Give us, O God, the vision which can see our love in the world in spite of human failure. Give us the faith, the trust, the goodness, in spite of our ignorance and weakness. Give us the knowledge that we may continue to pray with understanding hearts and show us what each one of us can do to set forward the coming of the day of universal peace. Amen.


Astronaut Frank Borman (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/borman-f.html) on the Apollo 8 mission, 24 Dec 1968.


http://www.jjschaefer.de/images/autographs/FrankBorman-Autograph.jpg

Give us, O God, the vision which can see our love in the world in spite of human failure. Give us the faith, the trust, the goodness, in spite of our ignorance and weakness. Give us the knowledge that we may continue to pray with understanding hearts and show us what each one of us can do to set forward the coming of the day of universal peace. Amen.


Astronaut Frank Borman (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/borman-f.html) on the Apollo 8 mission, 24 Dec 1968.


http://www.jjschaefer.de/images/autographs/FrankBorman-Autograph.jpg
That's great.

There is no god (and you know it). -Sam Harris

There is no god (and you know it). -Sam Harris

.QFT.

There is no god (and you know it). -Sam Harris

this.

There is no god (and you know it). -Sam Harris

I don't know what twisted version of God your referring to.
But this Sam Harris crap doesn't belong in this thread.
This thread is about love and the progress of man (mind, body, and soul).
If you want to spread hate, make your own thread.

I don't know what twisted version of God your referring to.
But this Sam Harris crap doesn't belong in this thread.
This thread is about love and the progress of man (mind, body, and soul).
If you want to spread hate, make your own thread.

Suggesting there is no God does not spread hate. Your inablity to understand that is indictive of a theists mindset.

Atheism: the refusal to deny the obvious. (-also Sam Harris).

Suggesting there is no God does not spread hate. Your inablity to understand that is indictive of a theists mindset.

Bigotry spreads hatred.
Now before you try to twist this statement, religion (atheism included) doesn't make people bigots. People that are bigots use religion to justify their ideology.
Sam Harris is a bigot, I think even you can agree with that.

Atheism: the refusal to deny the obvious. (-also Sam Harris).

Care to elaborate?

Bigotry spreads hatred.
Now before you try to twist this statement, religion (atheism included) doesn't make people bigots. People that are bigots use religion to justify their ideology.
Sam Harris is a bigot, I think even you can agree with that.

First of all, you cannot include atheism with religion, without looking foolish.

Secondly, I don't know who Sam Harris is, so I will not agree with your assement of him.

Thirdly, making the statement There is no God, does not spread hatred.

Finally, can you still not accept that?

Care to elaborate?

The refusal to deny the obvious means this:

There is no God, that is obvious.

An atheist refuses to deny this.

Care to elaborate?

It's obvious that there is no god. Theists deny this, but atheists do not. Thus, atheists refuse to deny the obvious.

Sam Harris isn't religious, because atheism isn't a religion...and if you want to extend the definition of bigotry to include Sam Harris you have pretty much included every person on earth.

ETA: Same Harris is a bigot against irrationality.

It's obvious that there is no god. Theists deny this, but atheists do not. Thus, atheists refuse to deny the obvious.

Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever.

This thread is about love and the progress of man (mind, body, and soul).


So then why is it here and not in 'Science of the Damned'?

Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever.

What evidence would you like provided?

Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever.

Sigh...

Look up burden of proof.

That which is asserted with no evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

There is no evidence for my ability to shit strawberry icecream cones with sprinkles. Therefore, it is obvious (no matter what I claim) that I cannot.

You can see how it would be cuntish and unfair of me to tell YOU to prove I cannot do it.

Thank goodness, we have the burden of proof, so dipshits are unable to make any claim they wish, and be taken seriously.

I think we have been over this. Are you still unable to fathom the simplistic concept of the burden of proof?

It is as obvious that there is no God as it is I cannot will myself to levitate. It is as obvious as there really is no Peter Pan and never-never land. It is as obvious that there is no one ring to rule us all.

That is how obvious it fucking is.

So then why is it here and not in 'Science of the Damned'?
Because this is what religion should be about.

MODERATOR: Please move this thread to science of the damned. I'm tired of these evangelical atheist hijacking my thread.

