Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

You have to have faith without knowledge.

There is no way to have faith in these things AND have knowledge of these things.

Been awhile since I read it, but it seems the bible, for example, talks a great deal about having faith.

---------

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."

Your argument pretty much has to consist of this:

I have faith.

--------

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

I can't say that I believe in God, but I think you should read the book The Language of God and then come back to this thread and edit some of the things you said.

BP, right now, half my family has poured in for the holidays. In total, they are 13 people; 12 Catholics and one Atheist. Can you spot my dilemma? I received 5 books on faith, God, and religion. As fun as it is to debunk every single tidbit of type, they won't let up. Let me read you an excerpt from one of the books:

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

It (belief) is to accept without evidence only because He who has professed it deserves merit"

The words in parentheses are of my own construct; to aid you through the esoteric text.

I don't know what to make of that excerpt. Personally, I think it is just one gigantic "self-pwn". Your thoughts?

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

Man, if I ever needed an example to demonstrate the logical fallacy of an "argument from authority", this would be it.

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

Science and logic deal in knowledge.



Everything you said is completely true, however, you lied by omission.
Science and logic do not deal exclusively in knowledge.
Much in science is based on knowledge or on other science that is also based on knowledge.
Scientific theories and most of what we think of as "science" is nothing but conjecture.
For example: Plate Tectonics is a theory based upon the theory of Continental drift, which is based upon the knowledge that there are similar plant and animal life on distant continents. Plate Tectonics assumes that heat always rises (not true), the earth's inner layers are high-pressure centers (a good idea, but not proven), and that the "mantle" of the earth is made of magma (again, just a good idea).
Most science isn't based upon knowledge, but lack of knowledge, we assume that everything anyone says is true until we replace that lack of knowledge.

I agree with you. Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing.

***semantics***

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God. It only works if one sees oneself as seperate from all else. If you consider, that which some call God, others call intuition, instinct, higher power, higher consciousness, the greater self - science and logic do support and justify belief. Witness for science: the Aspect experiment, which shows all things are connected on an apparently transcendent level; for logic: the philosophy of Parmenides and his successors who have shown the impossibility of nothingness guarantees something must exist and that something is logically one-thing.

Who am I? How come I exist?


Come now and I will tell you – and you must spread my account when you have heard it – the only roads of enquiry to be thought of: the one of ‘is’, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the path of Conviction (for Truth is her companion); the other of ‘is not’, and that it needs not be – that, I tell you, is a path that is altogether indiscernible. For you could not know or utter what is not (for that is impossible).


It is necessarily the case that saying and thinking are the reality. For being is and nothing is not. I bid you keep this in mind.


For surely this shall never be proved, that things which are not are. Restrain your thought from this way of enquiry.


Thinking and the thought of that which is are the same thing. For you cannot find thought without something that is, in respect of which it is uttered.


It [i.e. the path] never was, nor will be, for it is now whole, one and continuous. For what kind of origin will you seek for it? How and from what source could it have grown? I shall not let you say or think from what is not. For what is not can be neither uttered nor thought. And what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner if it began from nothing? Therefore it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of argument allow anything else to come to be ever from what is not. Therefore Justice has never loosened her fetters to allow anything to come to be or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgement concerning these things lies in this: it is or it is not. And it has been judged, as is necessary, to set aside the one [path] as unthought and unnamed (for it is no true path), and to take the other which is real and true. And how could what is be in the future? And how might it have come into being? For if it came into being, it is not, nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and passing away unheard of.

************************************************** ********
"....... sublime in its simplicity: only being is, since nonbeing cannot be. Being is therefore one: the collateral existence of nonbeing would have meant two, from which an infinitude of divisions would then have arisen. Now, since it is the same thing that can be thought and can be, any thought of that which is not will be impossible. For a thought of that which is not will be a thought of nothing, and hence not a thought at all. It follows, moreover, that sameness and difference can have no meaning, since it requires at least two for this to be possible, and that both time and change are illusory, since only ‘is’ is."

In addition, personal faith sometimes comes from personal experiences, those things may be valid - to that individual. This does not mean you need to accept it, but it could help develop tolerance if you recognised it.

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

Islam also?

HM, You wrote:"Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing." The Gospel of John includes the story of doubting Thomas. To my mind he is representative of those who require proof to have faith, your defintion seems to exclude those like him. My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

One day the Lord was walking with his disciples when He came to a used car lot. The owner of the lot cameth up to him and said, "Lourde, buyeth from me this Prius, it will cost you only 200 cisterci." The followers of the Lourd saideth unto him, "Let us go forth and look upon this Prius, that we may gauge if it is worth 200 cisterci". But the Luourde saideth unto them, "Is the man who needs proof to have faith, somewhat lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'? I will take your Prius, good man. Here is the money." "Excellent, said the owner of the lot. I will go fetcheth the paperwork from my office. The car you seek is in yonder garage."

But when the Luorude wenteth to the garage, it was empty, because they "owner" was actually just some guy looking for money.

Atredies 25:17.

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."



I largely agree with you. But I think that the above should be re-phrased ,'I believe in this, this is the evidence that leads me to believe/supports what I believe, I have faith that what I believe is true.'

Personally I don't believe that you can say that there is no evidence or proof only that you do not accept that as evidence of proof for a certain idea. To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

I agree though, it all comes down to faith.

To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

Maybe I'm using the word evidence wrongly, but I'd always assumed that evidence was something that supported a conclusion. That's right isn't it? So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it? The conclusion that God created things is supported by the 'design' of the banana. Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

In your court of law example there are two sides, both sides, if honest, will believe that they have the evidence that supports the conclusion that they are aiming for. What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.

