Is Atheism Dead ?

@kellyjay said
Okay, my eyes are bleeding, my brain is coming out of my ears.

What part of that did you think answered where did everything come from?

"It is a truism that one cannot get something for nothing. The interesting question is whether one can get everything for nothing. Clearly, this is a very speculative topic for scientific investigation, and the ultimate answer depends ...[text shortened]... hing when in fact they could be some utterly different changing all of the calculus concerning them.

It is absolutely not a 'truism' that one cannot get something for nothing. You may believe this to be the case, but you do not and cannot know this.

I don't know where everything came from. You don't know either. I'm ok with not knowing; you're not, so you cling to the simplistic answers from scripture. Maybe you're right, I don't know. Weighing the available evidence I think you're wrong, but I don't know that. Neither do you.

@avalanchethecat said
It is absolutely not a 'truism' that one cannot get something for nothing. You may believe this to be the case, but you do not and cannot know this.

I don't know where everything came from. You don't know either. I'm ok with not knowing; you're not, so you cling to the simplistic answers from scripture. Maybe you're right, I don't know. Weighing the available evidence I think you're wrong, but I don't know that. Neither do you.

It is a direct quote from your link?

@avalanchethecat said
This is just sophistry, it means nothing. You wish to find evidence of god because you believe your scripture which tells you god is there. I am not swayed by your scripture. The fact that we exist is not evidence for your god.

Again, I don't say it's impossible to know. I say I don't know, and you don't either. I dont' find your evidence unappealing. I find it unconvincing.

You wish to avoid acknowledging there is a God, so you, by definition, define any evidence showing it is possible as nothing of worth to avoid having to accept there is a possibility. I have not given you scripture even once in all of this discussion that I can remember asking you to accept as true. I have defended it as evidence, but not once said, believe this because the scriptures say you should. I've stuck to what we can know and how we know it; I don't claim it is impossible to know; I believe it is possible to know the truth about God being real or not.

So here now is are some scriptures that I believe to be true, we can know, but not if we half a$$ it, it is all or nothing.

Deuteronomy 4:29
But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

@kellyjay said
You wish to avoid acknowledging there is a God, so you, by definition, define any evidence showing it is possible as nothing of worth to avoid having to accept there is a possibility. I have not given you scripture even once in all of this discussion that I can remember asking you to accept as true. I have defended it as evidence, but not once said, believe this because the ...[text shortened]... ll your heart.

Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

I'm sure you find that full of meaning since you believe in this god. I don't share your belief in this god or any other. To me, what these particular snippets say is "pretend to believe hard enough and eventually you'll convince yourself".

@avalanchethecat said
I'm sure you find that full of meaning since you believe in this god. I don't share your belief in this god or any other. To me, what these particular snippets say is "pretend to believe hard enough and eventually you'll convince yourself".

That was one of the reasons I didn't share any scriptures with you, but like all the other things we have discussed you define all possible evidence as nothing. Just remember each time you say there is no evidence that is true only because you define away anything that is as nothing. It isn't that it isn't there, only that you don't want to acknowledge it.

@kellyjay said
That was one of the reasons I didn't share any scriptures with you, but like all the other things we have discussed you define all possible evidence as nothing. Just remember each time you say there is no evidence that is true only because you define away anything that is as nothing. It isn't that it isn't there, only that you don't want to acknowledge it.

That's not true, you just accord a much greater weight of evidence to your scripture than I do, solely because you believe it to be true.

@avalanchethecat said
That's not true, you just accord a much greater weight of evidence to your scripture than I do, solely because you believe it to be true.

I believe scripture is evidence; yes, you reject it out of hand by definition. That wasn't the main thrust of my conversation. I offered a link on evidence and cosmology you didn't want to watch; I pointed to something that I told would validate why scripture could be looked at as evidential through academic, not spiritual means you didn't go there. I assumed you watched part of the other link that spoke about abiogenesis and the issues with bringing energy, matter, and information together with the issues there. Everything we do we do solely; if I reject something or accept it, it is solely because I find them worthy. This isn't about you or me; we only come up with our opinions on the truth of reality we see around us; even if what we accept as true is true, we still only have our opinions about them. Their truthfulness is dependent on what we are talking about, not our opinions about them.

@kellyjay said
I believe scripture is evidence; yes, you reject it out of hand by definition. That wasn't the main thrust of my conversation. I offered a link on evidence and cosmology you didn't want to watch; I pointed to something that I told would validate why scripture could be looked at as evidential through academic, not spiritual means you didn't go there. I assumed you watched par ...[text shortened]... out them. Their truthfulness is dependent on what we are talking about, not our opinions about them.

I don't reject scripture out of hand, I simply accord it a very slight weight of evidence. About the same as you do with scripture from other religions.

@avalanchethecat said
I don't reject scripture out of hand, I simply accord it a very slight weight of evidence. About the same as you do with scripture from other religions.

You accord it slight weight because you don't accept something as supernatural while accepting others, so they all go out the window. I don't ignore anything about possible issues with Biblical text; it is something I look at rather fiercely as I don't want to fool myself just because, if it isn't true, I don't want to put my faith in it any more than I would anything else not true or full of contradictions.

@kellyjay said
You accord it slight weight because you don't accept something as supernatural while accepting others, so they all go out the window. I don't ignore anything about possible issues with Biblical text; it is something I look at rather fiercely as I don't want to fool myself just because, if it isn't true, I don't want to put my faith in it any more than I would anything else not true or full of contradictions.

Until I find some evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist.

@avalanchethecat said
Until I find some evidence to support the existence of the supernatural, it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist.

Exactly how will you do that if something speaks about it you reject it out of hand without giving it a chance?

@kellyjay said
Exactly how will you do that if something speaks about it you reject it out of hand without giving it a chance?

It's going to need to be a bit more than anecdotal evidence from an explicitly biased alleged eyewitness who died a couple of thousand years ago.

@avalanchethecat said
It's going to need to be a bit more than anecdotal evidence from an explicitly biased alleged eyewitness who died a couple of thousand years ago.

Okay, what does time have to do with telling the truth or not? The thing about the text and those who wrote it, they have been under the microscope from the get-go; I have more faith in those accounts than I do; many of the so-called miracles people have professed happen in our times.

@kellyjay said
Okay, what does time have to do with telling the truth or not? The thing about the text and those who wrote it, they have been under the microscope from the get-go; I have more faith in those accounts than I do; many of the so-called miracles people have professed happen in our times.

The greater the remove from the alleged witness, the greater the uncertainty. If you have a witness you can question and investigate, that may lend weight to their testimony (it may do). This is axiomatic.

@avalanchethecat said
The greater the remove from the alleged witness, the greater the uncertainty. If you have a witness you can question and investigate, that may lend weight to their testimony (it may do). This is axiomatic.

The level of uncertainty would be no different if they were alive today. Truth is what we seek, and it has to be reasonable, not beyond doubt.