Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position

markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Neither "Side" Can Possibly Prove Their Position

As a person of faith, I occasionally stumble across websites directly / indirectly associated with religion / faith with forums devoted to the healthy exchange of ideas and opinions.

Let me make this one comment - I can no more "prove" my belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He was and that there is a God no more than you can disprove it. It comes down to faith and faith is not something that you can "measure" or "weigh" or touch / see / smell / taste or hear. As a Catholic, the cathechism specifically refers to the "mystery" of faith - mystery being the operative word.

Neither side has come even close to proving their "argument" and they NEVER will.

The BEST that any of us can do is to throw out opinions - and when it comes to this specific issue - is there a GOD - the opinion of the most learned atheist is NO more valid than the opinion of the least learned person of faith.

And vice versa.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
For the eleven thousanth

For the eleven thousanth time, atheists owe you no proof that your god exists. You owe us proof that he does.

In logic, the claimant is responsible for providing evidence for a claim.  Logic never requires a proof of a negative.

So, theists can't prove that god exists, and atheists are completely justified in not accepting the claims that he does exist.

Learn about logic before you spout this drivel.

 

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

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


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Your argument is nonsense -

Your argument is nonsense - I don't owe you ANYTHING..!

If you choose not to believe - fine - that's your choice.

And If I choose to believe - fine - that's my choice.

You obviously NEVER read my post - the POINT was that neither side will NEVER be able to prove or disprove their position.

Your post is referring to logic as if the resurrection, for example, is something as commonplace as the sun coming up in the morning - or you brushing your teeth - or me combing my hair.

Believers' don't owe you anything - they're spouting opinions - JUST LIKE YOU..!!


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Hello, markgtrplyr, and

Hello, markgtrplyr, and welcome to the forum!

It seems to me that there is a slight problem with your argument: the Catholic god is only one of an infinite number of hypothetical beings whose existence or nonexistence cannot be proved. Santa Claus, for example, can be neither proved nor disproved but it would be lunacy to believe in him. The reasons why a rational person should not believe in a god are quite similar to the reasons why he should not believe in Santa Claus. I will describe those reasons in detail if you wish.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
If you believe, you

If you believe, you believe.  No argument from me.

If you want me to believe, you have to offer proof.  If you don't offer proof, then I won't believe.  Why would that make you mad? 

You come onto this board where we clearly don't believe in your sky daddy, and say, "I don't have any proof of what I believe.  You can't disprove my nonexistent proofs because there are none."

That's really good.  What you came on here to say amounts to absolutely nothing.

How about I tell you that I believe in unicorns even though there's no evidence that they exist.  You prove that my proofs of unicorns are wrong, ok?

 

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

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


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
LOL - you're making the

LOL - you're making the EXACT same mistake that so many "non-believers" make - you're trying to apply human logic to something that defies logic.

 Like I said to the previous poster, you can't take an event like the resurrection, for example, and try and apply logic to it as if were something that happens every day.

We're taught that dead is dead - and yet the resurrection completely refutes this belief.

 

There's NO way that logic can be applied to something that defies logic.

 

Let me ask you some questions - how much does sadness weigh..??  How many meters in length is anger..?? 

 

 

And by commonly accepted scientific standards, the "non'-existence" of Santa Claus and flying reindeer can certainly be proven.

 

Let me give you an example of accepted scientific  evidence.

Science tells us that no two fingerprints are alike.

How can they make this claim..? 

I, for example, have never been fingerprinted - nor has my wife - nor have alot of aboriginal peoiple living in the deserts of Australia I suspect.

So how does science "know" with absolute certainty that my fingerprints aren't identical to a dozen other people around the world..?

 

The short answer is that it cannot make this claim with absolute certainty. It can only say so based on statistical certainty.

 

You can apply the same statistical "evidence" to the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus.

 Both sides are completely entitled to their beliefs comfortable in the knowledge that neither side will EVER be able to prove or disprove their belief.

 

 

 


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Exactly - there's no

Exactly - there's no evidence that unicorns exist. So if you choose to believe in something that offers no evidence of its existence, be my guest.

 

As far as "evidence" is concerned, again I have to laugh.

 

If you poll 100 people, you might get 50 that say OJ Simpson was guilty of murder and 50 might say he wasn't.

 

So here's an "earthly" example of an incident that consumed months and years with the best legal minds having different opinions based on the evidence.

 

And you expect a believer to provide you with "EVIDENCE" that will prove the existence of God..??

 

We can't even say with certainty that a person murdered his wife - and you expect somewbody to offer "PROOF that a man 2,000 years ago arose from the dead..???!! 

 

You have the same things as I have - OPNIONS..!! Nothing less - nothing more..!!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
You've admitted in as many

You've admitted in as many words that you believe something that's illogical, so I'm done.

You've proven my point for me.

 

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

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


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote:LOL -

markgtrplyr wrote:

LOL - you're making the EXACT same mistake that so many "non-believers" make - you're trying to apply human logic to something that defies logic.

Like I said to the previous poster, you can't take an event like the resurrection, for example, and try and apply logic to it as if were something that happens every day.

We're taught that dead is dead - and yet the resurrection completely refutes this belief.

There's NO way that logic can be applied to something that defies logic.

When a belief contradicts logic, the reasonable course of action is not to declare logic inapplicable but to discard the belief.

Quote:
And by commonly accepted scientific standards, the "non'-existence" of Santa Claus and flying reindeer can certainly be proven.

Not if one plays by the rules of religious apologists. Compare these two hypothetical discussions:

Atheist: Any intelligent being is too complex to simply pop into existence by chance. Evolution by natural selection is required to produce intelligence. There can therefore be no god.

Theist: God just exists. Logic is not applicable to him.

vs.

Asantaclausist: Reindeer cannot fly. It would violate the law of gravity.

Santaclausist: These are magical reindeer. Logic is not applicable to them.

If you play intellectual tennis, the net cannot be down for you and up for the opponent. Either the net is down and we have to accept both the Catholic god and Santa Claus (and a million other equally unlikely beings) or the net is up and we must reject both Santa Claus and the gods.

Quote:
Both sides are completely entitled to their beliefs comfortable in the knowledge that neither side will EVER be able to prove or disprove their belief.

Belief in a deity is by no means justified, morally or epistemologically.

