Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

But todays athiests who call themselves athiests want to have the appearance of being well learned people who don't need no stinkin' religion. Unfortunately, being well learned means they have at least had a rudimentary introduction to logic, and understand that you can not logically prove there is no god, logically it can only be axiom - and a weak axiom as it does not lead to demonstratable truths.

You guys just love to try to cram that shoe on our foot!

It's not our job to prove that there is no god, it's your job to prove that there is. You are the ones making the wild claims. Since the theist is unable to do that, the atheist has no reason to think god exists.

You are wrong. If a theist claims that there is a god, it is up to him to prove it. If an atheist claims that there is no god, it is up to him to prove it. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. Only the agnostic position requires no proof, as it is not asserting any certainty.

Finally - someone who gets it..

Technically, both the theist, and the atheist, positions are logically fallacious until such time as someone either proves, or disproves, the existence of God. Since this is unlikely to happen either way, to claim either position as fact is fraudulent.

Thus, even as I profess to be a Christian, and firmly believe God exists, I am also an intellectual agnostic - which is a terribly convoluted definition of faith.

Metacell wrote:

I dunno' that atheists present their view as fact so much as they claim their view of not believing in something they have no experience of is a reasonable one, whereas belief in God, god, or gods is no more reasonable than believing in sprites, leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, dragons, genies, witches (in the original sense), or the FSM.

Depends on which one you talk  to and when.

Also, the "no more reasonable" argument is not true. To believe in dragons, you'd have to have, say, people who have seen dragons. You'd have to have evidence of dragons existing, things which have been affected by dragons. Same with the other things on your list save the FSM.

From a strictly deist perspective, the only effects that a god has is the creation of the universe. And hey - the universe does indeed exist!

So I would say that it is more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons.

The FSM, being a parody of Creationist/Fundamentalist beliefs is part of a totally different set of arguments...

Tallgeese wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I dunno' that atheists present their view as fact so much as they claim their view of not believing in something they have no experience of is a reasonable one, whereas belief in God, god, or gods is no more reasonable than believing in sprites, leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, dragons, genies, witches (in the original sense), or the FSM.

Depends on which one you talk  to and when.

Also, the "no more reasonable" argument is not true. To believe in dragons, you'd have to have, say, people who have seen dragons. You'd have to have evidence of dragons existing, things which have been affected by dragons. Same with the other things on your list save the FSM.

From a strictly deist perspective, the only effects that a god has is the creation of the universe. And hey - the universe does indeed exist!

So I would say that it is more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons.

The FSM, being a parody of Creationist/Fundamentalist beliefs is part of a totally different set of arguments...

You're missing the whole point of the argument. The very existence of the universe is NOT proof of god. There is no more proof of god than there are of dragons. All we have of god are stories that people have told.

And, guess what!

All we have of dragons are stories that people have told.
It is no more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons, spaghetti monsters, or orbiting teapots.

You're just fooling yourself.

Tallgeese wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

But todays athiests who call themselves athiests want to have the appearance of being well learned people who don't need no stinkin' religion. Unfortunately, being well learned means they have at least had a rudimentary introduction to logic, and understand that you can not logically prove there is no god, logically it can only be axiom - and a weak axiom as it does not lead to demonstratable truths.

You guys just love to try to cram that shoe on our foot!

It's not our job to prove that there is no god, it's your job to prove that there is. You are the ones making the wild claims. Since the theist is unable to do that, the atheist has no reason to think god exists.

You are wrong. If a theist claims that there is a god, it is up to him to prove it. If an atheist claims that there is no god, it is up to him to prove it. The one who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. Only the agnostic position requires no proof, as it is not asserting any certainty.

It is only up to a theist to prove it if he claims he can.
There are many things that many people claim that there is no proof for.

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God.
To require proof by a scientific standard of proof is an absurd illogical request, because science is designed around the study of natural phenomena - it quite simply is the wrong tool to prove the super natural.

