Give Me 5 Proofs That God Doesn't Exist

The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Give Me 5 Proofs That God Doesn't Exist

I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god." It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all. You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism. Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely.

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
I really have never met a

I really have never met a strong Atheist.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Are you saying that all

Are you saying that all theists are actually agnostic? 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi fish the last time I

Hi fish the last time I looked there was approximately 4 million Gods. do you have a specific one in mind ? could you define this God/Gods


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You can be both an atheist

You can be both an atheist and an agnostic

theism vs atheism = belief

agnosticism vs gnosticism = knowledge

agnostic atheist = I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not 100% sure

gnostic atheist = I know there is no god.

agnostic theist = I'm not sure if there is a god, but I think so

gnostic theist = I know there is a god.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: Hi fish

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Hi fish the last time I looked there was approximately 4 million Gods. do you have a specific one in mind ? could you define this God/Gods

Er, my comment was meant to be directed at the O.P.  Sorry for the confusion. 


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god." It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all. You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism. Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely.

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

1. You can't give a "proof" that something doesn't exist. You can only demonstrate that there is evidence for other phenomena that demonstrate that x is not necessary or that something is inherently logically incoherent.

2. Your argument can be used against any particular god belief because you would have to have all of the knowledge in the universe to pick your particular god as the correct one. How do you know for sure that Zeus or Ra aren't real? Maybe there are a million gods. Who knows?

3. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Not necessarily the belief that there is no god.

4. Agnosticism is an epistemological standpoint. Not a statement of belief.

5. The vast majority of us are agnostic atheists, so we can and do exist. (Although personally I know that the Abrahamic god cannot exist because it is logically impossible given the attributes that he supposedly has--ie omnimax creator beings cannot exist. I can't speak of all other potential god concepts within the same framework.)

K, thx. 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
"Hey god, are you

"Hey god, are you there?"

 

** silence **

 

Repeat for a total of 5 times. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible.

I'm afraid this is incorrect.  I don't know very many atheists who consider themselves 'strong'.  If you have statistics, please provide.

For the record, I am not a 'strong' atheist.   

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

Burden of proof doesn't rest with the atheist but with the theist.  We can't prove something doesn't exist if we have no proof it does.

Yes, you can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.  Perhaps this will clear some things up for you.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
for (i=0;i<4;i++){ i + 'No

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
5 disproofs

It don't know if I can provide proof, because it is impossible to prove a negative, but here are some evidences. I am assuming that the god you are talking about is an all powerful, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god.

1. Bad things happen to the most fervent believers, and good things happen to people who do not have any belief in god. Children starve in africa while we live in the U.S. with a lot of excesses, though we have done nothing to deserve. The universe looks like you would expect it to if there were no god, just pitiless indifference.

 

2. The simplest explanation is most probably correct. If we do not need to posit an extremely complex being to explain the universe, then god probably does not exist. There are very plausible means that the universe could have started, how life could have began, and how it could have evolved. No God needed.

 

3. Only about 1 out of a 1,000,000,000 particles in our universe is part of an ordered system. There are lots of comets, meteors, plantets, and stars whizzing around the universe that do not benefit us at all, and in fact might destroy life on our planet in the future. Why were those created?

 

4. If there is a god, why doesn't he reveal himself to us so we can know about him? Why don't we deserve to know the truth? No evidence means no sentinent god.

 

5. Human beings have invented about 2,500 gods throughout our history. We cannot believe in all of them, we must just believe in the god(s) of one religion. Now, if most are wrong, that means they were invented by human minds. The simplest explanation is that all were invented by human minds unless they differ in the respect that matters most: with evidence.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: for

magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

From this point forward, I say all drivebys be responded to with code that spits out the appropriate responses. I think everyone would be better served.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm a strong atheist. I

I'm a strong atheist.
I don't know why you want 5 proofs, but I can give you the reasoning I have.

I'm not a strong atheist about unicorns.
Sure, I have no reason to believe that they exist, but thoughout the universe, who knows? There might be a planet out there with unicorns on it.
Thing is, I can't say the same thing about God.
You see, the word 'unicorn' is clearly defined - a horse with a horn on its head. It's a coherent concept - the only question is whether it is actually out there, and there might actually be a unicorn out there somewhere - I'm not omniscient enough to rule it out. So while I don't believe in unicorns, there might possibly be one out there.

God is a different kettle of fish.
Before we can call God a possibility, we need a coherent definition of the word. I've yet to come across a definition of God that makes sense. You agree that before it's a possibility that God exists then the word God must be defined to describe an 'existing thing', right?

There are different ways that a concept can fail to describe an existing thing. One is to have a contradiction within it. Self contradictory definitions are pretty much meaningless. So if a theist has a clear contradiction in their definition of God (e.g. those who believe that he is both loving and that he condemns people to suffer in hell for eternity) their God concept clearly has a contradiction in it. I also suspect that more sensible versions of God also have contradictions in them, but they are more subtle and not as obvious.