It is nevertheless rather curious that a theist should admit the unprovability of the existence or nonexistence of the deity. After all, if a deity did exist, its existence might very well be provable. It is only because there is no deity that one can be reasonable certain that neither claim will ever be proven.


Sith Lord
atheist
Sith Lord's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2006-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Lets see...You say we can't

Lets see...You say we can't prove your fake deity doesn't exist.....thus we are just as lame as you.....right....sure we are...

 

Then why am I responsible for providing something to support my arguement, when your side is the one who started the lie in the first place? Your side made up the deity lie, not us. Just because the lie was told enough times doesn't make it true. 

Gods do not directly kill people for they do not exist...
People who worship gods kill lots of people everyday......


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
LOL - you're making the EXACT same mistake that so many "non-believers" make - you're trying to apply human logic to something that defies logic.
 

So you can't know if god is real, okay got that.

 And if you think that the disbelievers have to prove there side, then I have this big list 'O gods for you here.

 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I disagree completely. Not

I disagree completely. Not only has the bible been proven false, but the laws of physics disprove god as well. The only argument against it is supra-physics, which have no evidence of existing. So maybe there was a jesus who got nailed to a cross. I'd imagine there was a few dozen jesus' who got nailed to cross'. It was a common name after all. It's possible that one of them even thought he was some kind of god/god-relative. But if such is the case, he was as delusional as someone hearing voices in a psychiatric ward.

Most people would tend to agree that neither side can be proven(mostly to avoid seeming as closed minded as the opposition[even though they wouldn't be]), but 22 odd years of thought and experience about the subject has me solidly against the idea. If god does exist, and he wants people to believe in him, he'd damn well better show up and say/do something. Otherwise, the continued seeming incapability of him/her/it to do so merely adds more fuel to the fire of truth that is burning at the fringes of all religions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: LOL -

markgtrplyr wrote:

LOL - you're making the EXACT same mistake that so many "non-believers" make - you're trying to apply human logic to something that defies logic.

If 'god' claims defy logic, then you are forced to concede that god claims are irrational/incoherent, and you must remain silent.

 

Quote:
 

Like I said to the previous poster, you can't take an event like the resurrection, for example, and try and apply logic to it as if were something that happens every day.

Why not? There is a falsifiable claim: that a man died and rose again.  

 

Are you trying to say that naturalistic explanations will always be more parsimonious than appeals to the supernatural? If so, I agree.  

 However, again, if you want to insist that the claim is beyond logical examination, then again, you have to concede that any positive claim for it is irrational.  You have to concede that your belief is irrational. 

 

 

Quote:

There's NO way that logic can be applied to something that defies logic.

True, but you're just arguing in a circle here.

 

 

Quote:

Let me ask you some questions - how much does sadness weigh..??

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever heard of a category error? 

 Seriously, we 'can' weigh sadness in a way.... we could weigh the areas of the limbic system and cerebal cortex devoted to sadness... I say this only because you appear to be arguing for 'immateriality' here... at least implicitly. 


 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: Your

markgtrplyr wrote:

Your argument is nonsense - I don't owe you ANYTHING..!

If you choose not to believe - fine - that's your choice.

And If I choose to believe - fine - that's my choice.

You obviously NEVER read my post - the POINT was that neither side will NEVER be able to prove or disprove their position.

 

Actually, if your claim is contradictory then we can refute it. 

If you appeal to the supernatural to avoid the refutation, then you automatically invalidate your claims as irrational.

Pick your poison. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Hamby:   You don't get it

Hamby:

 

You don't get it so I don't see the point in talking to you anymore.


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
"When a belief contradicts

"When a belief contradicts logic, the reasonable course of action is not to declare logic inapplicable but to discard the belief"

 

Yes - when you're talking about 2 + 2 = 4 or a court of law, for example, you're absolutely right. 

 

But we're talking about something here that defies the "natural laws" of the universe - something that defies "logic" - transcends logic - supercedes logic.

 

The rules don't apply when it comes to an event like the resurrection of Christ, for example.

 

I don't understand how a group of people 65 years ago could just decide to exterminate 6,000,000 people - how they could be so evil - it just doesn't make sense to me - it's not logical..!!

 

I guess the Holocaust didn't happen then..??


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Ophios:   Are you an adult

Ophios:

 

Are you an adult who's able to read properly..??

 

I'm throwing this out because I'm wondering how well you can read..??

 

I know God is real - the point is that I can't prove it nor will I ever be able to do so - in this lifetime.

 Does that clarify things for you.

 

The discussion is about either sides' ability or inability to prove their position.


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
"Not only has the bible

"Not only has the bible been proven false"

 

You mean there wasn't a historical place known as Jerusalem - and that Israel and Pilate and the Roman Empire didn't exist..??

 "he'd damn well better show up and say/do something"

 

He did show up and do something - 2,000 years ago.

 

Perhaps He should come to Earth every week and perform a miracle - perhaps He could do a road show - this week Paris - next week Scotland - next month England.

 


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Todganst:   LOL - I have

Todganst:

 

LOL - I have NO choice BUT to appeal to the supernatural because that's EXACTLY what an event like the resurrection of Christ is, for example - A SUPERNATURAL EVENT..!! 

I love my wife, Pamela and my son, Brandon - but I can't prove it.

What should I do - refute my love for them..?? Disavow the feelings I have as something irrational and illogical..??

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: Your

markgtrplyr wrote:

Your argument is nonsense - I don't owe you ANYTHING..!

If you choose not to believe - fine - that's your choice.

And If I choose to believe - fine - that's my choice.

You obviously NEVER read my post - the POINT was that neither side will NEVER be able to prove or disprove their position.

Your post is referring to logic as if the resurrection, for example, is something as commonplace as the sun coming up in the morning - or you brushing your teeth - or me combing my hair.

Believers' don't owe you anything - they're spouting opinions - JUST LIKE YOU..!!

That is a piss poor attitude considering humanity is at stake.

1. Certainly from a debate viewpoint you dont. But we also dont have to buy your claims if you cant prove them.

2. You dont owe us any more evidence than a Muslim does about who he claims Muhammid was. Are you seeing the fallacy yet?

