774 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” the Bible says.

Excuse me but why does it matter what has been written into some book?? Think for yourself. Mind you, I don't think that you came up with the idea of Christian God in isolation, but a human being told you about it to start with. If if this person wore robes it doesn't follow that you should believe whatever he/she said...

Typical Atheist moronic response. In fact, very little of what you know is original knowledge and most of what you know came from books or other educational materials. You even learned to talk and take a dump from others. You are using the English language which came from others. Ever used a dictionary written by others? Judging from your comment the answer is no. You are original and think for yourself! And you even think if people wear clothes, of whatever kind, that is all it takes to believe. Perhaps you need to read a few more books. How dumb. How original.

[shadowhawk]

*sigh* Based on my knowledge I don't believe the sun will come up tomorrow, I -know- it will. I can readily observe the sun from any time zone and if it disappears, I too will be able to observe that directly. I agree that the sun will eventually not 'come up' in the classic sense, but there will be thousands of years of warnings before that happens and it will be a slow, directly observable process barring going supernova ......

Where is your god oberservable? Where can I toon in a webcam or telescope to verify its presence 24 hours a day at will? Nowhere, because your god doesnt exist ...and even if your god did exist, he doesnt care about you or his creations because he has abandonded them.

We are talking past each other in the sun illustration. Enough already.

God is a spirit. You are asking for something observable. Wrong questions. Just as in science you must use the proper tool when trying to detect something. A webcam or telescope are the wrong tool. Would you use these tools to detect dark matter? So far we do not have the tools necessary to detect Spirit. Someday we may develop enough to do so. We don’t know how to ask the right questions yet. There are many examples in Science of just this kind of thing. Consciousness is something that can’t be seen but exists. Consciousness is part of the basic nature of the cosmos. God is conscious and so are we. Perhaps this is one reason so many are aware of Him. Anyway, try to see it using the tools you suggest.

[shadowhawk]

You have direct evidence, if you trust your subjective experience, that the sun came up this morning. That is what you KNOW. Based on this you BELIEVE the sun will come up tomorrow morning though you can’t be absolutely certain about it because someday it won’t. If you can’t understand this....OK. If you can ...OK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism

Absolute certainty about anything does not exist and is not even needed. We know that the Sun will come up tomorrow unless something truly extraordinary happens. Would you bet against the Sun rising tomorrow?

I believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning. Nothing you have said contridcts my point on faith.

[mikeinnaples]

Typical Atheist moronic response.

Big talk from a delusional person obsessed with fairy tales. Seriously, we shouldn't go there.

[mikeinnaples]

God is a spirit. So far we do not have the tools necessary to detect Spirit.

How do you know god is a spirit? If you don't have the tools to detect spirits there is no way for you to know for sure. I don't have the tools to detect the existence of flying purple people eaters either, but surely they exist?!

[shadowhawk]

God is a spirit. So far we do not have the tools necessary to detect Spirit.

How do you know god is a spirit? If you don't have the tools to detect spirits there is no way for you to know for sure. I don't have the tools to detect the existence of flying purple people eaters either, but surely they exist?!

We don't know what dark matter is. We don't know what consciousness is. At one time we didn't know what radio waves were.. There are lots of things like this. You don't have tools to detect flying people eaters because they are made up. We know who and when this was done. Why not be really creative and call them spoons or bottles. Then attribute them all the attributes of God. Such a game. This is a word game where you change the meaning of words so a chicken is a horse.

[shadowhawk]

Typical Atheist moronic response.

Big talk from a delusional person obsessed with fairy tales. Seriously, we shouldn't go there.

Perhaps this has run its course.

[mikeinnaples]

Typical Atheist moronic response.

Big talk from a delusional person obsessed with fairy tales. Seriously, we shouldn't go there.

Perhaps this has run its course.

Or not ...either way it should remain friendly. Once it starts degrading to name calling and questioning intelligence, coimmunication breaks down.

[mikeinnaples]

You don't have tools to detect flying people eaters because they are made up. We know who and when this was done.

Right, just like we don't have the tools to detect 'god' because 'god' is made up. We know that concept of 'god' was a product of man and not the other way around. The bible was written by man and was the koran and every other religious text.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 22 November 2011 - 10:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

You don't have tools to detect flying people eaters because they are made up. We know who and when this was done.

Right, just like we don't have the tools to detect 'god' because 'god' is made up. We know that concept of 'god' was a product of man and not the other way around. The bible was written by man and was the koran and every other religious text.

The burden of proof is on you now.
1. prove God is made up by man.
2. Prove the Bible was made up by man. No one disputes man was involved in writing the Bible but in this it is unlike the Koran. Evidence the Bible and Koran are the same.

