that faith would be a good thing according to you. Is it a bad thing? Also, nope it is not based on faith, but rather a reading of all the evidence presented, including the fact that we have witnessed speciation events. Origin science is not a thing, science is science.

4) Yep, though testable probably does not mean what you think it means. For instance we know how long it takes pluto to orbit the sun despite that fact that we have not observed it take 1 full rotation due to it being discovered so recently. Oh and, the experiments have been tested and repeated.

5) Given that racism was already strong long before Darwin existed, his theory cannot be a strong justification for it.

6) NO true scotsman

1) This is partially correct, except it does supposedly calculate the age of the Earth to a degree as you said (up to 50,000 years) but again it's based on faulty assumptions and assumes a constant rate of decay. Carbon dating is good evidence against an old Earth as diamonds and dinosaur bones have been carbon-dates which should've been impossible if an Old Earth is accepted

2) The Bible is it's own defense. The resurrection of Christ is as solid as any historical fact could ever be and a simple google search will suffice unless you want me to press the point.

3) Never said Faith was bad. Your reading of evidence is called a worldview, it's based on faith. You're correct science is science and science is repeatable and observable. The past is not and must be interpreted through a worldview based on faith

4) This isn't a argument against anything i've said. We see Pluto now. We don't see the creation of the universe

5) Thats a weak argument. The reality is that it WAS. The historical fact is Darwin's theory was far and wide used as a justification for racism whether scientifically accurate or not

6) A Christian who is inconsistent with his own worldview can't rightfully be considered to be acting in a Christian way (again, it's like blaming Republicans for Democrat's actions because they're both political parties and then when the Republicans explain they're not Democrats saying it's a No True Scotsman Fallacy)

You do realize that Ken Ham is a laughing stock don’t you?

[Neanderthaland]

1) This is partially correct, except it does supposedly calculate the age of the Earth to a degree as you said (up to 50,000 years) but again it's based on faulty assumptions and assumes a constant rate of decay. Carbon dating is good evidence against an old Earth as diamonds and dinosaur bones have been carbon-dates which should've been impossible if an Old Earth is accepted

Most minerals have some carbon in them, so you can carbon date a dinosaur bone, and get some kind of result. It won't have anything to do with atmospheric carbon, rendering the whole thing kind of pointless, but you can. However the bones you are referring to probably didn't date the carbon in the rock. They probably dated the shellac that had been used to treat the rock, to preserve it.

[Lower Nubia]

Didn't think it was per se. I was making a comparison to the man who says what denomination he is part of, and says he is non-denominational. Which is just another denomination. Atheism is independent all of its own. Yet to claim it is the null position is a play on words. Agnosticism is the null position, not atheism.

A person who had never heard of the concept of a god would be an atheist. Lacking belief in a god/gods. So it is a null position. Agnosticism has more to do with confidence.

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

It's definitely not the position of just confidence.

And you can't see that as being intrinsically less than agnosticism concerning truth.

No.

Ok.

Seeing as agnosticism is by definition: "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."?

Agnosticism, as you describe it, is actually a position that's sort of anti-truth. "You will never know the truth, so don't even try." If you're talking about a search for truth then this should be something you object to strongly.

But that's not the definition of agnosticism. It's definition is: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

Isn't that simply atheism with a knowledge clause. I.e. we lack knowledge to know god exists. Which would make it the true null position & position of evidence.

Where does that leave atheism? A lack of belief in god (regardless of human knowledge) must be the conclusion.

No. It's just a lack of belief. You're reading far too much into it.

Yet if God came down, and you changed your mind, it would be because of new knowledge. Which would make your position agnostic, not atheistic. As the definition is: "lack of belief" it needn't have any defined reason to change when provided with new knowledge.

Proving my point about assumptions.

Only in your mind.

See above.

If your atheism is based on knowledge then you go beyond the definition you provided.

K.

K.

Fine. You live in a world where nothing exists beyond the universe and it's always been here even though it's utterly dependant on something else to exist.

Could you stop telling me what I must believe for five seconds?