3. Considering that people use politics and goverment to run things any goverment basing their laws on narrow views does a disservice to all it's citizens. You and I could not be open about our positions in Iran. BOTH YOU AND I WOULD BE ARRESTED OR WORSE if you or I complaind about our treatment.

You mistake our demand for evidence as some sort of govermental demand for your silence. BULLSHIT!

"Question with boldness even the existance of God for if there be one surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Go look that quote up, you like most probibly have no idea who said that.

LETS GET THIS STREIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL

You need to give up your crybaby attitude that we are out to take your bibles away from you or out to shut down you churches by force.

WE are challenging you to debate and challenging you to examine the claims you make. If you cant do that THEN DONT JUMP INTO THE RING WITH US.

But do not accuse us of things we are not doing! 

 

"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


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
If each and every one of

If each and every one of you are sitting here telling this man is wrong for believing in the Christian God...then in what point and time did he ever say he believed in the Christian God that "wrote" the Bible?

Did he ever say that?

So look, there is the burden of proof on YOU. What does he believe in?  An illogical God that killed a lot of people?

Or a Logical God, that by my defintion, CAN'T be proved. I can't prove that God. The Bible can't prove that God. You for sure can't prove that god. SO WHY ASK ME OR SOMEONE ELSE TO?

Why can't a "god"(any fucking god) have created this universe, came up with the Big fucking Bang himself, came up with Darwinist Evolution, hell even gave you the fucking technology to use I-pods(cough electrcitiy)

So PROVE to me, why GOD couldn't have created ALL of those things.

ohhh.. the universe is getting colder, and by cosmic photograph blah blah BORE ME. I know all of this. I know how science works.

HOW HAS SCIENCE DISSPROVED GOD?


Please guys, get this CHRISTIAN thinking out of your head. Some of us Theists (ME) Don't have an ounce of real rational thinking behind what is the Christian God, because we all know he isn't real. Right?

I'm just trying to show you guys to think outside the box. And outside the known universe.

I have a lot of theories on how the universe/s work because I've watched a lot of Brian Green, and have read a lot of Stephen Hawkings. Does anything, any fucking word they say mean shit in comparison to ANYTHING when you and they know full well they might be COMPLETELY RIGHT or COMPLTELY WRONG.

Because that is how you are labelying god. Right or Wrong.

Is GOD right or wrong? Is he both at the same time?

Answer those questions first, then, take the time to say, God isn't real. Because the truth is, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WORLD. (you can't even tell me how REAL Jesus Christ was, so please, choke on a big fat stick of Scientific burden) WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Don't even get me started on

Don't even get me started on Matireya Buddha, the Laughing Buddha as believed to be the earthly incarnation of such a being(the perfect Santa Claus, I mean come on, he even has little children in his rice sack...yes, even ipods too, you goodfornothing little girls)

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: "Not

markgtrplyr wrote:

"Not only has the bible been proven false"

You mean there wasn't a historical place known as Jerusalem - and that Israel and Pilate and the Roman Empire didn't exist..??

I was more referring to stories like Noah's ark, which not only could not have happened, but were actually stolen from earlier cultures.

markgtrplyr wrote:
  "he'd damn well better show up and say/do something"

He did show up and do something - 2,000 years ago.

You are wrong in two ways here. First, even religion doesn't claim that god itself showed up(unless I somehow missed something). All we've got is some guy who claimed to be it's son.

Second, the one who did something was in the middle east. All very well and good for those in the middle east. But what about the America's, Australia, and Africa? All the isolated communities in Europe and Asia? The places that even today have never heard of your religion at all? There was no internet or phones back then for this message to somehow be communicated around the world, and even today not even half the global population is connected. I say it's highly unreasonable to expect the world to believe the claims of a group of people in a few countries. Especially when the few countries have at least 3 major religions(each with it's own interpretation of the events) that each have a bunch of offshoots that came about when people disagreed with the church about something.

markgtrplyr wrote:
 

Perhaps He should come to Earth every week and perform a miracle - perhaps He could do a road show - this week Paris - next week Scotland - next month England.

I hardly think that's necessary. A being with such power would have no trouble proving it's existance conclusively to all in one fell swoop every generation or 3. Though it's never done that even ONCE. If it had, there would be one united global religion, not millions of contradicting ones. People everywhere would have heard the message. Not a select few.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
You need to give up your

You need to give up your crybaby attitude that we are out to take your bibles away from you or out to shut down you churches by force.



---How about I take away all your books? How knowledgeable are you after that, and what will you believe in? With only the spoken word of what the "real" world is. Make an imformed decision on what, and who you really are. Then start calling the rest of the world crybabies. Because in reality, you haven't even been born yet, if you can't even see a concept so simple as that.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr

markgtrplyr wrote:

Todganst:

 

LOL - I have NO choice BUT to appeal to the supernatural because that's EXACTLY what an event like the resurrection of Christ is, for example - A SUPERNATURAL EVENT..!!

I love my wife, Pamela and my son, Brandon - but I can't prove it.

What should I do - refute my love for them..?? Disavow the feelings I have as something irrational and illogical..??

 

Bad analogy. You are equating a subjective human emotion such as love, to a historical account in the bible of a human being resurrected. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: If each and

Ripple wrote:

If each and every one of you are sitting here telling this man is wrong for believing in the Christian God...then in what point and time did he ever say he believed in the Christian God that "wrote" the Bible?

Did he ever say that?

So look, there is the burden of proof on YOU. What does he believe in?  An illogical God that killed a lot of people?

Or a Logical God, that by my defintion, CAN'T be proved. I can't prove that God. The Bible can't prove that God. You for sure can't prove that god. SO WHY ASK ME OR SOMEONE ELSE TO?

Why can't a "god"(any fucking god) have created this universe, came up with the Big fucking Bang himself, came up with Darwinist Evolution, hell even gave you the fucking technology to use I-pods(cough electrcitiy)

So PROVE to me, why GOD couldn't have created ALL of those things.

ohhh.. the universe is getting colder, and by cosmic photograph blah blah BORE ME. I know all of this. I know how science works.

HOW HAS SCIENCE DISSPROVED GOD?


Please guys, get this CHRISTIAN thinking out of your head. Some of us Theists (ME) Don't have an ounce of real rational thinking behind what is the Christian God, because we all know he isn't real. Right?

I'm just trying to show you guys to think outside the box. And outside the known universe.

