If there is hostility towards you, I can understand it.
Intellectual honesty is a value that gains much respect among other intellectually honest people.
To be deliberately disingenuous, which you have been here multiple times, is to be intellectually dishonest.
Intellectual dishonesty is deserving of ridicule.
Then you do not understand Atheism. This is simple. What is the first question an atheist will ask if a person asserts they believe in God? Do you know?
It’s easy — Which God are you talking about? We are starting from the ‘ZERO’ point. ‘Please explain what you are talking about and why?’ There is no belief in that position.
Now, with that said, I believe no theist I have ever met or conversed with has ever met their burden of proof. I have not heard any new arguments for the existence of god in 10 years or more. Most of the arguments I am aware of are hundreds of years old and have been debunked for just as long. So, going into this discussion, I am aware of all this. That does not mean I automatically assume you are going to present me with the same old bullshit, but when you do… do you have any idea at all how fast I can recognize it? It may seem like you are getting shut down without a fair hearing but trust me, you have not come up with anything new. And, like all theists, as soon as someone pins you down with logic, you evade by switching subjects, moving the goal posts, or simply ignoring. That’s just the kind of guy you are.
What is the (Null-hypothesis)?
When they drink the Kool-Aid multiple times, it’s very hard to talk any sense into them since most of their desires consists of getting you to drink the Kool-Aid next.
The question of consciousness may be unanswered . . . but just because we have an unanswered question doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.
I can even argue that it’s actually dangerous to invoke God when we don’t understand something.
As an example that supports ths point . . . consider the fact that everyone used to believe that lightning came from God.
If lightning comes from God, then the church is the safest place to store the gunpowder.
The Brescia Church blew up and demolished about one sixth of the town and killed 2,000 people, as lightning rods are sacreligious . . . as the church was hit by lightning and caught fire, and then the 90 tons of stored gunpowder exploded.
There are many other examples that I could give.
There are many important, unanswered questions about consciousness that need to be researched. A deeper understanding of consciousness will help us resolve issues attached to people with brain damage, and people who are in a coma, for example
Invoking God accomplishes nothing.
Please! Do you even hear what you are saying. "Agnostics don’t accept WHAT as a fact? The fact that Atheists don’t believe in gods? (Atheists don’t believe in god or gods. Many don’t believe in spiritual stuff as well.) What is this ‘FACT’ that agnostics do not believe in. Agnosticism says nothing about belief.
Here is a fact for you. If you profess to be AGNOSTIC. You are Atheist. Theism is HAVING A BELIEF IN GOD. If you do not have that belief. If you are questioning that belief. If you do not feel the presence of god in your life. If you have not accepted Jesus, Thor, Baal, Jehovah, or the Great Kanaloa, you are an (A = Without) (Theist = Belief in God.) You are without a belief in god. You do not know if a god exists or not and so you have NO BELIEF IN THIS OR THAT GOD and that makes you an ATHEIST.
Welcome to the fucking country club!
BY THE WAY YOU ARE WRONG: The difference between atheists and agnostics.
Atheism is a question of ‘BELIEF.’
Agnosticism is a question of ‘KNOWLEDGE.’
If you are asked ‘Do you believe in a god?’ You can not answer the question with “I am agnostic.” I did not ask you what you knew. I did not ask you if you knew a god existed. Have you not heard “John 20:29” “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Are you completely unfamiliar with the argument from "Pascal’s Wager?’ Just believe without evidence and the reward of heaven awaits.
Most Atheists are Agnostic. Agnostic is not a category. It is about what you know. Most Theists are actually agnostic when you actually question them. They KNOW very little to nothing about the gods they worship. Agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE. That which you actually know. Atheism is about belief. What do you actually believe.
Now, I will give you a hand. By saying, ‘I am agnostic,’ you are actually trying to find some middle ground between accepting the proposition that God exists or accepting the proposition that God does not exist. These are two different propositions. You must take them one at a time. (Enter the Star Analogy)
If I tell you that the number of stars in the night sky is even, do you believe me? Of course not. Does that mean you think the number is odd? No! It means you do not think the number is even. You can’t imagine how I would know that.
