Which arguments are those?
Edit: And no, considering the sheer number of arguments one could make against the existence of a god, it doesn't surprise me that some of them happen to be fallacious.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Stephen Fry on Confronting God After Death
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
- Status
Which arguments are those?
Edit: And no, considering the sheer number of arguments one could make against the existence of a god, it doesn't surprise me that some of them happen to be fallacious.
Ah I see. Right, I can't really say I would fear the void then. If there is nothing then there is nothing. Including fear. Can't really fear nothing and nothing can really fear. Such a mind boggling concept. Something I don't think we as humans will ever truly comprehend, this true manifestation of nothingness.
TheChocolateWar
Member
The argument of evils, the argument of lack of evidence, the argument of traits, and almost every single argument 'against' God these militant atheists have put forward these last decade, which the disenchanted youth have taken to not realizing great skeptics like Schellenberg have already torn them apart. Read the wisdom to doubt for starters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWXdr7L-4gs
This should go in the OP
I'm not going to even try to touch the whole thing about "evils" because that invariably leads to an endless philosophical circlejerk that goes nowhere.
There absolutely, 100% is a lack of evidence for the existence of any god. That is an objective truth.
Also, if you want to ever be taken seriously, you should probably drop the term "militant atheist" from your vocabulary. You can use it again when we start bombing and beheading people.
This should go in the OP
I'm not going to even try to touch the whole thing about "evils" because that invariably leads to an endless philosophical circlejerk that goes nowhere.
There absolutely, 100% is a lack of evidence for the existence of any god. That is an objective truth.
Also, if you want to ever be taken seriously, you should probably drop the term "militant atheist" from your vocabulary. You can use it again when we start bombing and beheading people.
We need a best takedowns of religion thread. That would be entertaining as fuck.
It's not even that he takes it down, he just explains it so well. The part about his religion making sense and all the others sounding dumb because he heard his stories when he was a kid that didn't know any better and he heard all the other ones as an adult with common sense.
He's calling out religious indoctrination of young children and he is 100% right. They HAVE to go for the children because there's no way an adult is ever going to believe that stuff if it's the first time they're hearing it.
And he's hilarious while he does it. I'm trying to find a clip where he talks about how it's stupid that god is supposedly going to judge his own creations after death.
Edit: here we go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59bGof0cGYo
Starts at around 6:15. So great. The part about building a car gets me every time.
| Praxis |
Banned
A lot of adults do find religion though, it's just the vast majority have been in a weakened state at the time.
I'm also a firm believer that there are no religious children, just children with religious parents.
I'm also a firm believer that there are no religious children, just children with religious parents.
Not only is there no substantial evidence for the existence of any god. There are mountains of evidence that people will make up anything including gods and will also believe anything. Not only what other people have made up but they also start believing things they themselves have made up.
Can you imagine if there was a God, but there was no afterlife? Now that would be interesting. Who said there had to be an afterlife if there was a God?
Even if there was one, it might not be very interesting. It doesn't sound like you get an option to live back on Earth/this universe, and that's what you might want most.
Do you remember how was it before you were born?
Of course that's the case. How could it be any other way?
I wish people would start asking more interesting questions like this.
Well... lack of evidence is pretty damning if you think in terms of scientific method.
bengraven
Member
I can picture myself in Heaven. Maybe there on accident.
"Who's all here?" I ask.
"Well, your great aunts and uncles all made it and there's your great great grandmother! All your good Christian prairie folk that died before 1980 are here! Let's sit and have some cookies and tea and we can talk about the Lord..."
"Um okay...where's Dad?"
"Well after two divorces and lots of unmarried sex, he couldn't stay here. And before you ask, yes, your uncles are in Hell as well. Gambling, drinking, prostitution, assault. You seriously couldn't expect them to be here. Your friends for the same reasons, especially your atheist best friend who talked so much dirty talk about the Lord..."
"Riight...I'll be right back..."
*goes to find the portal to Hell...*
dragonelite
Member
Im pretty sure the Jehovah witness believe this you get resurrected and life eternally on paradise earth after the end times.
Only a small portion of the people go to heaven the rest can life here on earth forever admiring god.
I believe it was Hitchens that compared eternal life admiring god to north korea but you could actually die in north korea.
How is "lack of evidence" a fallacy?
Look it just is okay
How different is paradise Earth from regular Earth? Is there internet, video games, food, sex, etc.?
Given your tag, I see that you aren't very well versed in the arts of rhetoric and oratory.
So then, pray tell, how will you refute the lack of evidence? I want definitive evidence there is an Abrahamic god, or a God of any sort.
As a raised Jehovah's Witness, do not get your hopes up.
