Real World Event Discussions

Any atheists in here?

POSTED BY: BlackCollarBrowncoat
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 20:19
VIEWED: 38267
PAGE 16 of 18

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, March 6, 2006 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nwuksteve:
Additionally there is some evidence (eg. injustice, suffering, etc) to suggest that the supposedly caring gods of some popular religions don't exist.

Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that there are no gods. The idea that my position is as much a matter of faith as the position of thiests is simply false.

Um, you just said that you believe that no memeber of a group (gods) exists because there is evidence against some memebers.

How is that logical?

Not all saints exist but some are definitively real. If I burned all records pertaining to them and made sure there was no evidence they existed they would still exist. Thomas More wouldn't suddenly wink out.

Remember faith is something that is not based on either:
1 Material evidence, which you have said you do not have supporting your claims against most gods.
or:
2 Logical Proof, you don't have a logical proof.

Or did I miss something?

-

Faith is faith. And a total lack of evidence is a total lack of evidence. These are always true, for obvious reasons, and do not depend upon what the faith or the (lack of) evidence relate to.

If you've got no evidence against Nyx and you believe she doesn't exist that is as much a matter of faith as someone who claims the Christain God does exist.

-

I like the name Nyx, it's got a great ring to it. Fun myths surrounding her too. Pleasant fictions, or so I believe.

NWUKSTEVE

Monday, March 6, 2006 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nwuksteve:
Additionally there is some evidence (eg. injustice, suffering, etc) to suggest that the supposedly caring gods of some popular religions don't exist.

Clearly this part of my statement alone is not strong evidence that there are no gods. I probably shouldn't have included it. But it's not like many people believe in the existance of uncaring gods.

And my point was not to try to provide logical proof that there are no gods. The point is my decision is based on reasoning, not faith.

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I do not believe that non-belief in god requires proof, I have never said I do. (If I did it was accidental and I would appreciate it greatly if you would point out where I said it.) I have repeatedly said that I believe it doesn't require proof.

I have however said that failure to accept a thing is different than accepting the negation of that thing.

I'm afraid you are still rather missing the point to a large extent. The issue is, and always has been, that you have continued to equate two positions as being equivalent, and statements of "faith".

(a) I believe God exists
(b) I believe God does not exist

Now what is the problem with your analysis? The problem is that whilst it is conceivable that proof for (a) might exist the same is not true for (b).

It is fundamentally irrational to equate (a) and (b) and treat them as two sides of the same coin for the simple reason that, unlike the former, the latter does not require proof simply because no proof for it can actually exist.

You are setting a game in which only one side can "win" and trying to make out they are equal.

The contention that a negative can be proved is implicit in your continuing comments such as:

"Unless there is logical proof or material evidence backing up the non-existence of god (which I'd hope someone would have brought up by now if they knew of it) that belief is one of faith."

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
This is what I have said all along and you know it.

The fact you are still making arguments that indicate a requirement of the non-theist to produce proof of the non-existance of God shows otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If I did say what you claim I said I certainly didn't mean it, but I do not remember saying it and after looking through all of my posts I have yet to come across a place where I did say it. You have also not quoted a place where I said that.

I have repeatedly produced quotes which show an implicit contention of the same, perhaps you need to think through the implications of where your arguments lead.

Please note I'm not the only person who reached the same conclusion regarding your contentions about faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The burden of proof for existence lies on the theist, but a lack of that proof is not reason to believe in the non-existence. A lack of proof against a belief (even a belief in non-existence) is not a reason to conclude that belief is correct.

Lack of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence but can you not see that there is a central difference between believing something is untrue because no evidence exists, and no evidence can exist, and believing something is true, despite the lack of evidence even though such evidence is possible?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If one wants to take a stance either way without proof they must show evidence or admit faith. If they do not have evidence and they deny that they take it on faith they are being dishonest (perhaps even to themselves.)

Again your stance fails to understand that you just cannot compare the two in this way.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
No. I equated belief with god with belief in a universe without a god by claiming that unless there is evidence to support them both of those beliefs require faith.

You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth. I have repeatedly said that non-belief is something that requires neither proof nor faith.

