Theology (Does god exist? Why/Why Not? etc.)

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

How ironic that you'd think atheists just have a big ego, while saying that it just so happens that the REAL god is your nondescript god that you managed to find out but no one in the whole history of humankind has found yet.

I never said the REAL God. I said my concept of God. No one can claim 100% what the REAL God is unless they've met it face to face. The only thing anyone can do is draw their own conclusions.

Atheism is a system of beliefs.

Disbelief in something is still a system of beliefs. You believe that there is no God. You believe that there are no Gods. You believe that man and earth exist just because they exist. You believe it is all the result of a series of random, natural occurrences. That is a system of beliefs that are not based on fact. Why is this a system of beliefs and not fact? Because there is no proof that this is in fact how and why it happened, beyond all reasonable doubt. All you can provide to back up your statements are hypotheticals. Therefore your belief that there is no God is your religion.

And what is religion again?

A system of beliefs.

[Alan]

You said you KNOW of god. That's not your opinion. You're just contradicting yourself.

And atheism is a system of beliefs only insofar baldness is a hair color.



Idiot.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Wonderful, now that I have some idea as to exactly what your God IS, I'm going to point out what I've been getting at:

The God of x-deviant-x is positively the most useless god ever imagined. Quite literally and by his own admission, there is absolutely no reason to believe in his God at all. There are no consequences for disbelief. There are no rewards for belief. Whether or not this God exists has absolutely no material, or immaterial effect on the world whatsoever.

It is, by definition toothless and utterly hopelessly impotent...so, lacking any real proof, again I ask, why believe in it at all?

Hell, it's almost sexed-up atheism, except deviant DID make one mistake, because as obtuse as he has been, it is possible to prove conclusively that even a God as vague as his "nature" God does not exist.

Judging by these statements, the God of x-deviant-x is both tangible and intangible and therefore self-refuting. Ergo, because of this inherent impossiblity in it's nature x-deviant-x's god is demonstrably not real.

Why does God have to be something that's feared?

[burningplain]

*Reads thread* Objectivity... the human mind... wow. Christ, I guess I was being naive. I guess I really am sat in a community of benighted bastards. Athiesm versus thiesm, how could I forget? Each holds their view, neither of which can be DIRECTLY proven, nor disproven by science.
Athiesm: The belief that there is no God. Ashley you mistake the religion and belief. Yeah there's no code on how to be an atheist, but you have a religion of sorts under a defined set of parameters. You cannot prove, in any way that would withstand full scientific dissection that a God or Gods does not exist. There for you have a faith. You are religious, just not in the traditional sense of the word.

As for the version of God Deviant talks about... Alan, if you think no one else has found it then I am disappointed. I'd have thought you'd have a wider life experience than that. Deviant's idea of God (perhaps Giaia) is anything but unique, no offence meant to you Deviant. I've met at least 20 people with a similiar belief system.

@Ashley, if it were about acceptance into a community, then trust me. I'd have stayed Catholic. I chose a different path which has nothing to do with my requirements for a social group. Congratulations on jumping the gun there. You're a cynic. I feel sorry for you. You can't accept someone else's genuinely held beliefs because they do not match your own. You've had negative experiences surrounding theism, that much is obvious from what you've said. Also from your vehemence in the belief that theism is wrong.

I guess if I were anthropologist, or sociologist, I'd have gained enough from just this short thread to write a small doctoral thesis.

Once again I expect some degree of objectivity. Once again I am proven immediately and completely wrong. Insults are thrown, my own beliefs are immediately insulted and I am stereotyped as someone seeking attention. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I mean I had hoped for an open minded bunch of non-judgemental people. Shame I was proven so wrong.

Thank you Deviant for what are clearly your dearly held beliefs. I apologise that in acknowledging what you believe you were abused by others.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Alan

You said you KNOW of god. That's not your opinion. You're just contradicting yourself.

And atheism is a system of beliefs only insofar baldness is a hair color.



Idiot.

Please show me how atheism is not a system of beliefs.

Because every example Ashley has provided only proves that it is a system of beliefs. And you have provided no examples.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Athiesm: The belief that there is no God. Ashley you mistake the religion and belief. Yeah there's no code on how to be an atheist, but you have a religion of sorts under a defined set of parameters. You cannot prove, in any way that would withstand full scientific dissection that a God or Gods does not exist. There for you have a faith. You are religious, just not in the traditional sense of the word.

A lack of belief does not mean a belief in lack.
If you saw religion objectively in the same way everyone understands the scientific method, or philosophical inquiry, or basic empiricism, you would understand that.
You call them "benighted bastards" when you were the one who asked them? You were just looking to legitimize your beliefs, you weren't looking for a rela discussion.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Please show me how atheism is not a system of beliefs.

Because every example Ashley has provided only proves that it is a system of beliefs. And you have provided no examples.