You're wrong, by the way. I'm capable of entertaining all kinds of possibilities. I just don't accept any of them as true without evidence.

These would still be assumptions.

I literally just agreed to the Big Bang, the formation of the Universe, the evolution of man. I'm just asking about your understanding of the bit before all that.

We don't have an understanding of the "bit before that." Maybe someday we will, but in the meantime anyone who pretends to is lying.

Well, we know it has certain qualities. If it is any thing that thing requires a reason to exist. Which means it must be a no thing, which requires no explanation for existence.

presumably, you make no assumptions on that subject at all. I don't see how that has to do with a man who promotes alternative medicine. It's not exactly a nice term for someone who agrees with you on the vast majority of history.

I don't know why you think you deserve credit for accepting scientific fact, but okay. Kudos for accepting scientific fact.

I said you sound like Deepak Chopra because you started talking about speculative nonsense.

It's not speculative, just logical. If the universe is finite, which it is, and not eternal, whitch it isn't, something proceeds its existence. What can logically proceed it?

What? It's literally the oldest question. What existed before the universe...

Oh, is that what you're on about?

Well, time didn't exist before the universe. So you're sort of asking me to point to a spot on a map that's south of the south pole.

It's very interesting that time is the arbiter of what can happen. Doesn't that seem to beg the question of times origin? If events cannot happen outside time as you claim in your analogy, what started time. Which we know is dependant on space, and is not separate from it.

I don't know if anything exists beyond/outside/before/between/whatever the universe. Maybe. But like a man educated in the critical habit of thought, I reserve judgement.

You shouldn't. We know the universe is finite and has beginning that presumes a "beyond". What explanation can you provide in logic for moving from a nothing to a something?

Sure you don't.

What assumptions am I making about, "the nothing?" Go on, tell me. Is it going to swallow up Atreyu?

You assume the universe exists as fiat. In: "Well, time didn't exist before the universe. So you're sort of asking me to point to a spot on a map that's south of the south pole."

That's an assumption. Not the time part, but that nothing can proceed before the universe, because it would not be beholden to time.

I know. So did the Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder at the time. But whose murder you used to smear Christian philosophers of the time.

Go ahead and quote those Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder. I'm honestly curious.

Codex Theodosianus 16.2.42

How convenient. Yet scholars have recreated a strong record of ancient philosophies from Christian records.

And Muslim records, let's be fair.

Agreed.

One has to wonder why such a strong tradition of obvious intellectual truth died out so spectacularly.

You do realize atheism was a crime, right? Even in the Roman Empire?

In fact Romans frequently accused Christians of it.

I am aware. That doesn't mean atheism was never debated nor maintained in the upper echelons of philosophical frameworks which were debated at the time.

[Nogodia]

1)Correct, carbon dating does not prove religion, as except in math there is no such thing as poof in the sciences. Carbon dating however is useful in dating the ages of objects to around 50,000 years. For older samples, other methods of dating is needed. So no, carbon dating is in fact not used to demonstrate the age of the earth, because carbon dating does not work for that long.

2) Prove there is a book by god

3) Odd, I thought that faith would be a good thing according to you. Is it a bad thing? Also, nope it is not based on faith, but rather a reading of all the evidence presented, including the fact that we have witnessed speciation events. Origin science is not a thing, science is science.

4) Yep, though testable probably does not mean what you think it means. For instance we know how long it takes pluto to orbit the sun despite that fact that we have not observed it take 1 full rotation due to it being discovered so recently. Oh and, the experiments have been tested and repeated.

5) Given that racism was already strong long before Darwin existed, his theory cannot be a strong justification for it.

6) NO true scotsman

1) This is partially correct, except it does supposedly calculate the age of the Earth to a degree as you said (up to 50,000 years) but again it's based on faulty assumptions and assumes a constant rate of decay. Carbon dating is good evidence against an old Earth as diamonds and dinosaur bones have been carbon-dates which should've been impossible if an Old Earth is accepted

2) The Bible is it's own defense. The resurrection of Christ is as solid as any historical fact could ever be and a simple google search will suffice unless you want me to press the point.