Because this is what religion should be about.

MODERATOR: Please move this thread to science of the damned. I'm tired of these evangelical atheist hijacking my thread.

An atheist is not evangelical.

I will not post if you do not address me, and you can continue with what was apparently intended to be a hug-fest.

Sorry but Vanhalla has a point. It being impossible (lets take it as true for the sake of argument though this too isn't necessarily so) to prove the non-existence of a deity is a great argument for not making the claim in the first place. It doesn't magically mean you can say it all you want without a reasonable human being demanding evidence for the assertion.

You claim a god exists, you have a burden of proof. You claim none does, you too have a burden of proof.

You claim a god exists, you have a burden of proof. You claim none does, you too have a burden of proof.

I had sex with your mother. If you ask her she will of course deny it. I had pictures but I burned them. This did happen.
If you wish to claim it did not, please accept "your" burden of proof.

I can kill human beings with a thought. You will believe my power or I will kill your loved ones with my power.
If you wish to claim I can not, please accept "your" burden of proof.

Elvis lives. I have talked to him and performed genetic tests indicating that it was in fact him. The tests were destroyed in a fire.
If you wish to claim this is false, please accept "your" burden of proof.



Things that are asserted with no evidence, CAN be dismissed without any. The burden lies upon the asserter and not the denier. Google burden of proof.

Because this is what religion should be about.

That might be your opinion - and you're entitled to it - but did this thread argue that in any meaningful way? It's a quote and that's it; later on you talk about love and man but never argue why religion should be about "this".


MODERATOR: Please move this thread to science of the damned. I'm tired of these evangelical atheist hijacking my thread.

I'm not sure if you're including my in that statement, but if you are, all I did was ask if it belonged here given your statements regarding what this thread was about. That's a perfectly reasonable and relevant question to ask.

Things that are asserted with no evidence, CAN be dismissed without any. The burden lies upon the asserter and not the denier. Google burden of proof.

I know what the burden of proof is. That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Sam Harris (or rather Real.PUA quoting Sam Harris) asserted the following without evidence:

"There is no god (and you know it)."

He has a burden of proof.

Now, Vanhalla might have made a claim too - he might have claimed God existed - but that means they both have a burden of proof. It doesn't mean someone can automatically claim the opposite is true.

"Dismissing" something does not equal "get to claim the opposite as true"

P.S. The same applies to your examples: You can make those claims just fine. You would have a burden of proof. I can dismiss what you said until you provide some evidence/proof. That doesn't mean that I have to claim it's false. If I do, I'd also get a burden of proof.

Now you may argue one burden can be easily fulfilled while the other cannot be easily fulfilled. That's a valid argument in favor of not making claims you can't back up in the first place.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is expected.

MODERATOR: Please move this thread to science of the damned. I'm tired of these evangelical atheist hijacking my thread.

I didn't move it initially because it was a prayer to God. If you'd like me to move it, still - I will. Although it does seem like it veered off into religious discussions once there were a few dissenters posting, and you replying.

Rust had a valid point about the subject matter.

Either way:

Dissenting views are allowed in every forum on here. Expecting that people will be in 100% agreement with you is asking too much. To me, that's the difference between a web-media "group" and an open forum message board like this. "Groups" tend to segregate like-minded members on one forum, and not welcome opposing opinions, because it's a place where members go to be with other like-minded members. Open, public forums invite discourse, debate and allows all members to voice their opinions as they see fit.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is expected.

1. "Evidence" does not equal proof.

It's a fallacy to claim 'NOT X' just because X hasn't been proven. It's an 'Argument from ignorance' to be exact.

2. I expect evidence of the claim that no god exists.

"Dismissing" something does not equal "get to claim the opposite as true"

SO when you dismiss someone's assertion you are not claiming it to be false or untrue?

Bullshit.

Otherwise, if you TRULY thought my ability to kill you with a thought, COULD be true, you would probably act a little more carefully.

So you must believe it false, and are doing so without fufilling your burden.

SO when you dismiss someone's assertion you are not claiming it to be false or untrue?


You don't have to. You could. If something is unsubstantiated then I don't have to claim it's true or false to point that out.