To be fair, reading back that might not be so clear.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.

So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it?

He would need to show:

1. That the banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating.

2. That the banana being perfectly shaped for the hand and eating supports the conclusion of a god existing.

----

Given the following function, f(x) = 3x + 5, is the fact that the y-intercept is odd evidence that f(x) is a linear function?

Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.
Yes. Believe. Claim. Have faith in. Neither of which show evidence, but merely belief.

What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion."They believe X. They believe they have evidence supporting X. They don't believe they have evidence for X." Am getting what you were trying to say correctly?

If so, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that wasn't absurd. BP said that people should say "I don't have evidence for X, but I have faith X is true". That doesn't mean the other people can't believe they have evidence.


Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.Well operating under your definition of evidence (i.e. "evidence something that support[s] a conclusion") then not necessarily.

If, to continue the mathematical example I'm using above, you can show that "having an odd y-intercept" is a necessary component of a linear function, you would arguably be supporting the conclusion that f(x) (as defined above) is a linear function. However, "having an odd y-intercept" is [I]not a necessary component of a linear function.

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

The only way a person can be unatheistic, it to be a theist.

Death could be any number of things, but until I see evidence of ANYTHING beyond death, I will have to assume death to be exactly what it appears to be:

Cessation.

It appears that when you die, the electrical impulses in your brain, stop. These impulses are what your brain uses to determine everything about you and everything around you. When this is gone, there appears to be nothing left of what makes you you, except a non-functioning sack of meat with eyes.

Saying death is nothingness, is then just a simplified concept based on the evidence we do have.

--------------------

As far as a God and a Soul go............

I don't flinch when walking down the road, thinking I might hit an invisible wall at any moment. I don't fear spontantous human combustion, and douse myself with water hourly. I don't fear a monster under my bed that might eat my feet when I get out of bed.

I don't see any reason to believe that any of these things exist, until I am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise. You don't either with the exception of God and Soul.

Which you believe in without any evidence.

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God.

There is no valid evidence for God, soul, or afterlife.

This is stone cold fact, and hinges on nothing except science, logic, reason, rationality, and fact.

----------

What you presented was not valid evidence for any of these three.

Showing we are all interconected on some level, is not evidence for a soul, god or afterlife. It is evidence we are all connected on some level, nothing more.

I am not sure why you present Parmenides. He presents no evidence for these things. If nothingness cannot exist, that doesnt mean a god, soul, or afterlife has to.

If every bit of matter changes forms, that does not mean the big three are real.

You read into evidence for something else, what you want to see, when you suggest otherwise. It simply is not there.

BP you've missed my point. I've already conceded on the whole proving god/soul etc, if that's not enough for you well ... whatever. Thing is you are dissing others on this basis even though you do not know what they have experienced, nor could you know. It's intensely personal and often applicable only to the one having the experience. This is where tolerance comes in.
This from The Secular Web:
Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Yes. Compelling to that person who supposedly experience it. Not compelling to anyone else, thus not real evidence.

BP's point is that it's not evidence. If he could not possibly know what they experience, as you say, then that's an amazing argument for why it shouldn't be considered as evidence in the first place!

Stating the obvious or what Rust? The apparent intent behind the thread is to belittle believers faith? What do you and BP get out of this? Two possible reasons: It's an ego trip to win an argument, or; are you here trying to help and believe in the tough love approach? Other?

Edit: Thought of another. Insecurity or dissatisfaction with your own state of mind driving a search for meaning?

Edit 2: This from BP in AM's thread "Be Still"
It is a natural part of being a human, to want to be heard, to listen to others, to debate, make propostitions, toss an idea someones way and get some feedback, etc.
Is as good a reason as any! What I do not understand is the scorn, where's that coming from?

Edit 3: After reflection, it's like ..... you blokes are trying to add it all up until it makes sense:eek:. Some of your efforts are truly impressive:cool:, but how do you add up to infinity? :confused:

What scorn? You're reading to much to into my statement. You said BP missed the point and I merely showed you how he did not. The point wasn't missed simply because he cannot know what others have experience; that merely means that the experience of others isn't actual evidence, which was precisely his point!


I don't analyze your reasons for posting, so please spare me the third-rate internet psychology. You should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.

What scorn?
.....
Here:
please spare me the third-rate internet psychology.
This is not confined to this thread, you blokes commonly pour scorn upon those you deem worthy of contempt, for what is this: "third-rate internet psychology", if not contempt? My intent was not analysis, as you judged through your apparent filter of contempt, but understanding. What makes you tick? Why bother? What do you get out of it? Is it an ego-trip or what? Should I believe the things you people say? What weight should I lend to your thoughts, assertions, logic and opinions? Can I trust them or, are you just using me in some sick pathetic attempt to bolster your egos?
You should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.
"What is truth?" "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care"

Here:

That comment was made after you had made your accusation. Could you please show me "scorn" in this thread, before you accused me? I imagine you're not psychic, and therefore your accusation was based on something that had happened in the thread, not something that hadn't happened yet...

for what is this: "third-rate internet psychology", if not contempt?

You are right. That statement, which I uttered after your accusation, is in fact contempt. I have nothing but contempt for your baseless attempts to psychoanalyze why I post on the internet.


My intent was not analysis, as you judged through your apparent filter of contempt, but understanding.


Sorry, but attemts at "understanding" stop at "Why do you do X?". You making guesses afterwards is just rampant speculation/attacks in convenient question form.

