1712 replies to this topic

[Dakman]

I guess this isn't one of the intellectuals then 

 

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

 

 

You're a funny guy Shadowhawk

 

Too funny

[shadowhawk]

Translated the subject is Evidence for Atheism.  Yes lets get back on topic.

[Lewis Carroll]

Translated the subject is Evidence for Atheism.  Yes lets get back on topic.

 

I tend to identify as being an atheist due to the lack of evidence for theism.

 

/thread

[shadowhawk]

OK but here the topic is "Evidence," for Atheism.  I have addressed "Evidence for Christianity."  And we could still discuss it except so many couldn't take it that they succeeded in having the topic locked.  How is that for open mindedness?  Do you think the dialogue was reasoned, logical or fact filled on their part or like this where you call names and commit logical fallacies?  I can cite references of many hundreds which were posted elsewhere.  Shall I  reference them here should anyone be interested?

[Lewis Carroll]

OK but here the topic is "Evidence," for Atheism.  I have addressed "Evidence for Christianity."  And we could still discuss it except so many couldn't take it that they succeeded in having the topic locked.  How is that for open mindedness?  Do you think the dialogue was reasoned, logical or fact filled on their part or like this where you call names and commit logical fallacies?  I can cite references of many hundreds which were posted elsewhere.  Shall I  reference them here should anyone be interested?

 

We all observed the 62 pages of "evidence" you provided in support of theism. Unfortunately, we were not convinced. Since my "belief" in atheism stems from the lack of evidence pointing towards theism, and your attempt at providing evidence was not adequate, where does this leave us?

 

/thread

[sthira]

How did Kant put it? God is a morally useful fiction?

Wittgenstein:

"A religious question is either a question of life or it is (empty) chatter. This language game--one could say--gets played only with questions of life. Much like the word "ouch" does not have any meaning--except as a scream of pain."

Everything that really needed to be said on this topic was said on the first page. My take on it at this point is that the best you can do to "evidence" (strong) atheism is show that reality itself contradicts the idea of deeply involved, personal gods, unless additional, often self-contradicting ideas are introduced to try and explain their apparent absence.

It seems to me that if God is infinite, then God would also by definition be self-contradictory: existent, non existent, nothing, everything, rational, irrational, knowable, unknowable, mysterious, plain in sight -- all of that shiz, none of it, less and more. Wittgenstein said God is unthinkable. And also:

"I want to say: If eternal bliss means nothing for my life, my way of life, then I don't have to rack my brain about it; if I am to rightfully think about it, then what I think must stand in a precise relation to my life, otherwise what I think is rubbish or my life is in danger.--An authority which is not effective, which I don't have to heed, is no authority. If I rightfully speak of an authority I must also be dependent upon it."

[shadowhawk]

 

OK but here the topic is "Evidence," for Atheism.  I have addressed "Evidence for Christianity."  And we could still discuss it except so many couldn't take it that they succeeded in having the topic locked.  How is that for open mindedness?  Do you think the dialogue was reasoned, logical or fact filled on their part or like this where you call names and commit logical fallacies?  I can cite references of many hundreds which were posted elsewhere.  Shall I  reference them here should anyone be interested?

 

We all observed the 62 pages of "evidence" you provided in support of theism. Unfortunately, we were not convinced. Since my "belief" in atheism stems from the lack of evidence pointing towards theism, and your attempt at providing evidence was not adequate, where does this leave us?

 

/thread

 

I don't know where it leaves you but again you are off topic.  If we could we could take any argument I presented there and debate it there.  I would be happy to do that.  Choose one.  No name calling or logical fallacies.  Deal with the arguments.

[shadowhawk]

How did Kant put it? God is a morally useful fiction?

Wittgenstein:

"A religious question is either a question of life or it is (empty) chatter. This language game--one could say--gets played only with questions of life. Much like the word "ouch" does not have any meaning--except as a scream of pain."
 

Everything that really needed to be said on this topic was said on the first page. My take on it at this point is that the best you can do to "evidence" (strong) atheism is show that reality itself contradicts the idea of deeply involved, personal gods, unless additional, often self-contradicting ideas are introduced to try and explain their apparent absence.

It seems to me that if God is infinite, then God would also by definition be self-contradictory: existent, non existent, nothing, everything, rational, irrational, knowable, unknowable, mysterious, plain in sight -- all of that shiz, none of it, less and more. Wittgenstein said God is unthinkable. And also:

"I want to say: If eternal bliss means nothing for my life, my way of life, then I don't have to rack my brain about it; if I am to rightfully think about it, then what I think must stand in a precise relation to my life, otherwise what I think is rubbish or my life is in danger.--An authority which is not effective, which I don't have to heed, is no authority. If I rightfully speak of an authority I must also be dependent upon it."

