Atheists...

@andykelly,

andykelly wrote:

Surely an athiest also has a burden of proof? As an athiest is stating they have a belief system - the choice to totally refute God's existance.
.....

In fact the whole thing is an over simplification.
.....
Do I have a faith - yes to some degree, am I totally convinced? hell no

I stand by my statement re arrogance - interpret that how you will, all I was trying to say was who the hell is anyone to claim that God doesn't exist - surely it's sensible to take an agnostic stance - as we all are pretty much in a state of ignorance - so much to learn as theres so much we don't know.

In an infinite universe are we (mankind) in a postition to say we know it all? I'm a fan of science - I've read a lot of dawkins and applaud his brain but disagree with him on some fundamental levels - can we reduce everything to the propagation of the selfish gene?

To shift the burden of proof by stating a "mere arrogance" claim is totally unfair and prejudicial. And what atheistic belief system are you implying? It is as if atheism is an organized school of thought compared to organize religion. There was a time that the concept of God was used as an scape-goat to the mysteries of reality but more and more it is becoming apparent that God is simply irrelevant.

1 Reply

@midas77,

andykelly,:brickwall:

Quote:

Surely an athiest also has a burden of proof? As an athiest is stating they have a belief system the choice to totally refute God's existance.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, the athiest simply doesn't buy into your over active imagination, and/or pretensions. Your the one who believes in fairies not the athiest!!:brickwall:

2 Replies

@boagie,

Have not all religions done enough of dividing mankind? Whether it be Muslim, Christian or other? All religions are creations of man so which man shall we follow? Man wrote the books, man created the doctrines and now we have blind men leading the blind.

How much longer are we all going to be led to another man's truth rather than discovering it ourselves?

Based on all the Religions I've seen and observed, there isn't a one that is fully truth. It's all man's doctrine manipulating man.

As far as atheist not having a heart,... that's your preachers perception of it. Ask another preacher and he'll give you another answer. Keep asking and you'll keep getting different answers even though it's the same question.

I feel that religion is the furthest most point one can get from truth... Religion is a divide with one blind man leading a multitude of others.

Disclaimer - This is my opinion and only my opinion. Take the meat off the bone and leave the rest behind!

1 Reply

@Justin,

By the dictionary definition:
(

th

-

st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

If one denies the existnce of a diety they are in the same hole, by choice, that a theist is in. If they understand that proof of either point is of the same metaphysical unverifiable nature, then they are Agnostics(probably of the strong type).

However, if one wants to remain a true skeptic, in realizing that a totally dismissal of any possibility is ignorant, they will likely become agnostics of the weak type.

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

2 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

By the dictionary definition:
(th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

If one denies the existnce of a diety they are in the same hole, by choice, that a theist is in. If they understand that proof of either point is of the same metaphysical unverifiable nature, then they are Agnostics(probably of the strong type).

However, if one wants to remain a true skeptic, in realizing that a totally dismissal of any possibility is ignorant, they will likely become agnostics of the weak type.

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

\

Zetetic,

You do realize the good Christian also disbelieves in almost as many gods as I, save but one. If there is not anything that can be presented to my senses or otherwise shown to be detectable by instruments, that can even suggest the possiablity of the supernatural why should I take the word of some fool who has no greater means of understanding in this area than I. People should if they are bothered by the religious cease giving them the unwarranted respect they have enjoyed in the past. Their delusions are humorous, let us laugh, perhaps at least it will improve the digestion.

0 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

The atheist ask the bartender, " fill my cup full for it's empty." The bartender said, "sir, but the cup is full I just refilled it." The atheist said, "it's empty, can't you see its empty". The bartender said, "Proove to me its empty." Can the atheist proove the negative? All he can do is point out that the cup is empty.
The atheist said there is no buried treasure chest, and we ask him to unturned all stones to proove his point. Unfair and prejudicial.

1 Reply

@midas77,

Don't you see that by asserting that there is no god goes beyond choosing not to believe? If I assert that there is X and you assert that there is not X, or if a third person asserts that there is no way to verify whether or not there is an X, they all have assertions which must be proven. However, if I tell you that I do not know if there is an X or that there ever has been an X or ever will be an X, I have no burden of proof.

I cannot deny the possibility, to do so is arrogant and foolish. I do not accept the definite assertion, for it is not verifiable. I cannot say that neither can be proven or disproven, for I must prove the existence of that proof, which I cannot do. So I admit that I do not know, but maybe I could, however, maybe I can never know.

