Any good evidence for the existance of god? [Archive]

hatzel

20th March 2011, 15:52

I think I'll just take this opportunity to sum up EspirituDeAmaru's entire history of activity here on RevLeft with a bit of Shestov...seems fair...

When a man tries to convince others of his truth, that is to say, when he tries to make what he has discovered obligatory for all, he usually believes that he is guided by the most exalted of motives – love of neighbour, the desire to dissipate the darkness of error, etc. The theory of knowledge maintains these pretensions as well as does ethics. Both, indeed, set it down that truth is one, that it is truth for all. But the theory of knowledge and ethics, like the humanitarian wise men, does not clearly discern whence the need comes which man feels to bring it about that all should recognise one truth.

No, he who tries to lead all men to his unique truth is not thinking of his fellow man. But he does not dare, he cannot himself, accept his truth as long as he has not obtained its recognition, real or fictional, by all others. For it is less important for him to possess truth than to obtain universal recognition. That is why the theories of knowledge and ethics occupy themselves so much with limiting as much as possible the rights of questioners. Aristotle already considered all “exaggerated” curiosity the sign of a defective education. This way of dealing with objectors would appear less convincing if men were not more concerned with the general recognition of their truth than with the truth itself.

:)

greenwarbler

20th March 2011, 16:24

What is the evidence of the existence of the dark side of the moon? I've never met Roger Waters, or Milton -- do I know either exists/ed? Have I ever spoken / conversed with an amoeba, or seen one? What would a blind person make of color? How did human beings learn domestication? Agriculture? Ah, yes, the Laws of History.. the dialectic... water boiling..

EspirituDeAmaru

20th March 2011, 16:53

Revolution starts with U

21st March 2011, 00:04

Chavez? Marti?
:laugh:

I hate to burst your bubble but in the original Aramaic the word wasn't virgin but rather innocent/pure young woman. Secondly, practically every Christian probably is aware that the 25th December was chosen to celebrate Christ's birth at quite a late date... it's not his actual date of birth. :rolleyes:

You are an idiot! :lol:

You do this all the time Comrade. Because you and like 25 other christians believe something, you translate that into the mainstream view of christianity.
But we're out here living with the mainstream view of christianity.. and it's not in a fucking book.
The simple fact of the matter is that "most christians" don't know that at all. "Most" christians are pretty literal about their interpretation of the Bible.

Most christians aren't secular pantheists as you seem to think they are. Only hippies and educated people who are still religous fit this mold.

hatzel

21st March 2011, 02:25

Only in this religiously fundamental western society is it political suicide to declare yourself publicly to be an atheist

I have a feeling we live in very different western societies...

Also you kind of overlooked the Shestov quote to some extent, but I don't really care about that

Lenina Rosenweg

21st March 2011, 02:41

Every great left revolutionary is an atheist. The arguments are just looking to play into human emotion.

Actually no. You are forgetting the left wing of the Protestant Reformation.The communist Anabaptist state of Munster. Thomas Munzer, whom Engels write about in The Religious War in Germany. The 17th century Levellers and Diggers of the English Revolution-Gerard Winstanley's "mystical communism". Later Moses Hess' utopian socialism.Nat Turner.Liberation Theology

Jumping around a bit-The Mazdaks in Iran,various Taoist revolutionary groups.

So many pagan traditions are have great similarities to those found in scripture. Perseus to name one was a god born of a virgin mother. Angels and crucifixions among other things. His birthday celebrated wrongly on dec 25 is borrowed from roman festival called saturnalia. No evidence for the great flood or other biblical accounts of history

I have no argument with this. Read Jung, Campbell, or Eliade. What is your point?

Apoi_Viitor

21st March 2011, 02:43

FZFG5PKw504

Lenina Rosenweg

21st March 2011, 02:52

Lol Im not trying to convince everyone but simply want to have an argument here. A lot of people fell the same way I do. Only in this religiously fundamental western society is it political suicide to declare yourself publicly to be an atheist (shows where we stand). And the term atheist in its self is not a valid term. Are you an Atheist for not believe in Zesus?

I just dont believe in a story which advocates "faith" as its truth which mean belief without evidence. I am always open to new EVIDENCE and proof I have no problem in being wrong, the theists have a problem being wrong because that would mean their whoel life devotion would of been a scam..

I agree with this actually.
The term "atheist" mean a non-theist. I'm an atheist. I cannot believe in an imaginary friend "up there" who cares about me and follows me where ever I go. I have a "spiritual" sense, a feeling I get, for example when I work in a garden, a feeling of limiting the ego, being in connection with something. Any attempt to conceptualize this runs into trouble. "Those who say don't know, those who know don't say". Having said this if I have to pick a category, I feel more comfortable saying I'm an atheist.

"Faith" is usually meant as believing in something because your social circumstances, parental or cultural pressure tell you you are supposed to. I oppose this.The original meaning of this term, as I understand, meant more of an initiation, an experiential trust in a tradition.

