"Does Skeptisism Lead to Atheism?" Panel 2 Skepticon 3

[toobsucker]

True atheism (the rejection of theistic claims that "God" exists) has no basis in logic. If this position of atheism is true, then it is impossible for there to be any other life forms with these "God like" attributes anywhere in the universe.

Atheism thus makes an error in critical thinking by imposing limitations on a life forms attributes without cause or reason. By what method of reasoning does the atheist use to limit what a life form attributes can and can not be?

=Faulty reasoning

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker except that atheism (whatever "true" atheism is) isnt necessarily the assertion that no deity or entity with such qualities definately does not exist anywhere or ever did or ever will. Its simply not buying the deity claims made thus far. This only requires an honest assessment of these claims and the supposed evidence for them.

This in no way rules out any characteristic of any life form EXCEPT one that exists but is completely indistinguishable from the non-existant.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "to elaborate, any claimed entity or being which has no detectable traits or singularly attributable effect on its environment (i.e. indistinguishable from the non-existant) has absolutely no practical bearing"

You have abandoned logical inferences in favor of the emotional response of

"I can't see it , therefore it is indistinguishable from the non-existent, therefore does not exist"

Gods existence has a huge "practical bearing" on us. It utterly destroys the scientific method

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker which part of my statement has anything to do with emotion?

The assessment isnt that "I" cant see it therefor it doesnt exist...its that NOONE can detect this supposed entity in any demonstrable way outside of their own mind making it indistinguishable from imagination.

and please explain what measureable impact this entity has on any part of our reality that can ONLY be attributed to this being and not some other, more rational explanation.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "which part of my statement has anything to do with emotion?"

Atheism is a 100% philosophical / emotional position. There are no lines of logic & reason that support limiting a life forms attributes, yet this is exactly what atheism does. Atheism illogically regulates what a life form can & can not be. You must either have faith no other unseen life forms exist in the universe, or varying degrees of unlimited proportions.

Your reasoning fails when you start limiting attributes

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "Atheism is a 100% philosophical / emotional position."

That may be your opinion but you have yet to support that assertion with anything substantive.

"There are no lines of logic & reason that support limiting a life forms attributes..."

This has absolutely nothing to do with limiting a life form's attributes....it has to do with demonstrable and independantly verifiable evidence for a claim. Theists have yet to provide any for any deity in history.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "This has absolutely nothing to do with limiting a life form's attributes....it has to do with demonstrable and independantly verifiable evidence for a claim"

It has everything to do with limiting a life forms attributes. You have placed limitations on a life forms knowledge (can not be all knowing) based on personal philosophies.

So your saying you reject everything that is not "demonstrable and independently verifiable"?. How do I know if we put that to a test it will fail?

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "I dont base my beliefs on faith. Faith is unreliable as a means by which to assess the world around us"

Of course you do, you have faith there are no life forms in the universe that qualify as a God, you have faith in cell evolution (abiogenesis) , you have faith a single cell produced all the species of plant & animal life we see.

And if we examined all of your beliefs we would find a myriad of things you accept by faith.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "Of course you do, you have faith there are no life forms in the universe that qualify as a God,"

No, I don't. Once again, I have seen no evidence indicating that such a life form exists so I have no reason yet to believe it does.

"you have faith in cell evolution (abiogenesis)"

Once again, no. No faith is required here. Chemistry and biology demonstrate abiogenesis as a likely possibility. Its not the ONLY possibility but it certainly is likely.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Once again, no. No faith is required here. Chemistry and biology demonstrate abiogenesis as a likely possibility. Its not the ONLY possibility but it certainly is likely"

Actually it does not.