For example, let's take aliens. If you claim Aliens exist, I can say that I demand evidence for that claim or will dismiss your statement as unsubstantiated. Does that mean I claim (or believe) no Aliens exist? Not at all. I can be a pro-Alien enthusiast that just wants you to support the statements you make.


So you must believe it false, and are doing so without fufilling your burden.I can believe a lot of things, that doesn't mean I have to claim them. There's a humongous difference between you personally believing something and making a claim.

You can make that long list of claims and I could have a given impression about the truth of the claims, but that doesn't mean I have to go ahead and make the claim: "X statement of yours is false".

1. "Evidence" does not equal proof.

It's a fallacy to claim 'NOT X' just because X hasn't been proven. It's an 'Argument from ignorance' to be exact.

I am not talking about proof I am talking about evidence. If I expect evidence for the existence of something, and that evidence does not exist, then that supports that model that that something does not exist.

2. I expect evidence of the claim that no god exists.Do you? What evidence do you expect? ETA: (other than the absence of evidence for god).

You don't have to. You could. If something is unsubstantiated then I don't have to claim it's true or false to point that out.

Gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist.

Various conceptions of gods (like the Abrahmic God) are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. There exist deductive arguments against the existence of God. These arguments assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutiability, omniscience, monipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood, nonphysicality, justice and mercy.

EX: The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering.

So if a person hold the God of the scriptures is true, I hold that he is NOT.

Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds: both of which are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.

So if you are a determined skeptic this is rather pointless. I could ask you to prove that I am real and not your own delusion, to which you would fail to make any claim of truth.

To me skepticism of this magnitude only serves to "win" an argument, and serves no other useful purpose.

There are a plethora of logical, deductive, inductive and empirical arguments against God, which I can reproduce, unless you are a determined skeptic, to which I will not waste my time....

I am not talking about proof I am talking about evidence. If I expect evidence for the existence of something, and that evidence does not exist, then that supports that model that that something does not exist.

How can you be sure that evidence doesn't exist? Moreover, where in this thread have you asked for that evidence (before making the claim) and where was the claim that a god exist even made (before you made yours)?

You're essentially saying "Some theists I've argued with in the past have made claims that god exists, they haven't provided me any evidence so that means evidence doesn't exist, so I have evidence a god doesn't exist."

Not only does that seems rather ridiculous, but a theist could say the same thing!

"Some atheists I've argued with in the past have claimed that god doesn't exist, they haven't provided me any evidence, so that means evidence for their claim doesn't exist, so I have evidence a god does exist."


Do you? What evidence do you expect? ETA: (other than the absence of evidence for god).

I would consider a clear deductive argument making god impossible to be evidence.

I would consider a clear deductive argument making god impossible to be evidence.

Take your pick...

Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. These arguments inherently depend on specific definitions of the term "God".

The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is
logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?".

Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking "how can an all-knowing being change its mind?" See the article on omniscience for details.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same freedom to his creations - by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god.

The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.[22]

The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).

Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.

It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the constraints of time and space, and the fact that it cannot be proven if God is in either.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Deductive_arguments_.28against.29

Gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist.

Various conceptions of gods (like the Abrahmic God) are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. There exist deductive arguments against the existence of God. These arguments assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutiability, omniscience, monipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood, nonphysicality, justice and mercy.

[...]



What does that have to do with anything I've said? The whole point was to show that an atheist making the claim that a god does not exist has a burden of proof. That's the point. I wasn't asking for arguments against the existence of god.

The only difference between you and I, is that I understand that anyone that makes a claim has a burden of proof where as you apparently believe those who claim the opposite of something you've deemed ridiculous, do not.

Take your pick...


1. I'm not actually looking for argument against god, I'm pointing out how an atheist asserting that a god does not exist, would have a burden to prove that as well.

In that statement you just quoted I'm giving an example of what I would consider evidence - because not only did Real.PUA asked, but because he seemed to be implying that there could be none.

2. Like your very own article states, all those arguments depend on the definition of "god"; highlighting the inanity of claiming "Gods don't exist" without either establishing an absolute definition, or refuting all possible meanings of the word!

I am pretty sure the astronaut who was quoted in the OP was a christian and speaking of the christian god.