[platypus]

Some religious figures in the scriptures have clear sign of epilepsy, which is known to cause religious visions/delusions/obesessions. One of the these was Apostle Paul so it's possible much of the scripture has been influenced by mental illness that causes religious aberrations.

https://en.wikipedia...ligious_figures

Of course Jesus might have some issues too - however great a guy he was claiming to be a Son of God was a bit much!

[shadowhawk]

Some religious figures in the scriptures have clear sign of epilepsy, which is known to cause religious visions/delusions/obesessions. One of the these was Apostle Paul so it's possible much of the scripture has been influenced by mental illness that causes religious aberrations.

https://en.wikipedia...ligious_figures

Of course Jesus might have some issues too - however great a guy he was claiming to be a Son of God was a bit much!

The burden of proof is on you. Your source quoted above says:
". F.F. Bruce says, "Many guesses have been made about the identity of this "splinter in the flesh"; and their very variety proves the impossibility of a certain diagnosis. One favourite guess has been epilepsy ... but it is no more than a guess". Researchers are quite dividied on the cause of his Damascus conversion and vision. In addition to a seizure, heat exhaustion, the voice of conscience together with a migraine, and even a bolt of lightning have been suggested."

Your conclusion is impossible to make, according to the source you just quoted!
1. Prove Paul had a mental illness.

[platypus]

The burden of proof is on you.

My underlying point is that God is not even required to explain incredibly strong religious experiences/conversions! Study the so-called religious experience and you'll see that the prophets who have founded religions have based their beliefs on an experience which does not prove there's are gods external to us. Most people have the ability to experience religious/spiritual experiences and these can be triggered by sensory deprivation, prayer & maditation, singing & dancing, fasting, self-flagellation, mental illness, psychotropic drugs (look up the "Good Friday experiment") etc.

[mikeinnaples]

You don't have tools to detect flying people eaters because they are made up. We know who and when this was done.

Right, just like we don't have the tools to detect 'god' because 'god' is made up. We know that concept of 'god' was a product of man and not the other way around. The bible was written by man and was the koran and every other religious text.

The burden of proof is on you now.
1. prove God is made up by man.
2. Prove the Bible was made up by man. No one disputes man was involved in writing the Bible but in this it is unlike the Koran. Evidence the Bible and Koran are the same.

How wonderfully silly of you...

I have faith that 'god' was an invention of man. If also have faith that the bible was a book of fairy tales created by man, much like mother goose.

lmfao

Edited by mikeinnaples, 23 November 2011 - 01:34 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The burden of proof is on you.

My underlying point is that God is not even required to explain incredibly strong religious experiences/conversions! Study the so-called religious experience and you'll see that the prophets who have founded religions have based their beliefs on an experience which does not prove there's are gods external to us. Most people have the ability to experience religious/spiritual experiences and these can be triggered by sensory deprivation, prayer & maditation, singing & dancing, fasting, self-flagellation, mental illness, psychotropic drugs (look up the "Good Friday experiment") etc.

That was not your point. You made a couple of negative comments about the Apostle Paul and Christ. You quoted a source which you claimed showed Paul had a mental illness. Your quote said just the opposite, and epilepsy if he did have it, which I doubt, is not a mental illness.

Prove it.

Prove all religious experiences can be explained by your amateur psychology. You have explained nothing. Prove all religious experiences are a result of your broad brush accusations.

[shadowhawk]

You don't have tools to detect flying people eaters because they are made up. We know who and when this was done.

Right, just like we don't have the tools to detect 'god' because 'god' is made up. We know that concept of 'god' was a product of man and not the other way around. The bible was written by man and was the koran and every other religious text.

The burden of proof is on you now.
1. prove God is made up by man.
2. Prove the Bible was made up by man. No one disputes man was involved in writing the Bible but in this it is unlike the Koran. Evidence the Bible and Koran are the same.

How wonderfully silly of you...

I have faith that 'god' was an invention of man. If also have faith that the bible was a book of fairy tales created by man, much like mother goose.

lmfao

No proof? Baseless? Your faith? No reasons. OK

[shadowhawk]

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. If God is possible then atheists want theists alone to have the burden of proof. They don't want to be put in the position of having to prove the theoretical non-existence of God. They know it can't be done. As was stated in Positive Atheism magazine: "one cannot prove a negative existential claim (that is, a claim that a thing does not exist)." For this reason, the distinction between the weak position and the strong position of atheism becomes very important. With weak-position atheism, the burden of proof falls on the theist. With strong-position atheism, however, it is the atheist that carries the burden of proof. Here is how it breaks down:

The weak-position atheist says: "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists." This position puts the theist on the defensive. The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist. All the weak-position atheist has to do is play the eternal skeptic and replay to any evidence presented with, “that is not enough evidence,” or ask an endless “why.”