By your logic, if I had said:

"Redzed why did you post such a false statement? Is it because you're dumb? A moron? Utterly fucking stupid? Is it because you were dropped as a child?" et cetera, that would be a legitimate attempt at "understanding".

You and I both know that's not the case. They pass the realm of "legitimate attempt to understand" when you start speculating. That they were in question form is inconsequential.


"What is truth?" "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care"

This has nothing to do with how much I know. I never once mentioned quantity, nor did I suggest people should care how much, or what, I know. I said you should care about the truth or falsehood of what I said.

2+2=4 is true regardless of whether I care a lot or I care a little. It is true regardless of whether I'm stating it in a "sick pathetic attempt to bolster my ego" or if I'm stating it in a healthy attempt to eduate you.

So, like I said, you should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.

Though if you want to discuss the "why" of things, why not start with why you only get this convenient curiousity when it's against people you disagree with? Why don't you ask these very same questions to Obbe, for example, who has called me a dick multiple times in multiple threads?

This has nothing to do with how much I know.



That rings true! IMHO the only thing you know is how to argue, I can't recall any post of yours that shows care or concern for the others feelings, quite the opposite! If I was going for analysis BPD would be right up there, sure Obbe has reacted to your provocation, that's his problem; and don't come the raw prawn about no scorn in this thread. We've been on this site for a fair while and your MO is only too apparent!

Yeah sure, fair enough, it's a public forum but how you say things impacts how you are heard. To be fair I often enjoy your posts and the insights your POV allows, but as for trusting you enough to believe you speak the truth? Hard to do when being treated with contempt! And even if it is truth, what is your motivation? Even the devil quotes scripture!

I can't recall any post of yours that shows care or concern for the others feelings, quite the opposite!

You are right. They are few and far between. I like it that way. I'm not on Totse to care about people's feelings.

If you personally believe that's important then fine, that's up to you. You are free to do so. I'm not stopping you.

If you don't like that most of my posts "don't show care or concern for others feelings" I suggest you use the ignore button. Its there for a reason.


and don't come the raw prawn about no scorn in this thread.

Before your accusation, there was no scorn on my part in this thread. Sorry but that's just true, and it explains why you didn't give an example right now.

but as for trusting you enough to believe you speak the truth? Hard to do when being treated with contempt! And even if it is truth, what is your motivation? Even the devil quotes scripture!

Who said anything about trusting me? This has nothing to do with trusting me; I didn't even use the word "trust" much less ask you to trust me. In fact I would love it if you wouldn't trust me, and actually researched the things I said for yourself. That would be great.

Again, my motivation does not change the truth or falsehood of my statements. 2+2 = 4 regardless of whether I have benign or "evil" motivations/intentions.

You should first be concerned about the truth first and foremost; definitely not about things you know nothing about, like my intentions, motivations, feelings, or amount of "care".

You should first be concerned about the truth first and foremost; definitely not about things you know nothing about, like my intentions, motivations, feelings, or amount of "care".

Don't know what planet you're on Rust, but those are exactly the things I've learned to be concerned about! There's many a clever wordsmith with ulterior motives.

Don't know what planet you're on Rust, but those are exactly the things I've learned to be concerned about! There's many a clever wordsmith with ulterior motives.

It's precisely because there are many a clever wordsmith out there with ulterior motives that you shouldn't care about those things. Any clever wordsmith can fake care, good intentions, benign motivations, et cetera.

Getting away with 2+2=5 on the other hand...

It's precisely because there are many a clever wordsmith out there with ulterior motives that you shouldn't care about those things. Any clever wordsmith can fake care, good intentions, benign motivations, et cetera.

Getting away with 2+2=5 on the other hand...

You make a valid point, whilst still avoiding answering as to your true intent? That could be clever wordsmithing, and ego-tripping, get in the last word, then you throw the onus onto a hypothetical accusation. Man I really don't know about you! Are you fair dinkum or what? I have to ask myself, why would anyone treat me with contempt if they have a good intent?

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

Welcome to theistic argument!

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

It could not be pure ad hominem if he did not, now could it?

What else is he going to do, argue your points and assertions?

I think not.

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

Rust IMO this is more obscuration, I acknowledged your point, what more do you want? How is intent irrelevant? Because it's easily faked? That's non-sense, to me.
What a pity the American people had not been more concerned with Bush's true intentions in Iraq rather than accepting his "easily faked" one! Sure he supplied some "true" reasons -- Iraq had previously been developing WMD's, that was true. Did they discover any? No! But being a clever wordsmith he obscured his true intent, by using obsolete, or irrelevant "truths".

But being a clever wordsmith he obscured his true intent, by using obsolete, or irrelevant "truths".

Let's be clear, you have stalled the debate so you can psycho analyze one of the debaters.

This is simple ad hominem.

The sad thing here, to me, is not that BP does not believe in God, but that he seems to want people who do believe in God to feel like shit because of their apparent inability to prove to him that what they see as real should be real to him.

BP, can you prove to me, beyond a doubt, that you are who you say you are without showing your physical self to me? Not to my knowledge. But I'm damn sure that you would be adamant in your assertion that you are whoever you are, and so would your family and friends. I don't know where you live, but let's just assume it's far enough away so as to be difficult for you to present yourself to me in person, thus proving yourself in my eyes. This doesn't in any way prove that you don't exist, and why would you want to prove it to someone as insignificant in your life as myself anyways?

If a person asks you if you can see Joe Blow, and you look for Joe Blow in front of you, behind you, above you, below you, on either side of you and you don't see Joe Blow, this only proves that you don't see Joe Blow, not that Joe Blow doesn't exist at all. It wouldn't be ridiculous for you to assert that you couldn't see Joe Blow, but it would become ridiculous if you began to claim that Joe Blow didn't exist at all simply because a flawed and inconsistent human being such as yourself couldn't find him.