Those who demand scientific proof of a deity are making an illogical request.

resedit wrote:

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

I gather then that, to you, there's no difference between "knowing" and simply "believing"?

So how do you balance your "knowledge" of (capital Gee) God with someone else's equally solid knowledge of Greek god Zeus or Mayan god Hunab Ku or Viking god Odin? What causes your choice of god to trump theirs if each of you would claim that you "know beyond the shadow of a doubt" that your god exists and obviously is the correct one?

Or is yours the true one simply because you say so?

KingFred wrote:

resedit wrote:

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God.

I gather then that, to you, there's no difference between "knowing" and simply "believing"?

So how do you balance your "knowledge" of (capital Gee) God with someone else's equally solid knowledge of Greek god Zeus or Mayan god Hunab Ku or Viking god Odin? What causes your choice of god to trump theirs if each of you would claim that you "know beyond the shadow of a doubt" that your god exists and obviously is the correct one?

Or is yours the true one simply because you say so?

You forgot Amon-Ra !!eleven!!!

The valid logical reason to reject it as some sort of validation of the bible is that the evidence depends on how the Book of Daniel is interpreted.

Isaac Newton was not wrong. Relativity just refined our knowledge of physics. In fact, we still use Newton's theories today, because, within the gross parameters of stuff we want to do, it is quite accurate.

And your reliance on your imagination ("the Holy Spirit") is your problem, not mine.

user wrote:

You guys just love to try to cram that shoe on our foot!

It's not our job to prove that there is no god, it's your job to prove that there is. You are the ones making the wild claims. Since the theist is unable to do that, the atheist has no reason to think god exists.

Also, stating that ALL experience is subjective is a VERY weak argument for the existence of god.

If you argue for one side or the other it obilges you to back up your story one way or the other. What you're doing is tantamount to children battling back and forth with "I know you are but what am I?" The fact that you are involved in an argument is proof enough that the issue is debatable, meaning your side of the the problem doesn't get away with just saying "I dont need proof; you do…"

user wrote:

Atheists are not making an assertion. They are merely disbelieving. According to your statement, we should now expect from you proof that fairies, unicorns, Kali and Thor don't exist.

That just it- you are very much making an assertion. You cant back out of it by saying something and then saying you didn't have to say it so you dont need to back it up with a logical argument or other evidence.

user wrote:

You're missing the whole point of the argument. The very existence of the universe is NOT proof of god. There is no more proof of god than there are of dragons. All we have of god are stories that people have told.

And, guess what!

All we have of dragons are stories that people have told.
It is no more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons, spaghetti monsters, or orbiting teapots.

You're just fooling yourself.

Except you are contending these things as if people actually believe in spaghetti monsters and Russell's teapot etc, when no one does, yet people very much do believe in God and gods. We'd all agree that certain things are absurd if people actually believed in them, but that doesnt amount to any evidence as to why people "shouldnt" believe in God or gods.

user wrote:

No, asking for evidence is certainly a logical request. You are just choosing to be illogical.

You "know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a God" only because you want it to be true. Even then you have to defend that belief against your own intelligence. When a storm wipes out hundreds of the faithful you have to satisfy yourself with "god works in mysterious ways" instead of understanding that a storm is an unfeeling and uncaring natural manifestation out of the control of any supernatural agency. Many Christians attend "revivals" to buck themselves up against the natural process of their intelligence that leads them to disbelieve.

Then how come you have to buy books to boost your own preconceived conclusions about the lack of God or gods and why do you constantly feel the need to justify these beliefs of yours?

A better question: why do you feel the need to make clear how different you are than theists? Does it boost your self esteem to make them out as if they arent the logical smart guy you want to identify with?

Here's something for comparison: if you are in love, do you think you'd need to give yourself some kind of scientific test to validate that feeling, or would you just as soon accept your feeling because its YOU who have to live with yourself and you  know how you feel better than some outside scientific or logical authority?