I have a lot of theories on how the universe/s work because I've watched a lot of Brian Green, and have read a lot of Stephen Hawkings. Does anything, any fucking word they say mean shit in comparison to ANYTHING when you and they know full well they might be COMPLETELY RIGHT or COMPLTELY WRONG.

Because that is how you are labelying god. Right or Wrong.

Is GOD right or wrong? Is he both at the same time?

Answer those questions first, then, take the time to say, God isn't real. Because the truth is, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WORLD. (you can't even tell me how REAL Jesus Christ was, so please, choke on a big fat stick of Scientific burden) WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

Since you want to raise some philosophical questions, here's some questions for you. Why do we need to believe in him? Why do you need us to? Why does he need us to? If he needs us to, why doesn't he let us? It's obviously worked well for you, but I've NEVER been a theist. I can't see the possibility of me ever becoming one. I've never experienced nor seen evidence of any kind of supernatural force. Words are not going to be enough to sway me. I need evidence to commit my life to something that goes against everything I can percieve. The only reason I ever considered the prospect of a god in the first place is because a bunch of people believe it, which is no reason to believe it myself. So why has he shut me out?

If one(heretofore referred to as A) wants to strip all the religious rules away from A's personal belief then it actually does become impossible to prove one way or the other if there is a god, as A's belief is malleable enough to curve around anything. Anything proven conclusively can still be attributed to god making it that way in A's eyes. But once all the religious rules have been stripped away, our belief in god is no longer necessary. There is no threat of hell or promise of heaven. One is free to choose according to ones own beliefs. And I am evidence that you do not need a god to have a moral code. I've never had a god. The only way I ever will is if it's proven to me conclusively. Noone has come remotely close to doing so.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Why can't a

Ripple wrote:



Why can't a "god"(any fucking god) have created this universe, came up with the Big fucking Bang himself, came up with Darwinist Evolution, hell even gave you the fucking technology to use I-pods(cough electrcitiy)

So PROVE to me, why GOD couldn't have created ALL of those things.

 

Well there are alot of weaker atheist who would acknowledge the possibility of a being (or God for the lack of a better term) that we presently have no conception of that could have created all of existence as we know it. However there is a big leap in acknowledging that idea and getting on your knees every night and praying to it.  


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: As a

markgtrplyr wrote:
As a person of faith, I occasionally stumble across websites directly / indirectly associated with religion / faith with forums devoted to the healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Let me make this one comment - I can no more "prove" my belief that Jesus Christ is exactly who He said He was and that there is a God no more than you can disprove it. It comes down to faith and faith is not something that you can "measure" or "weigh" or touch / see / smell / taste or hear. As a Catholic, the cathechism specifically refers to the "mystery" of faith - mystery being the operative word. Neither side has come even close to proving their "argument" and they NEVER will. The BEST that any of us can do is to throw out opinions - and when it comes to this specific issue - is there a GOD - the opinion of the most learned atheist is NO more valid than the opinion of the least learned person of faith. And vice versa.

Knowing this, then what drives your faith? Why have you chosen to believe in something that you admit cannot be at all verified but must be taken without evidence? 


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I can NOT agree with you

I can NOT agree with you more Vastet. My Theist AND Atheist nature tells me that hey, maybe there is no God, and that single point(Albert Einstein) which throughly connects Science to God(if it even connects) is going to be a discovery that maybe we can't ever achieve as humans. Is there a point which connects Science to God.

Better yet, may I ask, is there a point in life which connects Science to Science. Cough, Quantum Physics and Theory of Relativity.


sooooo...

Why do we need to believe in him? Why do you need us to? Why does he need us to? If he needs us to, why doesn't he let us?


--Because people are stupid. And people don't believe fully in Science. So what do they believe in? Themselves? Other good people? Maybe God doesn't need any one of to believe in it. But does that really change anything in this world? Does that make God think any different then it already does?

I believe in God because God to me connects the supernatural and the Natural. It's just too fucking bad, all I know is the Natural. And if you tell me that Nature has been proven to come full circle and answer every question in this universe, then please, enlighten. But if God could explain how the Big Bang started, what is beyond this universe, and the rest of the universes, and why human nature is how it is. Then why not give God a chance? Have you proved anything in this world that has furthured the Human Advancement?

You know who has furthured the Human Advancment? The Christian God. And if you can't agree on that, then you mind as well through the history books STRAIGHT out the window. Does that mean the Christian God is THE God? No. Noone said a god damn word about anything crazy like that.

So basically, take those beliefs, then strip the idea of "my god" away from and what am I left with? I bet you I'm left with a whole lot more knowledge of the world then any Christian or Muslim as ever had. But probably not Buddha....

Didn't that Christian God that you hate so very much... Didn't "he" give you Free Will? I mean if you are attacking "my view of God" then go ahead and assums that "my Christian view of God" gave YOU the Free Will to believe in WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Well there are alot of

Well there are alot of weaker atheist who would acknowledge the possibility of a being (or God for the lack of a better term) that we presently have no conception of that could have created all of existence as we know it. However there is a big leap in acknowledging that idea and getting on your knees every night and praying to it. 


---Ahh we are getting somewhere. So... now... After having accepted something so CRAZY and NEW as the Big Bang theory, you are now, aknowledging that...hmm,  a God might exist? Interesting... How rational are we realling thinking now?

Seriously man, I really have NO conception of God, because I have never and will never be put into a position to understand God in this lifetime. But does that mean he's real? No. Does it mean I sit on my knees every night, and do pray, even if it is to NOONE or NOTHING. Does it matter to you, that I'm praying for a world where people just like YOU will see that it doesn't matter what you believe in. Just as long as you believe in something, science, nature, yourself.

Well let me begin to tell you how many people I have encountered(including myself) who just didn't believe in Jack Shit, because who fucking cared enough about the World? You? Me? God? It's questions like THAT which makes a difference. Not, how fucking cold is the universe? 4 degree Kelvin if you wanted to know. How KNOWLEDGEABLE are you for knowing that is 4 Degrees out there in this crazy universe? Oh yeah, that fact of knowledge means so much to the Big Bang theory, and to the rest of the universe, that you probably haven't even BEGAN TO THINK how important it is that the temperature of the universe is 4 degrees Kelvin. So yeah, sit here, and tell me that I'm blinded by faith, and that I don't understand Science, and Nature. Get somewhere in life, please. Then die. For the sake of mankind. Then, ask God if he cared/cares what you think. I bet then you'll get an answer from someone. Probably YOURSELF.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
 markgtrplyr

 

markgtrplyr wrote:

Todangst:

LOL - I have NO choice BUT to appeal to the supernatural because that's EXACTLY what an event like the resurrection of Christ is, for example - A SUPERNATURAL EVENT..!!