The questions could be raised: what is Joe Blow, who is Joe Blow, how is Joe Blow, why is Joe Blow? If only the person asking the questions knows, but can't communicate it to you for some reason, it still doesn't mean Joe Blow doesn't exist in some form, but that he might not exist in the form you seek.

I personally don't know if there is a God or many Gods or no Gods at all and neither do a single one of you, and to be so adamant in your assertions either way is blatant stupidity and/or speculation based on a lack of evidence to support any claim beyond a reasonable doubt either way.


Rust, question. Is it that you do not believe in a God, or that you do not believe in the possibility of a God?

BP, can you prove to me, beyond a doubt, that you are who you say you are without showing your physical self to me?

Why the restriction?

Can you prove to me you talk, without speaking?

Kind of fucking stupid isn't it?

I personally don't know if there is a God or many Gods or no Gods at all and neither do a single one of you, and to be so adamant in your assertions either way is blatant stupidity and/or speculation based on a lack of evidence to support any claim beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

When you walk down the street, do you worry about hitting invisible walls? I mean invisible walls could exist, you have no proof they do not, do you?

So, if I were to see you walking down the street, I would see you flinch every so often as you worried over running into one, right?

No?

Well why the fuck not? Why don't you entertain this baseless claim of invisible walls? Why don't you take it seriously? Why don't you believe in invisible walls enough to flinch whilst walking down the street?

When you got out of bed this morning, did you leap from your bed so as to avoid the grasp of the monster under there?

No?

Do you just not take this claim seriously enough, to make that leap in the morning?

---------

Fact is, everyone of us makes it through our lives without entertaining a whole host of crazy, zero evidence having notions. Literally millions of them, that do not worry our brains with nonsense, so that we can use our brains for shit that does matter, such as predators, finding food, defending ourselves, finding shelter, forming tribes of friends and family and maintaining those bonds, etc.

Why the exception with God?

---------

So my response to this last quote of yours here is this:

I think one standard will do just fine.

This is simple ad hominem.
BP, your accusation of ad hominem is contained in a post that is ad hominem in it's totality!

But simple? No. Checked out 'ad hominem' and it's interesting to ponder. Am I avoiding the topic? No answered you on that! If this is stalling the debate, and I do not think it is, I think it is at the very heart of it, how about Rust? Why are'nt you chipping him? Takes two to tango!

MarsCoban is a second witness. This very thread and topic is ad hominem. That's why your intentions are being questioned!
The sad thing here, to me, is not that BP does not believe in God, but that he seems to want people who do believe in God to feel like shit because of their apparent inability to prove to him that what they see as real should be real to him.

And in doing so BP, you are using an "argument against the man"!

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."(emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Why the restriction?

Can you prove to me you talk, without speaking?

Kind of fucking stupid isn't it?



When you walk down the street, do you worry about hitting invisible walls? I mean invisible walls could exist, you have no proof they do not, do you?

So, if I were to see you walking down the street, I would see you flinch every so often as you worried over running into one, right?

No?

Well why the fuck not? Why don't you entertain this baseless claim of invisible walls? Why don't you take it seriously? Why don't you believe in invisible walls enough to flinch whilst walking down the street?

When you got out of bed this morning, did you leap from your bed so as to avoid the grasp of the monster under there?

No?

Do you just not take this claim seriously enough, to make that leap in the morning?

---------

Fact is, everyone of us gets through our lives without entertaining a whole host of crazy, zero evidence having notions. Literally millions of them, that do not worry your brain as you make it through your life.

Why the exception with God?

---------

So my response to this last quote of yours here is this:

I think one standard will do just fine.

Could an ant prove to you that it had profound thoughts, even if it spoke to you, or even that it spoke? No. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't speaking, or speaking profoundly. What you're implying is that the ant would speak English, and that's absurd, and that you would be able to understand an ant, which is also absurd. Hey, for all you know, your shoes are telling you your feet stink and your feet are telling your shoes that they're just jealous whores.
Prove to me otherwise. "I can't hear them" isn't proof, at all.


Of course I don't know if the invisible walls exist or not, and I probably wouldn't flinch. It isn't that it's a stupid claim, it's that I don't care to entertain it. Importance is a matter of opinion.

BP, your accusation of ad hominem is contained in a post that is ad hominem in it's totality!

Pointing out an argumentative fallacy is not itself fallacy.

That is ignorant, and completely incorrect.

This very thread and topic is ad hominem.

I started an argument against people who believe a certain thing. Identifying who you are arguing against or disagree with IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

If the argument consists of what they believe (as most arguments do), and makes a case of why that belief is wrong (as most arguments do), THAT IS NOT AD HOMINEM.

That was my fucking OP.

--------------

You don't seem to understand ad hominem. Perhaps you should read it again....

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The above means...........Ted Bundy can make an argument for women's rights. The second you argue against HIM (the MAN) and not the argument, by pointing out the fact that he is a women murdering rapist, is the second you committ the ad hominem fallacy.

The fact that he is a rapist, does not undo any points he may have laid out in his argument. That is why it is a fallacy.

That is what argument against the man means.

-----------

You breaking from the argument, and attacking Rust by psychoanalyzing him, or suggesting his "true" intentions, DOES NOT UNDO his arguement, b/c you did not argue against his argument, you argued against the man.