I still disagree that claiming evil flesh eating shit monsters that live under beds do not exist, carries a burden of proof.

You may engage in this kind of skepticism but I will not. It is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I am pretty sure the astronaut who was quoted in the OP was a christian and speaking of the christian god.

Probably. We don't know. Not only that, but the claim wasn't "The Christian god doesn't exist", it was "There is no god".


I still disagree that claiming evil flesh eating shit monsters that live under beds do not exist, carries a burden of proof.

You may engage in this kind of skepticism but I will not.The burden of proof doesn't care what you think.

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

You may engage in this level of credulity, but I do not; the burden of proof agrees. I should also point out how an easy cop-out this is for the theist who can copy you and say "I disagree that claiming a god exists carries a burden of proof" and then conveniently not provide any.

P.S. Having a burden of proof doesn't mean that I demand you have to provide evidence. For example if you claim "evil flesh eating shit monsters that live under beds don't exist" I can agree, take it as true, and not demand any evidence. However, if some person happens to demand evidence - they might be in the extreme minority - there are still within their rights to do so, you do have a burden to fulfill as you made the claim.

Probably. We don't know. Not only that, but the claim wasn't "The Christian god doesn't exist", it was "There is no god".

The burden of proof doesn't care what you think.

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggestinga new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

You may engage in this level of credulity, but I do not; the burden of proof agrees.

I see what you are saying. Let me say this then.

In every religion I have ever come across, I find their God or Gods to be complete bullshit. There exist arguments agianst the existence of God for nearly every religion so I can safely say there is NO GOD as defined by most every religion.

NOW could there be a God out there, I cannot prove otherwise so I must settle in for a maybe. Along this rather silly line of thinking ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING, is possible. This is true, and really fucking lame.

It is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Otherwise we would live in constant fear of the possibility of ANYTHING.

You do this every single day of your life, along with everyone of us. It is a very, very common practice.

What YOU apparently won't do is make the claim that invisible blood sucking magical fairies DO NOT live in your sock drawer.

I don't believe that for a second. Looks good on paper, and helps you in this argument, but in common every day practice it is a fucking pantload, and you know it.

Again, having a belief does not equal making claim. I can have the belief that invisible blood sucking magical fairies do not live in my sock drawer - it would be rather useful to do so, so I don't go crazy checking my sock drawer every second for invisible fairies - however that does not mean I need to go ahead and make that claim to someone else. I could, of course, and the majority of people might agree with it, and that's awesome, but if someone else does not he has every right to call me on it. I made a claim, and I have a burden of proof. That's how it works.

If you want to believe that god's don't exist, go right ahead. That's not a problem. The problem comes when you make the claim. As soon as you make the claim, you have a burden of proof. If nobody calls you on that claim, then great! However if someone does, it's your duty to substantiate it.

That might be your opinion - and you're entitled to it - but did this thread argue that in any meaningful way? It's a quote and that's it; later on you talk about love and man but never argue why religion should be about "this".

I can see why you would want more.
It’s not just saying that religion should strive for (it’s about to get symbolic) the cross of mater, the circle of spirit, and the semicircle of the Moon. But all of mankind, should make efforts towards this goal.

http://www.nachtkabarett.com/ihvh/img/mercury.jpg

“What could this guy possibly be babbling on about?”

The essence of what I am speaking is active intelligence.
The circle symbolizes the force behind the mind. The mind can receive impulses from two directions. Imitation and invention.
The cross of matter indicates the activities on Earth which stimulate the action of Mercury (mind) to react to the surrounding circumstances. The horizontal crescent reveals the mind’s channel to truly inspirational and original concepts. These are then organized by the practical side of Mind into ideas and projects which can be realized on the Earth (the cross)

“So….”

When we make a “prayer” we are forming a pathway to inspiration, which stimulates our mind into action in the circumstances which surround us. This inspiration from within can be organized into ideas and projects, it can improve our collective reality.

If you don’t want to use the word “prayer”, then-don’t.

“Ok, well I guess that sort of makes since. But what are we “praying” to? If you pray to God you must have mental problems or something.”

I like to look at it like this: You are “praying” to the piece of the Oneness within yourself.

“WTF is that supposed to mean, I don’t want to listen to this mystical bullcrap.”

