When this happens most people seem to bring up that you can't disprove UFOs, unicorns, or a tea pot that orbits Jupiter (etc). If you know what they are likely to reject out of hand it's easier. Once you find something that they reject, and that can't be disproven; they will likely tell you some reason why what they believe is completely different then other people’s crap. At that point you at least have something to argue with them about.  

Burdon of Proof. I have no need to prove the negative, I am not making any claim as an atheist.

Yes, there are many definitions of the word "god" in common usage.

In the context of this discussion- particularly as to "whether or not gods exist", is it linguistically and intellectually dishonest to attempt to answer it in the positive by referencing Caesars and Rock-gods, or even Stone Idols or admittedly fictional characters.  Those are not the gods to which the question refers.

Saying "Santa doesn't exist" is not a reference to there not being a concept of a fictional character known as Santaclause, nor a reference to the non-existence of mall Santas.

In the context of the discussion, these "gods" are not what people are referring to, and that is not what atheism refers to.  I suspect that you know this- particularly as you are intelligent enough to make use of a computer and combine words into sentences. 

Bottom line:

You aren't ignorant enough to honestly make that argument.  Please don't be dishonest enough to make it anyway. 

Please don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that we're ignorant enough to buy it.

Words have generally accepted meanings for a reason- please use them honestly, or not at all.

Thank you.

And that is all that is needed.

Someone makes a claim (god exists).

Someone fails to show the claim is reasonable to believe.

The claim must be rejected.

Now, if someone makes a claim with specific qualities, that can be disproven.  Or, if the qualities goes against general definition.

Say, for example, that I say all basketballs are round.  In order for something to be considered a basketball by everyone, we all agree that basketballs are round.

Then someone says "I have a cube for a basketball!"  Then, by definition, it can be refuted as to not exist, as all basketballs have been accepted to be round. 

This is where theists see their opening, and start giving very vague definitions.  Problem is, none of the definitions are accepted by all.  Furthermore, when a paradox is found (such as with infinite power), the "goal posts are moved", and the definition of that type of god with those qualities are then changed, ending with simply a vague notion of gooey blech.

If to believe in a god is a claim to the existance of gods then the atheist claim is the claim to its nonexistance only by default and through ignorance. No specific god need be considered. Proving a negative is impossible and isn't implied in belief. Either way you go you just look silly, not even to mention that basing your non belief on someone elses belief reaks of some ulterior motive, in this case obviously sociopolitical. You don't need a label to publicize your disbelief in the Easter bunny do you?

If you intend to establish some doubt of the existance of a specific God, it might be a good idea to have the sense to name that god. Not that atheism regards the doubt or disbelief in any specific God by default.

[Edited for unnecessary rudeness.]

The Hebrew word El, in its various forms, means just what I said it does. El itself means literally, "strong or mighty one." I don't see why that would be limiting from God's perspective. The word is in the eyes of the beholder, so to speak. Jehovah God told Moses to be a god to Aaron and Pharaoh. Exodus 4:16: "And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you [Moses] will serve as God (Hebrew leʼ·lo·him′, pl.; Greek the·on′; Latin De′um) to him."

lol.. I understand what you are trying to get at and I have seen atheist argue in the same context, regarding the labeling, but the problem still remains that it is a default postion. Since we are dealing with a true dichotomy. If I'm not a thiest what am I?

This means god can be anything at all. I have yet to read a coherent definition of god that is not a an enormous generalisation or a fanciful assertion, or both.

 Here's that thread for you David: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19761

A theist is not necessarily just one who believes in the existence of a being some people call a 'god', but more aptly, one who worships a being one calls one's god.  A theist *has* a god.

See atheists in polytheism, and the parallels between henotheism and "stricter" monotheism (not really more strict)- henotheists believe in the existence of the beings, but only worship or consider worthy of worship one (or one hierarchy).

The Judeo-Christian texts are written in references to other gods because they believed them to exist, but they themselves were monotheists because they only worshipped one of them.