3) Never said Faith was bad. Your reading of evidence is called a worldview, it's based on faith. You're correct science is science and science is repeatable and observable. The past is not and must be interpreted through a worldview based on faith

4) This isn't a argument against anything i've said. We see Pluto now. We don't see the creation of the universe

5) Thats a weak argument. The reality is that it WAS. The historical fact is Darwin's theory was far and wide used as a justification for racism whether scientifically accurate or not

6) A Christian who is inconsistent with his own worldview can't rightfully be considered to be acting in a Christian way (again, it's like blaming Republicans for Democrat's actions because they're both political parties and then when the Republicans explain they're not Democrats saying it's a No True Scotsman Fallacy)

Preface: "Nothing to add" does NOT mean I agree.

1. Nothing to add.

2. The Bible is no defense. Nobody in this thread should be the fuckwit who pretends that there is full, irrefutable proof of the Bible's complete accuracy. There are literally factual errors in the Bible.

3. Wrong. The past and its actions can be studied. Ancient techniques, materials, and the possibility of any given event occuring can be found and studied.

4. Nothing to add.

5. Again, let's not pretend like slavery wasn't in vogue before Darwin, or the fact that many degenerate pro-slaveryites couldn't give less of a fuck about Darwin's ideals.

6. Nothing to add.

[Albrenia]

On the issue of what could exist 'before', 'outside' or 'after' the universe, I have no idea. Although since Time and Space are so closely linked, it feels shaky to me to assume that concepts like 'before' or 'after' can apply to a likely timeless state, or that something can be 'outside' of Space itself.

One might as well ask a deaf person what breed of goose's honk the noise of joy sounds most similar to. We have no ability to comprehend the concepts, let alone formulate an actual answer with any hope of accuracy.

[Neanderthaland]

A person who had never heard of the concept of a god would be an atheist. Lacking belief in a god/gods. So it is a null position. Agnosticism has more to do with confidence.

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

By that definition, I am agnostic. But I'm also an atheist, as I don't believe in a god or gods.

It's definitely not the position of just confidence.

Well, the way you phrase it makes it sound like a principled stand... about not overstating confidence.

Seeing as agnosticism is by definition: "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."?

Agnosticism, as you describe it, is actually a position that's sort of anti-truth. "You will never know the truth, so don't even try." If you're talking about a search for truth then this should be something you object to strongly.

But that's not the definition of agnosticism. It's definition is: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

Look mate, your first definition was very much the "or can be known" part. So that's what I commented on.

If you want to switch it up now, that's fine. But I don't really care about stupid semantic arguments. And you seem to be insistent upon trying to define me into a corner.

Isn't that simply atheism with a knowledge clause. I.e. we lack knowledge to know god exists. Which would make it the true null position & position of evidence.

I'm not sure why you're so caught up on this null thing. But a person who had never heard of the concept of a god or gods - upon being introduced to the idea - would probably ask if there is a reason to think that one exists, rather than stating "we lack knowledge to know if god or gods exist." So that's probably not the null position, no.

Where does that leave atheism? A lack of belief in god (regardless of human knowledge) must be the conclusion.

No. It's just a lack of belief. You're reading far too much into it.

Yet if God came down, and you changed your mind, it would be because of new knowledge. Which would make your position agnostic, not atheistic. As the definition is: "lack of belief" it needn't have any defined reason to change when provided with new knowledge.

This is basically just saying, "if you stopped being an atheist, you wouldn't be an atheist."

Proving my point about assumptions.

Only in your mind.

See above.

I did, and I don't see anything proving your point. Or requiring me to make assumptions.

Fine. You live in a world where nothing exists beyond the universe and it's always been here even though it's utterly dependant on something else to exist.

Could you stop telling me what I must believe for five seconds?

You're wrong, by the way. I'm capable of entertaining all kinds of possibilities. I just don't accept any of them as true without evidence.

These would still be assumptions.

Assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
Entertain - to hold in your mind or to be willing to consider.

No they're fucking not.