You are finding inspiration within yourself. We all have it, and it is available to us at any moment, if so we choose. In the act of “praying”, or rather, connecting to the inspiration within ourselves, we can bring this idea into manifestation.

If every person on this planet connected to the idea of Universal Love how do you think that would affect an entity on the individual level? In their own unique way they would issue forth in their actions (because action stems from the mind) Love in an unparalleled manner. No spark is exactly the same, every interpretation is important.


I'm not sure if you're including my in that statement, but if you are, all I did was ask if it belonged here given your statements regarding what this thread was about. That's a perfectly reasonable and relevant question to ask. I wasn’t directing it at you, believe it or not, I like you Rust. Your countless questions, and frustrating requirements lead me to look deeper than I might have into these atypical concepts I like to think about.

I agree with Rust on this thing, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, no matter what that claim is (e.g. whether or not god exists). However I think that we must draw on the most logical conclusion, which I think mostly come from our own experiences (or lack there of).

Someone who has experienced "god" will find it hard to logically conclude that it doesn't exist, no matter how much evidence there is against it. Same with the atheist, they haven't experienced "god" so they will find it hard to logically conclude the possibility of "god".

So the logical conclusions and evidence that one will draw on will depend on their previous experiences, especially since we aren't that far advanced in maths and science to completely eliminate metaphysical aspects of nature and humans.

In the end, looking at the problem without bias, the MORE logical conclusion to draw upon is the lack of god (thanks to Occam's Razor) but there are many cases out there (some of which I have experienced) that seem to lean strongly towards something which is beyond science or (more logically) something which science hasn't even scratched the surface of yet.

There is no god (and you know it). -Sam Harris

this.

Atheism: the refusal to deny the obvious. (-also Sam Harris).

wtf this supposed to mean lol

Again, having a belief does not equal making claim. I can have the belief that invisible blood sucking magical fairies do not live in my sock drawer - it would be rather useful to do so, so I don't go crazy checking my sock drawer every second for invisible fairies - however that does not mean I need to go ahead and make that claim to someone else. I could, of course, and the majority of people might agree with it, and that's awesome, but if someone else does not he has every right to call me on it. I made a claim, and I have a burden of proof. That's how it works.

If you want to believe that god's don't exist, go right ahead. That's not a problem. The problem comes when you make the claim. As soon as you make the claim, you have a burden of proof. If nobody calls you on that claim, then great! However if someone does, it's your duty to substantiate it.

Any god that is defined clearly enough could, in theory, be disproven. Any god not defined clearly can't be disproven - but then again, belief in such a god probably isn't rational anyway.

There exist enough contradictions for most every God I have encountered in major religions to safely say, this is bullshit, there is no God here, here is why, have a nice day.

I understand what your saying, though. It seems to me that the logic behind what you are saying can be used in rather lame ass ways, for ANYTHING.

Take a proven theory in science for example. What ever that theory is, I can say "undetectable dimensional beings have effected that outcome, you did not take that into consideration, your theory is bogus". NOW, I cannot prove that, but they are unable to make the claim that dimensional beings have not effected the outcome. They can and WILL believe they did not, but cannot make a public claim to that effect, without having the insane notion that the burden of proof is on them somehow.

Seems rather fucking silly to me, and I will have no part of it. Besides, the smart money suggests there is no God, and that should be good enough for you.

Take a proven theory in science for example. What ever that theory is, I can say "undetectable dimensional beings have effected that outcome, you did not take that into consideration, your theory is bogus".

You definitely can say that... and saying that would be making that claim, and thus you would have to substantiate it for it to mean something at all! If you don't substantiate it, you haven't met your burden of supporting the claim that "undetectable dimensional beings have affected the outcome", and thus the Scientists proposing that theory or experiment or whatever, can dismiss your baseless claim. Easy.

What if someone came here and said to you that all those arguments you cite against god were wrong because an angel come to him in is sleep and proven them wrong? You'd ask for proof or dismiss his claim. Same thing.


Seems rather fucking silly to me, and I will have no part of it. Besides, the smart money suggests there is no God, and that should be good enough for you.