I was simply defining terms that you, my fellow posters, have been twisting away from their dictionary definitoins, and promoting confusion in doing so.

Why should we not force the denier to unturn all stones such that we subscribe to his assertion? Furthermore, why is it more reasonable to deny or affirm an unknown than to realize that it is an unknown.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic,

Does not the believer set up this none falsifiable situtation by making a claim which does not even pretend to supply evidence to the senses, a means of detecting the unicorn as an actuality. Its a bloody fantasy, one cannot disprove any fastasy that someone claims as truth, because there is nothing there. Any thing my imagination can come up with will be unfalsifiable as long as I keep it grounded in the imagination and utterly enstranged from the real world. So how is Christian mythology any different than any other fantasy. Do I have a responsibility to the authors and believers of all fanstasys, no I do not think so, it is a matter of non-participation. Did you know the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, a cosmic turtle of course, how could you disprove that to anyone two hundred years ago. Let us all hold hands and skip through the madhouse together, its all for best, the brothers and sisters they are coming for you now!!:shocked: We shall gather by the river------the beautiful the beautiful river---------:brickwall: I am going back to my room now! Fuhjng sjeocy jeyudt!!- x0*%!!O!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

God is not even universally definable, it has no truth value. The Giant turtle is quite verifiable, you simply needed to step away from the perspective that was accessable at the time. The terms were set and not ambiguous. Giant, turtle, Earth, on, back, of. Nothing ambiguous. God, however, is metaphysical, and not universally definable. God is not a verifiable concept within any physical parameters by definition.

Your arguement is not really applicable to tihs case.:brickwall: To say that there are no undetectable unicorns is as silly as saying that there are undetectable unicorns, both are non-verifiable and both sides take upon themselfs the burden of proof in verification. If you were to say a false statement that is verifiable, you would still have to prove it just as much as I would have to prove its falsity if I so desired to assert the opposite.:brickwall:

To simply say that it is somthing which we cannot know by definition, is also an assertion, but to say that I do not know if I can or cannot know is only self verifiable, though it is an assertion its truth only affects the one making the assertion so it is not of consequence outside of the person asserting it.:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:

2 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic,

This then applies to all the present gods as well as all historical gods, I could not really deny any of them, is that not right?

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

And that's the beauty of it, it's so vague that it's anything. It's everything.

1 Reply

@franc,

franc,

Yeah but, is it as vague as nothing?

1 Reply

@andykelly,

andykelly wrote:

Who the hell is anyone to say that there is no God

Anyone who holds a massive omnipresent omnipotent being to the same evidentiary standards that we hold our own navel lint.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetetic,

This then applies to all the present gods as well as all historical gods, I could not really deny any of them, is that not right?

From Lord Bertrand Russell

Proof of God
"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line."

My stance is quite similar.

0 Replies

@boagie,

I'm no athiest, or for the matter, gambler. But it does seem that choosing religion is like the russian roulette of the soul, except that all but one of the bullet holding bits have bullets in them. No matter what, everyone dies except one person! 5 people die in pain the last has 6 times his wealth. (like russian roullette).

Yeh, we're doomed for damnation so lets make a comedy about it all!

2 Replies

@one-philosophy,

I'm glad you're agnostic one-philosophy, but what is appealing about a different religion being your advocating of muslim faith over anything else. Without faith religions only have humane differences, but if people looked deeper they'd realise that faiths are essentially all the same and human differences are easy to solve.

Perhaps people invented God so that their differences could not be solved and by opening a transcendent paradox to the situation was only to keep a side from loosing, and seemingly prestigious to the other.

The irony in that would be how barbaric the intent is and yet the quality of God seems to hold no degrading stature let alone only the biases of animals. lol.

I mean, what could honestly change one's outlook on life through the experience of a different religion. Anything that is truly moral? People use religion, power, control, false merit, but thats all against what God should be about. So we know God was an invention, its that simple.

The real God is beyond the perception that allows for itself to be invented. Thus I suppose the reason for faith, and also for people to realise that it holds no potential, no point to base customs upon, to start holy wars indirectly caused by its underlying sonority upon the sentient mind. That is the problem with becoming a society. We harness the potential use of such underlying forces of the mind. (And paulhanke would add such a society is an external scalfolding, lol).