LOL! You missed the point for a second time!

The point is that a logical ramification of appeal to the supernatural is that you must concede that your claims are illogical.

You must then remain silent evermore on concerning anything else related to your claim.  You've conceded that your claim makes no sense at all. You just believe regardless.

Quote:

I love my wife, Pamela and my son, Brandon - but I can't prove it.

First of all, this is a false analogy fallacy. Love is a natural phenomena. Yes, 'it's irrational' as an emotion, but it's not an irrational concept itself.

Second, you're wrong. You can 'prove' your love for a person. You can demonstrate it through behaviors and avowals of love. So your claim here is simply preposterous for a second reason.

Third, supernatural claims are not irrational because they are emotional, they are irrational because they make reference to a concept that violates basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity!

It is for this reason that supernatural claims are incoherent!


Quote:

What should I do - refute my love for them..?? Disavow the feelings I have as something irrational and illogical..??

You're very, very, very confused. Emotions like love are not supernatural phenomena. We can demonstrate the existence of love.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
"You've conceded that your

"You've conceded that your claim makes no sense at all. You just believe regardless. "

 

This isn't even close to what I've said in my previous posts.

 

Clearly, you're seeing the words on your screen, but you're not understanding them.

 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"You've conceded

Quote:
"You've conceded that your claim makes no sense at all. You just believe regardless. "

 

This isn't even close to what I've said in my previous posts.

It's a logical ramification of what you've said. You seem unable to follow it.

Quote:

Clearly, you're seeing the words on your screen, but you're not understanding them.

No. The opposite is true. You're unable to see the ramifications of your own words.

The point is that a logical ramification of appeal to the supernatural is that you must concede that your claims are illogical.

If you agree that your claim is illogical, then it follows that you can't make any rational claims about your claim.

 

This should be obvious enough.


Again, supernatural claims are not irrational only because they are emotional, they are also irrational because they make reference to a concept that violates basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity!

Ans it is for this second reason that supernatural claims are incoherent!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Has my idea of a "God"

Has my idea of a "God" really violated the basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity?!

Hmm.. Really. Could you explain that to me. Who in this world has DEBUNKED God. You? You're a great man then.. maybe even God itself?!?!

How confused am I really? Am I really confused with the world, even if my only belief in God was that God IS love? How confusing is that? Can you or any other scientist prove that God ISN'T love by way of rational thinking and the scientific method? You seem to be so "unclouded" by faith. Well please, take the veil away from eyes.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Hey, man, I wouldn't talk

Hey, man,

I wouldn't talk to me anymore either, if I were you. Todangst has gone out of his way to explain to you that what I said was absolutely correct. Others have refuted your arguments over and over and over.

It is you who doesn't understand that my very first post destroyed your argument, and you are still saying the same things, with emotional appeals and the ever-so-lame: "You don't understand."

Afraid to tell you, I do understand, and I demonstrated the fallacy that is the foundation of your beliefs. Sorry that it only took me a couple of sentences. I could write a much longer rebuttal if that would suit your pseudo-intellectual tastes.

It's ok to admit that you're wrong. We're not here to make you look bad. We're here to help you.

 

 

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

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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
   I can see that you are


 

 I can see that you are still desparately struggling with this, so let me make it even more clear for you.

Ripple wrote:
Has my idea of a "God" really violated the basic ontology, the axioms of existence and identity?!

Yes. If you declare something 'beyond logic' then it is beyond the axioms of existence and identity.

This is a necessary ramification of your claim. 

Quote:

Hmm.. Really. Could you explain that to me.

I have, many times.

I'll try, again.

Quote:

Who in this world has DEBUNKED God. You? 

We are not talking about 'debunking god' We are talking about the necessary logical ramifications of declaring something 'beyond logic'

Quote:
How confused am I really?

Very, very, very, very confused.


Let's try again.

You said this:

"LOL - you're making the EXACT same mistake that so many "non-believers" make - you're trying to apply human logic to something that defies logic"

Here, you are attempting to deal with the logical problems of the claim by holding that 'god'is beyond logic.

If this is so, it then follows that we cannot examine god claims rationally. There is no way to discuss something 'beyond logic'. The claim therefore, loses any sense of identity. It become incoherent.

You responded to this by arguing that emotions are irrational.

The problem here is that emotions are irrational NOT because they violate logic, but because they are a set of behaviors driven by desire, not logic. Therefore, we can still talk about emotions. Emotion is still a natural behavior. Emotions are coherent.

So your analogy is flawed.

Again, if you declare that something is beyond logic, then you declare that it is without any meaning at all. So you must remain silent upon it.

In fact, you can't even call it 'it'.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Hey,

Hambydammit wrote:

Hey, man,

I wouldn't talk to me anymore either, if I were you. Todangst has gone out of his way to explain to you that what I said was absolutely correct. Others have refuted your arguments over and over and over.

Thanks.

I think our friend's behavior is understandable. When one is confronted with ramification of our claims that we ourselves were unable to follow, it can be painful. We tend to feel attacked. We lash out.

 

Quote:

It is you who doesn't understand that my very first post destroyed your argument, and you are still saying the same things, with emotional appeals and the ever-so-lame: "You don't understand."

When a person says "you don't understand' and then fails to follow up with a correction, their claim can be ignored.

Quote:

Afraid to tell you, I do understand, and I demonstrated the fallacy that is the foundation of your beliefs. Sorry that it only took me a couple of sentences. I could write a much longer rebuttal if that would suit your pseudo-intellectual tastes.

It's ok to admit that you're wrong. We're not here to make you look bad. We're here to help you.

Quite.


 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You've


Hambydammit wrote:

You've admitted in as many words that you believe something that's illogical, so I'm done.

You've proven my point for me.