The strong-position atheist says: "Absolutely, positively, there is no god." In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say: "So prove it." This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive. He has to be part of the full dynamic of the conversation. Here are two short videos that make this point.

[platypus]

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. If God is possible then atheists want theists alone to have the burden of proof.

Of course the burden of proof is on them, especially since gods cannot be observed nor are they needed to explain any phenomena. What's your take on the religious experiences of people starting religions, i.e. Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Apostle Paul, Mohammed, etc. etc.? Isn't the best explanation that those people had strong religious experiences which they mistook to prove than gods exist? We are wiser these days, just because someone is hearing a voice in their heads certainly doesn't prove that "god" is speaking to them.

[shadowhawk]

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. If God is possible then atheists want theists alone to have the burden of proof.

Of course the burden of proof is on them, especially since gods cannot be observed nor are they needed to explain any phenomena. What's your take on the religious experiences of people starting religions, i.e. Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Apostle Paul, Mohammed, etc. etc.? Isn't the best explanation that those people had strong religious experiences which they mistook to prove than gods exist? We are wiser these days, just because someone is hearing a voice in their heads certainly doesn't prove that "god" is speaking to them.

Oh a more advanced than Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Paul, etc and someone who says they all are mentally ill. Sounds a bit mental to me. I noticed you again ignored my request for proof. The truth is as I stated it in the last post and the videos. http://www.longecity...post__p__487553

“We,” are wiser. Who is the “we?” Does a wiser person say “there is no God?” Are they just playing the game of being skeptic about everything while offering no proof of their own?

I can’t explain colors to a blind man. There are evidences. Pascal may have said there is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man.” http://thinkexist.co..._of/166425.html
You have even tried to fill it looking for spirits while on psychedelics.

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?

This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there (atheism) the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.” [Pascal, Pensees #425]

See the videos again in the previous post. You do have the burden of proof that there is no god.

[shadowhawk]

The Kelam argument for existence of God.
some good .evidence is inferred

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZJ_i-Pcn6I&feature=uploademail


http://www.youtube.c...1&v=3tGisPuwB7M

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 November 2011 - 11:02 PM.

[platypus]

Oh a more advanced than Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Paul, etc and someone who says they all are mentally ill. Sounds a bit mental to me. I noticed you again ignored my request for proof. The truth is as I stated it in the last post and the videos. http://www.longecity...post__p__487553

If we put people who think they are gods in mental insitutions today, why do you think that people having those experiences in the past were "sane"?

“We,” are wiser. Who is the “we?” Does a wiser person say “there is no God?” Are they just playing the game of being skeptic about everything while offering no proof of their own?

There's no "proof". I'm simply pointing out that psychology and neuroscience explains what the people that founded religions went through. You did notice the long list of religious people suffering from Temporal Lobe Eplilepsy didn't you? Please explain why epilepsy and drugs make people experience "god".

I can’t explain colors to a blind man. There are evidences. Pascal may have said there is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man.” http://thinkexist.co..._of/166425.html
You have even tried to fill it looking for spirits while on psychedelics.

There are evidences - LOL. Consider the possibility that you are the blinded man.

See the videos again in the previous post. You do have the burden of proof that there is no god.

I'm still not wasting my time on videos about philosophical or cosmological "proofs" of gods. What is the phenomenon that gods are required to explain? The philosophical/cosmological ones have already failed and you cannot claim that gods exist merely because there are aspects of the universe you don't currently understand. Gods are not even needed to explain the experiences of religious people.

[shadowhawk]

Oh a more advanced than Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Paul, etc and someone who says they all are mentally ill. Sounds a bit mental to me. I noticed you again ignored my request for proof. The truth is as I stated it in the last post and the videos. http://www.longecity...post__p__487553

If we put people who think they are gods in mental insitutions today, why do you think that people having those experiences in the past were "sane"?

“We,” are wiser. Who is the “we?” Does a wiser person say “there is no God?” Are they just playing the game of being skeptic about everything while offering no proof of their own?

There's no "proof". I'm simply pointing out that psychology and neuroscience explains what the people that founded religions went through. You did notice the long list of religious people suffering from Temporal Lobe Eplilepsy didn't you? Please explain why epilepsy and drugs make people experience "god".

I can’t explain colors to a blind man. There are evidences. Pascal may have said there is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man.” http://thinkexist.co..._of/166425.html
You have even tried to fill it looking for spirits while on psychedelics.

There are evidences - LOL. Consider the possibility that you are the blinded man.

See the videos again in the previous post. You do have the burden of proof that there is no god.

I'm still not wasting my time on videos about philosophical or cosmological "proofs" of gods. What is the phenomenon that gods are required to explain? The philosophical/cosmological ones have already failed and you cannot claim that gods exist merely because there are aspects of the universe you don't currently understand. Gods are not even needed to explain the experiences of religious people.