Hope you found that entertaining as part of the comedy, though it really wasn't funny.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

In islam, muslims accept abraham and moses and jesus to be prophets aswell as muhammad. Muslims consider the torah, psalms and gospel of jesus to be from God but that they got altered over time thus needing the requirement of an unalterable guidence for mankind (the quran). Anyway, a muslim would say that the followers of mosus and jesus at the time of their living were also muslims (muslim means one who submits to God even though the word muslim may not have existed until the time of muhammad). The point is that the God which told the children of israel to practise in such and such a way, also told and commanded muhammad, many of the same rules and priciples. Muslims aswell as jews do not eat pork (at least they shouldn't), we have prayers similerly and jewish men are renowned for having beards, as are muslims. There are other similarities, but muhammad loved the jews and christians because of where there religion came from and not necessary as an influence to start a new one. But then again, I would say that as a religious guy wouldn't I?

Reguarding the mixture of religion thing, The quran says not to follow other religions, and how can you change an already perfected religion? Man should not be allowed to do that. If its changed then it is no longer perfect if it was from God in the first place. Thats also why I don't agree with sects of religions branching off. As for some religions, I believe you're right that they can join with other religions in some way, but sometimes (most of the time) the religion want to join forbids the sort of action. Only religions I can think of that allow "joining" are hinduism and matrixism.
As for the whole hell thing, you're sort of right again, for islam anyway. Islam teaches that anyone who has an atome of belief that their is only one God will go to paradise (even if they must go through hell first to expiate sins). But I cannot go to a religion after I've accepted islam as thats a clinching damnation (I hate damnations and being told I'm going to hell, maybe thats why my mum didn't like the catholics-my grans a catholic).
I dine with athiests all the time (family) doesn't mean I gain afterlife benefit really from it.

1 Reply

@one-philosophy,

I consider it just as damning to be under the control of a being which I cannot know or understand, who if I obey all my life I get the privalege to worship for all eternity and bask in its glory, being finally reunited with that which makes my individual existence insignificant. The alternative to obedience: burning in hell fire for all eternity... great. Such an existence is too torturous for me to live with. Being of such a nature, it seems quite doubtful from any perspective that it could be anything but a creation of man.

0 Replies

@one-philosophy,

As an agnostic you don't follow the Qu'ran, right? I mean, do you advocate for how muslims degraded woman, still do in some parts I think.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but morals are relative to the social environment, I believe. What once could be tolerated as right can change to wrong to suit the fashion of virtue. That is the potential of deduction in moral terms.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Russell's words are interesting - and personally, I'm a huge fan of his work. I've recommended him many times on these forums; I've read Why I am Not a Christian more than once. But I do not deny the God's of Homer and more than I deny the God of Dante. Religion evolves because the way humans live changes. As our lives change, so does everything else, from religion to fashion, to art. That the old religions are not as relevant to modern man should be no surprise - that two thousand year old religions are having difficulty with modern man should be no surprise. We are a species of constant change - all of reality is constant change. Our spiritual language will change as well, our ceremony will change. What will not change is that particular human quality of consciousness, and the question of how to direct that consciousness.

Quote:

Reguarding the mixture of religion thing, The quran says not to follow other religions, and how can you change an already perfected religion?

Care to provide a link or something - I've never read the Koran, so I wouldn't know. But this does seem strange to me. What is it to 'follow' other religions? Mohamed himself received instruction from Jewish mentors.

And what is a 'perfected religion'? No such thing exists. No one faith tradition works for all people. If you accept that Jesus, Buddha and Mohamed were all enlightened, then the only possible conclusion is that these faith traditions are all valid; no one being universally perfect. Basically, if the tradition produces loving kindness, the tradition is the potential to be the perfect religion to at least some practitioners.

Quote:

If its changed then it is no longer perfect if it was from God in the first place.

But even Islam has changed over time. Islam contains various elements that speak to different people. Some are Sunni, some are Shii, some are Sufi, all have a valid and possibly productive path. Some are Muslim, Some are Christian, some are Buddhist.

Quote:

I believe you're right that they can join with other religions in some way, but sometimes (most of the time) the religion want to join forbids the sort of action. Only religions I can think of that allow "joining" are hinduism and matrixism.

All religions allow this. Some groups within the religions prohibit such things. The example I had in mind was not hypothetical - Thich Nhat Hanh discusses his experience, which I summarize above, in Living Buddha, Living Christ. So, at the very least, add Buddhism and Christianity to the list.

Quote:

I dine with athiests all the time (family) doesn't mean I gain afterlife benefit really from it.

Hmmm... by focusing on current life, afterlife will take care of itself.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know