If you still don't understand it, if you still refuse to accept that what you did was fallacy, I will not bother to educate you further, and I will leave you to your ignorance.

Prick that I am, I will simply smile and laugh at your ignorance.

Laugh at my ignorance? More attacks on the man, you reveal your true intentions!

You've attacked faith, the belief of the persons making claims that a God exists.

"attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
That's attacking the man's belief, plus there's your:
genetic fallacy
Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B.

^^^^^ can be restated as:
‘Christians’ have faith in a God
Other theists also have faith in a God
Therefore, ‘Christian’ faith = Theist faith.

And let's not ignore your use of:
Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh, is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous,

You've attacked faith, the belief of the persons making claims that a God exists.

Ad hominem does not mean you are forbidden to argue against someone's belief.

^^^^^ can be restated as:
‘Christians’ have faith in a God
Other theists also have faith in a God
Therefore, ‘Christian’ faith = Theist faith..

Lucky for me, I have NEVER suggested or asserted this bullshit.

This is a complete strawman, but let's stick to one fallacy of yours at a time for now, okay.

I don't want you to learn a new defintion and butcher it's meaning as well, just yet.

And let's not ignore your use of

I have not presented your argument in such a way as to make it look ridiculous. Your argument, in addition to being completely incorrect, looks ridiculous all on it's own.

---------

If you like you can address what I laid out in my other post concerning EXACTLY how my OP cannot and is not ad hominem.

Ad hominem does not mean you are forbidden to argue against someone's belief.

You're not doing that BP. you are attacking the use of faith, belief in intangibles. You are trying to use claims of faith as a means to discredit. "an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, ... it cannot provide an infallible counterargument " You are using an ad hominem argument to make the assertions of the existence of God less compelling, by showing that the persons making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim by disallowing their reliance on faith. You "cannot provide an infallible counterargument"?

It's intolerance that causes arguments and wars BP, not religion. The intolerance that treats others faith with contempt and laughs at their 'ignorance'.

Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.
What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
--from The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Gary Zukav

Rust IMO this is more obscuration, I acknowledged your point, what more do you want? How is intent irrelevant? Because it's easily faked? That's non-sense, to me.

I didn't' say it was irrelevant because it was easily faked. It's irrelevant in determining the truth or falsehood of what I said, which, again, is what you should be most concerned with.

So what I want is for you to say:

"Rust, you are right that I don't know your intent nor your level of care; those are things only you know, so I will cease berating you about something I cannot possibly get close to knowing and instead acknowledge the facts being dealt with here, namely the fact that BP didn't miss any point".

I don't know if you noticed, but the thread is now dealing with my "care" or "intention" which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You say it takes two to tango, but that is a ridiculous cop out and you know it. Am I not supposed to defend myself against your accusations in convenient question form?



What a pity the American people had not been more concerned with Bush's true intentions in Iraq rather than accepting his "easily faked" one! Sure he supplied some "true" reasons -- Iraq had previously been developing WMD's, that was true. Did they discover any? No! But being a clever wordsmith he obscured his true intent, by using obsolete, or irrelevant "truths".You just showed precisely why they should have been more focused on the truth or falsehood of his claims! It was the falsehood of his claim that he knew Iraq had WMD's that ultimately discredited him. Not his "intentions". His possible intentions remain speculation - only he knows - with many of his opponents still believing he had good intentions.

Rust, question. Is it that you do not believe in a God, or that you do not believe in the possibility of a God?

My position is the former. I believe a god could be possible, I just have no reason to believe in one.

Also, your argument against BP amounts to a sly strawman. Nobody here said that you could prove beyond a doubt that no god's exist just because you cannot see them. What was said was that there's no reason to believe that they do exist, which is different. Just as you don't believe in invisible walls when you walk down the street, why the hell should any of us believe in a god?

You are using an ad hominem argument to make the assertions of the existence of God less compelling, by showing that the persons making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim by disallowing their reliance on faith. You "cannot provide an infallible counterargument"?

In my OP I simply pointed out several facts, and based on these FACTS I offered some advice:

FACT ONE:

You cannot have faith about somethings existing, and have knowledge about that existence.

FACT TWO:

You cannot have evidence for that which cannot be measured in some form.

ADVICE:

Realize this, if you believe differently.

---------

There is absolutely, 100% NO ad hominem in my OP. There is only fact, and then advice, AKA a GUIDE ON THE THEISTIC ARGUMENT.

---------

If you still feel ad hominem is in there...........show me. Quote it. Discuss it. Break it down. Make your case or shut the fuck up with your bullshit accusations.

I have a feeling I will still be laughing.

It's intolerance that causes arguments and wars BP, not religion. The intolerance that treats others faith with contempt and laughs at their 'ignorance'.

Intolerance is a major aspect of the major religions of the world. There is a disconnect here I just can't understand. I cannot understand how someone can conclude intolerance is the cause of all war, and somehow exonerate religion as being a breeding ground of intolerance.

I am truly confounded by this.

-----

For the record, I did not treat your faith with contempt when I said I would laugh at your ignorance. I was treating your utter lack of knowledge concerning what an ad hominem is, with contempt.

B/C I am contemptous of willful ignorance.

Suggesting that I was intolerant of your faith when I said that, IS A LIE.

Stop lying.

-----

I said I would laugh, rather than educate you on the meaning of ad hominem. I have changed my mind.

You see it is such a rare thing for one person to be so CLEARLY correct and another to be complely wrong, that I want to see how long it will take before you figure out just how incorrect you are, and whether or not you possess the testicular fortitude required to admit it.

So now I laugh, while you display an epic level of ignorance.