The other is 'a lack of positive definition'.
A negative definition is when you say what something isn't rather than what it is. E.g. a road with infinite length is a road without an end.
The infinite road is okay as the length is the only thing defined negatively - there's the positive definition of the road so the concept still describes something.

Some definitions of God rule out any kind of positive description.
They say that God isn't within space and isn't within time, but aren't most of our descriptive concepts within space time?
Aren't our actions events that occure within spacetime?
Aren't our thoughts and emotions things that happen within time?
If God isn't within space or time then what descriptions can be applied?
It seems that "God is X" can only be false, no matter what property X is.
So the God concept appears to be equivalent to 'nothing'.

Here is a good essay on the subject.
The question of the God concept being incoherent is controversial and as you can see there are many 'weak atheists' (and theists ofcourse! Eye-wink) who don't accept it. But if it is incoherent then strong atheism is true as the word 'God' fails to describe a possibility, so actual existence is right out of the question.

So you clearly won't agree, but do you atleast see how strong atheism could be a viable position?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god."

Impossible? Or wrong? They are different things. It is possible that there is a deductive proof that proves there is no god.

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all.

The word “agnostic” might be used that way in everyday speech, but in philosophy, agnostic means something else. See Am I agnostic or atheist?

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism.

No strong atheist will base their position on some sort of inductive, empirical argument. They will base their position on a deductive argument. If a deductive argument holds, one can make universal claims without knowing everything. So, your objection fails here.

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely. So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

On the same token, many atheists do not believe in god, concede that a god existing is possible, but believe that possibility is small. All this still makes one an atheist, not an agnostic.

You asked for five proofs, but I'm not going to give proofs. Why five? If there really was a deductive proof of there being no god, you'd only need one proof. The number is completely irrelevant Instead, I'll give you some lines of reasoning as to why I believe God's existence unlikely. I'm going to link to some essays on this site. I'm linking to them because I think they support my points rather well, so why duplicate the effort? Without further ado...

Metaphysical naturalism, a.k.a. materialism, is probably true. The methodological naturalism employed by science has been so successful, that it's not unreasonable to go all the way to metaphysical naturalism. Before you object to this, see deludedgod's article Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Materialism Refuted.

The idea of god and the supernatural are incoherent. God and the supernatural lack a positive ontology. See todangt's articles “God” is an incoherent term and 'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial') are broken concepts

If you believe in a god that is involved in the world, the problem of evil is a big hurdle. The universe is indifferent to humans; there's many a thing that kill humans and make them suffer. God simply fails to show up in the real world. Before you start saying something about free will, see todangst's article "God" the Ironworker and why the freewill defense fails.

These arguments make atheism a rational position to hold. They rule out any god ideas from Earth's major religions. If there is a god, it's so remote (even more remote than the deist's god) and so uninvolved. In that case there's not a functional difference between atheism and theism. You can also go the pantheist route, and if you do, more power to you.

Anyway, I hope this clears up your thoughts about atheism.


el.kundo
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
first: when saying strong

first: when saying strong atheism is impossible you have to define the god you're refering to. as other members of this forum have eloquently pointed out several times, many god concepts are by definition logical contradictions that can not possibly exist. so strong atheism is reasonable with respect to these gods.

second: just because we don't know what else exists in the universe it doesn't mean that we'd better believe in everything humans can make up in their minds. if there is no evidence, disbelief (i.e. weak a-whatever) is the default position for any idea.

third: not being able to 100% disproof something doesn't make the chances of its existence 50:50.

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993

And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

Really off topic, but since you brought up computer languages I'm obliged to out geek you.

Shouldn't that be (assuming you're using C)

for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { printf("%i. No evidence.\n", i); }

Anyway...I hate imperative languages with their messy loops changing variables left and right. Here's an F# version (a language that descended from ML).

List.iter (fun x -> printfn "%A. No evidence." x) [1 .. 5]


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist.

Which God?

 

Give me 5 proofs for it, and I'll see if I can show you why you don't have good proof.  Unless of course you do have good proof, in which case, I'd become a theist.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15743
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

I believe that strong atheism (

which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god." It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all. You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism. Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely.

So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

I am a strong atheist as far as deity claims presented up to this point in history. They are all out of myth and superstition. But, I am agnostic about any future discoveries although I highly suspect new discoveries in the future will not lead to the hocus pocus bearded sky daddy claims in any case.

New attempts at calling the universe cognative( a giant brain) is still mumbo jumbo used by people who have given up on old myth and replaced it with "pantheism". But it is still mythological garbage with new paint.

Whatever we dont know about the universe not only does not require us to anthropromorphize it, but it is egotistical and intelectually retards expanding knowlege.

Deities are a result of filling in the gaps with human charactaristics. If something is familure to us, or if we think it is familure to us, we dont fear it.

