timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 25, 2011 19:54:12 GMT
a spiritual being that is more powerful than human beings. I always wonder about what exactly "spiritual" is supposed to mean though. It seems like it's typically just used as some kind of place holder for a thing we don't understand. So yeah, I don't have a problem with the idea that there are beings that are more powerful than us...like aliens or something. I just have a problem with that spiritual label because I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to entail. Also: How can you possibly call yourself an atheist if you don't even have a basic grasp of what it is you don't believe in? You define god. This is just you not knowing much about atheism. I'm not sure if you've ever studies world religions or anthropology or anything like that but if you did you'd know that there are a lot of different ways in which people have conceived of what we might call god. With that in mind, it's important to know exactly which sort of god we're talking about if we're setting out to disprove it. And this, I would think, wouldn't be hard for a Christian to understand. You wouldn't use the same arguments to demonstrate that Islam is false as you would that animists are wrong, would you? Why wouldn't you expect us to do the same thing? We need to define our terms up front before we can have a conversation. Peace
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 25, 2011 20:51:27 GMT
Well, of course, the onus is on you to disprove, rather than the onus being on the claimant to prove. So, prove you didn't molest your neighbours children. Not sure why this is directed at me, but the burden of proof always rests on the person asserting a claim. If someone claims that fairies exist then that's on them to provide evidence for. Just because one is skeptical doesn't mean they have to carry the burden of disproving it. But like I said earlier, I can't disprove the deist's god nor do I have any reason to. There have been plenty here asserting that god does not exist, which is rather different than being skeptical about the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 27, 2011 22:10:52 GMT
For you atheists out there, please offer some sort of evidence or logical argument which proves that there is no god. I'm not talking about the Christian god, finding logical inconsistencies in the bible is stupidly easy. I will do that once you prove that leprechauns don't exist.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 28, 2011 7:11:11 GMT
For you atheists out there, please offer some sort of evidence or logical argument which proves that there is no god. I'm not talking about the Christian god, finding logical inconsistencies in the bible is stupidly easy. I will do that once you prove that leprechauns don't exist. I'm agnostic on Leprechauns. Also, could you define leprechauns please?
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 28, 2011 12:01:05 GMT
I will do that once you prove that leprechauns don't exist. I'm agnostic on Leprechauns. Also, could you define leprechauns please? Leprechaun: a mischievous sprite-like being from Irish mythology. They typically wear tiny custom tailored green suits and love hiding gold at the end of rainbows.Are you seriously telling me you give the slightest amount of credence toward the idea of leprechauns existing? Unrelated, I have some snake oil for sale.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 28, 2011 21:29:34 GMT
Literal physical people that hide gold? No, I don't believe those exist because we have found no evidence. No pots of gold or little green men, which is something that would definitely make the papers.
Faerie shoemakers that choose to represent themselves that way to the drunk or mentally unstable while actually having a fundamental nature of a different sort? I won't rule that out as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by veks on Nov 28, 2011 23:09:36 GMT
Literal physical people that hide gold? No, I don't believe those exist because we have found no evidence. No pots of gold or little green men, which is something that would definitely make the papers. Faerie shoemakers that choose to represent themselves that way to the drunk or mentally unstable while actually having a fundamental nature of a different sort? I won't rule that out as a possibility. Okay, so you've just been screwing with me for all these posts. Well played.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Nov 29, 2011 1:07:43 GMT
How would you define a god? Perhaps we can start from there? Personally, I'm very close to being an "agnostic atheist" (or perhaps close to the "gnostic atheist" as well), meaning that though I can choose to not believe in gods that are claimed to exist by its cult members believers due to the sheer stupidity of it all in most cases, it does not mean that I completely dismiss the notion that there could maybe, maybe be an unclaimed god(s) out there; if that made sense. How can you possibly call yourself an atheist if you don't even have a basic grasp of what it is you don't believe in? You define god. The same can be said for the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of gods which have been claimed to exist. If you don't believe in them all, then you have to know exactly what they are, and prove that they too do not exist. It makes no sense for an atheist to define what "God" is, merely to then disprove or disbelieve in that god. That's just too easy, all we have to do is define god in such a way that it makes no sense or is illogical, then it's disproven at the get-go. What the atheist must do is look at the gods as defined by others, and check out the evidence and logic associated with the god(s) as defined. If I make up my own invention of "God" then that's exactly what it is - my own invention. Remember that we are all atheists to one level or another - we don't believe in all of the gods. If you are a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, then you are an the atheist, with respect to all those other gods. A person who does not believe in any gods, merely lacks a belief in one more god than the Christian, Jew or a Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 29, 2011 16:47:24 GMT
Literal physical people that hide gold? No, I don't believe those exist because we have found no evidence. No pots of gold or little green men, which is something that would definitely make the papers. You seem rational when applying logic to things you don't believe in. Lets take your argument a step further. What evidence have we found that your god exists? Also, I asked you to PROVE that leprechauns do not exist. Simply saying you don't believe in them is not concrete enough.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 29, 2011 18:02:58 GMT
Literal physical people that hide gold? No, I don't believe those exist because we have found no evidence. No pots of gold or little green men, which is something that would definitely make the papers. You seem rational when applying logic to things you don't believe in. Lets take your argument a step further. What evidence have we found that your god exists? Also, I asked you to PROVE that leprechauns do not exist. Simply saying you don't believe in them is not concrete enough. I am agnostic on the concept of God. Like I said, a bearded man with a specific love for the Jews which he expresses by having them enslaved and killed periodically who sent his son to get crucified for us? There's pretty good evidence that is not the case. A non physical powerful being that influences the world in one way or another? I maintain that is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by charlie on Nov 29, 2011 18:09:43 GMT
How many other non-physical beings/things do you maintain are possible?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 29, 2011 18:35:09 GMT
How many other non-physical beings/things do you maintain are possible? an infinite amount. Some of the traditionally worshipped deities strike me as less improbably than others, but that doesn't mean I think they are actually out there, just that I don't think they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 29, 2011 22:11:48 GMT
You seem rational when applying logic to things you don't believe in. Lets take your argument a step further. What evidence have we found that your god exists? Also, I asked you to PROVE that leprechauns do not exist. Simply saying you don't believe in them is not concrete enough. I am agnostic on the concept of God. Like I said, a bearded man with a specific love for the Jews which he expresses by having them enslaved and killed periodically who sent his son to get crucified for us? There's pretty good evidence that is not the case. A non physical powerful being that influences the world in one way or another? I maintain that is a possibility. ANYTHING is possible. I could tell you that it is possible that Santa Claus is real. Disproving each and every possibility is an exercise in futility.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 29, 2011 22:30:39 GMT
I am agnostic on the concept of God. Like I said, a bearded man with a specific love for the Jews which he expresses by having them enslaved and killed periodically who sent his son to get crucified for us? There's pretty good evidence that is not the case. A non physical powerful being that influences the world in one way or another? I maintain that is a possibility. ANYTHING is possible. I could tell you that it is possible that Santa Claus is real. Disproving each and every possibility is an exercise in futility. I see you are starting to get the point.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Nov 29, 2011 23:29:27 GMT
ANYTHING is possible. I could tell you that it is possible that Santa Claus is real. Disproving each and every possibility is an exercise in futility. I see you are starting to get the point. What do you mean? I am saying that the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Disprove it! is a dumb way of making an argument.
|
|