OK

[shadowhawk]

I presented the Kalam argument two posts ago. In the first video of this post is the Kalam argumen. Here are answers to objections to it that are commonly made. This is made by Craig. The last one was by JP Morland.

[platypus]

Do you seriously think those cosmological "proofs" are worth anything?

[shadowhawk]

Do you seriously think those cosmological "proofs" are worth anything?

Yes and I await something beside the "village atheist," response. Is this your rebuttal to the possibility of God? This is all you can say to the Kalam? Typical all the way through this discussion. Ho hum...

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 November 2011 - 10:19 PM.

[platypus]

Do you seriously think those cosmological "proofs" are worth anything?

Yes and I await something beside the "village atheist," response. Is this your rebuttal to the possibility of God? This is all you can say to the Kalam? Typical all the way through this discussion. Ho hum...

I already told you why the cosmological and philosophical "proofs" fail. They fail because their attempts to rule out other options are rather pathetic. What in this explanation you do not understand?

ps. also, philosophy is the study of HUMAN THOUGHT which is notoriously fallible. None of the philosophical arguiment are worth a crap to be honest.

pps. since you are keen on videos what are the best ones supporting the case that there are no gods? surely you've erpended equal effort in trying to prove this opposite case to yourself in order to seek a balanced view?

Edited by platypus, 28 November 2011 - 10:42 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Do you seriously think those cosmological "proofs" are worth anything?

Yes and I await something beside the "village atheist," response. Is this your rebuttal to the possibility of God? This is all you can say to the Kalam? Typical all the way through this discussion. Ho hum...

I already told you why the cosmological and philosophical "proofs" fail. They fail because their attempts to rule out other options are rather pathetic. What in this explanation you do not understand?

ps. also, philosophy is the study of HUMAN THOUGHT which is notoriously fallible. None of the philosophical arguiment are worth a crap to be honest.

pps. since you are keen on videos what are the best ones supporting the case that there are no gods? surely you've erpended equal effort in trying to prove this opposite case to yourself in order to seek a balanced view?

There is no, here is no here, here in your response. They (the Kalam) fail because they are “pathetic.” What does that mean. Nothing. Like I said this sounds like the village atheist. No theist arguments are worth “crap.” How profound. This is to lame. If you have something to really say of substance I would be happy to deal with that.

As for defending atheism I have been in it and studied it deeply but since you say the burden of proof is all on the theist I won’t do your work for you. Ho Hum

[DukeNukem]

God as creator of everything cannot possibly exist.

And since we do not need a god to create our universe, why should a god exist?

And if a god does exist, which god (humans have imagined 1000's) should we believe in?

And if one of more of these gods existed, why does he play games with us and not just reveal itself?

And why would a god allow books like the Bible to represent it, but these books are chock full of bad advice, contradictions, and poor science -- not to mention they paint god as a magnificent child murderer (Noah's flood, the two bear story, and so many more stories).

God is so clearly the invention of stone-age minds, who needed explanations for nature, and needed a god to give rulers a reason for power and law. if gods were real, they'd have written a truly insightful and non-contradictory book that clearly pointed to a higher intelligence, but the Bible doesn't come close to passing this test. And neither does any other religious manual -- in fact, they all fall laughably short.

People still cling to notions of a god because we are inherently weak, and need hope that there's some higher meaning to our pitiful little lives. Most of us can't accept that we're fleeting dust in the wind, mere vessels to advance genes along a timeline that cares not about us in the long run. If we devoted as much time to some sky daddy who's not really there as we should to solving a real problem -- aging! -- we might actually be as immortal as these pretend gods promise us to be.

Edited by DukeNukem, 29 November 2011 - 07:10 AM.

[platypus]

They (the Kalam) fail because they are “pathetic.” What does that mean. Nothing. Like I said this sounds like the village atheist. No theist arguments are worth “crap.” How profound. This is to lame. If you have something to really say of substance I would be happy to deal with that.

I explained this to you many posts ago. The Kalam "proof" is based on claiming that the universe must have a beginning, must have a cause, and that cause must be personal. Since all of those claims can be disputed on good grounds, the "proof" is not valid. If you don't see this you have serious problems with comprehension. Please move on, if you want to argue gods exist you really need to use some other arguments than the philosophical/cosmological ones. What's your take on the religious experience? Why can it be calalysed by drugs or epilepsy? Why do you think delusions of grandeur ("I am God") are common in people with mental problems?

Edited by platypus, 29 November 2011 - 09:34 AM.

[platypus]

In case you are not fond of books here's one take on what is wrong with the cosmological proofs:



more of the same:



and more:



(how do I embed videos here?)