The same reason we name hurricains is the same reason deity claims exist. We give it human like qualities because being a human is the only thing a human is familure with.

But, rest assured, atheists do exist and strong atheists do exist and it is not impossible to be one.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

(and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

I think you'll find, my friend, that you are quite mistaken. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: The

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

(and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)

I think you'll find, my friend, that you are quite mistaken.

 

I'm not sure if he'll find out or not, but you are correct... he's mistaken.   All agnostics are either atheist or theist, there's no middle ground there.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


AngelEngine
AngelEngine's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-10-01
User is offlineOffline
Think of it this way. Give

Think of it this way. Give me 5 proofs that god does exist.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: for

magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

 

You are calling me smug and snotty? I can't believe I'm hearing this considering that you guys say that I have a brain disorder for believing what I believe. That in and of itself is perhaps the most smug, arrogant and downright rude statement I have ever heard from an atheist. I disagree with you, but I do not question your mental stability! Ultimately I find people of just about every faith to be more humble and respectful when it comes to religious debate. I know this is gonna get people pissed off, but you guys are some of the most fundamentalist people that I have ever met of any religious category...seriously. You frequently point out the ways in which you are discriminated against - but calling people mentally flawed and smug and snotty like I have experienced...I wouldn't be surprised people discriminated against me if I treated others like that.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote: Rev_Devilin

Fish wrote:

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Hi fish the last time I looked there was approximately 4 million Gods. do you have a specific one in mind ? could you define this God/Gods

Er, my comment was meant to be directed at the O.P. Sorry for the confusion.

CC my ops Smile lost the edit by the time I realized, my apologies


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Switch89 wrote:It don't

Switch89 wrote:

It don't know if I can provide proof, because it is impossible to prove a negative, but here are some evidences. I am assuming that the god you are talking about is an all powerful, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god.

1. Bad things happen to the most fervent believers, and good things happen to people who do not have any belief in god. Children starve in africa while we live in the U.S. with a lot of excesses, though we have done nothing to deserve. The universe looks like you would expect it to if there were no god, just pitiless indifference.

2. The simplest explanation is most probably correct. If we do not need to posit an extremely complex being to explain the universe, then god probably does not exist. There are very plausible means that the universe could have started, how life could have began, and how it could have evolved. No God needed.

3. Only about 1 out of a 1,000,000,000 particles in our universe is part of an ordered system. There are lots of comets, meteors, plantets, and stars whizzing around the universe that do not benefit us at all, and in fact might destroy life on our planet in the future. Why were those created?

4. If there is a god, why doesn't he reveal himself to us so we can know about him? Why don't we deserve to know the truth? No evidence means no sentinent god.

5. Human beings have invented about 2,500 gods throughout our history. We cannot believe in all of them, we must just believe in the god(s) of one religion. Now, if most are wrong, that means they were invented by human minds. The simplest explanation is that all were invented by human minds unless they differ in the respect that matters most: with evidence.

Thank you for responding to my question. You brought up some good points, but I have a response to all of them.

 1. You brought up one of the most commonly refered to problems, the problem of evil. It has a very simple expanation. I believe that in order for good to exist, there must be evil. This is a duality that is common to essentially every religion. In order for their to be light, their must be darkness; truth is opposed by lies; love is opposed by hate, etc. This is because there must be a free choice of good for the action to be considered good at all (I am not applauded for donating to a charity if somebody made me do it). Likewise, God could not "make us be good" because we would essentially become non-free, non choosing robots. And natural disasters you ask? They give the good side of humanity a chance to express itself. In fact, famines and floods and so on would not be nearly as bad if we helped each other out. Instead, sadly, humanity is the worst "natural disaster" of all on this planet, we damage the very Earth that gives us life in profound ways.

2. The naturalist view of the universe is in fact very complex. The universal constants (gravity, electromagnetism, the two nuclear forces, and the cosmological constant, the value of the universe's expansion through "dark energy&quotEye-wink are absolutely perfect, without which life could not have existed (down to far more than 1:1,000,000,000,000 for each value). Not to mention life originated out of non-life, which given the incredible complexity of dna, seems very, very complex to me.

3. Why would an omnipotent God not want to use his/her/it's powers? The sheer vastness of the universe was one of the ways in which I came to believe in God. God wants to be appreciated for his power.

4. I don't understand why a God "must" reveal himself to exist. In fact that would kind of violate our freedom of choice if God were to pop into the picture and tell us to believe. He wants us to be free to choose. That is a common element to all religions, freedom to choose.