An atheist is merely godless- see any common dictionary for a run-down on definitions.  If anybody has said that an atheist *must* believe all beings that other people consider gods not to exist (not just not find them worthy of worship), then that statement was in error.  Usually, however, atheists also lack belief in such beings, on account of rationality.

Like argued in another thread, an atheist can very well believe in the existence of supernatural beings- the atheist just can't call them his or her 'god'/'lord'/etc. as this is a form of subservience and worship, which would make the atheist a *theist*.

The majority of China fits this description; and some probably do cross over the murky line between respect for and worship of ancestors (when it becomes worship, the supernatural being in question is just another god).

Somebody said it pretty well with: "Not all atheists are skeptics, but all skeptics are atheists" (approximate quote)

In order to be a particularly apt atheist, one must be a skeptic, but as definitions go, it's not necessary.

Some of where your confusion may stem from is and assumption which may have been made that to believe is to worship, and worship requires belief in the presence.

One could believe that such beings as Zues and YHWH exist, but not call them one's gods, and not worship them, and as such, be atheist- I am not one such atheist, but I know a few.

Some don't like the more liberal definition, but under the strictest terms, and even in common usage in many regions,  that is the sum of it- and unfortunately, that's what rules definitions.

Many Southern Baptists, for example, define an atheist as a person who rejects following their god Jesus/Trinity (particularly without replacing it with another 'false' god like 'Allah')- but do not conceive of a person who does not believe in the existence of a god at all. (And yes, that atheists secretly believe in the existence of their god but choose to ignore it is what most of them believe).

Discussing who is and isn't an atheist is a different matter from discussing whether any gods exist.

In determining the former, we merely look at the person in question's perspective- most importantly, does he or she *have* any gods?

In determining the later, we do need to consider specific gods and definitions, and the spirit in which the question was asked to determine which definitions that person was asking about.

As long as the person isn't a complete idiot, said person isn't asking about rock gods, fictional characters in books, nor kings, nor emperors, nor stone idols.  We already know these things- it's obvious- and it's not what the question is asking.  

Those are *different* definitions of "god" that are being asked about- ergo the dishonesty of your supposed answer.

Answering the correct question, we only have a few more common definitions to consider:

4. Is not the question.

3. Is not the question.

2. Also is not the question.

1. IS the question.

If you're really having this much trouble, show me any entry, and I can help you sort out which definitions are and which are not part of the question.

If you persist in answering questions using definitions that were not intended in the question, everything you say becomes pointless.

Fireman: "Are you O.K.? Are you on fire?"

Well, of course you can't say you're not on fire, because fire could be a internet networking site on which you unknowingly have a profile.  Geepers, we gorsh well better be unsure of everything!  Or better yet, say yes to everything!  It's gotta be true under some wording that has nothing to do with the question!

No, not if we want language to be at all useful.  If it's not the question, it's not relevant.

Look at the source.  Stop feigning deliberate ignorance to justify your dishonesty.

You may be somewhat of a troll, but you aren't that incapable of thinking.  You came here because you wanted, evidently, to think and discuss- so do it.  Start using *your* brain to think, and start using *everybody's* words to discuss; otherwise, the only people you'll be able to talk to are the one's living in the magical Mr. David Henson land.

Empirically proving anything- a negative or positive- to an absolute is not possible because empirical evidence is flawed by perception (that's what science is about- improving perception by eliminating subjective perception flaws).  Proving a negative, however, is very much possible, and the only completely solid proof that can be offered today- we don't prove theories, we gain evidence for them.  We do disprove theories, however, when they are shown to be irreconcilable.  Negatives are routinely and incontrovertibly proven through demonstrated contradictions.

Particularly, most definitions of 'god' have been disproven (as related to the question), and all common definitions have been disproven (as related the the question).  

People using aberrant definitions are twisting language beyond the breaking point, and aren't properly participating in the dialogue.  

Atheists were labeled by theists, not the other way around, and we bear the label because it is not overwhelmingly common.

In China, the word atheist is largely meaningless, and people are confused as to why somebody would want a word for it.

I like that sentiment, and I hope some day we only have to worry about labeling the people who do believe in the Easter-bunny as crazy, and not worry about defining ourselves by the norm.

