Re: The $100,000 atheist challenge.

This is what is called smart argument! I would have given him $ 100,000 right away for being so right… don’t miss reading this one 🙂

Futile Democracy

Dear Joshua Feuerstein,

Your recent YouTube video challenging atheists to disprove god for $100,000 has, as you know, received a lot of attention and criticism. I thought I’d offer my thoughts on why I am an atheist, and why it is unlikely that your God exists, because, well, I could really use that $100,000. I have four quick points I wanted to make:

Firstly, it’s important to note what the atheist proposition actually is. Contrary to your statement that we’re trying to claim there is no god that exists outside of our individual knowledge, we invite you to provide evidence that there is, at that point we can have a meaningful discussion. You cannot just assert the existence of a god, and decide it’s meaningful, without it actually based on anything other than you just asserting it. I could assert that I have an invisible, silent monkey on my shoulder…

View original post 1,470 more words

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Re: The $100,000 atheist challenge.

  1. It is impossible to disprove something that does not exist. Evidence is to prove that something does exist; there is no possible way to provide evidence that something does not exist. The burden of evidence to prove something then is on the individual who claims that something does exist, not that something does not exist.

    My basic reason for being an Atheist then: There is no natural evidence which proved the existence of God.

    In closing: I challenge anyone to provide evidence that Santa Claus does not exist.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The problem here is that we focus entirely on the physical, the limited or the finite because we are limited to that capability in this particular physical experience. Proof or evidence is limited to the purely physical. The finite cannot prove the infinite, yet is it not obvious that the infinite exists? If not, what exist beyond the boundaries or limits? Who can explain it?

    We cannot prove that Consciousness exists but is it not obvious that it does? Who can attest to the creation or demise of Consciousness? Who has traced it? Who has ever identified it? Who can explain it? Who can explain how it came into being? Consciousness is neither created or destroyed. It is not divisible or separated. It is all that really exists. It IS. Only the purely physical is created and destroyed.

    Yes, atheist can tell us all about the purely physical but show me one who can explain something about how their intelligence or awareness came about. Even most scientists now conclude that the physical does not actually exist, nor does time or space. The purely physical is merely a projection of Consciousness. The purely physical is of little consequence. The essence of existence is Consciousness and is completely beyond the scope of any human, atheist or whatever.

    Is an atheist’s intelligence or awareness limited to a physical body or brain? If so, where does it reside and how is he aware of anything outside it? How could consciousness be aware of anything outside it’s boundary? Who can explain it? Yet we are aware of a universe but show me someone who can explain that awareness.

    God is neither physical or finite. The essence of existence cannot be proven, not does it need to be. It is self evident to those intuitive to see beyond the limitations of pure physicality or to those who recognize an intelligence far greater than their own.

    Like

      • There is no proof. There is no evidence. Proof is limited to the purely physical. Consciousness is not. If one can only accept that which can be proven one limits one’s self to physicality. Consciousness is vastly beyond anything physical. After the advent of quantum mechanics science cannot even prove the physical exists. Sometimes a particle appears as a particle and sometimes a wave and is beyond science to understand which at any given time. If one must see, touch or feel higher intelligence to believe it exists, one will simply limit one’s self to the provable.

        You say you do not accept anything that cannot be proven. Can you prove intelligence developed from physicality? Can you prove how, when or where intelligence developed? Yet you accept the existence of intelligence. Do you believe a Swiss watch would develop itself from the elements of the earth after trillions of years?

        THERE IS NO PROOF! It boils down to one’s reasoning, not proof. If it suits your logic to believe ignorance authored intelligence, that’s fine with me. Happy journey! Cheers 🙂

        Like

  3. Yes, I understand you have a very elaborate and creative way to say “there is no evidence”, but that elaborate and creative way to get around actually providing any sort of evidence, is not in itself evidence, nor does it render the existence of God more likely. You have gone to great lengths in order to deflect from having to provide evidence.

    Yes, I don’t accept anything that cannot be proven or disproven. If an assertion cannot be tested, because it is just an assertion, it can be dismissed just as easily. There is certainly no reason for that assertion to have any sort of state control over the lives of others.

    “Can you prove intelligence developed from physicality”
    – We don’t ask for 100% proof, we ask for evidence and we weigh the evidence against the dissenting view. Human intelligence evolved. It’s incredibly well documented in terms of empathy, in terms of cooperation, the part of the brain responsible for memories, love, etc. We see it in other species too. We are an incredibly complex species, and a slight chemical imbalance in our brains can completely disrupt and alter our conscious state. We know this. It isn’t mystical or supernatural. Whilst we don’t know everything there is to know about consciousness, there is no reason to believe that science cannot solve the mysteries that remain. By highlighting those mysteries, & suggesting a supernatural cause, you’re simply playing the age-old god-of-the-gaps game that has never been right before.

    “Do you believe a Swiss watch would develop itself from the elements of the earth after trillions of years?”
    – No. I’m not even sure what this analogy is supposed to highlight? If you were to go back in time to 14 billion years ago, and asked yourself “Could a human develop by itself after 14 billion years?” the question would be meaningless, since there was no concept of a human that far back. You can’t pick something already in existence, and use it in this way, it’s a terrible analogy. Not least because a Swiss watch requires both time and space to create…… how did God create something, with no time and space already in existence?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Again you are limiting your understanding to the finite and trying to make the infinite fit into your limited perspective. You say you do not accept anything that cannot be proven. But you accept that there is no God. Show me the proof that you base that acceptance on. This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous and total waste of time. One is going to defend whatever his conditioning has led him to. Again it boils down to what resonates with one’s logic. One may look at a giant oak or a magnificent flower or a human body with it’s almost infinite complexity and an atheist would say, “look what ignorance did”. One who believed in higher intelligence would find it proof of his belief. So, let’s just say, to each his own.

    Like

    • “Again you are limiting your understanding to the finite and trying to make the infinite fit into your limited perspective.”
      – No. I base my understanding on evidence. Otherwise we can use your logic to assert the existence, of, well, anything. Invisible unicorns exist….. if you refuse to believe this, you’re limiting your understanding to the non-invisible unicorn World.

      “You say you do not accept anything that cannot be proven. But you accept that there is no God. Show me the proof that you base that acceptance on.”
      – You misrepresent my position. I accept that no one has ever provided evidence to suggest a God exists. I do not say a God doesn’t exist, just like I do not say that invisible unicorns don’t exist. I simply believe those making the assertion must provide evidence, otherwise, it is just a meaningless assertion backed by nothing.

      “One may look at a giant oak or a magnificent flower or a human body with it’s almost infinite complexity and an atheist would say, “look what ignorance did”. One who believed in higher intelligence would find it proof of his belief. ”
      – Both of your “one” examples, are of those who don’t understand natural selection. It’s a shame. It’s also an indication of a massive failure of the education system. You’re also misusing the term “proof”. You confuse proof, with what you’d quite like to be proof.

      Yes. Each to his own. This means ensuring that religion is kept as far away from state privilege and power over the lives of others as possible. Personal faith, I have very little problem with.

      Liked by 1 person

Please feel free to share your thoughts! I'd love to hear from you :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s