5. Yes, flawed human beings made up lies, myths, false holy books, etc. Should a really good person that I know lose their reputation if someone flawed (we are all flawed but someone really dishonest and bad morally) made up lies about them? No, I disbelieve the liars, not the person they're lying about. The same applies to God.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

 

You are calling me smug and snotty? I can't believe I'm hearing this considering that you guys say that I have a brain disorder for believing what I believe. That in and of itself is perhaps the most smug, arrogant and downright rude statement I have ever heard from an atheist. I disagree with you, but I do not question your mental stability! Ultimately I find people of just about every faith to be more humble and respectful when it comes to religious debate. I know this is gonna get people pissed off, but you guys are some of the most fundamentalist people that I have ever met of any religious category...seriously. You frequently point out the ways in which you are discriminated against - but calling people mentally flawed and smug and snotty like I have experienced...I wouldn't be surprised people discriminated against me if I treated others like that.

1. You're taking me to task for the site's header... that I had nothing to do with. I had a neutral position in the DSM IV discussion (whether theism can be technically classified a mental disorder), so that makes your condemnation doubly pointless.

2.  Fundamentalism implies doctrine. There's no doctrine for atheism. http://www.m-w.com/

3. Your question is still ridiculous. You want some undefined thing for which there's no evidence specifically excluded from possibility. Can you do that even for something as weird as the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15743
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AngelEngine wrote:

AngelEngine wrote:
Think of it this way. Give me 5 proofs that god does exist.

What the F? We cant go around expecting people to prove what they claim!

Dude, it's like you are expecting a Christian to become a Muslim just because a Muslim says, "Prove Allah isnt real".

You are such a killjoy! What if someone wants to believe that a deity pulled the sun across the sky in a chariot and called himself Apollo ? Who are you to deny the happyness of someone who buy's such an absurdity?

Give my 5 proofs right now that I am not the true Almighty Snarfwidget and that the Flying Spagetti Monster is fake. And while you are at it I dare you to prove that pink unicorns dont exist!

HOW DARE YOU MOCK THE AUTORITY AND DIVINE POWER OF THE ALMIGHTY SNARFWIDGET!

It cleary states in the divine holy book of the Almight Snarfwidget:

Book of Snarf 345, Letter to the Mamailians

Verse 2,347,882

"I am the holy Snarf. Thou who would dare-ith use the word thee in refurance to such idols that doth not preform fallacio upon-ith my ego, which be-ith the center of all existance, shall be smited and smoted if they be not smitten with my retoric. So say-ith the Almight Snarfwidgit"

ISNT IT PLAIN TO SEE? REPENT, REPENT YOU HEATHEN OR SUFFER THE RATH OF THE ALMIGHTY SNARF!

If "ith's and "doth"s were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: magilum

MrRage wrote:
magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

Really off topic, but since you brought up computer languages I'm obliged to out geek you. Shouldn't that be (assuming you're using C) for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { printf("%i. No evidence.\n", i); } Anyway...I hate imperative languages with their messy loops changing variables left and right. Here's an F# version (a language that descended from ML). List.iter (fun x -> printfn "%A. No evidence." x) [1 .. 5]

It's JavaScript, and valid I think (if it were PHP, it would have a dot instead of a plus to concatenate, haha). I forgot a space and didn't do anything with the variable, though. Could you run through a quick play by play of that F# statement?


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: I'm a strong

Strafio wrote:
I'm a strong atheist. I don't know why you want 5 proofs, but I can give you the reasoning I have. I'm not a strong atheist about unicorns. Sure, I have no reason to believe that they exist, but thoughout the universe, who knows? There might be a planet out there with unicorns on it. Thing is, I can't say the same thing about God. You see, the word 'unicorn' is clearly defined - a horse with a horn on its head. It's a coherent concept - the only question is whether it is actually out there, and there might actually be a unicorn out there somewhere - I'm not omniscient enough to rule it out. So while I don't believe in unicorns, there might possibly be one out there. God is a different kettle of fish. Before we can call God a possibility, we need a coherent definition of the word. I've yet to come across a definition of God that makes sense. You agree that before it's a possibility that God exists then the word God must be defined to describe an 'existing thing', right? There are different ways that a concept can fail to describe an existing thing. One is to have a contradiction within it. Self contradictory definitions are pretty much meaningless. So if a theist has a clear contradiction in their definition of God (e.g. those who believe that he is both loving and that he condemns people to suffer in hell for eternity) their God concept clearly has a contradiction in it. I also suspect that more sensible versions of God also have contradictions in them, but they are more subtle and not as obvious. The other is 'a lack of positive definition'. A negative definition is when you say what something isn't rather than what it is. E.g. a road with infinite length is a road without an end. The infinite road is okay as the length is the only thing defined negatively - there's the positive definition of the road so the concept still describes something. Some definitions of God rule out any kind of positive description. They say that God isn't within space and isn't within time, but aren't most of our descriptive concepts within space time? Aren't our actions events that occure within spacetime? Aren't our thoughts and emotions things that happen within time? If God isn't within space or time then what descriptions can be applied? It seems that "God is X" can only be false, no matter what property X is. So the God concept appears to be equivalent to 'nothing'. Here is a good essay on the subject. The question of the God concept being incoherent is controversial and as you can see there are many 'weak atheists' (and theists ofcourse! Eye-wink) who don't accept it. But if it is incoherent then strong atheism is true as the word 'God' fails to describe a possibility, so actual existence is right out of the question. So you clearly won't agree, but do you atleast see how strong atheism could be a viable position?