Google "The great debate what is life Sidney Altman" , You can watch Altman destroy RNA world. You can also watch Lee Hartwell speak about how incomprehensibly complex simplest cell is, and Chris McKay say space seeding (panspermia) the first cells is becoming more acceptable in science.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "I have seen no evidence indicating that such a life form exists so I have no reason yet to believe it does"

There actually is evidence from quantum physics which ill post later

If you are to remain logically objective you can not accept any other life form exists unless you actually see it. If you believe its possible ANY other life forms can or do exist, logic dictates a being with "God like" attributes must be included in them. Logic has no reason what so ever to limit a mind.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli ""I have never once claimed an omniscient, omnipotent being could not exist. Why do you continue to insist I did?"

Atheism by its very nature rejects Gods existence. And if you believe a God could exist and still claim atheism you prove you an emotionally controlled agnostic. You use faulty philosophy to determine a being with "God like" attributes can not exist until proven otherwise.

If I was God "this" would not happen, but because "this" is happening, it proves no God exists

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Please point me to any atheist capping the universe's intelligence level"

Any being with all knowledge thus all power as a result of all knowledge becomes God by definition. Atheism has determined by its philosophies a God does not exist, therefore atheism has determined by its philosophies a all knowing being does not exist, therefore atheism has capped the intelligence level to be somewhere substantially below all knowing. And Its done with total disregard to critical thinking

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "according to genetics and biology. DNA is a long-chain nucleic acid capable of replicating itself with errors"

Incorrect. Google Ultraconserved Elements in the Genome: Are They Indispensable?"

"There is plenty of evidence that highly conserved sequences do perform vital functions," says Ahituv. "Indeed, locating noncoding sequences that have been unchanged by evolution is one of the main tools scientists use to find important functional elements in a genome"

Unchanged=no evolution

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Please cite what specific parts of what cell could not have evolved and the published research showing that conclusion'

No room to post them all here, study UCE, "Conserved" is code for do not evolve.

"Novel Conserved Assembly Factor of the Bacterial Flagellum" Björn Titz

"Conserved machinery of the bacterial flagellar motor "Stahlberg

"An accuracy center in the ribosome conserved over 2 billion years" L E Alksne

I have pages of UCE info I can send to your inbox if you want it

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "No room to post them all here, study UCE, "Conserved" is code for do not evolve."

Which only refers to specific segments which have changed little or not at all over long periods of time.

The 3 papers you cited all mention conserved elements yet not a single one mentions anything close to this hampering evolution in any way. In fact, each makes mention of how specific structures and sequences EVOLVED.

You're citing papers that refute your own arguments. Nice work.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker From the Stahlberg paper: "Taken together, our findings suggest that multiple strategies for anchorage of the motor machinery to the cell wall have evolved."

from the Alksne paper: "Comparison of the sequences of the ribosonal RNAs of many organisms has led to the conclusion that there has been a great deal of conservation of secondary and probably tertiary structure during evolution."

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You must either have faith no other unseen life forms exist in the universe, or varying degrees of unlimited proportions."

I dont base my beliefs on faith. Faith is unreliable as a means by which to assess the world around us. I base my beliefs on what is shown to be accurate to a reasonable degree. We all do this for many aspects of our lives, but for some reason some people turn that part of their brain off when it comes to religion. Its called compartmentalization.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli ".its that NOONE can detect this supposed entity in any demonstrable way outside of their own mind "

Correct, just as no one can detect multiple universes (multiverse hypothesis) or any other any other life forms in the universe for that matter, this does not prohibit the use of logical inferences.

We know life can exist because we exist

We know life with vastly different attributes exist because we exist with them

Logic dictates a being with "God like" attributes can exist

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "We know life can exist because we exist-We know life with vastly different attributes exist because we exist with them-Logic dictates a being with "God like" attributes can exist"

I'm sorry but your making a huge leap there. No form of life we are aware of is so vastly different as to equal the difference between the carbon-based life on this planet and an out-of-space, out-of-time, all-powerful, all-knowing entity.

Its like saying frogs exist so the Q must exist.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli No form of life we are aware of is so vastly different as to equal the difference between the carbon-based life on this planet and an out-of-space, out-of-time, all-powerful, all-knowing entity."