Excuse me? In one paragraph you write "unless there is evidence to support them both of those beliefs require faith" and then immediately underneath write "I have repeatedly said that non-belief is something that requires neither proof nor faith" how on earth do you square these positions?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
[

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SWORDOFWHEDON

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 10:49 PM

I think what everyone is missing is this:

You cannot prove there is no god

You CAN say however that individual, specific gods with known behaviors (as stated in holy texts) don't exist with the same certainty that gets assigned to the theory of gravity(as certain as is currently possible)

For example, the Bible is without doubt, not the work of an omnipotent being. If it were, there would not be a single factual, historical, or scientific error. There are scads of all of the above. The Bible is irrefutably not the work of a God

A perfect being would see the need for a second covenant with mankind from the beginning of time, therefore not make the original mistake (angry god phase) in the first place. It's an impossibility

Either

1- God is not all-knowing/seeing, and therefore not much of a god
2- God is a sadist, who creates beings he has known from the beginning of time will anger him, and be sent for eternal torment, and therefore unworthy of worship in the first place under Christian principles.
3- The Christian God simply does not exist, as both 1 and 2 would cancel out Jehovah as accepted by Christians.

BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT

Thursday, March 9, 2006 7:57 PM

Crybaby Chris isn't going to get your point, maybe you should give it up, as it seems pretty hopeless. You should just let him continue his downward spiral by himself.

BTW, I posted a good deal of his comments on another board, full of logic loving folks. I'm interested to see what they say about it all.

I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch me soar.

ANNA

Thursday, March 9, 2006 9:26 PM

I haven't read any of the other (and plentiful) posts in this thread, but to address the original question, I'm an(other) atheist :)

GARYPRYKE

Friday, March 10, 2006 3:10 PM

I guess I am too but I often wish I wasn't. Religion makes people feel safe.

FLETCH2

Friday, March 10, 2006 3:34 PM

Do you have the same relationship with your father as an adult as you had when you were a teenager? Was that the same as the one when you were an infant or a baby? I'm guessing not. Were those relationships wrong at that time and is that why they were changes? Or is it that as you changed the need arose to change the relationship?

You could look at the various covenants and view them as rules laid down by an adult to a developing child (in this case mankind.) It starts out with a lot of "thou shalt nots" in much the same way as an adult tells a baby no and doesnt bother to explain why. "Don't play with matches" is a commandment.

Later as the child gets older you try and explain more about the reasons and you try and teach responsibility and social skills. The whole Jesus ministry in a nutshell is "don't be a jerk, treat other people like you want to be treated." That sounds like the kind of stuff a parent tells a 10 or 11 year old.

Personally, I'm hoping we get the car keys soon.

As for those folks expecting a nice quick judgement day so they can be rewarded for being holyier than thou jerks, the bad news is that on this timeline we're probably looking at around another 120,000 years before that happens.

SWORDOFWHEDON

Friday, March 10, 2006 7:00 PM

Quote:
Do you have the same relationship with your father as an adult as you had when you were a teenager? Was that the same as the one when you were an infant or a baby? I'm guessing not. Were those relationships wrong at that time and is that why they were changes? Or is it that as you changed the need arose to change the relationship?

So by your reckoning, he simply got bored with wantonly punishing? How is that the action of a just god worthy of worship? Sorry, it doesn't work. The supposed god could have created man at any point in development, see option #2(sadism)

Let's use your child analogy shall we?

You have a kid, and you tell the kid over and over again from the minute it's born not to poop its diaper or you'll get a beating (they don't understand english, but for the sake of arguement let's say they do). Now that child is physically incapable of doing so till at least 18 months of age, because that's how they're biologically designed, yet you horsewhip them anyway every time it happens.

That's what you're saying your god did. He created a being he knew would anger and displease him, and punishes them for doing what he made them to do.

Doesn't wash.

Quote:
As for those folks expecting a nice quick judgement day so they can be rewarded for being holyier than thou jerks, the bad news is that on this timeline we're probably looking at around another 120,000 years before that happens.

From where are you pulling that number?

The Second Coming has been predicted at least once a generation for the last 2 millenia. It ain't happening. It's all a scam.

ANNA

Friday, March 10, 2006 7:11 PM

Kind of off topic I know, but after the Noah's Ark incident, didn't God say he/she/it (I'm not being rude by saying that, why should I assume that if there's a god, it's a man?) would never flood the earth again?

Thanks for, you know, GIANT TSUNAMIS then, just wetting the ol' whistle.

I could be wrong of course, I don't know anything at all about the bible.