In the same way. If I say "I do not believe in a god.’ I am not making the claim ‘God does not exist.’ A theist has made the claim ‘The number of stars is even.’ (God exists.) and I am responding. I don’t believe that. It does not mean I believe no gods exist (The number of stars is odd.) It means I do not believe your claim. I generally do not believe the claims of theists because they have no evidence to support the claims.
You hang around this site long enough, and you will eventually see some Atheist wander in here and spout nonsense about God not existing. The folks around here will hold him to the same standard as a theist. What evidence do you have for your assertion?
With that said, I am an atheist and I happen to believe that no gods exist based on 27 years of failed god arguments. At the same time, I will not take the position that a specific god does not exist until I can demonstrate that the god being claimed to exist clearly does not exist. This position is called ‘Antithetic.’ I am antitheist to most presentations of god or gods. For example, a god that is both just and merciful can not exist. Justice is the suspension of mercy. Mercy is the suspension of justice. This is not the position of any God. A creator god that is all knowing is a fucking asshole. He may exist, but he sits in the room having created a woman to be raped, knew it was going to happen and does nothing. He created babies to starve, and he sits by knowing everything that was going to happen, and he lets it happen. You can burn that fucking god in his own Hell whether he exists or not. I refuse to believe such a monster as the god of the Bible exists. Still, I will not take the position against a god until I am clear what god is being discussed. I am Atheist regarding all gods. I don’t believe god claims whether they are for or against a god’s existence, without evidence.
Let me repeat that: "I don’t believe in god claims. I don’t believe them if they are for the existence of a god. I don’t believe them if they are against the existence of a god. I don’t believe god claims until I see the evidence. I don’t believe in a God, so discussing its non-existence is moronic. My experience tells me everyone is agnostic, No one knows a damn thing about God or gods. That is why I am an atheist.
Does any of this help clear things up for you?
Given a finite mind and an incomplete set of facts, there is no way for a human to prove anything.
Even things science considers “laws” cannot be shown to be universal across space and time.
Thus there is no burden of proof on anyone and each of us can and must proceed to make life and death decisions based not on that which can be shown to be absolutely right or wrong but on that which either makes, or does not make subjective sense.
IOW, factor in all the factors you like but ultimately it seems best to act on what feels best and do that which makes as many humans as happy as possible.
This also seems to make the idea of an atheist/theist argument seem antithetical to both parties as neither part can prove their first principles, much less provide a definitive answer to the topic under consideration.
So the entire debate seems pointless except as one considers the possibility that each side simply enjoys arguing and is happiest when he or she is in contention, or more said perhaps more correctly, is being contentious.
Or do you want to argue that you have become omnipotent and that there are things you know for absolutely certain?
ADDED BY MOD - please do not respond to this post in this string. The poster has started a new string with this exact text. Respond there.
I think you need to refresh your understanding of the atheist position: A disbelief (without sufficient credible evidence) in the claims of theists.
Nothing antithetical about that position.
My point is only that no one prove a negative, and there is no way to prove that god does not exist.
So that is what you should have said. If you read my reply I am not implying a negative. I disbelieve the claims of theists without sufficient credible evidence to back up their claims. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is NOT a claim that a god or gods does not exist.
Some (a few ) atheists do make the claim that a particular (or even all) god or gods do not exist. Then they have to produce sufficient credible evidence to back their claim. .
Do you understand?
That depends on the definition of a deity of course, as some are falsifiable, however even were the concept presented unfalsifiable (deity or otherwise) I would still withhold belief.
Do you believe invisible mermaids are real?
Can I ask why you’re posting the same idea in multiple threads?
I’m pretty sure that we can demonstrate unequivocally that the earth is not flat, and that it is not at the centre of the universe. So your claim would appear to be errant nonsense.
You’d need first to specify which god, and accurately define it, even if you present an unfalsifiable notion of deity, this is not evidence it is real. You can’t prove we aren’t surrounded by invisible unicorns, that are undetectable in any empirical way, but I still don’t believe we are.
Wait…what? Does this mean that everything
which we cannot prove the non-existence of, automatically assumes the mantle of possibility? Is that what the OP is claiming?