My position is the former. I believe a god could be possible, I just have no reason to believe in one.

Also, your argument against BP amounts to a sly strawman. Nobody here said that you could prove beyond a doubt that no god's exist just because you cannot see them. What was said was that there's no reason to believe that they do exist, which is different. Just as you don't believe in invisible walls when you walk down the street, why the hell should any of us believe in a god?

I feel that you're missing my point...

I am not telling you, or anyone else, that you or they should believe in a God or many Gods or no Gods at all. I don't care which you believe. I understand your reasoning for not believing in a God or Gods, as do I understand BrokeProphets reasons. It doesn't bother me that you don't believe in God; if you see no reasons to believe, I don't see any reasons to try and force you to believe in something that I can't prove any more than you can disprove. If your reasons are sufficient for you, that's absolutely dandy; it doesn't matter whether they're sufficient for me or not. Each of us has different standards and will accept different forms of "evidence" in different ways, interpreting it all differently, and that's the beauty of it. My problem isn't even really with you, but BrokeProphet.
This, what I said formerly, sums it up:

The sad thing here, to me, is not that BP does not believe in God, but that he seems to want people who do believe in God to feel like shit because of their apparent inability to prove to him that what they see as real should be real to him.

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.


When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."


Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.
A lot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue against the existence of God, against the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.


When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I don't believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."


Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your DISBELIEF.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wonder why believers try to use science to justify their beliefs, and it's because you force them to. It's an "ok fine, you wont fight me on my terms, so we'll fight on your terms, you ass!" kind of thing.

Where's your proof, your evidence?

Evolution?
Evolution doesn't disprove a God damn thing, BP. If anything, it could strengthen ones belief in God.


(I am not saying this is your evidence or proof, it's just an example.)



Science isn't the only brand of knowledge, BP.

It seems that what you're trying to do is measure the depth of a painting with a ruler.

I feel that you're missing my point...

I'm not missing the point. You spent a lot of your post explaining how just because we can't see a god doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how nobody said otherwise. That's not missing the point.

That I'm not dealing with every single one of your premises? That's true. I didn't intend to. Just pointing out your strawman.



This, what I said formerly, sums it up:


I don't think BP wants them to feel like shit. I think he wants them to stop claiming their beliefs can be substantiated with something meaningful and then consistently fail to do so.

He made it pretty clear that he is content if they say "I believe X even though I have no evidence of X".

I'm not missing the point. You spent a lot of your post explaining how just because we can't see a god doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. I'm pointing out how nobody said otherwise. That's not missing the point.

That I'm not dealing with every single one of your premises? That's true. I didn't intend to. Just pointing out your strawman.




I don't think BP wants them to feel like shit. I think he wants them to stop claiming their beliefs can be substantiated with something meaningful and then consistently fail to do so.

He made it pretty clear that he is content if they say "I believe X even though I have no evidence of X".


Both of those words can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust.

And I was just pointing out yours...
The straws do exist to grasp, much to your chagrin, it seems.

"I'm pointing out how nobody said otherwise"....ok, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there. If you weren't claiming, by implacation, that God doesn't exist, what would the purpose of this thread be?


You:


"The sky is blue, the sun is shining, the birds are a chirpin' and the kiddies are a wakin'!"

Me:

"So, it's day time?"

You:

"I never said that!"

A lot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue against the existence of God, against the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

They don't attempt, they correctly use the principles of logic and science even 3rd graders understand and use.

"Nuh uh, prove it"

Evolve intellectually to that of an average 3rd grader please.

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your DISBELIEF.

My disbelief is every bit as justified as disbelief in anything that has absolutely no evidence for existing.

You wonder why believers try to use science to justify their beliefs, and it's because you force them to.

I am not wondering why.

I don't force anyone with freewill to do anything.

It seems that what you're trying to do is measure the depth of a painting with a ruler.

Only when people claim a painting (religion) is not a work of imagination.

Both of those words can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust.

You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?


...ok, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there. If you weren't claiming, by implacation, that God doesn't exist, what would the purpose of this thread be?



1. That's a nice ego-sparing way of saying you were wrong. Thank you.

2. The purpose of this thread is up to BP, not me. I don't speak for him. However, from what he has explained, it seems he wants them to either provide tangible evidence or to admit that their belief is based on faith.

3. I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist. That's a fact. Stop trying to imply that I do.

You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?




1. That's a nice ego-sparing way of saying you were wrong. Thank you.

2. The purpose of this thread is up to BP, not me. I don't speak for him. However, from what he has explained, it seems he wants them to either provide tangible evidence or to admit that their belief is based on faith.

3. I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist. That's a fact. Stop trying to imply that I do.

By "anyone else" whom do you mean? Certainly not other religious people, who are numerous, and, I'm pretty sure, make up the majority of the population (I could be wrong). Most of them would certainly accept others personal experiences of "God" as valid, because they're not looking for what you're looking for. So I assume you mean that they can't prove it to atheists who, mostly, refuse to accept the possible existence of a God, by definition. Sir, I have no evidence that would satisfy you, and I feel I don't need any since I am not even claiming that there is a God. You must be mistaking me for a "believer", which I am not. I am open to both sides of the arguement. I don't see your reasons for not believing in a God to be completely without merit, nor do I see others reasons for believing in a God to be completely without merit.

I have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake, especially on something so trivial, and especially when I wasn't entirely wrong. My ego is doing fine, I assure you. :)

Ok, claiming "God isn't there", to me, equates to, "I don't believe in God, because I find no satisfactory evidence to support his existence"...which pretty much means you don't think God exists, otherwise why would you claim He wasn't there? If I'm wrong, correct me. I want to be as clear on your view as possible. If you did feel that He existed, why would you claim he wasn't there? Do you mean to imply that He's hiding from you? Because that would mean He's there, just not in view.