I literally just agreed to the Big Bang, the formation of the Universe, the evolution of man. I'm just asking about your understanding of the bit before all that.

We don't have an understanding of the "bit before that." Maybe someday we will, but in the meantime anyone who pretends to is lying.

Well, we know it has certain qualities. If it is any thing that thing requires a reason to exist. Which means it must be a no thing, which requires no explanation for existence.

Now THAT'S an assumption.

presumably, you make no assumptions on that subject at all. I don't see how that has to do with a man who promotes alternative medicine. It's not exactly a nice term for someone who agrees with you on the vast majority of history.

I don't know why you think you deserve credit for accepting scientific fact, but okay. Kudos for accepting scientific fact.

I said you sound like Deepak Chopra because you started talking about speculative nonsense.

It's not speculative, just logical. If the universe is finite, which it is, and not eternal, whitch it isn't, something proceeds its existence. What can logically proceed it?

These arguments are always very unconvincing to anyone who is familiar with science. Because if you are familiar with science, and especially science at the extremes, you know that the truth is often nothing like what you expect. And very often comes off as extremely counter-intuitive and absurd.

So no, I don't find your "logic" convincing.

What? It's literally the oldest question. What existed before the universe...

Oh, is that what you're on about?

Well, time didn't exist before the universe. So you're sort of asking me to point to a spot on a map that's south of the south pole.

It's very interesting that time is the arbiter of what can happen. Doesn't that seem to beg the question of times origin? If events cannot happen outside time as you claim in your analogy, what started time. Which we know is dependant on space, and is not separate from it.

Well time is more like a 'kind' of space, rather than "dependent" on it. I'm not an expert on this, so I won't pretend to know more than I do. But you keep using this word "before" and I'm not sure if it applies here.

Anyway, the answer is, "we don't know."

The thrust of your argument, "we don't know, therefore God" is an argument from ignorance.

I don't know if anything exists beyond/outside/before/between/whatever the universe. Maybe. But like a man educated in the critical habit of thought, I reserve judgement.

You shouldn't. We know the universe is finite and has beginning that presumes a "beyond". What explanation can you provide in logic for moving from a nothing to a something?

Yes I should. No it doesn't. And that's an argument from ignorance again.

Sure you don't.

What assumptions am I making about, "the nothing?" Go on, tell me. Is it going to swallow up Atreyu?

You assume the universe exists as fiat. In: "Well, time didn't exist before the universe. So you're sort of asking me to point to a spot on a map that's south of the south pole."

That's an assumption. Not the time part, but that nothing can proceed before the universe, because it would not be beholden to time.

No, that's based on observation and mathematical models. We can point to the "moment" (for lack of a better term) in the big bang where time became a thing.

Time might be able to exist outside of the universe, in the same way that "south" can exist on other planets. But asking me what happened before the big bang is asking me to assume a conclusion that isn't substantiated. In other words: YOU'RE the one making the assumption again.

I know. So did the Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder at the time. But whose murder you used to smear Christian philosophers of the time.

Go ahead and quote those Christian intellectuals who condemned her murder. I'm honestly curious.

Codex Theodosianus 16.2.42

I said quote it. Not name your source.

One has to wonder why such a strong tradition of obvious intellectual truth died out so spectacularly.

You do realize atheism was a crime, right? Even in the Roman Empire?

In fact Romans frequently accused Christians of it.

I am aware. That doesn't mean atheism was never debated nor maintained in the upper echelons of philosophical frameworks which were debated at the time.

It probably has something to do with the Byzantine Christians shutting down the schools of philosophy then.

[Neanderthaland]

On the issue of what could exist 'before', 'outside' or 'after' the universe, I have no idea. Although since Time and Space are so closely linked, it feels shaky to me to assume that concepts like 'before' or 'after' can apply to a likely timeless state, or that something can be 'outside' of Space itself.

One might as well ask a deaf person what breed of goose's honk the noise of joy sounds most similar to. We have no ability to comprehend the concepts, let alone formulate an actual answer with any hope of accuracy.

The answer, in case anyone is curious, is the "Cackling Goose."