You missed the point, logic has no reason to limit a all knowing, thus all powerful being from existing. Philosophy has endless reasons. All atheists artificially cap the intelligence level in the universe based on faulty philosophy . Tell me at what point do we cap "I.Q. levels" & why?

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You missed the point, logic has no reason to limit a all knowing, thus all powerful being from existing."

and once again, no evidence has yet been presented that such a being exists.

I have never once claimed an omniscient, omnipotent being could not exist. Why do you continue to insist I did? The very scriptures describing these supposed beings and their actions contradicts these triats. I'm not.

Please point me to any atheist capping the universe's intelligence level.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli I'd be happy to if you could please cite a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining how UCE's in any way prevent evolution. I've read several research papers on the subject and not one mentions anything close to this"

How about critically thinking about it for your self. How does a theory, that by its very definition predicts 100% system change, produce functional elements that do not change?, by what mechanisms were they arranged & by what mechanisms were they frozen?

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Please explain what aspects of the known biological sphere could not have evolved and why."

You seem to be unaware most DNA sequences are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. The sequences that code for the cytoskeleton, cell wall, all the molecular machines, the codes that direct & instruct the machines. etc..etc..

The ultra conserved element (UCE) falsifies your theory and most evolutionists are blind to this reality. UCE=can not evolve elements.

Study them

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You seem to be unaware most DNA sequences are not subject to evolutionary mechanisms."

Because thats incorrect according to genetics and biology. DNA is a long-chain nucleic acid capable of replicating itself with errors. These errors have a positive, negative or nuetral effect on its own survival. Which part of this is not possible? Everything you mentioned is entirely within the capability of this process.

please stop getting your science from religious sources.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "My rejection of theistic claims is based on the lack of evidence supporting those claims.

My opinion that this being would not be worthy of worship is NOT based on any idea of accountability"

Faulty reasoning, Its not the validity of the claims that determines if God exists or not. You throw out the theoretical baby with your philosophically tainted bath water. God existence can be establish without any religious doctrines. Even if all religions are wrong, God can still exist

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Because its NOT down to two choices. There are a myriad of choices possible and logically speaking, not being convinced of one neither rules out any of the others NOR does it rule out the possibility of THAT one. Maybe a god completely different than yours exists"

Name just ONE other valid hypothesis for the origins if life, other than I.D. or natural evolution. I have asked this question to countless atheists, not one has given me a valid answer.

A third hypothesis is impossible

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "The POSSIBILITY of a multiverse is consistant with quantum theory as we currently understand it"

Its impossible to have a valid quantum theory. Einstein refused to accept the reality on the quantum level (God playing dice with the universe) that we know today is true. The mind of the observer plays a role in what reality is observed. Quantum scientists believe nothing can exist unless there is a mind to observe it first. Without a mind observing earth, life can not exist here

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "The ultra conserved element (UCE) falsifies your theory and most evolutionists are blind to this reality. UCE=can not evolve elements. Study them"

I'd be happy to if you could please cite a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining how UCE's in any way prevent evolution. I've read several research papers on the subject and not one mentions anything close to this.

UCE's are simply chains of base pairs showing little or no change over long periods.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Biology is not dependant on the theories of quantum physics, its based on 150 years of following where the biological evidence lead. Don't blame them just because it hasnt lead to your god"

You don't even realize every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has been repeatedly falsified. Science just quickly modifies the theory before anyone notices. Molecular biology has the theory in upheaval. The predicted close & distant relationships do not line up with the DNA evidence

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "please explain what measureable impact this entity has on any part of our reality that can ONLY be attributed to this being and not some other, more rational explanation"

It radically changes the way science must view things. And a God/ designer perfectly explains the functional conserved (unable to evolve) elements in the universe & genome. Evolution has no explanation for how functional conserved elements can arise. A pre-existent mind is the most rational explanation for the cell

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "It radically changes the way science must view things. And a God/ designer perfectly explains the functional conserved (unable to evolve) elements in the universe & genome. Evolution has no explanation for how functional conserved elements can arise."