Thank you very much for that intelligent and well thought out response. Indeed you bring up good arguments, however, it would take me quite a bit of time to address everything in full.

Also let me clarify one thing - strong atheism is not impossible, as there are people who are strong atheists. I just believe that it is illogical.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: The Free

MrRage wrote:
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god."
Impossible? Or wrong? They are different things. It is possible that there is a deductive proof that proves there is no god.
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
It doesn't mean, I doubt the existence of God (agnosticism), but there is not God at all.
The word “agnostic” might be used that way in everyday speech, but in philosophy, agnostic means something else. See Am I agnostic or atheist?
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
You know why I believe this? I'm sure you've heard this before...what percentage of all the universe's knowledge does the smartest person in the world possess? Given that there are thousands of languages, hundreds of PhD programs and billions of galaxies (along with the fact that humanity knows virtually nothing relative to what we could know), I would generously place that number at a tiny fraction of a fraction of 0.1%, next to nothing. That is an abysmally small amount of information. Yet we are confident enough to say that we know for a fact that there is no God? If you ask me, THAT is a mind disorder, not theism.
No strong atheist will base their position on some sort of inductive, empirical argument. They will base their position on a deductive argument. If a deductive argument holds, one can make universal claims without knowing everything. So, your objection fails here.
The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
Theists may believe in God, but the majority at least concede that no God is at least possible, but we believe that there being no God is extremelly unlikely. So I ask you...give me 5 Proofs that god doesn't exist. And please don't try to disprove Christianity as a way to disprove God. I am a Theist, not a Christian. If you cannot do this, welcome to the world of agnosticism. (and by the way, you cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic)
On the same token, many atheists do not believe in god, concede that a god existing is possible, but believe that possibility is small. All this still makes one an atheist, not an agnostic. You asked for five proofs, but I'm not going to give proofs. Why five? If there really was a deductive proof of there being no god, you'd only need one proof. The number is completely irrelevant Instead, I'll give you some lines of reasoning as to why I believe God's existence unlikely. I'm going to link to some essays on this site. I'm linking to them because I think they support my points rather well, so why duplicate the effort? Without further ado... Metaphysical naturalism, a.k.a. materialism, is probably true. The methodological naturalism employed by science has been so successful, that it's not unreasonable to go all the way to metaphysical naturalism. Before you object to this, see deludedgod's article Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Materialism Refuted. The idea of god and the supernatural are incoherent. God and the supernatural lack a positive ontology. See todangt's articles “God” is an incoherent term and 'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial&#39Eye-wink are broken concepts If you believe in a god that is involved in the world, the problem of evil is a big hurdle. The universe is indifferent to humans; there's many a thing that kill humans and make them suffer. God simply fails to show up in the real world. Before you start saying something about free will, see todangst's article "God" the Ironworker and why the freewill defense fails. These arguments make atheism a rational position to hold. They rule out any god ideas from Earth's major religions. If there is a god, it's so remote (even more remote than the deist's god) and so uninvolved. In that case there's not a functional difference between atheism and theism. You can also go the pantheist route, and if you do, more power to you. Anyway, I hope this clears up your thoughts about atheism.

Thank you for the links, I am interested to see what atheists have to say about these issues. Very good post.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
magilum wrote:

for (i=0;i<4;i++){
i + 'No evidence.';
}

This is what happens when you post a boring-ass question that's been asked a million times, and you phrase it in this smug, snotty way, all proud of yourself like you found a "good" M&M under the couch.

 

You are calling me smug and snotty? I can't believe I'm hearing this considering that you guys say that I have a brain disorder for believing what I believe. That in and of itself is perhaps the most smug, arrogant and downright rude statement I have ever heard from an atheist. I disagree with you, but I do not question your mental stability! Ultimately I find people of just about every faith to be more humble and respectful when it comes to religious debate. I know this is gonna get people pissed off, but you guys are some of the most fundamentalist people that I have ever met of any religious category...seriously. You frequently point out the ways in which you are discriminated against - but calling people mentally flawed and smug and snotty like I have experienced...I wouldn't be surprised people discriminated against me if I treated others like that.

 

You should probably head back to the drawing board.  Your o.p. has been criticized, shot down, and refuted, and all you've got is the equivalent of stomping around crying about how mean we are.

 Here's a clue... we wish you didn't perceive reality as us being mean.  We also wish for you to understand that being able to tell you that which may be extremely hard for you to hear, and is honest, represents the most respectful thing anybody could ever say to you.