I'm sure you would, as you seem to have a habit of using them, nobody would be left to call you on your dishonest argumentation stratagems.

What is a god? Are you going to play the magic shell game with definitions, switching them around were no one is looking. Arguing for one thing while really meaning another. To me a god is supernatural, and the supernatural is nothing but the arrogance of human being imposing there inner selves on the universe around them. You might feel differently. It don’t 'really matter that much to me what you feel, just like it probably doesn’t really matter that much to you how I feel. I does matter to me what you believe. You probably don’t really understand what I mean by this because you are probably jumping to the conclusion that I am only talking about theism, but I’m not. There are many important beliefs in any society. One of the most important beliefs in modern societies is that you can gain knowledge about the universe through empirical observation. From what I have read of your words you spite in the face of this belief. Would you destroy all the parts of science that don’t agree with your dogma? After everyone is done pruning away what they feel is ‘bad’ in science how much will be left?

I honestly fear that we may be dragged back to the dark ages. I so often see willful ignorance paraded around with pride by those who feel faith is superior to reason. Just because there is a degree of uncertainty doesn’t mean there isn’t knowledge. Just because evidence can be interpreted in different ways doesn’t mean there isn’t truth. The truth is in the pudding as it were. The truth is right in your face. Don’t you see it glowing at you with bright letters? What are you typing on? Truth is switching the switch and having light.

People’s hearts must be protected. We are human, and to forget that is our folly. But to ignore reality for a book written by a few primitive barbarians is also folly. The people of thousands of years ago were not stupid. They probably weren’t all that different from us. They had hearts, and maybe their hearts are resonating with yours through scraps of ancient paper passed down over generation. Yet they are all dead and you are alive. Will you be beholden to the words of the dead for all your life? Will you allow the words of those long gone to ruler your life?

I am not without opinions. Everything I think is not based on pure reason. I acknowledge that I can be, and often am wrong. Yet I am alive, willing to change with the flow of life around me. A part of the world I live in. If you are truly following the bible to the degree you say you are then you are living in a world that is long since dead. Wake up to the world around you, and free yourself from the stagnation of the past. You do not have to worship a book.

 

Let's further this:

We can simplify the proving of a negative through a basic enthymeme:

Dumbo is not blue because he is an elephant.

From here, we have the following syllogism:

All elephants are not blue

Dumbo is an elephant

:. Dumbo is not blue.

Here, we have proved the negative.  If we accept that all elephants are indeed not blue, and we accept that Dumbo is an elephant, then we must accept the conclusion that Dumbo is not blue.

We have, therefore, shown the negative to be reasonable to believe.

The reason atheists will ask for the "burdon of proof" for the claims of theists is that we need to have evidence to show that the assertion is reasonable to believe.  The problem is that we are left by most theists, as Brian37 points out, with a naked assertion and no reason left to believe.  To use the enthymeme:

"God exists because..."

We need the because so we can setup the syllogism, and then we can gather evidence (through logic or through scientific discovery) to show that the premises are true.  Without it, we simply have a claim, and that claim must be assumed false without any evidence to base the major and minor premises (the major premise being the All A are B, and the minor being that C is a subset of A).  Otherwise, we are left with a naked assertion without the basic premises that answer the question "why?" 

But, of course, that proof is only proved insofar as the premises are true- proving that no elephants are blue is a more arduous task.  Unless the definition of elephant inherently contains "non-blue", I'm afraid it may be impossible to prove without a doubt that no elephants anywhere are blue (inductive logic surely fails us here).

I believe this is to what theists often refer- a supposedly endless chain of premises which require perfect empirical proof.

That is, of course, only the empiricists' take- which is not needed to disprove something as trivial, logically, as a god by the common definitions.

Rationalists will understand that some positive knowledge can come directly from negation- those things which are not true due to being self contradictory can be known to be so, and by then eliminating all alternative explanations to a thing (an often lengthy process), we may arrive at the only possible true explanation, and believe it with neither premise nor faith.

Such complete logical proof constructs, however, are few and far between.