They don't attempt, they correctly use the principles of logic and science even 3rd graders understand and use.

"Nuh uh, prove it"

Evolve intellectually to that of an average 3rd grader please.



My disbelief is every bit as justified as disbelief in anything that has absolutely no evidence for existing.



I am not wondering why.

I don't force anyone with freewill to do anything.



Only when people claim a painting (religion) is not a work of imagination.
Which is exactly what I am using when I see that your evidence to the contrary doesn't exist. I'm using the same principles of logic as you are, so hey, I guess we both need to evolve, right? Also, please don't try and say "the burden of proof is on you, not me"...I'm not claiming anything.



I didn't mean to imply that you were physically forcing someone to do what I said.
If a teacher says, "Johnny, take and pass this test, or else you fail"...the teacher isn't forcing Johnny to do anything, but what do you think Johnny's gonna do if he wants to pass the class?

Greetings heathens,

Simply put there is a God and you can choose to believe Him or choose to deny Him. The mere fact this is such a hot topic is evidence that the Lord is trying to reach out to everybody on the face of the earth. You are asking yourselves these questions because God is putting the in your heart - he wants you to make a choice. He want's you to choose him; but will you? The God of the Bible is real. The God of the Bible's prophecies come to pass (Ezekiel 4:3-6 was fulfilled in 1948 - accurate to the very year). And most importantly, Jesus was real. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins once and for all.

Will you accept this gift of salvation and forgiveness? All you must do is believe on him and accept him as your savior and you will go to heaven when you die.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehimsh

Greetings heathens,

Simply put there is a God and you can choose to believe Him or choose to deny Him. The mere fact this is such a hot topic is evidence that the Lord is trying to reach out to everybody on the face of the earth. You are asking yourselves these questions because God is putting the in your heart - he wants you to make a choice. He want's you to choose him; but will you? The God of the Bible is real. The God of the Bible's prophecies come to pass (Ezekiel 4:3-6 was fulfilled in 1948 - accurate to the very year). And most importantly, Jesus was real. The wages of sin is death, but Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins once and for all.

Will you accept this gift of salvation and forgiveness? All you must do is believe on him and accept him as your savior and you will go to heaven when you die.

God bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehimsh

This is a great troll. I read it once incredulously, like, "Is this person serious?", but then I noticed the "Greetings heathens" up at the top. Pure fucking gold. High-five.

I think I will post this in some threads sometime. This looks like a fucking great gift to the forum.

I shall leave it to you to decide whether or not I am a troll, but everything I have said is true.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

By "anyone else" whom do you mean? Certainly not other religious people, who are numerous, and, I'm pretty sure, make up the majority of the population (I could be wrong). Most of them would certainly accept others personal experiences of "God" as valid, because they're not looking for what you're looking for.

I didn't say other religious people couldn't believe them. That other religious people believe it doesn't mean they've shown it, which is what I did say.

For example: You can believe I'm wearing a top-hat right now, even though I haven't shown one to you.

I don't doubt the ability of believers to be convinced of things without that thing being shown of them. They are quite adept at that.


So I assume you mean that they can't prove it to atheists who, mostly, refuse to accept the possible existence of a God, by definition.

Most of them refuse to accept the possibility of a god? Where did you get this gem from? If it's anecdotal evidence then I have my own to offer: the vast majority of atheists I know are weak atheists. They are willing to accept the possibility of a god.



Sir, I have no evidence that would satisfy you,

Great, then my point is made:

theists apparently interpret ["evidence"] to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lose its meaning.


I have no problem admitting when I have made a mistake, especially on something so trivial, and especially when I wasn't entirely wrong. My ego is doing fine, I assure you. :)

Then I'm left wandering why you didn't explicitly say you were wrong but instead offered "ok, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there." which is more of a counter-allegations than an admittance of being wrong.



Ok, claiming "God isn't there", to me, equates to, "I don't believe in God, because I find no satisfactory evidence to support his existence"...which pretty much means you don't think God exists, otherwise why would you claim He wasn't there? If I'm wrong, correct me. I want to be as clear on your view as possible. If you did feel that He existed, why would you claim he wasn't there? Do you mean to imply that He's hiding from you? Because that would mean He's there, just not in view.

Where have I said he wasn't there? I said I have no reason to believe he is. I don't know if one is there or not, therefore I don't go around asserting "God isn't there".

"I don't believe in God, because I find no satisfactory evidence to support his existence" is not the same thing as claiming "God isn't there"

Where have I said he wasn't there? I said I have no reason to believe he is. I don't know if one is there or not, therefore I don't go around asserting "God isn't there".

Wise words my brother, you aren't making any assumptions about the nonexistance of God. On the other hand, you'd best get saved before armageddon arrives which isn't far away since the antichrist has just been elected president of the United States.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Wise words my brother, you aren't making any assumptions about the nonexistance of God. On the other hand, you'd best get saved before armageddon arrives which isn't far away since the antichrist has just been elected president of the United States.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Keep this shit up, man, I'm lulzing to the extreme.

Wise words my brother, you aren't making any assumptions about the nonexistance of God. On the other hand, you'd best get saved before armageddon arrives which isn't far away since the antichrist has just been elected president of the United States.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Go fist your mother.

(now turn the other cheek)

Go fist your mother.