If anything is silly here is your position! In essence you're saying that we don't need to substantiate claims that you conveniently deem obvious! As if a theist couldn't use that to claim he doesn't have a burden of proof...

If anything is silly here is your position! In essence you're saying that we don't need to substantiate claims that you conveniently deem obvious! As if a theist couldn't use that to claim he doesn't have a burden of proof...

This seems rather Obbesque.

Prove I am real. Can you make a claim that I exist? Can you make a claim that anyone else exists? That reality itself and everything in it exists? No, you cannot. Nobody can. If you cannot make the claim that reality is in fact made of matter and not some illusion in your own head, how can anyone make a claim about anything else without first addressing this?

You say dismiss a claim without evidence, I say pics or it didn't happen. Just my personal preference I suppose. I will not believe in nonsense.

But I digress.......I see your point......I heard it from Obbe first, though, and thought of it when I was his age. Here is all that really matters to me:

Any god that is defined clearly enough can, in theory, be disproven. Any god not defined clearly can't be disproven - but then again, belief in such a god probably isn't rational anyway.

I am unable to disprove or make the claim that a generic-undefined-god does not exist. So everyone who believes in this generi-God or anyone who believes in anything abstract enough (flying spaghetti monsters), your beliefs remain safe in the realm of possible, along with every other peice of nonsense one can imagine.

Awesome.

Now you've resulted to poisoning the well!

My position - which is the actual burden of proof not your convenient redefinition of it - is nothing close to what Obbe says. It is not Solipsism.

I can make the claim that I exist. Except if someone asks for proof, I'd have a burden to prove it. The operative word being "if". I'd say the vast majority of the world isn't so skeptic (the level of skepticism you were accusing me of previously I should add) that they'd require evidence for that. If they are, then I can provide material evidence. If they reject or doubt materialism/empiricism (again I would say the vast majority of people aren't this skeptic) and they do not accept any evidence I provide, then fine! I don't have to carry a conversation with them... just like I try not to carry a conversation with Obbe because of his inane ramblings. Easy!

This is nothing close to Obbe's position. I can accept materialism and empiricism just fine. The people who use the correct definition of "burden of proof" can also accept materialism and empiricism just fine.

In any case the whole point of this discussion - your misunderstandings of my position aside - was that the atheist has a burden of proof if he makes the claim. He does. Aside from that I don't really care if you understand my point or not, I'm not going to discuss if you keep misrepresenting it.

This thread was simply a "prayer" for the progress, advancement, and elevation of our species. I didn't originally specify what "prayer" means, or what "God" means, it is up to interpreter to understand the meaning in his unique way.

The blanket statement that God doesn't exist was then made. Well, that has nothing to do with this thread, it wasn't an argument on whether God exist or not, it was simply a payer, whatever that may mean to you.

You could have made the argument of what prayer could be without god. But that didn't happen. Later in the thread, I gave an interpretation of what "prayer" means to me.

So since you made the baseless blanket statement that God doesn't exist, I questioned how you came to this conclusion. You then told me it was obvious that "God", whatever that may mean, doesn't exist.

Well then, since it is so obvious, can you not then provide me sometype of evidence to support your claim?

Lets examine the basic idea of what "God" is. To me, it is the underlying force/energy responsible for all of creation, that is as basic as I can make it.

Now you are telling me this force obviously does not exist? Sounds like baseless unscientific bullshit, you have provided no evidence for this claim yet you say it's obvious. You made the claim, the burden of prof lies with you.

In any case the whole point of this discussion - your misunderstandings of my position aside - was that the atheist has a burden of proof if he makes the claim. He does. Aside from that I don't really care if you understand my point or not, I'm not going to discuss if you keep misrepresenting it.

I understand what you are saying. And NO I cannot make a claim that no God exists UNLESS that God is defined, and evidence provided, shows the claim of a God existing as false. I truly understand this. I understand that to say no God exists, carries a burden of proof...

You say you do not speak to Obbe b/c he is on such a level of a skeptic, that he makes unprovable claims (on both sides). There exists no evidence to prove either Obbe's claim false, or a God claim false. You asking me to prove there is no God, or stop making the claim, is identical to Obbe asking me to prove this is all real, or stop making the claim that it is. That is all I am saying.

You asking me to prove there is no God, or stop making the claim, is identical to Obbe asking me to prove this is all real, or stop making the claim that it is. That is all I am saying.

I didn't ask you to prove anything. If you're saying it in general terms (i.e. someone asking to...) then I would say they are identical to you... because you don't believe in a god and cosider that obvious, and do believe in physical reality and consider that obvious.

Ask any theist, or any Solipsis and the answer would be different.

In any case, this is irrelevant. I don't care if you see a difference or similarity as long as you understand that you would carry a burden of proof by making a claim - regardless of whether you think it's obvious or not. Apparently you do. Awesome. /thread

This thread was simply a "prayer" for the progress, advancement, and elevation of our species. I didn't originally specify what "prayer" means, or what "God" means, it is up to interpreter to understand the meaning in his unique way.

The blanket statement that God doesn't exist was then made. Well, that has nothing to do with this thread, it wasn't an argument on whether God exist or not, it was simply a payer, whatever that may mean to you.



Origin of existence, ineffable is your identity,
may enlightenment come,
may good be done on earth and in the universe,
give us today our needs,
and accept us as we accept others,
lead us not into delusion,
but deliver us from falsehood,
for you are the source,
the reason,
the origin.
true!

Cheers:)

How can you be sure that evidence doesn't exist? Moreover, where in this thread have you asked for that evidence (before making the claim) and where was the claim that a god exist even made (before you made yours)?

If I look for specific piece of evidence and don't find it, that leads me to believe that it doesn't exist. It's like if I look for a dent in my car and don't see it I will claim my car has no dent in it. If I look for evidence that supports the existence of god yet dont find any I will claim there is no evidence. You could add the stipulation "that I am aware of," but that is excessive seeing as how I am the one making the claim to begin with.

Vanhalla posted an obscure quote so I posted one of my own.

You're essentially saying "Some theists I've argued with in the past have made claims that god exists, they haven't provided me any evidence so that means evidence doesn't exist, so I have evidence a god doesn't exist."



Not only does that seems rather ridiculous, but a theist could say the same thing!

"Some atheists I've argued with in the past have claimed that god doesn't exist, they haven't provided me any evidence, so that means evidence for their claim doesn't exist, so I have evidence a god does exist."

That's not the argument that I am making. All I am saying is that in some circumstances (like when evidence is expected) an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


{quote]I would consider a clear deductive argument making god impossible to be evidence.[/quote]

1. I'm not actually looking for argument against god, I'm pointing out how an atheist asserting that a god does not exist, would have a burden to prove that as well.

In that statement you just quoted I'm giving an example of what I would consider evidence - because not only did Real.PUA asked, but because he seemed to be implying that there could be none.

I do think there is no deductive way to argue against the generalized concept an omnipotent god. There are lots of inductive arguments though.

If I look for specific piece of evidence and don't find it, that leads me to believe that it doesn't exist. It's like if I look for a dent in my car and don't see it I will claim my car has no dent in it. If I look for evidence that supports the existence of god yet dont find any I will claim there is no evidence. You could add the stipulation "that I am aware of," but that is excessive seeing as how I am the one making the claim to begin with.

Vanhalla posted an obscure quote so I posted one of my own.

And like I said, when applied to the existence or non-existence of god, a theist can say the exact same thing.

It's a meaningless statement that ends up supporting both sides, and doesn't even come close to fulfilling the burden of proof which is what the whole discussion was about.


That's not the argument that I am making. All I am saying is that in some circumstances (like when evidence is expected) an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

... and you said that argument would apply in the case of the non-existence of god. So yes, that is definately the argument you're making, or at least that's what it amounts to when applied to an atheist making the claim that a god doesn't exist - a claim which either you or Harris were making.

Maybe you could change the part where it says "Some theists I've argued with in the past have made claims that god exists, they haven't provided me any evidence" with "I searched for evidence, found none..." but in the end it's essentially the same ludicrous reasoning than can be used by both sides.

Greetings,

I will give all of you tidbit of info from Egyptian mythology...

"Amen" in Egyptian mythology is the name of one of the ancient Egyptian God's...

Isn't it interesting that Christians end all of their prayers with the name of an ancient Egyptian God...

Ancient One