Two things I might ask, irrespective of paraconsistent logic:

The LONC is not falsifiable, correct?

What is it about God that violates the LONC?

I believe in an omipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, omnibenevolent being - though I don't know how far those terms extend, in what order or how strictly they apply.

For example omniscient could mean "Knows everything there is to know" or just "Knows anything that you can ask" or "knows nothing itself but is never wrong due to one reason or another". I like to call them True Omniscience, Apparent Omniscience and Artificial Omniscience, respectively. To anything that is not omniscient, they are indisitinguishabel from each other, but have implications as to what definition the other attributes of God can have (omnipotence, transcendent etc). 

I believe in the "Christian" God, though I admit my belief is out of ignorance rather than knowledge. "I don't know" will be a common answer, as it is among Atheists when the question of Origin is raised.

Fair enough.

EDIT: Clarity.

GOD DID IT! HE HAS THE TRUMP CARD OF FIAT BY PROXY OF NAKED ASSERTION!

If you're a gap and you know it clap your hands

If you're a gap and you know it clap your  hands

If you're a gap and you know it and you really wanna show it

If you're a gap and you know it clap your hands

Now stop bothering the righteous believer with pesky little things like facts. It destroys their case of the warm fuzzies.

I'm guessing that was directed at you, Brian37?

Rose definitely makes a good point, and I'm glad She's on my side here.

That aside, though, please take it easy on quoting my entire posts.  I'm long winded as it is without taking up twice as much space per post!

In the case of Buddhism as you have pointed out, no. No dishonesty there, and almost everyone I know is an atheist and don't have any opposition to gods, they, however, would never take the time or energy to be an outspoken militant atheist like what posts on message boards such as these. There are two things that I have noticed that differ with the atheists I know in what we are going to call "real life" and what we are going to call the "World Wide Wasteland" or superhighway of misinformation, and that is . . . hold on a second, I forgot what I was talking about, I'll have to scroll . . . oh, yeah, the two differences are 1. atheists online seem to be preoccupied with God more than a Christian and B. science is their religion.

Go to any Christian message board or discussion group and announce you don't believe in God and gauge their reaction and then go to any atheist message board or discussion group and announce that you don't believe in evolution and gauge their response and compare them and it becomes pretty obvious. At least it always does to me.

The average militant atheist I have a discussion with online is hardly "without" God, they are against those who are "with" God and it has nothing to do with God, it is sociopolitical.

Hi Dmasterman.  I posted a disproof of god argument some time earlier.  That might or might not be the counter argument you are remembering.  The easiest way to find it is to look in the 'Kill em with Kindness' forum.  It is called The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof.  I hope it helps you.

Perhaps the problem David isn't that you see this behavior in atheist but that you are looking for it.. After all, i'm not on a theist forum calling you a joke am I?

This is an Atheist vs. Theist forum.

I am a believer in Jehovah God, through 16 years of intense study of the Bible. What are your objections to that?

I'm apolitical, being no part of the world. Not voting or involving myself in politics in any sense of the word. I have no public position on abortion, homosexuality, or what is taught in the schools outside of my own opinion. As far as I can tell the only reason you and I have to have any sort of discussion is that we are on a forum called Atheist vs. Theist. Correct?

Being antipolitical would imply political, wouldn't it. I mean I have nothing to do with politics. You didn't answer my question.

Sorry Dave by your own admitance you can't claim to be "apolitical", so you are either a hypocrite or a troll.

I believe in the Cosmic Egg, through 30 years of intense study of the Egg.

1. Everything that happens has a cause.
2. At one point, something came from nothing, the Egg or the Chicken came into existence.
3. This must have had a cause.
4. Since Science has failed to identify which came first, the cause must have been God.

You are already familiar with our differences in definition, and as to the ant analogy:

If omnipotence is merely the ability to do things that are possible, then anything and everything is omnipotent, because we can all do things that are possible for us to do.  My point is that using this later definition makes the meaning of the word irrelevant as a qualifier of a god.  This is not the case for omnivores, which is a reference to a particular subset of "food chain" foods- omni, in the case of potency, is not in reference to any particular subset of actions and limitations.

