• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to hack atheism: ex nihilo nihil fit. Carl Sagan: "Atheism is very STUPID".

devhdb

Thinker
D
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
133
How to hack atheism: ex nihilo nihil fit. Carl Sagan: "Atheism is very STUPID".

0Fhymkn.jpg

UxmycLZ.jpg


https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-sagan-file


popcorn.gif
 
RedStapler said:
Yeah, I clicked the link. No source there hence my question :rolleyes:

So, do you have a source for that "quote" or will you retract it?
Click to expand...

It is a genuine quote, dishonestly quoted. What more can one expect from a god-botherer?

The definition of "atheist" Sagan was using was "someone who categorically state no god exists" and Sagan was merely replying that it is not possible to make such a statement. And it isn't. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

I cannot state for a fact that no god exists, nobody can. But to date, none have been demonstrated to exist, not now, not ever.

Devhdb can cherry pick quotes all day long from any source. He will continue to fail to demonstrate any sort of deity.
 
So, what does that Sagan line have to do with any of the stuff above it?

Inquiring minds want to know (look, we're under lockdown and I'm a bit bored, 'cos my brain is a bit too fuzzy to go back to my current reading matter - Edmund White's monumental biography of Jean Genet, which would really scramble our resident god-botherer's little mind).
 
It’s very common with the attempted “gotcha” questions that pop up on Quora to equate atheism with either evolution or the “Big Bang”.

Nonsense of course.

As well, the believers are always incorrectly stating that “science” says that the universe came from “nothing”... Which is also untrue.

Unfortunately, the believers haven’t had anything new to say for a very long time.
 
Well, at least, instead of just the usual old utter mindlessness & dishonesty from the religionists, we got a newish little bit of utter mindlessness & dishonesty added to the pile this time: the misuse of the word "hack" in a way that doesn't fit any of its earlier uses, as if the rest of the mishmash of things in that post somehow had the effect of doing some kind of "hacking" somewhere.

Yay, progress. :rolleyes:
 
I don't claim to *know* that there is no god. The word "god" is a bit too difficult to pin down. How do you define "god"?

Nor do I think I *know* what happened before the Big Bang, what caused it, or even if it had a cause.

Belief without evidence is the hallmark of religious faith. I'm OK with not knowing everything. I'd like to know more, sure. But pretending to know what nobody can possibly know is silly. I don't pretend to know things I can't know.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. If the quote by Sagan is correct, he was talking about something called gnostic atheism.
 
Atheism is the belief that there was nothing...
Click to expand...

I am an Atheist, and I don't believe that there was nothing. So :

- Either I am not an atheist
- Or you need to check your definitions.

By definition , Atheism = I don't believe in God.

It's akin to the statement : I don't believe that you wear a red t-shirt.

- It doesn't mean that I believe you don't wear a red t-shirt.
- It doesn't mean that I believe you wear another color .
- It doesn't mean I believe you don't wear a t-shirt.

It just means that given my current knowledge, there is no good reason for me to believe that you wear a red t-shirt.

Atheism is just this part : "I don't believe ..." of the statement. It says nothing about how the Universe came to be..
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/0Fhymkn.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/UxmycLZ.jpg[/qimg]

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-sagan-file


[qimg]https://mnmstatic.net/v_149/img/menemojis/36/popcorn.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Theism, the belief that a god (or the God) created everything - except, for instance, dinosaurs because they never really existed. God just created some fossils that looked like dinosaurs in order to fool non-believers into thinking that they were a step along the way of the evolution delusion.
And there is no reason to ask where the hell the god came from in the first place. It just came in handy to have one around because how would we otherwise explain that anything (except God/gods) exists?
 
devhdb said:
How to hack atheism: ex nihilo nihil fit. Carl Sagan: "Atheism is very STUPID".
Click to expand...

I think the part of your OP that most of us are interested in in the alleged quote by Sagan. In other words, the part between the marks that look like this: " "

Where is it from? The closest I have been able to fine is that mentioned [url="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Sagan]here:[/url]

Carl Sagan said:
Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheist. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do know to be sure that no such God exist ...
Click to expand...
 
Any thread starting with a poorly made meme and twisted quotes isn't really coherent to start with.

But if it gets tied into before the big bang and the price of tea in China in 1973 it becomes a bit more difficult to argue in any sensible manner.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I don't claim to *know* that there is no god. The word "god" is a bit too difficult to pin down. How do you define "god"?
Click to expand...

I'm comfortable saying that the entities the word "god" was originally applied to don't exist. That's because we know the cultures and superstitions they arose out of. People who rail against atheists of that stripe today have to basically give up all the original definitions of gods and go with some undefined pseudo-philosophical mist. Sagan's dragon takes care of that.
 