Which is exactly what I am using when I see that your evidence to the contrary doesn't exist. I'm using the same principles of logic as you are, so hey, I guess we both need to evolve, right?

No you are not.

1. For example: You can believe I'm wearing a top-hat right now, even though I haven't shown one to you.

2. I don't doubt the ability of believers to be convinced of things without that thing being shown of them. They are quite adept at that.



3. Most of them refuse to accept the possibility of a god? Where did you get this gem from? If it's anecdotal evidence then I have my own to offer: the vast majority of atheists I know are weak atheists. They are willing to accept the possibility of a god.




4. Great, then my point is made:

theists apparently interpret ["evidence"] to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lose its meaning.




5. Then I'm left wandering why you didn't explicitly say you were wrong but instead offered "ok, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there." which is more of a counter-allegations than an admittance of being wrong.




6. Where have I said he wasn't there? I said I have no reason to believe he is. I don't know if one is there or not, therefore I don't go around asserting "God isn't there".

"I don't believe in God, because I find no satisfactory evidence to support his existence" is not the same thing as claiming "God isn't there"


1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

4. The definition, again, offered by dictionary.com for "evidence": that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. This isn't exactly what I would call a "solid" definition. In fact, it's pretty damn loose in my opinion. If you can provide me a "better" definition I'd be happy to look at it. But as far as this one goes, it doesn't help much to support your claims of "not being able to show"...
Ok, let's say a man(1) says to another man(2) "if you prove to me that at least one trillion stars exist, I will accept that some form of God exists"...and man 2 proceeds to show man 1 that, in fact, at least 1 trillion stars exist and man 1 then accepts the existence of some form of God. Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.

5. Again, I feel that I made a mistake, not that I was entirely wrong. To clear this up, I do not wish to put words in your mouth and I do wish to understand your beliefs. I feel that getting you to reveal them has been akin to pulling teeth. You haven't exactly been crystal clear with them, but neither have I. I feel that it's likely that we mostly agree, or at least I feel I mostly agree with you, and the bickering is due to other factors. My main problem was never with you, and now that you've been clearing things up for me, it definitely isn't with you. You seem to be a reasonable enough person to me.

6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Think of me as a judge being presented with a case. One man claims there is a God, the other claims there absolutely is not a God. They both present me with little, if no evidence that ultimately adds up to crap and their arguements consist of their extremely limited knowledge of the universe, or whatever is "out there." One tries to explain why it works, the other tries to explain how it works and they don't seem to be able to reconcile the two. Where am I supposed to go? Mistrial, every time. In all honesty I'm liable not to believe either of them! But one of the answers must be wrong and one must be right, right? I don't know... and, again, NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. That's been my point throughout this thread.

No you are not.

Your proof?

Saying something in an authoritative manner doesn't make you right, BrokeProphet.


Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?


Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.
(Yes, I am aware that this applies to everyone including myself.)

1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.


2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....


3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.


Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.


He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?

If tonight you looked out and saw that in letters constructed of stars it was spelled out, very clearly to you, "There is no God", what would you think?
(I know some of these questions don't necessarily pertain to what we're currently discussing, but I'm curious to know your answers.)

I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.


6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.


Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.


1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.



It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....



Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.



He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?



I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.



Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.



Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

I never said anyone said otherwise.

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.


I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...

Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

You: Yeeeeah, I'm not so sure about that.

Me: You're right. I've made a mistake.

You: YOU'RE WRONG

Me: I just admitted that...

Seems like an ego thing to me, but hey, who am I to question your motives?

I'm already aware of that term. I just think there needs to be a stronger word for it, seperate and more severe than "atheist."

I suck at math.

Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.



1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.


What "exactly" did he say?

"Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists"

Fact number 2: there exists no evidence to the contrary.

I agree that they do not arrive at their conclusions by means of science. I completely agree.
But logic? Reason? Not so much.

Most of us accept the notion that if something exists, something or someone must've made it so. Can you show me an example where this doesn't apply, or is false? So it isn't necessarily illogical to think that someone or something created all of what we think we know so much about.



I'm pretty sure you're right when you assert that he never explicitly claimed that God doesn't exist.
It's just the overwhelming impression I get when I read... uhh...any post of his having to do with God.


Fact number 3: I'm not a theist.

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.

I'm looking for evidence of any god that theists claim exists. Why would I limit the evidence I am willing to listen to, to one particular definition of a god?

This is my stance: You (anyone) have evidence of a god? Show it to me.

I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.


... Okay? Who cares?

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...


Isn't it obvious? Anyone else means "anyone who isn't them". I said that as far as I was aware they hadn't shown any evidence to anyone else. I then asked you if you knew of a case where they had, to show me.


Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

I'm pretty sure you said this:

"k, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there. If you weren't claiming, by implacation, that God doesn't exist, what would the purpose of this thread be?"

Which, like I said earlier, is a nice ego-saving way of saying you were wrong. It's not a "I was wrong". It's you putting words in my mouth in return (i.e. "doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there").


I suck at math.

1. You don't really need to know much math to notice the point. Just, maybe, the definition of a linear function, which you can find in Google easily.

2. I said a lot more than just that example...


Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

Something being "more advanced" to us is a vague and unconvincing standard. You could claim a simple human that had a favorable genetic mutation or invented some new technology (if you mean advanced in the technological achievement context) would be "more advanced" than the rest. You would be hard pressed to find people calling that guy a "god".

Not only is the standard very fuzzy, it it has little to do with what theists most often refer to, and what atheists object to, the claims of supernatural powers! I don't know of any atheists that has any problem with the concept of an alien civilization being more advanced than us technologically.

They have a problems with things that have no meaningful evidence.