When one has a particular group, and says "omni", one means all of that group- alternatively referencing different parts of that group with other qualifiers.

When speaking of potency, we have no predefined subset, so the only rational (and non-arbitray) subsets we can come to are: All inclusive, including possible and impossible things. *OR* All possible things.

The former is definitionally impossible, the later is irrelevant.

If you don't understand this difference, I can explain it in more detail, but I hope that's clear enough.

You misunderstood my argument.  I was arguing against your definition based on its  triviality, and arguing against the only other reasonable definition to which you could refer- that's not a straw man, just thorough and preemptive.

I have explained how omnipotence is either impossible, or by your definition an irrelevant qualifier.  If you discard that qualifier, though, we can move on to the others.

The consequences of omniscience are also vulnerable to the same fate- either they are impossible, or it is an irrelevant qualifier.

Is your god a relative thing?  If somebody is merely more wise or intelligent than another, is that person a god?

Are we gods to mice?  Are mice gods to ants?  Does your god have gods?

Omnipresence needs to be defined more clearly, but suffers similar fates. 

Disputing it more quickly, however (with less investigation into your exact definition), merely requires mentioning relativity- which if you accept, makes omnipresence impossible.

What is Transcendence supposed to mean?

Eternal, like omnipotent, is either impossible or irrelevant.

If you reject relativity (by which right you should probably stop using the internet, as networks contain computation that accounts for it), and you reject all quantum physics and consider Bose-Einstein condensates scientific propaganda (this would be far fetched, and I'm not saying that you do- I hope you don't), and use a very particular meaning of omnipresence, then that's the only definition you've listed that might skirt a logical disproof (pending finding out what you mean by Transcendence- transcendent of what?).

Benevolence is a human construct of opinion, which is capable of contradiction (one human doesn't necessarily agree with another).  By definition, omnibenevolence is impossible- any god that is defined as having this quality is impossible.

If you wanted to redefine "goodness", you will have to determine it relative to something other than human opinion.  If you opt to determine it relative to your deity (good is that which is god, god is that which is good), you have created a circular and invalid definition which you can not use to define your deity by. 

I won't be rude enough to quote the definition of circular reasoning to you, as I do have some respect for you.

No, it isn't.  Seriously, this isn't fair of you to ask me to explain wave mechanics- it took me months to understand it in university. 

Theology is highly subjective, and every opinion is different- these are things you could easily look up (and will need significant background to understand).  It's a very basic, and fundamental definition that I just need you to understand in order to proceed.

I will give one last try:

A wave is described as a "probability field"; probability fields exist relative to reference frames, though objective "probability" doesn't exist (this would imply an objective sense of chance, or luck).  It's even more difficult to explain what is necessary with all of the caveats needed to prevent misinterpretation.

You can think of a wave as a cloud of locations where a particle "somewhat" exists, but more accurately "potentially" exists (and by exist, I mean is centered on as yet along probability cloud).  It will, objectively (from the imaginary objective perspective), exist in all of those locations in different divergent branches, with the density of occurrence of particular branches (which aren't as distinct as branches imply, but is as good a metaphor as I can give at the moment) relative to the weight of the "probability field" at each place in the cloud.

I do not believe that I have time to explain this to you. 

If you don't understand, and if you won't buy a book (which I highly advise at least checking out from a library if you have any interest in genuinely and honestly understanding reality as we have found it), please read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

If it makes sense to you, you probably didn't understand it (and I don't mean that as an insult).  Please read it again until it doesn't make sense.

When it stops making sense, think about it for a few weeks until you're completely confused, and then read up on many worlds.  Then read up on the Copenhagen interpretation, and think about them again for a while.

When it makes sense again, after all of that, let me know.

If anybody else has a better way of learning basic wave mechanics, please chip in- that's just a summary of how I got it.  It's not "enlightenment", but it's also a little counter-intuitive, so it's tricky to grasp.

Yes, insofar as the movement is not physical movement over time (as we are speaking in terms of 'universes'[slices of the universe] diverging from an objective point of view outside of time- an objective point of view which, remember, I have classified as imaginary).