Trollfaces? Wow, I'm totally convinced.


EDIT: Oh sorry, I apparently meant to say "rage comic faces."
 
devhdb said:
Re-read it.
Click to expand...

I did. Did you miss the part where your author said that by some definitions Sagan himself would be considered an atheist? Did that clue you in to the notion that the narrow definition Sagan comments on is not the one he may have applied to himself? And that most of the people you're trying to bait do not adopt that narrow description?
 
devhdb said:
That I find it funny when self-proclaimed atheists quote Carl Sagan as their God.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why would atheists need a god? What's wrong with self-identifying as an atheist? Are they supposed to get a certificate or something from some governing body before they can describe themselves that way?
 
JayUtah said:
Why would atheists need a god? What's wrong with self-identifying as an atheist? Are they supposed to get a certificate or something from some governing body before they can describe themselves that way?
Click to expand...


I can appoint you to be an atheist if you want me to. I am not authorized to do so, but I don't think that is required.
 
JayUtah said:
I did. Did you miss the part where your author said that by some definitions Sagan himself would be considered an atheist? Did that clue you in to the notion that the narrow definition Sagan comments on is not the one he may have applied to himself? And that most of the people you're trying to bait do not adopt that narrow description?
Click to expand...

Sigh. In that time and culture, "atheism" was equated with the affirmative claim that no god exists. It was that understanding of the term to which Sagan was responding. And given that understanding he was quite correct. Nobody can claim that no gods exist unless they can present evidence to support such a claim. OTOH, that gives rise to the null hypothesis. Belief in one of the many thousands of proposed gods can only be warranted upon presentation of actual evidence for such a god. Nobody has managed to do that. Ever.

For myself, I would believe in any god for which solid evidence was presented. Worship it? Nope.
 
abaddon said:
Sigh. In that time and culture, "atheism" was equated with the affirmative claim that no god exists.
Click to expand...

Yes, I lived through those times and I remember Sagan speaking all those things. The authenticity of the quote is not a problem for me. Its applicability here and now, in the way the OP seems to intend it, is.

Nobody can claim that no gods exist unless they can present evidence to support such a claim.
Click to expand...

And that's because the same holds true for anything. Nobody can claim reasonably that no _____ exists without some sort of sound argument and testable evidence. That's what it takes to establish any claim of that form. And the general inability to do that is why smart people don't assert negatives. The atheists today who quote Sagan as a guy who knew how to talk to people about science are the same kind of atheist Sagan was.

OTOH, that gives rise to the null hypothesis. Belief in one of the many thousands of proposed gods can only be warranted upon presentation of actual evidence for such a god. Nobody has managed to do that. Ever.
Click to expand...

Correct. The fact that Sagan can correctly point out that the argument is invalid in form doesn't mean that when we fill in the blank with "gods" we don't have an argument. Today we can say with some confidence that Zeus doesn't exist. That's because we know where the Zeus legend comes from. There are some who follow the pattern and say Jehovah doesn't exist either, because we know where that legend came from. Because we have that evidence, we don't need to put any stock into the proffered origin stories.
 
abaddon said:
Sigh. In that time and culture, "atheism" was equated with the affirmative claim that no god exists. It was that understanding of the term to which Sagan was responding. And given that understanding he was quite correct. Nobody can claim that no gods exist unless they can present evidence to support such a claim. OTOH, that gives rise to the null hypothesis. Belief in one of the many thousands of proposed gods can only be warranted upon presentation of actual evidence for such a god. Nobody has managed to do that. Ever.

For myself, I would believe in any god for which solid evidence was presented. Worship it? Nope.
Click to expand...

Probably yes, in Arabic, Atheism is "il'Haad" .. the word used to mean "Incline, leaning, tendency to falsehood" .. with a negative connotation. Even a religious person who tends to sin was a "Mol'Hid" (adjective of il'Haad).

Now, a Mol'Hid only means "Atheist" , and "il'Haad" only means "Atheism". And because Atheists are used to it, they don't see it as an insult anymore. It's a new term you can find in Encyclopediae and dictionaries.

There is a better more accurate term, but it is rarely used : Laa-eLohi , literally "non-theist", or "a-theist".
 
by the way, in other languages like Chinese, the a in "atheist" is translated to "wu" , which can mean "not existing".

So, the very word "Wu Shen Lun" in chinese means "No-God-ism", Wu (no), Shen (Deity), Lun (theory, -ism )

Although the term only means "non belief in God", not "No God". I think the "a" in "atheism" also means "non-" ..