Please explain what aspects of the known biological sphere could not have evolved and why. I really hope you arent basing your whole viewpoint on god-of-the-gaps and irreducible complexity. That would be very disappointing.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "the difference is that seeing no reason to accept the deity claims thus far does not, as you asserted, preclude any similar being with similar traits."

If your "belief system" does not preclude similar beings with similar traits from existing, then again you reveal your philosophical position. Its your personal feelings that preclude a God you would have to answer to, however a being with similar traits, (just not with the traits your mind has determined you don't like) can exist.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker again, you're missing the entire point here. This has nothing to do with choosing to believe what I want to believe. I'd love for alien spaceships to be real but I can't choose to believe in them because the evidence does not justify doing so.

Its the same with deity claims. Though, admittedly, the judeo-christian version of a deity, in addition to being supported by no evidence, is not the type of being I would consider worthy of worship for any reason other than naked fear.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "I'd love for alien spaceships to be real but I can't choose to believe in them because the evidence does not justify doing so."

Of course you can believe in them, in fact most scientists strongly believe E.T. life can or does exist. Science uses logical inferences all the time. Its an irrational position to only accept only the life forms you can observe to exist. Find me one scientist that claims this position.Most scientists uses logical inferences when verification is absent

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Though, admittedly, the judeo-christian version of a deity, in addition to being supported by no evidence, is not the type of being I would consider worthy of worship for any reason other than naked fear."

You verified my "atheism is based in philosophy" statements. Its the "type of God" (a God that holds men responsible for ones actions) that you reject.

All arguments against Gods existence start with a philosophical argument. i,.e, "If I was God "THIS" would never happen"

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You verified my "atheism is based in philosophy" statements."

I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong here. Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is vastly different from seeing no reason to worship such a thing even if it WAS real.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "and even if it somehow DID falsify evolution, this still would not even be close to equalling "the christian god did it". There would still be a myriad of possibilities to explore"

I agree, It is not possible to prove the identity of the designer. I believe the God of the bible by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Its not something I debate because its impossible to prove.

However, an intelligent designer is needed to build the cell & species, is debatable and provable

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "that's not how its verified. Speciation can and has been documented both in the lab and in the wild including the emergence of entirely new physical structures"

The evolution observed is mixing & swapping or gene switching off/on of currently written information. And the slight variations are restricted to the breeding species. There is a adaptation mechanism that selects for the info best suited for the environment. But its all pre-written info, its not written de novo

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "Its the "type of God" (a God that holds men responsible for ones actions) that you reject."

No, it isnt. Its like you arent even listening to what I'm saying.

My rejection of theistic claims is based on the lack of evidence supporting those claims.

My opinion that this being would not be worthy of worship is NOT based on any idea of accountability, but on the fact that, as scripture describes it, this being is a petty, jealous, vindictive, prejudiced, murderous monster.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "In most proteins there are regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted. Some ..can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different."

DNA sequences mean nada. Evolution needs new protein folds

"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," ? Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley

Humans have the same genes & sequences as vastly different looking species

[riverdaughter3]

@toobsucker For a second there, I thought Kim made a mistake but then I thought about it. The details are too complicated to go into here but there's some validity to the idea that structure is conserved over sequence. There are a zillion examples of this, kinases and P450s come immediately to mind. The fold is basically the same with high degree of %identity just in the active site or framework residues. The rest of the sequence can vary greatly. It makes homology modeling challenging.

[IDScience]

@riverdaughter3 "The fold is basically the same with high degree of %identity... The rest of the sequence can vary greatly. It makes homology modeling challenging"

"A first look at ARFome: dual-coding genes in mammalian genomes" Chung WY

",,,codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions IMPOSE A UNIQUE SET OF EVOLUTIONARY CONSTRAINTS, making it a costly arrangement..."

Highly conserved overlapping codes are serious problems for evolution to explain

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "does rejecting specific claims of leprechauns equal an assertion that no leprechauns exist anywhere at any time?"

Yes it does, If you reject "something" from existing, you simultaneously accept its nonexistence. If I reject (disbelieve) the claim there is a purple monster under the bridge near my house, I accept (believe) the claim there is no purple monster under the bridge near my house

You only have two choice, if you reject Gods existence, you MUST accept his nonexistence

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "Yes it does, If you reject "something" from existing, you simultaneously accept its nonexistence."

What you arent understanding is that this is a tentative position dependant on available information and subject to change if new information warrants it. This is not an a-priori or dogmatic rejection of any evidence out-of-hand (as sources like Answers in Genesis openly admit to doing).

If reliable evidence for leprechauns (or gods) is presented I'll change my viewpoint.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "What you arent understanding is that this is a tentative position dependant on available information and subject to change if new information warrants it."

No I fully understand.

My position that I believe there are no purple monsters under the bridge is also 100% tentative. I will change my view if I have observable evidence the monster exists. But because I have rejected the monster is actually there, I have "tentatively" fully accepted there is no monster under the bridge

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You only have two choice, if you reject Gods existence, you MUST accept his nonexistence"

I'm sorry but thats a false dichotomy. Rejecting a claim does not equal accepting the polar opposite claim. Its simply a response to the claim that was presented. Its not an assertion that purple monsters dont exist anywhere or that theres nothing under that bridge, only that I do not yet have sufficient reason to accept that claim as stated.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "thats a false dichotomy. Rejecting a claim does not equal accepting the polar opposite claim. Its simply a response to the claim that was presented"

You only have two choice, how can it be a false dichotomy?, Either God exists or he does not exist, there is no middle ground here.

Just as leprechauns either exist or they do not exist, there is no quantum observer aspect that makes leprechauns real only when I'M looking for them.

You do not recognize logical absolutes

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "You only have two choice, how can it be a false dichotomy?, Either God exists or he does not exist, there is no middle ground here."

Because its NOT down to two choices. There are a myriad of choices possible and logically speaking, not being convinced of one neither rules out any of the others NOR does it rule out the possibility of THAT one. Maybe a god completely different than yours exists.

Seriously, this WLC philosophical shell game isnt going to work.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "Which only refers to specific segments which have changed little or not at all over long periods of time"

Yes, how is it you can't see the glaring problem for atheistic evolution here?. Sequences that have not changed at all, like the sequences that code for the ribosomes, falsifies your theory. How do you think you can get away with starting your theory of evolution, with functional elements that are incapable of evolving?

Evolution does not have the luxury of pre-existent UCE

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "but the complete lack of any positive indicator (thus far) makes belief that it DOES exist unwarranted."

The positive indicators blink continuously. We have a universe that is so precisely arranged, many physicists are forced to entertain a unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis just to explain them.

The cell has over 300 conserved (can not evolve) molecular machines with multiple language systems to direct and coordinate their movements.

The positive indicators are everywhere

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "We have a universe that is so precisely arranged, many physicists are forced to entertain a unfalsifiable multiverse hypothesis just to explain them."

No, they arent forced in any way. The POSSIBILITY of a multiverse is consistant with quantum theory as we currently understand it. The same cannot be said for any deity idea mankind has ever entertained. A possibility is simply that....a possibility. It is not an assertion of certainty.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "The POSSIBILITY of a multiverse is consistant with quantum theory as we currently understand it."

No evidence what so ever of multiple universes with different laws of physics. I would like to know where you got that from.

The funny part about this is, evolutionary science has rejected God existence on the basis he is unfalsifiable, yet are forced by one of intelligent designs main arguments (teleological) to accept an equally unfalsifiable multiverse to explain it.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "No evidence what so ever of multiple universes with different laws of physics. I would like to know where you got that from"

I didn't get that from anywhere because thats not what I said. You keep erecting these strawmen of my statements to knock down instead of dealing with what I actually said.