Hot damn! I have been under the delusion that possibility has to be demonstrated. Oh woe is me…
Edit to take some B&W photos
The argument from hard solecism. It makes no difference at all. We can not prove the brain is not in a vat and the world illusion. We can not prove the world did not pop into existence ten minutes ago with all memories intact. SO WHAT. This is the world we live in. We have no choice. I don’t believe for an instant you run about denying the laws of reality. You step out a windown and you are going to fall until you hit the ground. THAT IS A FACT. You do not get to pretend that your delusion of a god is on par with my facts of existence because we can’t know anything 100%. That is both ignorant and dishonest.
Do you even know what a law is? Do you know why they are not universal? Do you really think you scored a point here? Laws are “DESCRIPTIVE” not 'PRESCRIPTIVE." Scientists build models not laws. Laws are observations and nothing more. When new evidence comes to light, our ‘LAWS’ are altered to fit the new evidence. That is how science works. Laws are not, nor have they ever been, intended to be universal. You are chasing a red herring. Your argument simply shows your ignorance.
You are incorrect again. If I assert there is a dragon living in my backyard, are you going to accept the claim without evidence? Are you that slow? The person making the claim has the burden of proof. You would be completely justified asking for evidence of the claim and then evaluating that evidence. I am completely justified in questioning magical, spiritual, woo woo that has no evidence in the world in which we reside.
I can’t even imagine the ignorance of this comment. Half the world is starving and, you are sitting there plunking away on a thousand dollar computer. You probably had meat for dinner. Can you spell ‘Hypocrite.’ What would make more people happy is for you to give up your posessions and live like most people in the world. Follow Jesus and give everything to the poor and stop being the hypocrite you are.
One of us does not have to "PROVE’ (You actually mean demonstrate.) anything. One of us is asking questions and the other making claims. Claims carry a burden of proof.
The point of the debate, which you completely miss, is to drag you kicking and screaming into the light of rational thought and reason. Perhaps you will get it someday. In the mean time, enjoy the darkness.
The only one arguing they know things for certain is YOU. You have asserted we can not know anything 100%. Now, we all know a lot of shit. How do you demonstrate there is not one single fact, someplace, that can not be known 100%. Do you know that fact 100% You seem to know that I can not know anything for sure. How sure are you about that? You could be wrong.
How can we find out? We can stop pretending that we can’t know anything and therefore nothing is worth knowing, and we can examine the matter. We can actually look into it and do experiments and seek independent validation. (We can apply the scientific method. The best possible tool we have for understanding the world around us.) The tool that created the computer you are using. The computer you are going to give to some poor family because it will make as many humans happy as possible.
There’s an absence of evidence for deities just like there is for unicorns, mermaids, flying pigs, the tooth fairy, dragons, Loch Ness, and Big Foot. You Christians dismiss those things. You also dismiss the gods of the other religions and state those gods don’t exist. So excuse me if I don’ take you seriously when you argue that your god can’t be proven or disproven.
You’re just doing that so you can cop out on the Burden of Proof and talk about your god like he’s a fact. A deity has to be proven to exist to treat it like it’s a fact and right now I don’t see admissible evidence for the existence of one or more deities.
An absence of evidence is evidence against the claim. Hitchen’s Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. With that being said, I dismiss the Christian argument.
What I do see is that it’s just a story you Christians want to believe in. Until Christians can back up their claims with actual evidence, that’s all it is: wishful thinking and anecdotal bullshit.
This is exactly why the burden of [p]roof is on the believer.
And today’s “Captain Obvious” Award goes to…
Not to be argumentative or anything of that nature, BUT, it is the “Commander Apparent”
award which is being awarded today… evidently there are multiple contenders for Captain Obvious and the judges are in a quandary over whom is more qualified. Once a clear leader is identified the announcement will be made. Runners-up will compete for the new and prestigious “Colonel Canard” trophy and trip to “Fallacy Island”.
.
.
Edit (in the presence of greatness)
Hey, isn’t that the place where Mr. Dork and a little guy called Taboo greet guests at the seaplane dock by the lagoon and then go about exposing all the guests’ deepest-darkest inner misconceptions?
(Edit to ring bell. “Dee pain! Dee pain!”)
I spent a lifetime there about 30 years ago and don’t recall any of my misconceptions being challenged. Of course, back then, I talked like Ratshit.