Only 144,000 people go to heaven in this version of events.
Evidently this paradise earth occurs after Armageddon in which the people of the world (Homosexuals, every other person who practices a religion other than there's, those who got divorced for reasons other than adultery, apostates etc) are killed forever. The only people who survive are Jehovah's witnesses (Approximately 7 million people) and a few other people who never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses (Who are pardoned).
After this Armageddon the people have to clean up the dead bodies left over, and then the fun starts! Everyone who was ever "good" in god's eyes, or who never heard the "truth" gets resurrected if they are dead, from Abel to Zak who just died the day before. Considering there were 109 billion people who ever lived, think about the fun! Satan is cast into an abyss for 1000 years while Jesus takes over from God in the kingdom of heaven.
Then everyone becomes slaves for 1000 years while they are reprogrammed to worship God. After 1000 years, God purposely releases Satan to tempt people one more time. And this time, if you're tricked, you get cast into the "second death" (The first being armaggedon) and shall never come back again. Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom back to God.
Then everyone else lives happily ever after for eternity on Earth. As chaste, moral, Jehovah's Witnesses. Also anything ruinous or immoral on the Earth (Violent videogames, pornography, dissenting opinions on the internet, cars) are taken away for good.
This book said you don't need it.
bengraven
Member
No has ever been able to answer this when I asked. They always just assume the things they loved and people they loved will be there, doing something they enjoyed for eternity.
Everytime a member of my dead step-father's family dies, my mom says "well he/she is up in Heaven fishing with Lynn now." (lynn being my SF)
I think that's why people are terrified of accepting that there is no God - because accepting that is accepting that this perfect paradise can't exist either.
dragonelite
Member
I think shit would go back to Garden of Eden time/tech level, carnivores will stop hunting and eating meat. That is what i was told about by a JW coworker last year.
But what i always wonder is will you be you after said Armageddon or the resurrection happens. Will you remember the billions of people that died,
will you need to pile up all the bones that litter the world, can you embrace paradise knowing that billion of people died for it to happen.
How long have thought about eternity and other stuff you will need to do in paradise earth.
You'll be "you" but not you. As I was taught it, you'll recognize that billions of people died, but you won't feel sad about it, even if one of them was your father who didn't make it because God will "dull the pain". I explained much of the rest in my previous post.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Here is a prime example of someone not even knowing the basics of skepticism. Prove to me no evidence of God exists. Prove to me you have been in every inch of this universe, talking to every single person on Earth.
Also, they called themselves militant atheists. That is the name of the movement itself. I did not call them that, Dworkin called himself that.
The fallacy is in the claiming that there is no evidence of God, merely because you have never found any evidence of God. It is an iteration of the Gambler's Fallacy. Merely because each person you meet has not given you evidence, does not make it any more likely or less likely that the next will not have evidence.
I do not refute that there is no evidence, I merely question whether you have proof there is no evidence. You do not even have evidence that I do not have evidence of God's existence. If you cannot prove that I do not have evidence, how can you make the claim that no evidence exists? Without proof, you have no proof I do not have evidence of God
dragonelite
Member
Saw your post kinda late, never really asked those question had to carpool with her
so i didn't wanted to make things awkward and stuff.
CornBurrito
Member
Is there any evidence for this assertion at all? I really don't think I ever have seen proof, it is just something that people feel is true.
jakonovski
Member
If confronted by god? I quote a great man:
The burden of proof is on the person or persons who claim something exists. You personally have zero evidence as a believer. It's on you or like minded individuals to provide it. Not the other way around. Observing, oh...say, anything and everything has so far told us there is zero evidence.
So you're brainwashed, and there's probably nothing good to do, and you're locked in this prison forever. Sounds like "heaven" indeed. lol at the second tempting, of course the fun doesn't end after you die.
CornBurrito
Member
Your posts are obnoxious, and all you ever seem to want is to stop all conversation. You aren't like 99% of the rest of the planet, since you're one of those "skeptical about everything" sorts where literally any positive claim can never be justified. But funny how you only ever pull this shtick in religious threads. Why don't you head on to the "Detroit police killed a child" thread and demand evidence that the police or child ever existed? Of course no such proof could ever be provided, so then you'd chastise people for believing those persons ever existed without hard evidence. . I'm not sure what you fucking want other than to bring any sort of actually productive conversation to a standstill.
What sort of psuedo-philosophical twaddle is this?
Because even though you're an all knowing God, it never hurts to double check.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Fallacy of the false dilemma. I am not a believer, nor have I ever claimed to be. I am the skeptic, through and through. I do not claim, egotistically, to know whether there is or IS NOT a God. I know enough to know I do not know whether there is a God.