You want me to provide a list of examples of a lack of examples? How stupid is that?


The very fact that there's no such thing as a list of examples of a codified atheism PROVES that you can't talk about atheism in the same way you can talk about religion.

Atheism is just not believing in some god, it is NOT believing there's no god.

You don't need to be a "anti-Santaclausist" to not believe in Santa Claus. You just happen to not believe in him. You don't need a fucking anti-Santa doctrine to explain why you don't believe in Santa.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Why does God have to be something that's feared?

It doesn't. But it certainly has to be something that's important.

Even excluding the fact that your idea of God is demonstrably false, your god is not only false but also completely unimportant and therefore irrelevant.

Look, I see where you're coming from, I really do. I was there myself once upon a time.

You seem to be having trouble wrapping your mind around what the atheist position actually IS. In light of that, this may be helpful.

[burningplain]

My Blood's up at the moment Alan, but I will remain restrained.
A lack of belief... Actually athiest firmly hold the belief that there is no God. They do not "lack belief", quite the opposite. I am being empirical, I am holding both sides up to the same light. Under the full scientific, empirical process neither side has evidence that substantiate its claims Alan. Therefore until such a time as one side is proven right to a level that falls within acceptable statistical parameters atheism and theism remain beliefs only.

Science does not support either side, objectively speaking. Therefore by your own system you have failed. The lack of God is a hypothesis, a hypothesis you hold to be true. In fact it is your firmly held belief there is no good. If I showed you irrefutable proof there was, you'd say I forged it.

I wanted to see what the beliefs of others were. Perhaps discussion is the wrong word. I am unsure what the correct word would be.
However, my point remains, in terms of empirical process Alan, you failed, because you refuse to remain objective to even the slightest degree. I'm glad your chosen field is philosophy because you'd make a shit scientist.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by burningplain

My Blood's up at the moment Alan, but I will remain restrained.
A lack of belief... Actually athiest firmly hold the belief that there is no God.

No it isn't. Please educate yourself.

[Alan]

Lack of god is not a hypothesis.
Do you need a hypothesis to not believe in a purple unicorn living on the southern hemisphere of Venus?
No. You do not need to make a positive assertion of negativity. Skepticism is the point zero of anything.

I haven't failed. You just want to believe this is a conversation where there's such a thing as 'victory' and it has to be yours. Otherwise all your beliefs would just crumble, and we can't have that now, can we?

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

It seems like you're trying to force me into saying this is right and this is wrong based on my own personal beliefs and that's not something I'm going to do because it's just not for me to decide. "Judge not lest ye be judged". It doesn't matter to me whether you believe how I believe or not. It makes no difference to me. You have to find your own path. If that's atheism for you, so be it. It doesn't affect me or anyone else, nor should it. The only point where it affects me, or anyone else, is when you start trying to force your opinions and beliefs on other people.

*facepalm* That is such a tired argument that believers of any stripe try to use in the face of any kind of criticism. "Don't force your beliefs on me/down my throat." Please. You may as well beg those tyrannical atheists to allow you to imagine whatever you want without being punished. More or less, I find this plea to be obnoxious as it SHOULD only be the secularists and non-believers that should be employing it.

I don't need scientific evidence. It's simply what I believe.

This is the worst line of reasoning I've ever seen. Does it not matter to you that what you believe is true? Do you not care? Does truth mean anything at all or is it so subjective that it has lost all meaning?

My evidence comes from life experience and conclusions that I've drawn from my own existence. If I were trying to prove to you beyond doubt that this is how things are, that this is what God is, then - and only then - would I need scientific evidence to back it up. But that's not what I'm trying to do and it's not what the OP's objective was.

No. It's not what you were trying to do. But those of empirical thinking will question all claims and criticize all claims because it's IMPORTANT to know what truth is, NOT what makes someone feel better. So that's what we're going to do with you. We're going to ask you "Why?" and predictably, you're backpedaling in the fact that you have nothing solid to make your claim. Holy shit, at least SOME religious and supernatural claims tend to hold their ground a little longer. Yours fell apart like paper in water.

As I said in my original post, I think the concept of God is different and personal for every individual.

Then that concept is genuinely useless. Your feelings on god aren't important in the least nor is it worth wasting your time and energy dwelling on it. Your god is a flying spaghetti monster. Tell me I'm wrong. You can't because you've taken the concept and moved it into something personal as if it can be somehow protected from examination.

That includes your lack of belief in a God.

No. It doesn't.

Where is your empirical scientific evidence that God does not exist?

Give me a god and I'll give you the evidence that it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is NOT in the lack of belief, but it is on those who believe. YOU have to prove your god worthy or somehow relevant empirically. If not, the default position is once again that of non-belief. This is a reasonable and scientific approach.

Where is your empirical scientific evidence that life just happened by chance?

We don't know and THAT'S better than saying "God did it." However, I'd like to stress that abiogenesis has been done in a lab apparently.

There was a time not too long ago that nobody knew what gravity was. Does that mean it didn't exist? There was a time even more recent that nobody knew what DNA was. Does that mean it didn't exist?

No. It is WRONG to assume something before being able to measure how to find out. I can assume that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter and we wont be able to prove it until technology and science can find it. But we will never find this teapot because it's not there. Same as any concept of god. Basically, you're arguing for the god of the gaps and the god of the gaps is simply an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

When science can prove beyond doubt where, how and why life came into existence, then my beliefs may change. Until then, each person is entitled to draw their own conclusions in their own way.

No, they're technically not. You can not assume just because. The difference between an atheist making a claim and your claim is that an atheist,if they're being scientific will make NO CLAIMS that they know without testing the hypothesis and concluding that the hypothesis is empirically likely to be true. It's irrational for you to draw conclusions without testing that hypothesis or lacking the means to test it.

[Alan]

I love how Burningpain says he's objective and then calls me a 'shit scientist'

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It doesn't. But it certainly has to be something that's important.

I would say that nature and the universe is rather important to everything and everyone in existence. Pretty sure that most everyone else out there would agree with that, whether they believe in God or not.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Even excluding the fact that your idea of God is demonstrably false, your god is not only false but also completely unimportant and therefore irrelevant.

Where is your proof that it is false? Are you saying that nature is false? Are you one of those people that believe we're all just thoughts, that reality isn't real? I'm confused by your statement.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Look, I see where you're coming from, I really do. I was there myself once upon a time.

No, I really don't think you do. I think your belief that there is no God prevents you from having any clue where I'm coming from at all.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You seem to be having trouble wrapping your mind around what the atheist position actually IS.

No trouble here. Just because you perceive trouble doesn't mean it actually exists. It's simply your opinion.

Why didn't you acknowledge my questions about your scientific evidence of there being no God? I showed you the courtesy of answering all your questions, even through your insults.

[burningplain]

Lack of Hypothesis. Alan, let me ask you simply. Is there a god? Yes or No.
Answer which ever way you feel most comfortable. Then provide me with evidence to substantiate your claims. A lack of belief... Alan, tell me did you ever do psychology? I can assure you, we all believe something. Part of the "construct" we build ourselve, our little prism which makes reality bareable. You my friend are refusing to face me in a field where I am correct, which is using the empirical process to evidence one side or the other. Why? Because ultimately, in this one, I'm right. Science can, at the present time, neither prove, nor disprove the existence of a diety.

Oh and Ashley, you assert that there is no God. Yet you have no empirical proof. The burden of evidence does not lie on any one side. If anything that is the whole point of science to me. That both sides, those whom agree with a point and those who disagree with said point should provide evidence for their side of the argument.
Oh and yeah, they've not proven abiogenesis, at least not last time I checked my online journal archives, I'll check again. I do remember hearing about a similiar project though that had more to do with getting synthetic cells to function and I know they've managed to do that on a monocellular level, but in order for it to work, we needed to create certain components.

[Alan]

Can you prove I don't have your wallet as soon as you stop looking at it?
Show your evidence.


You can't disprove a negative!

[AshleyO]

I love how those who want to talk about belief don't ever want to really talk about the belief's truth values.

[burningplain]

Oh and Alan, I made that statement, based on what I see of you, which is that you do not hold objectivity is important, after all you completely ignored my statements on the application of the empirical process to athiesm, there by nitpicking my argument. You'd make a good lawyer, after all, lawyers like word games and to try and pick out individual statements, rather than attack the whole.

As I said, shit scientist, too much interest in word games and picking on one detail and one detail alone.

Objectivity is partially based in the whole picture. Keep nit picking little bits of my arguments one at a time. I'm sure I can fight back.

[burningplain]

Once again with the nit picking Alan. Lawyer, like I said, word games. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to provide evidence for your theories. I am asking you to put them to the Empirical tests.
Suddenly your basis of "there is no god" has gone from a lack of belief to a negative. And again you ignore so many bits of my argument.

As I said, great lawyer or politician, shit scientist.

[Alan]

If you can't understand one of the most basic epistemic concepts, that you can't disprove a negative, then you can't make any serious claims at all.

You're not looking for evidence of anything. What you're trying to do is to claim veracity of a statement by showing it hasn't been disproven. There's a big difference, and there's a name for what you're doing: appeal to ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[burningplain]

Alan, if you ask me to provide evidence for my side I acknowledge that I cannot prove it to a satisfactorily empirical degree. I am asking you to provide evidence for your stand point. I am grasping the point, your point being that somehow the lack of god is a negative.
How is it a negative? It a hypothesis NOT A NEGATIVE!

Here's the dictionary definition of negative. The lack of existence of God, now there's a defining feature. So yeah, I'd say its not a negative.
neg·a·tive (ng-tv)
adj.
1.
a. Expressing, containing, or consisting of a negation, refusal, or denial: gave a negative answer to our request.
b. Indicating opposition or resistance: a negative reaction to the new advertising campaign.
2. Lacking positive or constructive features, especially:
a. Unpleasant; disagreeable: had a negative experience on his first job.
b. Gloomy; pessimistic: a negative outlook.
c. Unfavorable or detrimental: a negative review; a negative effect on the child's development.
d. Hostile or disparaging; malicious: ran a negative campaign against her opponent.
3. Medicine Not indicating the presence of a particular disease, condition, or organism.
4. Logic Designating a proposition that denies agreement between a subject and its predicate.
5. Mathematics
a. Of or relating to a quantity less than zero.
b. Of or relating to the sign (-).
c. Of or relating to a quantity to be subtracted from another.
d. Of or relating to a quantity, number, angle, velocity, or direction in a sense opposite to another of the same magnitude indicated or understood to be positive.
6. Physics
a. Of or relating to an electric charge of the same sign as that of an electron, indicated by the symbol (-).
b. Of or relating to a body having an excess of electrons.
7. Chemistry Of or relating to an ion, the anion, that is attracted to a positive electrode.
8. Biology Moving or turning away from a stimulus, such as light: a negative tropism.
n.
1. A statement or act indicating or expressing a contradiction, denial, or refusal.
2.
a. A statement or act that is highly critical of another or of others: campaign advertising that was based solely on negatives.
b. Something that lacks all positive, affirmative, or encouraging features; an element that is the counterpoint of the positive: "Life is full of overwhelming odds. You can't really eliminate the negatives but you can diminish them" (Art Linkletter).
c. A feature or characteristic that is not deemed positive, affirmative, or desirable: "As voters get to know his liberal views, his negatives will rise" (Richard M. Nixon).
3. Grammar A word or part of a word, such as no, not, or non-, that indicates negation. See Usage Note at double negative.
4. The side in a debate that contradicts or opposes the question being debated.
5.
a. An image in which the light areas of the object rendered appear dark and the dark areas appear light.
b. A film, plate, or other photographic material containing such an image.
6. Mathematics A negative quantity.
tr.v. neg·a·tived, neg·a·tiv·ing, neg·a·tives
1. To refuse to approve; veto.
2. To deny; contradict.
3. To demonstrate to be false; disprove.
4. To counteract or neutralize.

[Alan]

I never said the existence of a God is a negative statement, you idiot. I said your demand for evidence of a LACK of existence would be to demand positive evidence of a negative proposition.

See? You don't even know what we're talking about. You're too hurt to be, in your own words, 'objective'.

[burningplain]

Are you trying to blind me with science Alan? Really?
Actually there's been plenty investigation, at best results have proven inconclusive to either way. So in a way you could say I'd agree with the third option. That it cannot be proven either way, I'm not interested in shifting the burden of proof, I am saying both sides should be required to provide evidence to support their beliefs.

Think of this as a court case.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by burningplain

Oh and Ashley, you assert that there is no God. Yet you have no empirical proof.

Okay. I level the charge now. For any god at all, give me a sign. *waits*

...

No sign. Hmm.

The burden of evidence does not lie on any one side.

Yes. It does. YOU'RE making the positive claim of neopaganism for example. WHAT is your proof? Why is it real? Like Alan said, you can't prove a negative.

If anything that is the whole point of science to me. That both sides, those whom agree with a point and those who disagree with said point should provide evidence for their side of the argument.

This would almost be like creationism vs. evolution. Only one of them can be right and all the evidence points to evolution for example. No god that humanity has been able to dream up has been able to be verified or tested. These are hypothesis that can't be measured and they're ALL as equally likely, so the default position of a lack of belief is more REASONABLE. I don't have to give you empirical evidence to prove there is no easter bunny. Why are you having such a hard time with this? A positive unverifiable belief is NOT as valid or equal to the stance of a negative.

Oh and yeah, they've not proven abiogenesis, at least not last time I checked my online journal archives, I'll check again. I do remember hearing about a similiar project though that had more to do with getting synthetic cells to function and I know they've managed to do that on a monocellular level, but in order for it to work, we needed to create certain components.

I wasn't entirely sure. I thought I remembered reading about it. But apparently certain things we consider the building blocks of life have spawned from natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

[Alan]

Think of it as a court case?
That's perfect.

Ever heard of:

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY


The innocent side DOESN'T need evidence to show they're innocent. The zero point is that he is innocent.
But you're not interested in the burden of proof, so I guess it doens't matter how neither law nor logic actually work.