You're just jaded.  We are being respectful.  Trying to make your religious beliefs somehow fit within anything that is sane and rational in the world is an insult to your human dignity.  It is the religious leaders of the world who have effectively shit on your face all your life, and you've allowed it... calling it respect.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
And I stand corrected, there

And I stand corrected, there is middle ground between atheist and agnostic. I'll admist I made a mistake there.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15743
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Humble and respectfull is

Humble and respectfull is what the Muslims did to the Danish cartoonist by threatening him with death.

WE are showing you the absurdity of your claims. Not because we want you arrested or tortured or imprissoned or exicuted. We are blunt with theists because they do not see what we see. They do not see that life does not have to be lived based on superman vs kriptonite claims.

You wouldnt pray to Vishnu or Zues, but other people have and still do. The only differance between you and us is that we buy one less god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other claims besides yours, you will understand why we reject yours as well. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
And I stand corrected, there is middle ground between atheist and agnostic. I'll admist I made a mistake there.

You're get mellower answers next time if you aren't all "Ah-ha! I've got you! You're an agnostic now!" 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

Thank you very much for that intelligent and well thought out response. Indeed you bring up good arguments, however, it would take me quite a bit of time to address everything in full.


Sure thing.
PM me when you've done it so I don't miss it. Smiling

Quote:

Also let me clarify one thing - strong atheism is not impossible, as there are people who are strong atheists. I just believe that it is illogical.


Obviously! Sticking out tongue
When I asked you whether you saw that strong atheism was a 'viable' position that meant whether you recognised that strong atheism was atleast potentially logical.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
I have to agree w/ the

I have to agree w/ the others. I've never met a hard atheist, and if someone told me they were, I either wouldn't believe them or assume they are crazy since it's not a rational position to take. I don't think there are any strong atheists; I think it's probably just a straw man drummed up by Big Religion.

 

As for your question, all the best answers have been already given: atheism doesn't have the burden of proof, you cannot prove a negative, and if one had to disprove the Christian god it would then be the Christians job to disprove every god they don't believe in as well. But to add another answer to your question:

 1. I can't see god.

2. I can't hear god.

3. I can't smell god.

4. I can't taste god 

5. I can't touch god.  


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
AModestProposal wrote:

AModestProposal wrote:
I have to agree w/ the others. I've never met a hard atheist

Um... dude... I posted just before you...
(Have I turned invisible or something? Puzzled)

Quote:
and if someone told me they were, I either wouldn't believe them or assume they are crazy since it's not a rational position to take.

I justify it on the first page if you're interested.


The Free Thinki...
Theist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You should probably

Quote:
You should probably head back to the drawing board. Your o.p. has been criticized, shot down, and refuted, and all you've got is the equivalent of stomping around crying about how mean we are.

Here's a clue... we wish you didn't perceive reality as us being mean. We also wish for you to understand that being able to tell you that which may be extremely hard for you to hear, and is honest, represents the most respectful thing anybody could ever say to you.

You're just jaded. We are being respectful. Trying to make your religious beliefs somehow fit within anything that is sane and rational in the world is an insult to your human dignity. It is the religious leaders of the world who have effectively shit on your face all your life, and you've allowed it... calling it respect.

Thanks for the "respectful" answer. Seriously, I respect the people above that I mentioned when they actually gave me something to reference, not some generic insult. I've met a lot of atheist before, and I almost always have a productive discussion that doesn't resort to petty ad hominem attacks.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Get off it, Bozo. You set

Get off it, Bozo. You set the tone with your dumb challenge.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

Likewise, God could not "make us be good" because we would essentially become non-free, non choosing robots.

God couldn't? Well, is he omnipotent or isn't he?

Quote:
And natural disasters you ask? They give the good side of humanity a chance to express itself. In fact, famines and floods and so on would not be nearly as bad if we helped each other out. Instead, sadly, humanity is the worst "natural disaster" of all on this planet, we damage the very Earth that gives us life in profound ways.

OK, then let me ask you a question. Do you believe in heaven?

Quote:
3. Why would an omnipotent God not want to use his/her/it's powers?

What you're saying, essentially, is that an omnipotent, uber-being needs to entertain itself. Or is trying to impress somebody/something. Either is laughable.

Quote:
God wants to be appreciated for his power.
Sounds like god has quite the low self-esteem problem.

Quote:
4. I don't understand why a God "must" reveal himself to exist. In fact that would kind of violate our freedom of choice if God were to pop into the picture and tell us to believe. He wants us to be free to choose. That is a common element to all religions, freedom to choose.

Most religions claim their god is omniscient as well as omnipotent. If this is what you are claiming, then explain how this is even possible before I respond to this theory of yours.

Quote:
5. Yes, flawed human beings made up lies, myths, false holy books, etc. Should a really good person that I know lose their reputation if someone flawed (we are all flawed but someone really dishonest and bad morally) made up lies about them? No, I disbelieve the liars, not the person they're lying about. The same applies to God.

Take away all of what you perceive as human-created "myths, false holy books, etc" and what are you left with? What is your definition of god? Where did it come from?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

 I believe that strong atheism (which seems to be what many atheists believe) is impossible. It is essentially stating "There IS NOT a god."