 

Kant was a Christian and Wittgenstein fell out of favor when it became obvious that you could not verify the verifiability principle.  It is self defeating as well as off topic here.

[shifter]

Atheist technically have no burden if proof. It is a lack of any belief. They have nothing to prove. HOWEVER, once they say to theists, 'No, you are wrong, there is no such thing as God, spirits and what have you' then they are taking a stance, a BELIEF if you will that they are right. That is no longer atheism anyway.

Theism is about faith. It works differently in the sense it really only works in faith.

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

[old_school]

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

 

False.
 

[The Brain]

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

False.

As if your opinion carries any credibility at all

Lol

[shifter]

Oh ye of little faith...

Are you saying your belief only comes from intangible, material evidence and NOT faith? If so, please present said evidence.

I have no problem with faith. I do not require 'evidence' for faith. Otherwise how can you call it faith?

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

False.

[shadowhawk]

Atheist technically have no burden if proof. It is a lack of any belief. They have nothing to prove. HOWEVER, once they say to theists, 'No, you are wrong, there is no such thing as God, spirits and what have you' then they are taking a stance, a BELIEF if you will that they are right. That is no longer atheism anyway.

Theism is about faith. It works differently in the sense it really only works in faith.

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

Atheists do have a burden of proof.   We prove the negative all the time or we would all be dead.  HERE they certainly have the burden to produce evidence there is no God.

[shadowhawk]

Oh ye of little faith...

Are you saying your belief only comes from intangible, material evidence and NOT faith? If so, please present said evidence.

I have no problem with faith. I do not require 'evidence' for faith. Otherwise how can you call it faith?




 

 

Quite frankly the short answer to all the 'is there evidence for....' is NO

False.

You are off topic here.

 

[shadowhawk]

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part.  Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.  

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions.  This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear.  Hence, this topic.

[Dakman]

Just prove your god once and for all and be done with it 

[shifter]

You missed my point. Atheism is the lack of any belief. It is not actively 'believing that there is no God'. Indeed, some go that far but then it's not really 'atheism' anymore and I agree, a burden of proof for them would be nice. As for those who couldn't give 2 shits and want to get on with their life without any belief or talk on the subject, those people needn't have to prove anything.

You always counter argue with the 'off topic' crap. Most of the time it isn't even off topic but is just a lame excuse to shut down a reasoned argument. Who really cares what's on/off topic when the entire premise of your questions are wrong.

For example, Dreams and visions etc can not be supplied as evidence. But can be supplied as a reason for faith and hope. Your foundations must be pretty weak if you require the kind of proof of Gods existence that would satisfy this forum and scientists worldwide. Just be happy with your belief and allow others do do the same.

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part. Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions. This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear. Hence, this topic.

Edited by shifter, 20 June 2015 - 09:55 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Just prove your god once and for all and be done with it
 

OK. tell me what "proof" is first and what kind of "proof," you accept.

[The Brain]

Just present your proof and let it be judged


How hard can it be to prove the creator of the universe

[shadowhawk]

You missed my point. Atheism is the lack of any belief. It is not actively 'believing that there is no God'. Indeed, some go that far but then it's not really 'atheism' anymore and I agree, a burden of proof for them would be nice. As for those who couldn't give 2 shits and want to get on with their life without any belief or talk on the subject, those people needn't have to prove anything.

You always counter argue with the 'off topic' crap. Most of the time it isn't even off topic but is just a lame excuse to shut down a reasoned argument. Who really cares what's on/off topic when the entire premise of your questions are wrong.

For example, Dreams and visions etc can not be supplied as evidence. But can be supplied as a reason for faith and hope. Your foundations must be pretty weak if you require the kind of proof of Gods existence that would satisfy this forum and scientists worldwide. Just be happy with your belief and allow others do do the same.

 

Shadowhawk:  I am happy with my belief and allow others to do the same.  This just happens to be a blog where we can discuss such things the last time I looked.  As for your definition of "Athrism" it is nonsense and we have discussed it repeatedly in this topic.  My dog, who does not believe, is not an Atheist.


 

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part. Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions. This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear. Hence, this topic.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Just present your proof and let it be judged


How hard can it be to prove the creator of the universe

 

You don't know what "proof," is, so how can you judge others? 
 