 

Yes. Unfortunately, he's unable to follow the logical ramifications of declaring that something is beyond logic. If something is defined, a priori, as 'beyond logic' then it follows that you can't actually say anything about it at all, because to be beyond logic is to not possess any identity.

It's actually pretty funny... it's like  I think he'll get it, eventually.... he'll have to, it's an internal contradiction.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I've actually lost a good

I've actually lost a good bit of respect for the guy, as he was just called out for using someone else's critique of cosmological arguments as his own over on another thread.

I'm all about honest discourse, but stealing someone else's words to try to look smart in the face of real debate is... what's that word I'm looking for? ...  uber-lame.

I do understand, though.  I did the same kinds of things when I was fighting the internal battle -- when I knew that I could either retreat, or redefine reality without the supernatural, it was a very, very trying time.  I fought against the logic in very similar ways, holding onto any straw (man?) I could, just to avoid having to admit that my definition of reality allowed no knowledge at all, and couldn't be correct.

 

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

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


markgtrplyr
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Hamby: I enjoyed excellent

Hamby:

I enjoyed excellent marks in university, but I, unfortunately, did not major in debating as perhaps Todangst did.

 But if you read his posts, you'll see that he hasn't made a single dent in my original comment that I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove that science / logic / natural laws provide ALL the answers.

 He hasn't because he can't.

 

I threw out the example of love earlier.

 

I can't prove that I love my wife, Pamela, and my son, Brandon.

 

But not being able to prove it or articulate it with "surgical precision" doesn't change the fact that I love them.

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: I enjoyed

 

Quote:

I enjoyed excellent marks in university, but I, unfortunately, did not major in debating as perhaps Todangst did.

But if you read his posts, you'll see that he hasn't made a single dent in my original comment that I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove that science / logic / natural laws provide ALL the answers.

I never sought to argue this point in the first place.

Science never claims to have all the answers.


Quote:

 He hasn't because he can't.

I haven't because I don't disagree in the first place.

We are debating something quite different.

So you are being very dishonest here.
 

Quote:

I threw out the example of love earlier.

And I refuted it.

Quote:

I can't prove that I love my wife, Pamela, and my son, Brandon.

Sure you can. Stop being so obtuse. You can demonstrate your love in many ways. In fact, how else would you know that someone loved you in the first place?!

The fact that some might lie about being in love doesn't remove the possiblity that someone can in fact demonstrate love, so your counter reply was ridiculous.

 

Quote:

But not being able to prove it or articulate it with "surgical precision" doesn't change the fact that I love them.

Right. But this has no relation, whatsoever, to supernatural claims, as I have demonstrated for you numerous times. Love is a natural phenomena, we can discuss love. It's not 'beyond logic'.

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I've

Hambydammit wrote:
I've actually lost a good bit of respect for the guy, as he was just called out for using someone else's critique of cosmological arguments as his own over on another thread.
I recognized it immediately. He suddently went from ignorant to very informed! The fact that he can't see how obvious that would be just demonstrates that he's not very aware of what he is doing.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I know God is real

Quote:

I know God is real - the point is that I can't prove it nor will I ever be able to do so - in this lifetime.

 Does that clarify things for you.

 Yes, it confirms my thoughts. You can't prove your god is real, so you take your god's existance in faith. For how can you "Know" something is real if you can't prove it's real.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: Kemono

markgtrplyr wrote:
Kemono wrote:

When a belief contradicts logic, the reasonable course of action is not to declare logic inapplicable but to discard the belief

Yes - when you're talking about 2 + 2 = 4 or a court of law, for example, you're absolutely right.

But we're talking about something here that defies the "natural laws" of the universe - something that defies "logic" - transcends logic - supercedes logic.

The rules don't apply when it comes to an event like the resurrection of Christ, for example.

If I were to tell you that Alexander the Great (reputedly a son of Zeus, no less!) rose from the dead and fail to provide evidence for my claim while rebutting your every criticism with 'it transcends logic, you cannot use logic to disprove it', would you believe me? Of course not. You would rightly dismiss my claim as delusional. For the same reason you should find belief in the resurrection of Jesus delusional.

You will encounter the 'transcends logic' defence in the repertoire of practically every apologist, whether his belief system be Catholicism, homeopathy, Protestantism, astrology, Judaism, or any one of the thousand others. Even theists are unimpressed by the argument when it is deployed in the defence of someone else's belief system.

If you truly regard the alleged resurrection of Jesus an event beyond reason, you are unable to evaluate the truth or falsity of any claim regarding it. You cannot reject the claim that Jesus was resurrected by a rubber duck since you have declared the issue to be beyond rational argument.

 

markgtrplyr wrote:
I don't understand how a group of people 65 years ago could just decide to exterminate 6,000,000 people - how they could be so evil - it just doesn't make sense to me - it's not logical..!!

I guess the Holocaust didn't happen then..??

wtf Please tell me you were on drugs when you wrote that.

A rational person believes the Holocaust because of evidence and rejects the resurrection of Jesus because of the lack of evidence. At no point does personal incredulity enter the picture.


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr

markgtrplyr wrote:

Hamby:

I enjoyed excellent marks in university, but I, unfortunately, did not major in debating as perhaps Todangst did.

But if you read his posts, you'll see that he hasn't made a single dent in my original comment that I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove that science / logic / natural laws provide ALL the answers.

He hasn't because he can't.

 

I threw out the example of love earlier.

 

I can't prove that I love my wife, Pamela, and my son, Brandon.

 

But not being able to prove it or articulate it with "surgical precision" doesn't change the fact that I love them.

 

 Say....doesn't the love example involve you putting logical constraints on god?  I could have sworn you just chewed out hamby and todangst for doing the same thing.  Funny, that.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Hamby: I enjoyed

Quote:

Hamby:

I enjoyed excellent marks in university, but I, unfortunately, did not major in debating as perhaps Todangst did.

But if you read his posts, you'll see that he hasn't made a single dent in my original comment that I can no more prove the existence of God than you can prove that science / logic / natural laws provide ALL the answers.

He hasn't because he can't.

 

I threw out the example of love earlier.

 

I can't prove that I love my wife, Pamela, and my son, Brandon.

 

But not being able to prove it or articulate it with "surgical precision" doesn't change the fact that I love them.

I don't actually know todangst, but I believe he specializes in philosophy, not debate. You didn't have to tell anyone that you're not good at debate. We know.