Strong Atheism is entirely possible and logical as long as its kept specific.

For example; i can and do completely and utterly deny the existence of the Jewish/Christian & Muslim "God" as they are known.

As in reality, this specific "God" cannot exist in the way these 3 religions have protraid "it" (their god may possibly exist, but not in the manner they describe) That is logical, and acceptable as a Strong Atheist... and entirely possible.

 

Now you may very well have heard Atheists of any sort say that they dont believe in God and that it doesnt exist (in the "Strong" format) but you must remember the context in which they are speaking it... to a person who believes in 1 all powerful god (which has the worse recorded name for a supreme being in history)

 

So to recap, a Strong Atheist is possible and logical as long as it is set to a specific object or set there of.

What Would Kharn Do?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well coming in late to this

Well coming in late to this discussion, what i can say is that I am a strong atheist, the definition of god and the descriptions of god, are not true or real, if you notice over the centuries the actual definition of god has changed so much, from ancient deities, spirits and natural phenomenas that were considered gods, to christianity, islam, and judasim version of god (each with their own twist of the definition/aspects/characterazation), they contradict, and try to change itself to adjust to new knowledge of the world and universe, from thinking that we are the centre of universe created for us to finding out that we are floating out in universe surrounded by 1000's of billions of galaxies, sun's and planets, each time the latest version of god is challeged a new version comes out a new definition and philosophy of god comes out.

    As such all these are merely the creation of man, and you yourself haven't give a proper definition of the god you speak of. Many many gods do not have this duality that you speak of, good and evil are concepts that are part of perception. Hindu gods, Egyption gods, Greek and Roman gods, many of the Aztec, native americans, mayan, even ancient chinese gods were both good and evil and a whole lot of grey inbetween, as in life and in myth, there is not real just good and just evil, just a whole bunch of inbetween. A good man can be evil per se depending on the situation and given the situation that person maybe correct in taking such actions and vice a versa. Many gods of the past were considered both good and evil per se, not really being good not really being evil, but much like human life, a bunch of grey, sometimes they did good deeds sometimes really evil deeds. 

    The problem is the definition of it all, what is being good? what is being evil? Do evil people see themselves as evil? are good people really good people? As stated in many threads, hitler, stalin, pot pol, mao, most likely and really didn't see themselves as evil people, they saw what they were doing as good for society, they didn't believe themselves as evil, same as america in iraq, many in the middle east see americans as evil yet I highly doubt americans view themselves as evil.

    In the end, unless there is proof to believe otherwise, the definition of god(s) given so far by religion and people show no proof nor an ounce of logic to believe that a god(s) exist, and that the universe is not a naturally occuring phenomena and that we are not a natural product of this universe/galaxy/solar system/planet. Until then, why should i believe in a god? 


lgnsttefrst
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
Why are people so damn

Why are people so damn sensitive, all he did was call you a snot...

Think of atheists as more doubtful than Thomas himself. Without quantifiable proof and imperical evidence, they will not believe it. 

 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:

 Ultimately I find people of just about every faith to be more humble and respectful when it comes to religious debate.

Really...

Let's find some random samplings of respectful people of faith engaged in debate.

From NormalBobSmith.com's mailbag

Quote:

dude ur a jerk!!
how dare u make sucha site!!
u should shove it up ur but! its a disgrace ur a disgrace
u must be a lonely loser thats got nothing to do so he makes gay sites like urs!!
i hope u get many emails like this so u flippin know that ur a unbelievable jerk and deserve a kick in the ass!!

Natasha Conner

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail340.html

Quote:

Subject: Fuck you

We will kill you you motherfucker, we will cut your head you crazy monkey. down with amerika, down with all amerikans.

we hunt you and we will find you. be sure you animal, that we have the power to find you. my brothers in islam are ready to cut your head. i hope we can kill a lot of amerikans around the world, for your homepage must be pay al lot of amerikans and you are guilty mothertfucker.

Klaus Grantig

http://www.normalbobsmith.com/hatemail339.html

 

From here and there: 

Quote:
I will be filled with rejoicing when God makes His power known by pouring out His wrath upon the disobedient who are unfaithful and unrepentant. God is so awesome to have mercy on us when wrath is what we deserve. I am rejoicing just at the thought of it.

 http://www.christianlinks.com/showpost.php?p=17036&postcount=75 

 

Quote:
Do I think that Capital Punishment should still be in effect?

Yes I do, like Haman in the old testament and Judas in the new that hung  by the neck. I still believe in hanging or old sparky that way you can have them regular or extra crispy for the families that have suffered at their murdering hands.

Since Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stick their nose in everybody's business to incite riots and always trying to run for some kind of office even president of the United States, people ask me where I think they SHOULD run? I say they need to run in front of my truck!!

