Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

I can respect that the first creation of mass/energy is completely unknown, and that any explanation for it is nothing more than theory, be it a religious theory or a scientific one. I don't think it's fair for me to judge one or the other at this point as there's no evidence one way or the other. I myself believe that there's a scientific explanation for it, we just don't know it yet and very possibly never will. That's not to say you're belief in a design/deity is wrong, I just place my faith in something else.

 

Yo-landi is just foreign, no need to fear.

 

Actually, this is EXACTLY what Mags has been saying!

We are all naturally non-believers in things we have never heard of. When evidence arises that indicates existence of something, we believe. Most atheists don't claim to have evidence of God's existence -- they simply claim that the evidence FOR God's existence is insufficient.

And don't worry -- you and your house are all still invited to the annual pillywiggin dance coming up in May. I hope to change your mind during the festivities!

 

It's a metaphor, yo! Surely you will allow the pillywiggins some metaphorical room?

 

No when I say the burden of proof is on you. I have giving my evidence of gods existence and then the burden of proof is on you to discount that evidence. And this evidence that I give on the existence of god cannot be ignored because you don't think the burden of proof is on you.

 

There is no need to get testy trip. I have seen how tangents will stay off topic. I want this thread to keep on topic. Hopefully you can respect that.

 

And I can perfectly respect that faith.

 

Good point if there was an absence of evidence.

 

No testiness -- promise. But the use of fairies as a metaphorical tool was DIRECTLY related to our discussion of belief. It wasn't tangential.

 

I haven't ignored anything. There has been post after post explaining the flaws in your "evidence". Your arguments were unsound from square one. Therefore, as the one claiming evidence, the burden of proof has never left your shoulders, I'm afraid.

 

absence of evidence? It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. There is a god because it has not been proven there isn't. Says nothing of absence of evidence.

 

I got the metaphor; but disagreed with having an idea where that would take the thread into a tangent.

 

If you think that is my argument or evidence; then I assume that you haven't paid attention to the OP.

 

But I have given rebuttal and even that rebuttal has mixed acceptance. Just because you believe they are wrong doesn't make my rebuttal wrong. I am simply explaining I disagree and why I disagree. Then that burden of proof rests back on your shoulders.

 

I just mean entropy conquers or takes over. I am not saying anyone wins. Additionally, atheism and the laws of physics/chemistry are not the same thing. There are plenty of religious people that accept the laws of science to be true, but still believe a god is behind things. That a god drives evolution or that a god started the big bang.

 

No, I read the OP. And read people replying saying you are misusing the science you are using as "proof" of whatever. And then you ignore the science part and say well prove the other portion of my 1-3.
That's like me saying the theory of gravity is X, and because jesus went beyond the theory of gravity, it is proof he doesn't exist, only I have X wrong. If X is wrong, and I am shown it is wrong, i don't get to say, well, still, I have shown he doesn't exist.

 

I am one of those that you just described. Like I already said. I have already learned a great deal and a lot of my opinions have changed since last week. In fact, I enjoy these talks and debates because I learn more and more every day.

I am questioning Atheism because the common misconception from certain Atheists believe; "Well we have science and it trumps your Magic". That statement is ignorant and not even close to logical for an individual, Christian or Theist, that actually can accept and agree with science, the possibility of evolution, the earth being billions of years old and the universe being billions of years old.

 

Not true, the original argument questions physics and microbiology. Still haven't received enough rebuttal to disprove the microbiology and I have made my rebuttals on the rebuttals given to me. The question of "Well that doesn't disprove God" is sound.

 

If you can't recognize the flaws in your use of thermodynamic principles, even when they have been pointed out to you, then the true burden is on you to educate yourself so that we are speaking the same language. You never addressed any of my points made regarding your fallacious use of the 2nd law, nor have you addressed the explanation provided in the paper I cited. In fact, there was nothing in your defense following my post to indicate that you had even READ the paper. Your defense, time and time again, has been either "but there are still unexplained mysteries" or "well, you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist, so there". Neither of these are valid arguments.

If you choose to stick to "belief in God just feels right, and so I believe", none here would argue with you. But you insist on coming into the realm of science to try and justify your belief, even though (as far as I can tell) you have no training in the area beyond Wikipedia and YouTube. Doesn't that strike you as a bit arrogant? That would be like me walking into a room full of architects and insisting that my Google Sketch drawing of a house is better than any of their lousy designs, and then flat out ignoring their attempts to show me how I could improve my design.

Your first argument and second arguments both misuse scientific laws, as has been discussed at length. Your third makes an assumption from absence of evidence, and asserts that if we can't explain something, it must be God. This is not proof for a higher power -- it is proof that we are not omniscient. So what am I missing? Every single one of your initial arguments has been demolished. You are clutching at the broken rubble and insisting that they remain a mighty fortress.