Here it is again: The POSSIBILITY of a multiverse is consistant with quantum theory as we currently understand it.

No deity concept thus far is.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "In fact, each makes mention of how specific structures and sequences EVOLVED"

That would be because they are quotes from evolutionists, that have no choice but to believe they evolved. You do realize there is no evidence what so ever they evolved.

Google "Surprising 'Ultra-Conserved' Regions Discovered In Human Genome", the ribosomes are perfectly conserved in all species. Ribosomes can not evolve.

All (over 300) molecular machines are conserved, they defy your theory

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "The funny part about this is, evolutionary science has rejected God existence on the basis he is unfalsifiable, yet are forced by one of intelligent designs main arguments (teleological) to accept an equally unfalsifiable multiverse to explain it."

Biology is not dependant on the theories of quantum physics, its based on 150 years of following where the biological evidence lead. Don't blame them just because it hasnt lead to your god.

maybe god should have left some evidence.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli Taken together, our findings suggest that multiple strategies for anchorage of the motor machinery to the cell wall have evolved."

Read it again, they are saying they have evidence that "multiple strategies for anchorage of the motor machinery to the cell wall" exist. They are not saying they have evidence "multiple strategies" evolved

The evidence of evolution is in the actual transition of proteins folds, not in comparing proteins and assuming the transition took place

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "The cell has over 300 conserved (can not evolve) molecular machines with multiple language systems to direct and coordinate their movements."

*sigh* so apparently you ARE arguing from god-of-the-gaps and irreducible complexity.

Please cite what specific parts of what cell could not have evolved and the published research showing that conclusion. Then explain why something biology has not explained yet means that a god must have done it....and how you know its your god.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "so apparently you ARE arguing from god-of-the-gaps and irreducible complexity..Please cite what specific parts of what cell could not have evolved and the published research showing that conclusion"

No I.C. is a backwards attempt to verify / falsify evolution. Evolution is not verified or falsified by reducing precisely folded proteins to their subunits, Its verified by evolving new (never seen before) functional protein folds, this is your problem. Most proteins can not be changed

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "No I.C. is a backwards attempt to verify / falsify evolution."

and even if it somehow DID falsify evolution, this still would not even be close to equalling "the christian god did it". There would still be a myriad of possibilities to explore.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli "from the Alksne paper: "Comparison of the sequences of the ribosonal RNAs of many organisms has led to the conclusion that there has been a great deal of conservation of secondary and probably tertiary structure during evolution."

"Great deal of conservation" in proteins is what I have been telling you. Conserved proteins means they resist evolution. Why do you think the fossil record stasis quotes are numerous?, because proteins do not radically change as predicted

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker "Its verified by evolving new (never seen before) functional protein folds, this is your problem. Most proteins can not be changed"

1) that's not how its verified. Speciation can and has been documented both in the lab and in the wild including the emergence of entirely new physical structures.

2) In most proteins there are regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli

DNA sequences are not your main problem, although the sequences that code for vital functions can not be changed (evolve)

New proteins folds are your problem

"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.

So even though the primary structure of the protein coding sequences in DNA between humans & chimps have only a 1-3 % difference, 80% of the tertiary structure of those same proteins have different folds

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli [atheism] isnt necessarily the assertion that no deity or entity with such qualities definately does not exist anywhere or ever did or ever will. Its simply not buying the deity claims made thus far."

Tell me what the difference is between "does not exist" and "not buying the deity claims". ?

Most people in the world "are not buying the leprechaun claims" either. This equates not believing leprechauns exist / believing leprechauns do not exist until proven otherwise.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker the difference is that seeing no reason to accept the deity claims thus far does not, as you asserted, preclude any similar being with similar traits. Rejecting claims of bigfoot does not necessarily make the abominable snowman nonexistant and vice -versa.