They say there is no cure for pedophilia and sodomy in the prison system. But there has never been one that was hung or electrocuted that  has ever bothered a child again. AMEN

 http://www.johnnythebaptist.org/

 

Quote:
I hope you die slowly and you fucking burn in hell! You dammed blasfemy!!! Right now you are rotting on the inside... But you must now (sic) that there is indeed a God! A great god! And he will forgive you if you regret from your fucking behavior. And you should realise thatyour entire life has been a delusion...and that right now your destiny is all fucked up! Fucking atheist!!!!!!!!!!!

 http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly (lots more here too!) 

 

Can't you just feel the love?  I know I can... 

 

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, I think, firstly,

Well, I think, firstly, that the idea of requesting a disproof is fallacious, since in epistemology, there is no such thing as "burden of disproof". This:

The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses

Has some good info on the matter.

Ultimately, as Strafio pointed out, there are two main problems with the Existence of God, two categories which sometimes overlap, they are:

1. Syntactical

2. Ontological

On the syntax side of things, the concepts of "supernatural" and "immaterial" are broken and incoherent, hence, any concept which is based upon such notions is automatically invalidated. So many people get this wrong. They accuse us of Theological Noncognitivism and attempt to construe arguments against logical positivism, which is missing the point. This is not TN, it is Negative Theology (NT). Tod and I recognized (and proved) that positive theology is nonsensical, and syntactically, the metaphysical notions which we use to describe such entities are meaningless. The pair of us established this in the following articles:

'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial&#39Eye-wink are broken concepts

 A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism

  "God" is an incoherent term

On the Ontological side of the problem, it logically follows from the acceptance of Negative Theology that "God" has no ontological status, and since ontology speaks to existence, the idea of God existing is contradictory. I took that one step further and formally proved that the so-called "attributes" which are used to describe the being called "God" are necessarily naturalistic/materialistic attributes (this would follow logically from NT anyway, I just went into more detail), which means the idea of "God existing" if we are to define "God" with the necessary attributes which make up the doctrine of theism, we are left with a meaningless and contradictory concept, statements of the existence of which commit a category error, which means the idea of "God existing" is mutually contradictory. This was established by me, here:

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Free Thinking Theist

The Free Thinking Theist wrote:
Quote:
You should probably head back to the drawing board. Your o.p. has been criticized, shot down, and refuted, and all you've got is the equivalent of stomping around crying about how mean we are.

Here's a clue... we wish you didn't perceive reality as us being mean. We also wish for you to understand that being able to tell you that which may be extremely hard for you to hear, and is honest, represents the most respectful thing anybody could ever say to you.

You're just jaded. We are being respectful. Trying to make your religious beliefs somehow fit within anything that is sane and rational in the world is an insult to your human dignity. It is the religious leaders of the world who have effectively shit on your face all your life, and you've allowed it... calling it respect.

Thanks for the "respectful" answer. Seriously, I respect the people above that I mentioned when they actually gave me something to reference, not some generic insult. I've met a lot of atheist before, and I almost always have a productive discussion that doesn't resort to petty ad hominem attacks.

 I don't think you could've proven my point any clearer... Your o.p. has been criticized, shot down, and refuted, and all you've got is the equivalent of stomping around crying about how mean we are.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm a little late jumping

I'm a little late jumping in on this, but here's the simplest way for you to justify your question.   Demonstrate that:

1) You understand what is meant by the term "Burden of proof."

2) There is a circumstance in which "Burden of Disproof" is logically valid.

3) This circumstance (from #2) applies to the question of disproof of god. 

Until you can do that, your question is literally meaningless.   I'm sorry if you don't understand that, but if you want to learn more about it, I wrote a SERIES OF ESSAYS that is a good primer for critical thinking.

As to whether or not people are being mean to you or not, I suggest that you ignore the people you feel are being mean, and respond to the valid points that have been made by people who are definitely not being mean.   There are a LOT of points you haven't responded to.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: 4.

kellym78 wrote:

4. Agnosticism is an epistemological standpoint. Not a statement of belief.

Thank you! 

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Give my 5

Brian37 wrote:

Give my 5 proofs right now that I am not the true Almighty Snarfwidget and that the Flying Spagetti Monster is fake. And while you are at it I dare you to prove that pink unicorns dont exist!

 

My snarfwidget can beat up your snarfwidget.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Not sure why you're all

Not sure why you're all having a go at the guy.
While he was a little bit off with his assumption that most of us was strong atheist (and you can't blame him for not being psychic!) the rest was merely a rational challenge to a position he disagreed with.

He's taken counter arguments gracefully and has only complained at the sniping and bitching going on.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
He really needs to define

He really needs to define his god concept coherently, before any of us can really dismantle his position.  He said he wasn't Christian, but was that the only clue?


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The issue is that he didn't

The issue is that he didn't address most of the valid points that were presented without attacks and instead has chosen to focus on the perceived "meanness" as an attempt to detract from the arguments that he can't counter.