So, names don't reflect the exact modern definition .
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, I lived through those times and I remember Sagan speaking all those things. The authenticity of the quote is not a problem for me. Its applicability here and now, in the way the OP seems to intend it, is.
Click to expand...
Yup. I find it astonishingly common that young folks cannot understand the SOME PEOPLE ARE OLDER and thus actually lived through things they only learn in History class. For example, the Cold War. They learned about it in History class, but my own kids do not grok it as a real thing I and many others still living went through, for reals. The notion of the famous "four minute warning" is so far outside their reality that they can't quite get their head around it.



JayUtah said:
And that's because the same holds true for anything. Nobody can claim reasonably that no _____ exists without some sort of sound argument and testable evidence. That's what it takes to establish any claim of that form. And the general inability to do that is why smart people don't assert negatives. The atheists today who quote Sagan as a guy who knew how to talk to people about science are the same kind of atheist Sagan was.
Click to expand...
Intentionally or not, that alludes to the theist claim that atheists and agnostics are somehow different. They are not. Explaining that distinction to a theist is...challenging.


JayUtah said:
Correct. The fact that Sagan can correctly point out that the argument is invalid in form doesn't mean that when we fill in the blank with "gods" we don't have an argument. Today we can say with some confidence that Zeus doesn't exist. That's because we know where the Zeus legend comes from. There are some who follow the pattern and say Jehovah doesn't exist either, because we know where that legend came from. Because we have that evidence, we don't need to put any stock into the proffered origin stories.
Click to expand...
Sure, same reason that we can dispense with, say, Coatzalcoatl.. Nevertheless, the jesus myth is different simply by dint of having something like 1.6 billion of current followers who seek to impose their immorality on everyone else. Sure, I am fine with whoever believing whatever, but that stops when it is enforced on me, or worse, my children. That is a line which may not be crossed IMV.
 
Last edited:
devhdb said:
That I find it funny when self-proclaimed atheists quote Carl Sagan as their God.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In that case, by definition, they cannot be atheists...Saganists, mebbe...

And it still didn't answer my question. Of course...

Personally, I did not need any "proclaiming", self or otherwise, I simply didn't believe in any of the god malarkey.
 
devhdb said:
That I find it funny when self-proclaimed atheists quote Carl Sagan as their God.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I find it funny that moronic thests lie like this.

I don't know a single atheist that quote Carl Sagan as their god. Not a one. Sagan is no more a god as Abraham, Allah or Yahweh. The graphic that devhdb posted to begin his thread does not quote Sagan. And atheism is merely not accepting the theory that Gods or a God exist.

I dont know and don't believe Carl Sagan said any of what's on that graphic. But devhdb can prove me wrong.

I challenge you devhdb to provide a citation where he said any of that. Otherwise, I'll just call you a liar. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Why do believers think that they can trick atheists into believing that their god exists?

I am guessing that it helps them feel as if they are smarter than those who do not believe that their god is real. It is a form of insecurity.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Sure, same reason that we can dispense with, say, Coatzalcoatl.
Click to expand...

Quetzalcoatl?

Tangentially, I admit that I think that Quetzalcoatl was cooler than Jesus, regardless.

Oh, and to poke at the OP, I don't feel like I need to restate a number of the points already made, so I can simply say - "that meme is very STUPID" because it gets nigh everything in it farcically wrong, frequently on multiple levels. And thus, anyone who thinks that it was actually worth reposting is either trolling or needs to step back and actually take at least a few moments to learn the basics of the subject(s) in question, lest they want to be rightfully ridiculed for being so embarrassingly wrong again in the future.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Why do believers think that they can trick atheists into believing that their god exists?

I am guessing that it helps them feel as if they are smarter than those who do not believe that their god is real. It is a form of insecurity.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting human nature a bit. It's not that they think that they can trick atheists into believing that their god exists in cases like this. It's more for themselves and their own needs that they try to portray atheism as stupid, even if they expose their own foolishness in the process. So the second part of that, I'll agree with.
 
It is amusing, for sure. They try to post as if they are making brilliant arguments, but only make the dumbest, most idiotic points.
 
Weaksauce dishonesty as displayed by the OP is a large part of why I became an agnostic atheist. As it turns out, I am hardly unusual in this regard. And yet we can't understand why people are turning away from God....
 
psionl0 said:
I wonder when that definition got changed (outside of this forum of course).
Click to expand...


I can't pin down exactly when it happened, but I sure as hell have a pretty good idea of who did it, how it happened and why... God botherers trying to special plead their god into existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom