Modern Society and the Value of our Values

Craven de Kere wrote:

But others do see that evidence. In fact, I personally see enough evidence so as to make me think avoiding a decision toward theism or atheism to be a position that can be argued against.

Actually, I didn't say "evidence" -- I said "unambiguous evidence."

And I stand by my postion that there does not seem to be enough unambiguous evidence to allow for a meaningful decision one way or another to be made.

But I certainly am willing to be corrected -- if I am wrong.

I have discussed this issue with people over the last 35 years -- and I've not seen anything to change my mind.

Perhaps you can do it.

Tell me about the unambiguous evidence you see for whatever direction you see it leading. Let's discuss it.

And you can use my name once in a while, Craven.

I don't bite.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

I think this is one of your personal odd ideas or beliefs that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I do not have any beliefs. Try to finally get that, Twyvel.

Quote:

It's not rational to maintain as you do, that...

The use of the word "belief" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

Your statement is a generalization and simply cannot be applied to all situations; all uses and users of that word.

Example:

"I believe s/he is cooking pork chops for dinner."

Twyvel, I assumed you would not go to the absurd in order to deal with this issue. Obviously I am talking about the use of "beliefs" in a different context from pork chops -- or who is going to win the Super Bowl.

I will not over-estimate you again.

Quote:

One cannot seriously maintain that the use of the word "believe" in the above sentence is an attempt to disguise the fact that it is a guess, or that the guess is a guess.

Most everyone knows it is a guess. There might be chicken for dinner, or it might be vegetarian (preferably), etc. The person uttering those words is saying s/he does not know, but is guessing, and the guessing is not disguised consciously or unconsciously, by using the word "believe".

I hope you enjoyed this journey into silliness.

Quote:

If it doesn't apply to that example, (and there are many others), then your statement,

The use of the word "belief" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

..is false.

You are correct. In this insignificant and silly illustration, there is no attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

But in the context of religion -- and in the context of the discussion serious people were having, my analysis stands.

Quote:

You're doing the same thing some theists etc. do.

Some say my belief is not a guess.

You maintain your guesses are not a beliefs.

Both are wrong.

In your dreams.

I have not put forth any beliefs -- and the statement "I do not know if a God exists -- or if there are no gods -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess" -- is not a belief -- or even a guess.

0 Replies

Frank asked:

"Where are you in this, Sweet?"

feeling very tired of these sorts of discussions . . . they seem to me to be just mental masturbation . . . which, I suppose is stimulating, but, in the end, not very satisfying . . .

as to my beliefs: I have strong moral, ethical and compassionate beliefs based on how I grew up, being of the ethnic group I am (Jewish), and life experience, however, I cannot deny some things which have happened to me personally which are rationally inexplicable . . . I guess I am spiritual, therefore, but certainly not attached to any dogma, definitely not one which causes people to judge and to argue rather than to come together and to accept . . .

Thanks for asking Very Happy

0 Replies

sweetcomplication wrote:

Frank asked:
Thanks for asking

Glad I did -- and thank you for an excellent response.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Quote:

You say "So to whom does life have value ? To you/me/us, yes, but to whom are you/me/us valuable and meaningful if there is nothing else, no other level, no transcendence?";

Are you/me /us not enough?
I do not need anyone else to validate my choices, but myself; since I am my most stringent critic; however agreement from a respected source is nice!

But I most definitely do not need any decreed or mythically enshrined system of guidelines, be they from the ancient past, or totally current, to assess my actions, and asign me a place in the universe.

The question isn't whether you/me/us are enough or not enough but whether there is something else; transcendence, god, unity consciousness etc.

Please try to see the bigger picture.

Quote:

And you muse - "Infinite choice is nihilism".

It's not so much a 'muse'.......as it is a result.

When it is claimed "God is dead" or god does not exist.

Following the consequences from that reasoning we are left with nihilism.

Nihilism or god, only one is correct.

Quote:

A state of being where absolutely nothing matters, is simply a "clean slate"; nothing is preordained; nothing has already been decided beyond our reach of influencet; therefore we choose - everything, and live or die on the fallout of those choices, and bear the ultimate responsibility for them in a kind of "relay" fashion in concert with our fellow beings.

And therefore nothing matters. It all adds up to nothing.

We are saying the same thing.

Although I am adding, if there is no basis or foundation as to why this existence IS, if it is all just an accidental, phenomenal occurrence, the relative meaning we find, assign, create, construct etc. in our individual lives has no foundation and is itself meaningless and pointless.

There is no responsibility. The human race has no responsibility.

I am responsible for my actions. Yes.

I am responsible for existing.

No.

("No", if I did not choice this existence, which means, if there is no transcendent self, god, universal consciousness, the beyond etc.)

I have no responsibility for this existence that is me, if I am accident.

That said I don't believe there is a 'me', that is, an individual 'me'.

I think it's an illusion. Am I responsible for the illusion? Perhaps. If such a thing can be said.....

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

, I assumed you would not go to the absurd in order to deal with this issue. Obviously I am talking about the use of "beliefs" in a different context from pork chops -- or who is going to win the Super Bowl.

I will not over-estimate you again.

A snide remark.

Apparently I have to go to extremes to get you to see the point Frank.

If I say, "I believe god exists."

It is irrational and absurd to assume that I am being deceitful and lying.

WITHOUT ASKING ME WHAT I MEAN

Without asking if I agree that my statement is a guess, for if I agree it is a guess, there is no deception, nothing is being disguised. Period, end of story.

Your statement,

The use of the word "belief" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

is false.

Because it takes for granted that people are lying. You guess people are lying prior to asking them if they agree their use of the word 'belief' is synonymous with the word 'guess'.

You call them liars, you convict them without any evidence. For all you know when I say, "I believe god exists", I also agree that I mean "I guess god exists"

Quote:

You are correct. In this insignificant and silly illustration, there is no attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

Sometimes one has to go to the absurd to point out the obvious.

Quote:

But in the context of religion -- and in the context of the discussion serious people were having, my analysis stands.

No your analysis does not stand.

It's not an analysis, it's a judgement made prior to any analysis. You judge people, condemn them as liars, with no evidence. You assume others are automatically lying when they use the word 'believe' in a religious, god discussion. Some times you could be right, other times you are wrong. And when you are wrong you are labeling and calling people liars when they are not.

0 Replies

Twyvel
You obviously cannot think deeply enough to see my point -- and you are grasping at straws trying to create idiotic situations to try to refute my arguments.

You wrote:

Quote:

If I say, "I believe god exists."

It is irrational and absurd to assume that I am being deceitful and lying.

WITHOUT ASKING ME WHAT I MEAN

Without asking if I agree that my statement is a guess, for if I agree it is a guess, there is no deception, nothing is being disguised. Period, end of story.

OF COURSE -- AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I HAVE SAID WOULD IN ANY WAY DISPUTE THAT.

First of all, I did not say a person disguising a guess by the use of the word "believe" was being deceitful and lying. Those are your words -- and do not follow from what I had to say.

In fact, I said nothing about motivation other than that the word was being used to disguise the fact that a guess is being made.

The person may be absolutely convinced of the matter supposedly being "believed."

When a person says, as you put it, "I believe in God" -- they are absolutely convinced that there is a God.

They are not saying "But I am really just making a guess."

The people who acknowledge they are just making a guess on the issue "Is there a God" are pretty outfront about that. They acknowledge doubt -- and more often than not, when pressed, identify themselves as agnostic - agnostic theists (people who acknowledge doubt but who are guessing in favor of a deity).

And as far as I am concerned -- not only is there no deception (your word) if a person acknowledges doubt -- there is no real "belief."

You are making mountains out of tiny little mole hills in order to try to muscle your way into an agrument in refutation of what I am saying.

BACK TO BASICS:

1) I do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods.

2) I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction on the question.

3) I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which others can make a meaningful guess either -- but I am certainly willing to listen to any arguments from a theist or an atheist that indicates evidence in either direction.

(I have listened to arguments and proffers of evidence from theists and atheists for 35 years now -- with the proponents of each side insisting that the evidence and arguments they presented were unimpeachable -- and totally persuasive. The fact that theists use the information to show there has to be a God and that atheists use the information to show that it is impossible for there to be gods -- seems to matter not to either side.)

What I have said here for the question of "Is there a God?" goes completely in response to the question of "What is the nature of Reality?"

If you have any reasonable arguments to refute any of those statements, present them.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually, I didn't say "evidence" -- I said "unambiguous evidence."

Any evidence can be discredited through enough lateral thinking. Since diety is already in the realm of the supernatural then there is little you can do about it.

You'd have a hard time arguing that you know what sex you are if you allow me to use lateral thinking + supernatural factors.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I stand by my postion that there does not seem to be enough unambiguous evidence to allow for a meaningful decision one way or another to be made.

That doesn't mean that there is not enough unambiguous evidence. All evidence is unambiguous.

Evolutionist: "Incontrovertible proof that man evolved and was not created"

Creationist: "The Devil made that evidence"

There is simply no arguing with lateral thinking + supernatural.

The factor I find relevant is that supernatural in itself needs to be challenged. Before debate occurs about supernatural entities it's be nice to try to validate something so important to te theory as supernatural forces.

But I certainly am willing to be corrected -- if I am wrong.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have discussed this issue with people over the last 35 years -- and I've not seen anything to change my mind.

Perhaps you can do it.

I have no desire to. My above point was not that your mind should be changed. Just that to some degree you can argue that nothing is known. For the purpose of practicality we make educated guesses. Assumptions.

I agree with you that all beliefs are guesses. IMO that includes the belief that there is not enough evidence to determine if there is a god or not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Tell me about the unambiguous evidence you see for whatever direction you see it leading. Let's discuss it.

Ok, I'll show you where we are leading. Start a discussion trying to assert the fact that you "know" that you are a male human.

Allow me to use lateral thinking and unchallenged supernatural forces (heck you can even challenge them if you want) and you will see what I mean.

It's a fool's errand to do what I'll do. I will argue that you are neither male nor human or try to force ambiguity.

Since we all pretty much know I'd be wrong I'm gonna look daft but maybe I'll make a point.

Anything can be argued to ambiguity as long as you assume that the supernatural exists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And you can use my name once in a while, Craven.

FRANK!

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't bite.

Oscar Meyer begs to differ..

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
]
And I stand by my postion that there does not seem to be enough unambiguous evidence to allow for a meaningful decision one way or another to be made.

That doesn't mean that there is not enough unambiguous evidence. All evidence is unambiguous.

Evolutionist: "Incontrovertible proof that man evolved and was not created"

Creationist: "The Devil made that evidence"

Great point, evolution is one of the first proof that God(s) don't exist, that their main purpose was to be used to filled those blank spaces in the human knowledge, & then it was used as a consolation for those who are weak & as a false bases for the moral problems.

Also, humans believe in God(s) to satisfy their ego. Something here that is true, we are not the best design of evolution. But some humans can't bare that thought, so what do they do, they create God(s) to justify calling themselves the epitome of creation, but since there was no creation they'll be forced to bare that thought, & their ego would be hurt.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

You obviously cannot think deeply enough to see my point -- and you are grasping at straws trying to create idiotic situations to try to refute my arguments.

Oh please. Stop the attempt at intimidating it doesn't work, and I don't particularly like the drama it creates..

Quote:

If I say, "I believe god exists."

It is irrational and absurd to assume that I am being deceitful and lying.

WITHOUT ASKING ME WHAT I MEAN

Without asking if I agree that my statement is a guess, for if I agree it is a guess, there is no deception, nothing is being disguised. Period, end of story.

Quote:
OF COURSE -- AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I HAVE SAID WOULD IN ANY WAY DISPUTE THAT.

BULL.
You wrote (many times):

The use of the word "belief" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

For some reason Frank you just cannot grasp the fact that you are prejudging people, with these generalizations of yours. And that is it in a nut shell.

You are prejudging people.

Quote:

First of all, I did not say a person disguising a guess by the use of the word "believe" was being deceitful and lying. Those are your words -- and do not follow from what I had to say.

If someone is disguising the fact that they are guessing they are hiding the truth of what they really think and are saying something else, which is essentially a lie, and it IS deceptive. So I think it does indeed follow from what you have said.

Although I will admit that I might have over stated it.

Quote:

When a person says, as you put it, "I believe in God" -- they are absolutely convinced that there is a God.

They are not saying "But I am really just making a guess."

Incorrect Frank.

Many who say, "I believe in God" (capitol G) are not so convinced.

Example: I believe in God. I know it is a guess but I really hope God exists. I don't know if God exists but I think it's better to believe that God exists then not to.....

I think the above example and many variations of it represent the position of a lot of people. People who simply say, initially, "I believe in God."

Your statements in the above quotes are not absolutes Frank. Now I realize you have not said they are absolutes but you are presenting them as if they are.

That's one of the problems with the way you present your position; you make a hell of a lot of generalizations. Nothing wrong with generalizations, we all use them, but when you say something like…

When a person says, as you put it, "I believe in God" -- they are absolutely convinced that there is a God.

.......it certainly appears like you are saying that that is the case in all situations which of course it is not.

The truth is..
When a person says, as you put it, "I believe in God" -- they are NOT always absolutely convinced that there is a God.

Quote:

And as far as I am concerned -- not only is there no deception (your word) if a person acknowledges doubt -- there is no real "belief."

What is a 'real' belief ?

I think it's better put; They do not have confidence in their belief, but they may still hold it.

Quote:

You are making mountains out of tiny little mole hills in order to try to muscle your way into an agrument in refutation of what I am saying.

Not at all.

Mater of fact I agree with a lot of what you say in these god, existence issues.

0 Replies

So did everyone lose interest in the discussion of "values" in this rush to know the unknowable?

0 Replies

Twyvel

We are discussing the word "belief" in the spirituality and religion section of an Internet forum. If you want to suppose that it makes sense to introduce into that discussion, "I believe we are having pork chops for dinner" -- by all means, do so. It is a free country.

I also have the freedom to consider that argument to be absurd -- and far tangental to the point I was making.

I might add that I have discussed the notion of "believe" and "belief" being used in every day conversation on dozens of occasions in Abuzz (and I think even here in A2K) and if you have not been party to them, I'm sorry.

If you want to suppose that when a person says "I believe in God -- but it is just a guess" that I am going to insist the pesron is trying to disguise the fact that it is a guess -- then you really have serious issue to deal with.

Personally, I think the arguments you are using are absurd -- but you certainly are free to use them.

I SUSPECT that you are bothered by the fact that I have called your attention to the fact that much of that Eastern mysticism you tout is nothing but a belief system -- and you are struggling to get a dig in at me on that account.

Good luck, Twyvel. I admire your tenacity. But sSo far, I think you are batting zero.

0 Replies

Frank, Sometimes it's necessary to swing the bat to stay in the game. c.i.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Tell me about the unambiguous evidence you see for whatever direction you see it leading. Let's discuss it.

Ok, I'll show you where we are leading. Start a discussion trying to assert the fact that you "know" that you are a male human.

Allow me to use lateral thinking and unchallenged supernatural forces (heck you can even challenge them if you want) and you will see what I mean.

It's a fool's errand to do what I'll do. I will argue that you are neither male nor human or try to force ambiguity.

Since we all pretty much know I'd be wrong I'm gonna look daft but maybe I'll make a point.

Anything can be argued to ambiguity as long as you assume that the supernatural exists.

I don't think so.

Instead, why not simply do what you earlier proposed you could do. Introduce evidence (we can discuss if it is ambiguous or unambiguous at some point) that leads to "There is a God" "There are gods" or "There are no gods."

Let's discuss it from there.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

We are discussing the word "belief" in the spirituality and religion section of an Internet forum. If you want to suppose that it makes sense to introduce into that discussion, "I believe we are having pork chops for dinner" -- by all means, do so. It is a free country.

You're back to that. I think it was necessary to point out the absurdity of your generalizations.

The mere fact that someone uses the word "belief' or 'believe' is not a reason to assume they are disguising something.

But you have stated otherwise, right here in your own words.

However after the examples I have put forward, as ridiculous as you think they are, you appear to be saying that that is not the case; that the use of the words "belief' and 'believe' are not always attempts to disguising,...or attempts to lie, etc.

So maybe we have achieved some clarification from you on these points.

Quote:

I might add that I have discussed the notion of "believe" and "belief" being used in every day conversation on dozens of occasions in Abuzz (and I think even here in A2K) and if you have not been party to them, I'm sorry.

I have heard them. I remember on ican's thread you saying you don't have any beliefs quite a few times etc., and I thought them odd at that time but I let it go by, as I was engaged in other issues.

Quote:

If you want to suppose that when a person says "I believe in God -- but it is just a guess" that I am going to insist the pesron is trying to disguise the fact that it is a guess -- then you really have serious issue to deal with.

On this specific point I'm not supposing anything Frank, they are your words in back and white not very far away.

And state it correctly. When you say,

The use of the word "belief" is an attempt to disguise the fact that the guess is a guess.

(and everybody knows you have said it many times, many different ways, and at length),
....You are prejudging people

And so when someone says. "I believe in god"....you are saying they are disguising the fact that they are guessing, which I have said is accusing them of lying and being deceitful, which I think follows from the "disguising" accusation.

And this is prior to asking them if their word 'belief' also means guess.

It's even prior to them uttering a word. It's a pre-judgement, an idea-belief you hold.

Now I realize this idea of yours (and others) is derived from observations and interactions with others on these very issues, but frankly I think it is wrong, you simply cannot categorically make statements of this nature and apply them across the board.

Firstly because there are too many exceptions, and secondly because it is unfair to do so, etc.

Quote:

I SUSPECT that you are bothered by the fact that I have called your attention to the fact that much of that Eastern mysticism you tout is nothing but a belief system -- and you are struggling to get a dig in at me on that account.

No. It is not a surprise that you believe and claim that my position is based on belief. However I think that you do not understand it, indicated by the fact that you tend not to deal with the details, but rather you go on about how they are beliefs.

Rather then getting into the issues, rather then countering specific points, you tend to skirt over them. Is that a lack of interest, a lack of understanding etc.?.....perhaps many things, I don't know.

Quote:

Good luck, Twyvel. I admire your tenacity. But sSo far, I think you are batting zero.

Thanks Frank.

I think I have made some points, although laboriously.

For example,

Will you admit, agree that you are prejudging people with all these generalizations?

0 Replies

Twyvel

You are grasping at straws with your arguments -- but to be honest with you, they are boring me and I really don't want to give you much more time and energy.

I understand that you are bothered/annoyed/irate/whatever because you are not able to post that Eastern Mysticism nonsense as TRUTH without having the fact that it is just a belief system called to your attention.

Your frustration with that seems to be making you rash -- and I don't know how to deal with it.

Your arguments leave me cold -- and I see them as illogical.

Apparently my arguments leave you cold -- and apparently you see them as illogical.

Go discuss with someone else -- and I'll do the same.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Instead, why not simply do what you earlier proposed you could do. Introduce evidence (we can discuss if it is ambiguous or unambiguous at some point) that leads to "There is a God" "There are gods" or "There are no gods."

Let's discuss it from there.

Well Frank, are we going to ignore burden of proof entirely? I think it's fair to say that the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a god is itself evidence (though not definitive) for the converse.

Like I said, if supernatural is a given and burden of proof is neglected then I am left with prooving a negative. Hardly a fair shake of the stick and again, I can create multiple situations in which something we both know is debated to a draw under that criteria.

0 Replies

Craven

I certainly would not want to put you in the position of attempting to prove a negative -- which we both agree is very, very difficult.

Perhaps I misunderstood you earlier -- so let me refresh my recollection -- and the inferences I drew -- and perhaps we can move on. (I would sorely love to discuss this issue with you -- I consider your comments to be aboveboard and incisive.)

Earlier you wrote:

Quote:

You say you do not see evidence that would elad you to a conclusion. I can accept that. But others do see that evidence. In fact, I personally see enough evidence so as to make me think avoiding a decision toward theism or atheism to be a position that can be argued against.

I expected from that comment, Craven, that you had some evidence to offer that points in one direction or another. (I expected it to point toward atheism from other sharing you have done of your personal philosophy.)

Now you are saying:

Quote:

"Well Frank, are we going to ignore burden of proof entirely? I think it's fair to say that the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of a god is itself evidence (though not definitive) for the converse.

Let me share some thoughts germane to that -- and perhaps you can comment on them.

I certainly agree that theists have a burden of proof when they say "There is a God" -- and I certainly agree that, for the most part, they have not come close to establishing that proof. In fact, most offer nothing more than "I believe there is a God" or "This is a creation, there must be a Creation" -- a manufactured argument.

I acknowledge that some maintain that they have personal revelations from their god -- and I have found no reasonable way to rebutt that -- so in those cases, I almost always leave it be entirely -- or offer the response of a question:

How do you KNOW for sure that what you suppose to be a revelation from God is not simply a self-delusion?

I've never had a satisfactory response to that question -- and I normally simply terminate any conversastion that involves "I've had a personal revelation from God."

But as you have already acknowledged "absence of proof is hardly proof of absence."

And as regards the burden of proof -- if the atheist is just saying, "I do not 'believe' in God" or "I do not think any of the gods currently offered have any chance of being real" -- there is no burden of proof on the atheist. Atheists who offer their atheism that way rightly ask the theists to furnish proof (or at least, evidence) of a God -- or they (the theists) have no real case.

However some atheists (I'm not sure about you) go a step further and say: "There are no gods."

Well, Craven, that is rather a pro-active assertion.

It may be stated with a negative word in there -- but it really says something quite positive.

THERE ARE NO GODS.

The burden of proof, in my estimation, passes from the theists to an atheist who asserts that position.

QUESTION: Do you have any other evidence to offer for atheism other than the fact that there is a lack of evidence FOR GODS?

Let me rest for now.

Comments if you will.

Comments from anyone else listening in would be appreciated also.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:
Frank, My belief as a atheist is a conclusion, not a guess. I know for certain that any god imagined by man does not exist. That "is" my reality. c.i.

Frank wrote:
Do you know there are no gods?

Back again:
I know for certain that any god imagined by man does not exist.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I expected from that comment, Craven, that you had some evidence to offer that points in one direction or another. (I expected it to point toward atheism from other sharing you have done of your personal philosophy.)

I do have evidence that leads me to my atheist position. I wasn't trying to discuss atheism though. What I was saying is that we don't have conclusive evidence for anything in life so to some degree we need to take what we have and make a decision.

Because of that I don't think it's fair to say that theists or atheists don't "know".

Because by your criteria you could also0 claim that nobody "knows" who their dad is.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But as you have already acknowledged "absence of proof is hardly proof of absence."

Yup that almost sums up my points here. In addition to that add that all proof can be called into question with supernatural conditions and lateral thinking.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And as regards the burden of proof -- if the atheist is just saying, "I do not 'believe' in God" or "I do not think any of the gods currently offered have any chance of being real" -- there is no burden of proof on the atheist. Atheists who offer their atheism that way rightly ask the theists to furnish proof (or at least, evidence) of a God -- or they (the theists) have no real case.

Interesting. I disagree. Just because gods have been talked about for a long time does not mean that the burden of proof no longer applies.

e.g.

I say jackalopes exist.

You say they don't.

The burden of proof is on who?

I saw Santa exists.

You say he doesn't.

The burden?

Remember that I am using burden of proof not as a gut feeling but rather as used in science. Those who wish to introduce new paradigims need to fulfill that burden, not those who don't believe it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

However some atheists (I'm not sure about you) go a step further and say: "There are no gods."

Well, Craven, that is rather a pro-active assertion.

Again, they did not introduce gods. The scientific burden of proof is not on them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It may be stated with a negative word in there -- but it really says something quite positive.

THERE ARE NO GODS.

I think you are confusing adjectives like proactive, agressive etc with burden of proof.

A common rhetorical argument is that the loud fella needs to put his money where his mouth is but that's not scientific.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The burden of proof, in my estimation, passes from the theists to an atheist who asserts that position.

Like I said I disagree, whoever intruduced the unproven notion of supernatural diety retains the burden of proof.

Frank Apisa wrote:

QUESTION: Do you have any other evidence to offer for atheism other than the fact that there is a lack of evidence FOR GODS?

Yes, I have quite a bit. I don't think any of it is definitive but like I said, give me an example of definitive evidence, allow me supernatural arguments and it will be rendered questionable.

If you'd like me to give my arguments and evidence I'd be happy to do so (though I may take a while to get around to it) but it's not central to what I am saying.

Let's put it this way:

Fred tells Jim that his dad is Jim's dad.

Jim runs home crying and asks mom. Mom says we'll do a DNA test.

The DNA test shows that there is a 99.999999999..... % chance that Jim's dad is not Fred's dad but rather his own.

But as stated DNA evidence is not 100% correct. Just very close.

Would you still assert that Jim doesn't "know" who his dad is?

My entire argument here is that:

A) under the conditions you impose on the god/no god debate it can be argued that nothing is known.

B) There is no such thing as certainty. Everything involves a judgement call.

D) There is not enough "unambiguous evidence" to support the claim that there is no "unambiguous evidence" to support atheism. :-)

It can be turned around ya know.

Prove to me that there is no definitive evidence to support a theist or an atheist's position. :-)

Do so only with "unambiguous evidence". :-)

0 Replies

Modern Society and the Value of our Values

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know