The fact of the matter is that the burden of proof is on both sides. If you claim there is no God, you must prove it. If you claim there is a God, you must prove it. Both are claims, both must prove them.
It is called skepticism. Can you prove to the rest of the world here and know that God is not in my coat pocket? If you cannot, then you cannot prove there is no evidence of God.
My goal is not to bring discussion to a standstill, but to put a cork in fallacious arguments I have seen time and again. I want something new and unique. I want more arguments. I do not want the already combated, tired arguments I have seen from Philosophy 101 students. I am introducing people to skepticism, as infuriating as it may be. It is a valid and well backed school of philosophy with thousands of great philosophers.
CornBurrito
Member
"Be skeptical about everything."
He's the sort of person that if you claimed you ate cereal he'd demand proof that the cereal ever existed. And then if you said the cereal wasn't poisoned he'd scream "YOU CANT KNOW THAT. BE AGNOSTIC ABOUT IT."
It's entirely unproductive psuedo-intellectual wankery.
Chainsawkitten
Member
Would you also chastise people for claiming there is no evidence vaccines cause autism?
I don't think you can honestly see what you're doing here. I'm just gonna leave it that way, because clearly, trying to convince you of anything at all seems like a headache at best. You sound like you just stepped out of an invigorating philosophy class. Time to tell the world.
jakonovski
Member
You have god in your coat pocket?!
TheChocolateWar
Member
Schrodinger's God. For all anyone here knows, I might, absent proof I don't. I will not say whether I do or not. I claim nothing. Merely pose the question. Can anyone prove God is not in my pocket right now?
Chainsawkitten
Member
I can. The proof is in my pocket.
TheChocolateWar
Member
So you claim that God is in your pocket? Well then, where is your proof? I would love to see the inside of your pocket.
You have your tag already. You can drop your stupid scepticism shtick and buzz off.
Chainsawkitten
Member
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/111870?hl=en
No, I claim the proof that no god exists is in my pocket. You can't see it, though.
TheChocolateWar
Member
It is not a shtick, it is a school of philosophical thought well documented and supported by dozens of great thinkers. I find it amusing that people so readily dismiss a valid form of thought. Will no one read The Wisdom to Doubt or the other great skepticism books? There is value in these books. Oh wait, I forgot this is not about learning and more about assuming we know the answer without evaluating all the arguments.
You made a claim, you must prove it. If you claim there is proof in your pocket that God exists, then you must show us. It is a claim. In contrast, I never made a claim. I merely posed a hypothetical. I did not say God was in my pocket. I merely asked people who claim God is not in my pocket to prove it.
I just added one...let's see if it gets deleted.
I dunno maybe everyone religious or not actually has their doubts that the magic apple eating sky dude who hates snakes story is true?
It is not up to me to find you evidence that there isn't any god, it's your belief, not mine. It's up to you to find evidence of it and present it. You can't expect to be taken seriously from a scientific viewpoint with just "Well I believe it without cause to, so that's enough".
And what do you want me to say to that exactly?
"There's no evidence of that"
"Well, there could be!"
That's useless to me. There "could" be evidence that elephants are plotting to take over the world using herrings as weapons. But I don't operate on hypothetical evidence any more than I operate on hypothetical gods.
You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards, instead of starting with the evidence and working to a conclusion, as the scientific method requires.
Chainsawkitten
Member
You have made a claim. You claimed that I haven't seen every potential piece of possible evidence for God's existence. Well, I have.
Nobody needs the level of hyper-skeptical standards of evidence that you seem to propose. It is enough to note that every single specific god concept proposed by religions so far has not a single convincing argument in favor of it, but very many convincing arguments against it, and most importantly, much more convincing alternative explanations for why people came up with these god concepts in the first place other than them being true.
Following the same reasoning that we apply to any other matter of every day life, that is enough to reject them. I find it utterly bizarre that god concepts are guarded by much more vigorous standards of "disproving" than any other claim in real life. Nobody is as hyper-skeptical about any other topic as some people are about arguments against god concepts. Nobody doubts the existence of their pants just because nobody has yet proven the existence of an external reality. Nobody doubts that the planet Mars exists despite never having been there. Nobody proclaims to be an intellectually honest "skeptic" and "agnostic" about the existence of gravity, because reality might just be an elaborate epistemic mirage and gravity just an illusion. Why then do so many people doubt that god concepts have thoroughly failed despite their long history of incredibly weak and failed arguments to support them. One would think that if there is indeed some sort of personal god, that he would have shown his existence more clearly, instead of retreating into dark corners of arcane philosophical word games.
- Status