[Dakman]

So you know your proof wouldn't stand up to scrutiny 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

You missed my point. Atheism is the lack of any belief. It is not actively 'believing that there is no God'. Indeed, some go that far but then it's not really 'atheism' anymore and I agree, a burden of proof for them would be nice. As for those who couldn't give 2 shits and want to get on with their life without any belief or talk on the subject, those people needn't have to prove anything.

You always counter argue with the 'off topic' crap. Most of the time it isn't even off topic but is just a lame excuse to shut down a reasoned argument. Who really cares what's on/off topic when the entire premise of your questions are wrong.

For example, Dreams and visions etc can not be supplied as evidence. But can be supplied as a reason for faith and hope. Your foundations must be pretty weak if you require the kind of proof of Gods existence that would satisfy this forum and scientists worldwide. Just be happy with your belief and allow others do do the same.

 

Shadowhawk:  I am happy with my belief and allow others to do the same.  This just happens to be a blog where we can discuss such things the last time I looked.  As for your definition of "Athrism" it is nonsense and we have discussed it repeatedly in this topic.  My dog, who does not believe, is not an Atheist.


 

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part. Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions. This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear. Hence, this topic.

 

 

 

I agree completely with shifter (as do the majority of other members on this forum). Shadowhawk, how many times do we need to have this exact same discussion.

Edited by MajinBrian, 21 June 2015 - 03:51 AM.

[shadowhawk]

So you know your proof wouldn't stand up to scrutiny 

You don't know what proof is either.  I have not seen anything you put down.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

You missed my point. Atheism is the lack of any belief. It is not actively 'believing that there is no God'. Indeed, some go that far but then it's not really 'atheism' anymore and I agree, a burden of proof for them would be nice. As for those who couldn't give 2 shits and want to get on with their life without any belief or talk on the subject, those people needn't have to prove anything.

You always counter argue with the 'off topic' crap. Most of the time it isn't even off topic but is just a lame excuse to shut down a reasoned argument. Who really cares what's on/off topic when the entire premise of your questions are wrong.

For example, Dreams and visions etc can not be supplied as evidence. But can be supplied as a reason for faith and hope. Your foundations must be pretty weak if you require the kind of proof of Gods existence that would satisfy this forum and scientists worldwide. Just be happy with your belief and allow others do do the same.

 

Shadowhawk:  I am happy with my belief and allow others to do the same.  This just happens to be a blog where we can discuss such things the last time I looked.  As for your definition of "Athrism" it is nonsense and we have discussed it repeatedly in this topic.  My dog, who does not believe, is not an Atheist.


 

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part. Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions. This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear. Hence, this topic.

 

 

 

I agree completely with shifter (as do the majority of other members on this forum). Shadowhawk, how many times do we need to have this exact same discussion.

 

Since you didn't mention what you agree to you are simply a ditto.  And you are speaking for all the rock throwers..  As for content om topic I posted on Atheism and shifter did not respond to it at all but got somewhat personal.  How about it, do you want to respond to my last post which is on topic. 

 

[shadowhawk]

Lets do this again.

 

The Atheist says, there is no God and thus by making this clam has a burden of proof but this is not the only way to establish a burden on the Atheists part.  Lets restate it in the form of worldviews.

The Theist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by God.

The Atheist World view:
Particular states of affairs are exploited by laws which are explained by more general laws, (etc.) which are explained by the most general laws, which are explained by.....
Something other than God.  

So in contradistinction to the theist who proposes God as the explanation for “the most general laws,” i.e. the properties of the universe, the atheist proposes “something other than God.” So atheism is not a passive enterprise by any means. It is a proposition that reality is explained by (other than). Thus, both theists and atheists are looking at the same evidences (the universe and its features) and drawing two different conclusions.  This means that the view only the Theist has a burden of proof is wrong.. Both parties have their own burdens to bear.  Hence, this topic.

[The Brain]

Round and round we go .....

[old_school]

Round and round we go .....

 

 

       LOSER

[shadowhawk]

Round and round we go .....

 

As always, nothing to say.  One post calling people childish names follolwed by posts with "ditto" would have saved him a lot of typing.  It is not worth the bother.  .
 

[Dakman]

And two godbots sucking each other off and back patting because each needs each other for support in their stupid quest to bolster their egos at gods expense

 

One just likes to create endless arguments and the other wants to pretend he's seen god in dust particles