As for your leprechaun parallel, does rejecting specific claims of leprechauns equal an assertion that no leprechauns exist anywhere at any time? They might exist somewhere....we just haven't found any evidence yet.

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker to elaborate, any claimed entity or being which has no detectable traits or singularly attributable effect on its environment (i.e. indistinguishable from the non-existant) has absolutely no practical bearing on our reality or how we perceive it. Sure, that hypothetical being MIGHT exist somewhere or when but its complete lack of impact on our sphere of observance makes its consequence equal to if it did not exist anyway.

[toobsucker]

@stiimuli A simple test can be given. Atheists are fond of the God / flying spaghetti monster analogies

If this analogy is true, then atheists must feel the exact same way about Gods existence as they do about the flying spaghetti monsters existence. Are you certain flying spaghetti monsters do not exist?, because I (as well as 100% of theists)are absolutely certain flying spaghetti monsters do not exist

When atheism is dissected it proves to be a highly emotional philosophical position

[stiimuli]

@toobsucker You're missing the entire point of the flying spaghetti monster. Yes, it may exist somewhere because its impossible to disprove its existance with 100% certainty but the complete lack of any positive indicator (thus far) makes belief that it DOES exist unwarranted. Its a response to theist assertions that we cannot disprove god. Neither can be disproven but you dont believe in the FSM do you?

and you still havent demonstrated any emotional element in any of these arguements.

[Jgallstar1]

Anyone else notice the girl at 55:34 ? I mean I know he's taking a while but let the man sum up his thoughts and ask his question! I'm sure many others had the same one!

[valetudo1974]

Maybe they are or not Atheist But one think that I find with all 4 gentlemen is their deliverance of their views....extremely arrogance. Science is a very powerful tool and it gains more respect because of it role in creating tangible proof. but that is all science is...a tool... and like all tools...there is a level of significant in terms of percentage that is not explained. just theories which would suggest other possible explanation beyond reasonable beliefs...

[Xiquid]

If it wasn't for subscribing to Skeptics Magazine I wouldn't have been introduced to great minds on atheism, so I would say yes. Skepticism, as far as my experience has been, leads to atheism. :)

[jsullivan80]

Julia is HOT!!

[dhaddox]

The video title should say skepticism.

[HamboneProductions]

@dhaddox Thanks, i work very quick and can't spell check in titles. Will fix

[opposingdigits]

@HamboneProductions

That should say quickly. ;)

[cornsnoggle]

@dhaddox Thanks, Captain Obvious.

[dhaddox]

@cornsnoggle You're welcome, Professor Unnecessary.

[bersaba]

@cornsnoggle

Actually it's Major Obvious now, he got a promotion.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

Why was the video cut before it ended? 

[HamboneProductions]

@xxSilverPhinxx It ended less than a minute after that, I had to switch tapes and by the time I had the next one ready, we had to cut the speakers for time.

Sorry, it happens like that sometimes with tapes and time slots.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@HamboneProductions

Not a problem. With all the technical problems springing up I was beginning to think that it was divine intervention, glad you sorted that one out for me [/joke]

Thanks for uploading them, I love these sorts of panels and topics. :)

[xxSilverPhinxx]

Randy's comment on intelligent design is interesting. If people are capable of thinking of better designs for ourselves, what does that say about the all knowing designer?

[xxSilverPhinxx]

@xxSilverPhinxx

An example of what so called "intelligent" design is watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

[no2religions]

@xxSilverPhinxx Brilliant. I guess that is an example or "no real evidence for evolution"? We could find thousands and thousands of examples like this but to creationists, for some reason, they just don't count. But the massively flawed human eye is proof of their claim. The human eye is formed how natural selection would predict, but some how it is proof that natural selection is wrong and all scientist are stupid.

[FSUjonnyD]

Julia is a cutie.

[Zivadin]

Enjoyed watching.