Think more of looking at the branches of a dead tree, and saying they are diverging.  Yes, they are, as you follow them with your eyes up the branches.  However, the divergence has nothing to do with time, but is a qualitative measure of the branches becoming different from each other.

If I understand what you are asking, you may be getting at part of my point- that is, that existence is relative.

Arbitrary is not necessarily the best word to use, because existence is from every available point of view, and not just a singular view point- as arbitrary would imply.  These are "different" existences, though, as far as our perception would tell us, were we to perceive them.

 So, Arbitrary- no.  Relative- completely.

Nope.  Here:

- "Information can not be objectively created"

- "Information can be (not only can be, but constantly is, and unstoppably so) relatively created from nothing beyond the perspective/reference frame it is formed relative to"

Yes, within/relative to a reference frame, but it is not creating itself- if you need a source, the combination of perspective and divergence is "creating" it, but that belies a false sense of time.

"Comes from" is a bit of a misnomer; "is an emergent property of/ within" is more precise.  It's not emanating from some "wave" entity.

You are simplifying, and anthropomorphizing (in a way) to our perception of chronology.

The information properties that we are observing do not objectively exist, because they rely on a perspective reference point for their relative existence.

Subjective, but not in every sense of the word, because that implies opinion, which has nothing to do with it.  Everything is relative to our perspective/reference frame.

Objective "information", in the sense of matter/energy/etc. as viewed from outside of the relative reference frames in space-time doesn't exist.  That is to say nothing of objectivity itself, which exists, but contains no distinct i.

It could be stated this way, save that perspective is rather essential to the nature of the wave itself, and that the information is rather part of the wave.  That is, our perspective/reference frames could be said to be the source of information, the quality of which, as whole, defines the wave of the universe.

Bear in mind that this "perception" has nothing to do with human perception, but has to do with the universe as seen (not with eyes- eyes are not needed- perhaps as 'it is as' is a better way to put it) from a reference frame.

Many people who misunderstand quantum physics most drastically trip up on words like perception and observation, which don't have anything to do with people looking at things in this context.

Objective subjective existence *is* a subjective existence. 

If that doesn't make sense, take this analogy:

Imagine that objective existence is a positive number, and subjective existence is a negative number.  Objective x subjective = subjective.  Subjectivity is logically "contagious", as it is.

From an objective standpoint, all available subjective existences exist, but the only way to 'sample' them is to input as much information as you get out.  Objective reality is "empty" of distinguishing information- it's like an equation without variables.

I didn't expect you to be so rude, so this was a surprise- I *thought* we could have a civil discussion.

I *thought* that you were trying to understand, as you seemed to imply.  Were you deceiving me, and merely pursuing an ulterior motive of 'proving' your own point by insulting me without considering mine?

Consider me insulted.  Congratulations.

A friend and I had a debate about it the other day. I did use the "ufo" thing. I told him a ufo was going to land and give everyone a snickers bar. I told him I had faith in this, I just KNOW it's true! Maybe I had a dream, or vision of sorts to back it up. He just said that was silly and that he had a bible that says his religion is true.

I asked him if it was not as silly to believe in a mythological being who controls your life and your entire world. He starts spouting random crap from the bible.

I told him the bible was written by men, several men in fact. He said "No it wasnt, they just found the bible"......yea, I laughed at him and said OH RLY!

I went over several things such as slavery in the old testament, killing of rebellious children (which he did not want to discuss at all)

I tried to break down the bible for what it is, an attempt at societal control by ancient men. It is so clear to me, what men back then would have liked, and understood, he just thinks that my interpretations are wrong. On that note he (and I have heard this before) said that he iterprets the bible the way he wants too. I told him flat out, "that's pretty handy huh".

I asked him if god created us in his own image, why does god need ears, eyes nose mouth, feet and hands etc? So he literally is like, a man in space? He really did not have much to comment on about that.

Anyway, after our arguement I had to draw the conclusion that a: my friend is terribly stupid, or  b: so blinded by what he was raised with that he is terribly blind and closed minded.