You haven't yet realized the error in asking us to disprove your god. If there were any reason for us to disprove your god, we'd also have to disprove each and every god that has ever existed! We'd also have to disprove alien abduction, unicorns, leprechauns, and three invisible belly dancers, two named Marcell, and the other one not, who dance the jig each full moon that falls on a Sunday.

None of us have tried to disprove your god because there's no reason to. Would you mind either admitting this fact or providing a reason? Don't take the low road and say you don't have to provide a reason because we can believe what we want. We're not talking about what an individual wants. We're talking about the method by which people attain knowledge.

You threw out the example of love, and then it got thrown out because it doesn't apply to the argument. If you can't see the difference between the statement, "My wife loves me," and "A being that is illogical logically exists," then I fear you're a lost cause.

A few lessons in logic, and you could probably articulate your love for your wife and son with much more precision.

 

 

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

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


Adnihilo
Adnihilo's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2006-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Learning HOW to think is a prerequite of WHAT to think

It seems evident markgtrplyr that you need to learn HOW to think first before learning WHAT to think. Your arguments are entirely fallacious in form and function.

Theists, the ‘faith based,’ or true believers fail to understand that a ‘non theist’ does not deny the ‘possible existence’ of an omnipotent entity most would call a ‘god’ or gods. Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist. For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human. There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny. One cannot deny the nonexistent. It exists or it does not exist given the valid evidence. No matter if an atheist, a so called agnostic or a theist, the default position for all humanity is that of nonexistence for any omnipotent ’supreme’ beings not proven to exist. We, or humanity, must assume things do not exist unless we have factual evidence proving otherwise.

Atheism does not deny anything. There is not a ‘god’ existence for the atheist, or the agnostic to deny. There is NOTHING to deny! The default position in critical thinking requires a nonexistent stance for ‘gods’. A ‘believer’ or theist can only present a presumptive premise for the ‘existence’ of some omnipotent entity humans would call god WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL PROOF. Believers typically engage in a fallacy called “a priori” reasoning - in this case basing fact after fact ad nauseum on typically ancient heresay, false or unproven statements and myths.

There is no valid reason nor argument any human has presented to believe a God exists. Believers are presuming the existence of ‘god’ or gods not proven to exist. No matter if one’s faith based belief is anthropomorphic in God or biblical based, and regardless if it is a Christian God, a Jewish God, Yahweh, Allah, or any god muddling the minds of man, it has been invalidated in form and function as fallacious from within the rules of inductive and deductive reasoning. One simply cannot presume the existence of ‘god’ or gods never rationally proven to exist.

It is expected and accepted in critical thinking that we (as in ANY human) must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule “most” of the time; they don’t believe in Santa Claus, even though they can’t conclusively prove that no Santa Claus exists anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which cannot be tested in any reliable method. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God “might” be to prove that he doesn’t exist anywhere. So in any form of critical thinking, ‘we including you all,’ must take the default postion that God does not exist, since that is the only reliable position we can test.

One can ‘try’ to present proof for the existence of the nonexistent, but the again, the burden of proof needed is on those trying to prove the existence of something in its present form of nonexistence. There is no valid reason or argument to believe a God exists. To do so would be presuming the existence of ‘god’ or gods not proven to exist. This is called faith. Faith is the antithesis of reason and critical thinking. Faith is irrational and a deragatory personal characteristic rather than the one drilled into the masses by educators and societal leaders in schools, churches (of course) and government as a commendable trait.

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one’s mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of mental destruction. A mentally deranged state of mind defined as a psychotic individual. Psychosis: severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. The deeper the faith, the more severe the psychosis.

ALL arguments presuming the existence of a god or gods, even an agnostic presuming a ‘possible’ existence of such an entity without valid proof, are all invalid from the start. Yes it is always possible valid reliable proof may ‘pop up;’ as in the actual arrival on earth of some all knowing, all powerful supreme being that created the universe or mult-verse, but the reality of this ever happening is highly unlikely given proven scientific laws in quantum mechanics.

If there was a God, Man wouldn't have had to invent him [reversing Voltaire's famous quote].


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: If each and

Ripple wrote:

If each and every one of you are sitting here telling this man is wrong for believing in the Christian God...then in what point and time did he ever say he believed in the Christian God that "wrote" the Bible?

Did he ever say that?

So look, there is the burden of proof on YOU. What does he believe in? An illogical God that killed a lot of people?

Or a Logical God, that by my defintion, CAN'T be proved. I can't prove that God. The Bible can't prove that God. You for sure can't prove that god. SO WHY ASK ME OR SOMEONE ELSE TO?

Why can't a "god"(any fucking god) have created this universe, came up with the Big fucking Bang himself, came up with Darwinist Evolution, hell even gave you the fucking technology to use I-pods(cough electrcitiy)

So PROVE to me, why GOD couldn't have created ALL of those things.

ohhh.. the universe is getting colder, and by cosmic photograph blah blah BORE ME. I know all of this. I know how science works.

HOW HAS SCIENCE DISSPROVED GOD?


Please guys, get this CHRISTIAN thinking out of your head. Some of us Theists (ME) Don't have an ounce of real rational thinking behind what is the Christian God, because we all know he isn't real. Right?

I'm just trying to show you guys to think outside the box. And outside the known universe.

I have a lot of theories on how the universe/s work because I've watched a lot of Brian Green, and have read a lot of Stephen Hawkings. Does anything, any fucking word they say mean shit in comparison to ANYTHING when you and they know full well they might be COMPLETELY RIGHT or COMPLTELY WRONG.

Because that is how you are labelying god. Right or Wrong.

Is GOD right or wrong? Is he both at the same time?

Answer those questions first, then, take the time to say, God isn't real. Because the truth is, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS REAL IN THIS WORLD. (you can't even tell me how REAL Jesus Christ was, so please, choke on a big fat stick of Scientific burden) WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD.

The only problem with capitalizing and overexagerating the font in "GOD" is that proves nothing exept you being emotional about your belief in a bearded man in the sky.

So please dispense with the parlor tricks and "lions den" motif. We understand your "persicution" complex. You may have suffered 2,000 years ago, but your numbers dont seem to imply you are suffering now. YOU JUST DONT LIKE COMPETITION!