Exactly. And you know what? I feel the same way. This is my life, and I dont need to justify my beliefs or prove them as "right" to you. I will talk about my life, my feelings and experiences, thoughts, etc with absolute freedom regardless.

How has the God of Abraham let the past 1900 years slide without an incredible showing of his wrath ?

The number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Holy Bible is enormous.

In the past 1900 years, where has the burning bush been ?  The angelic messangers ?  The miracles ?   The prophets ?

Instead, there has been wars, slaughters, and great evil done by holy men.

YHWH was all-powerful, but used to live in the basement of some temple, until mere mortals destoryed that temple.  After a history of intervention to aid His people.

What's more likely...and unseen, unprovable God;  or a story that people use to take advantage of other people ?

user wrote:

The valid logical reason to reject it as some sort of validation of the bible is that the evidence depends on how the Book of Daniel is interpreted.

No one disputes the interpretation of Daniel with respect to the predictive prophecy concerning world affairs of the greek empire.

The "conservative" scholars interpret it as predictive prophecy of the Greek period from Alexander the Great through Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the "liberal" scholars interpret it as the Greek history from Alexander the Great through Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

There is no dispute on interpretation of the passage that damns Daniel to 2nd century authorship by the modern scholars - and if that passage was not there, Daniel would certainly be dated as 5th or 6th century BCE because the *real* dating evidence (loan words, grammar, historical accuracy, type of aramaic) scream for 5th or 6th century BCE - works with less support for an early dating are dated early without any dispute whatsoever.

But Daniel is so accurate on the Kingdom of Greece over that period that they just can't believe it is prophecy - because they have already decided it is impossible.

Last edited by resedit (2007-06-22 5:14 pm)

Theist: There is a god who created the world and he cares what you do!

Atheist: Really? Interesting idea. What evidence do you have that this is true?

Theist:You must believe and have faith that it is so! If you do you will be rewarded after you die! See, it's all written here in this ancient book.

Atheist: So, you got nothing except the testimony of an old book?

Theist: This book was written by the inspiration of God!

Atheist: How do you know it was "inspired" by this god? Oh, never mind, I think I know what you're going to say anyway....

That's pretty much the size of it. Insisting that atheists prove the negative is absurd, especially in light of the fact that the world chugs right along on autopilot, no guidance needed.

The theist has the larger task of proving that ANYTHING they say is true, yet when we comment on that lack of evidence, we are accused of being militant and intolerant. My conclusion about the lack of gods is far from preconceived. I used to be a theist myself.

Tallgeese wrote:

Metacell wrote:

I dunno' that atheists present their view as fact so much as they claim their view of not believing in something they have no experience of is a reasonable one, whereas belief in God, god, or gods is no more reasonable than believing in sprites, leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, dragons, genies, witches (in the original sense), or the FSM.

Depends on which one you talk  to and when.

Also, the "no more reasonable" argument is not true. To believe in dragons, you'd have to have, say, people who have seen dragons. You'd have to have evidence of dragons existing, things which have been affected by dragons. Same with the other things on your list save the FSM.

From a strictly deist perspective, the only effects that a god has is the creation of the universe. And hey - the universe does indeed exist!

So I would say that it is more reasonable to be a deist than to believe in dragons.

The FSM, being a parody of Creationist/Fundamentalist beliefs is part of a totally different set of arguments...

Well, I claim that dragons created the universe. And, WALLAH! The universe exists, so the dragons must be real!

P.S. I do not think atheists are right, I just think there arguments are more reasonable.  I find an amazing number of religious people unwilling to be as critical of their own beliefs as they are of others.  If you think I am being just as unfair to those who believe in prophecy I will say that their prophecies bring real harm to the world and serve no moral or spiritual purpose.

user wrote:

To be more precise, my point is that Daniel must be interpreted to arrive at the conclusion that it even contains prophecy, let alone whether it is correct.

It either contains prophecy or it contains history - because what is spelled out in Daniel 11 exactly how things went down. There is no third option.

It is history or it is prophecy.