2 billion or so people that claim Jesus was the son of God. Lets forget about the other 4 billion that are human trash for simply not   believing.

Hold on now J.C. fan. How do you know your got your diety right? 4 billion people believe that Allah and not Jesus got it right?

Screw some pesky skeptick who questions gosts knocking up 9-14 girls or 72 virgings in a magical land where you can get laid anytime you want.

IF you'd both look at human history both Islam and Christianity and Pagans before them would marry off girls at a extreemly young age. Why was that acceptable back then and not now?

BIOLOGICAL and lack of tecnology and medicine.

Most females during the pagan and monothistic ancient times were expected to produce children at their first period. Why? Because life health wise and length wise was not near as long. The sooner a baby was produced the more members too the club.

It is because of advances in technology and medicine aned the closing gaps of industry that young people do not need to become adults at such a young age.

It is absurd knowing what we know about ancient culture in polytheism and monothism to assert that Marry would have been 18. It is equally absurd to assert that Muhhamid(assuming a person existed by that name) would have had multiple wives over the age of 18. 

 

"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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Quote: I

Ophios wrote:
Quote:

I know God is real - the point is that I can't prove it nor will I ever be able to do so - in this lifetime.

Does that clarify things for you.

Yes, it confirms my thoughts. You can't prove your god is real, so you take your god's existance in faith. For how can you "Know" something is real if you can't prove it's real.

 

What an elegant way of demonstrating the problem in his argument.  The "god is beyond logic" argument cuts both ways....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Adnihilo wrote: It seems

Adnihilo wrote:

It seems evident markgtrplyr that you need to learn HOW to think first before learning WHAT to think. Your arguments are entirely fallacious in form and function.

Yes, this is a good way to size up the situation. Most people have opinions on matters like religion and science, but not everyone has properly explored the fields of logic, theology and science adequately enough to prepare themselves for a discussion with any more depth than those heard at a cocktail party.

Quote:


Theists, the ‘faith based,’ or true believers fail to understand that a ‘non theist’ does not deny the ‘possible existence’ of an omnipotent entity most would call a ‘god’ or gods. Atheism is a only a lack of belief for any god or gods based on a lack of any factual, reliable evidence. This default position eliminates the categories of agnostic or theist. For there is only one valid position for any rational sentient, sane human.

Agreed I find it interesting that the faith-based believer is unable to recognize his implicit agreement with your claim. Seeing as theists often don't really know what 'faith' is in the first place, many of them are unaware that their 'faith' is in fact an irrational position.

Quote:

There is no proven ‘god’ existence for anyone to deny. One cannot deny the nonexistent. It exists or it does not exist given the valid evidence. No matter if an atheist, a so called agnostic or a theist, the default position for all humanity is that of nonexistence for any omnipotent ’supreme’ beings not proven to exist. We, or humanity, must assume things do not exist unless we have factual evidence proving otherwise.

Yes. And to add to this, if we define an 'entity' such that it rules out the very possibility of considering it rationally, such as defining a 'god' as 'beyond nature', then it necessarily follows that there can be no rational grounds for belief in said 'entity'.

Quote:

Atheism does not deny anything. There is not a ‘god’ existence for the atheist, or the agnostic to deny. There is NOTHING to deny! The default position in critical thinking requires a nonexistent stance for ‘gods’.

Yes.

Quote:

There is no valid reason nor argument any human has presented to believe a God exists...

It is expected and accepted in critical thinking that we (as in ANY human) must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule “most” of the time; they don’t believe in Santa Claus, even though they can’t conclusively prove that no Santa Claus exists anywhere.

Yes. Interestingly enough, christians do very little 'soul searching' when it comes to other faith based claims. The inconsistency is lost to them.

Quote:

One can ‘try’ to present proof for the existence of the nonexistent, but the again, the burden of proof needed is on those trying to prove the existence of something in its present form of nonexistence. There is no valid reason or argument to believe a God exists. To do so would be presuming the existence of ‘god’ or gods not proven to exist. This is called faith. Faith is the antithesis of reason and critical thinking. Faith is irrational and a deragatory personal characteristic rather than the one drilled into the masses by educators and societal leaders in schools, churches (of course) and government as a commendable trait.

Fantastic. Faith (theistic faith) is non contingent belief. It's belief without justification. It's belief based on an inculcated desire. It's not an epistemological position, it's a rejection of epistemology itself.

Recently we had a theology student come to the board to argue that faith was another type of reason. He was asked why theists were urged to 'keep the faith' and if he were ever asked "keep the reason!". He was asked why a theist would even use the word 'faith' at all if faith were equitable with reason.

He was also asked "how it worked". I think his response was that it worked "very well".

Quote:

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational.

Very well said. Faith is a concession that you don't have a reason for your beliefs.

Quote:

It is more likely to be false then true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one’s mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one’s world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of mental destruction. A mentally deranged state of mind defined as a psychotic individual. Psychosis: severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. The deeper the faith, the more severe the psychosis.

One of the points I make to our theist friends is that a bad foundation leads to internal inconsistency in one's beliefs. The continual discovery of contradictions within christianity is a clue that holding to a belief on faith is ill advised.

Quote:

ALL arguments presuming the existence of a god or gods, even an agnostic presuming a ‘possible’ existence of such an entity without valid proof, are all invalid from the start. Yes it is always possible valid reliable proof may ‘pop up;’ as in the actual arrival on earth of some all knowing, all powerful supreme being that created the universe or mult-verse, but the reality of this ever happening is highly unlikely given proven scientific laws in quantum mechanics.

 

Welcome to the boards.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
markgtrplyr wrote: Let me

markgtrplyr wrote:
Let me ask you some questions - how much does sadness weigh..?? How many meters in length is anger..??

Sadness weighs about as much as an Internet forum, or as digestion. This Internet forum is not a "thing"; it is the name given to the interaction between the electrons, processors, magnetic memory media, fiber-optic Internet cables, and all the various other fancy computer stuff between my computer and the Rational Response Squad's webserver. Digestion is not a "thing"; it is the name given to the interaction between stomach acids, foods, the muscles along the digestive system, and the nutrient-absorbing organs along the intestine. Likewise, sadness is not a "thing; it is the name given to a particular interaction between hormomes, neurotransmitters, synapses, and ganglia.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.