If religion/spiritual is taken in the usual reductionist Western sense, yeah, its horseshit. I'd rather have 3 George Carlins than 10 Hail Marys. But I think there is something different out there.

The Man

21st March 2011, 02:53

Here is the most evidence that there is a god:

G_61KXIoiS8

smk

21st March 2011, 02:57

The arguments are just looking to play into human emotion.

And the same human emotions are what compel many people to be leftists in the first place. I dont think that I would even think about politics if I wasn't sensitive to the exploitation and injustice around me.

Lenina Rosenweg

21st March 2011, 03:03

The sound system in my computer doesn't work(viruses) so I can't listen to the video but I think the whole Christians vs. atheists argument is missing the point. Unfortunately I don't yet have the conceptual tools to express this well but basically

"Christians" and "atheists" both are utterly reductionist and both are missing the point. The Great Sky God is a product of our imagination. On the other hand this imagination can develop an objective reality beyond out control.Perhaps this can eventually be shown to have a materialist basis.We are the universe partially realizing itself.There is an Imaginal Realm but we haven't yet learned how to use it.

Its getting late. I'm not making any sense.

Pretty Flaco

21st March 2011, 03:05

I live in the US midwest and when I tell people I'm not religious they usually just say things along the lines of "It sounds depressing to be an atheist".
I think many atheists have depressing outlooks, but I keep mine positive. I place my hope in myself and others instead of God.

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 04:38

There is no need to be depressed if one is an atheist. As Einstein said we do not know why we are here on this planet for this short time but we must do good for the good of humanity and are here for our fellow man (or woman).

Now the issues between theists and non-theists. The former being fundamentalists and the latter being passionate people not to be confused. A fundamentalists holds his truths to be absolute regardless of facts presented other wise. A passionate person may argue in that way while the nay sayer ignored evidence and facts. The argument here is for the major established religions. Their suppression of human impulses and corruption of human thought.

Reason is religion's greatest enemy- Martin Luther

Now some comedic relief :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUNqer9N12U

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iUNqer9N12U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

smk

21st March 2011, 06:45

Espiritu,

Is there any good evidence for the absence of god?

If not, why do you believe something that you can't prove? Faith? oh snap.

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 16:26

Revolution starts with U

21st March 2011, 18:38

bi-petal? flower child... are you calling us all hippies?!

smk

21st March 2011, 21:41

Evolution. Our own bodies are living proof. Weak knees, useless apendix, asthma and other human problems are proof we evoled into our bi petal bodies we have now. And I wont get into more. Another is Logic and reason. Just because I cant prove that beyond Mars exists an invisible Unicorn, am I suppose to belive it is there because someone tells me to? Even the lack of proof to disprove something as Vague and abstract as a 'god' by pure empirical logic we can come to the conclusion that it is impossible and live our life accordingly.

Here's a crazy idea: god created organisms which evolve.

just because you dont believe in some of the more fantastic things like Adam and Eve or the splitting of the red sea, doesnt mean you should throw the entire idea out.

I have no idea how you can possibly say that "logically" and "empirically" god can not exist. You didnt even attempt to explain yourself beyond evolution.

Princess Luna

21st March 2011, 21:47

short answer:no
long answer:no

EspirituDeAmaru

21st March 2011, 22:11

smk

22nd March 2011, 02:11

So now that we've back tracked and discredited all this ludicrous scripture, we cant through in vague question such as what if a god created organisms and let them evolve. Once again where is that evidence.

What I am saying is that you shouldn't criticize something as important to people as their life's purpose without any sort of evidence to back you up. You have no evidence, they have no evidence, so stop being so rude because in reality you are just as clueless as everyone else is about this stuff.

BuddhaInBabylon

22nd March 2011, 02:58

proof? the very concept is beyond anything tangible so in fact that question is ridiculous. Proof of the existenceof god? somewhere i'm hearing samuel l jackson's voice say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" and i still think that it's all supposition and lies springing from our insecurities in the face of our own mortality and the unknown that is our waking life. how about proof that you exist? explore the concept of the "I" and you will find a similar story. but that's another day.

Ocean Seal

22nd March 2011, 03:07

Every great left revolutionary is an atheist. The arguments are just looking to play into human emotion. So many pagan traditions are have great similarities to those found in scripture. Perseus to name one was a god born of a virgin mother. Angels and crucifixions among other things. His birthday celebrated wrongly on dec 25 is borrowed from roman festival called saturnalia. No evidence for the great flood or other biblical accounts of history
Your profile picture says otherwise.

EspirituDeAmaru

22nd March 2011, 05:27

What I am saying is that you shouldn't criticize something as important to people as their life's purpose without any sort of evidence to back you up. You have no evidence, they have no evidence, so stop being so rude because in reality you are just as clueless as everyone else is about this stuff.

Evidence once again is in our anatomy and in science which has proved that a god is not needed to create life on earth. My issue with religion is that it clogs peoples minds and keeps this preoccupied with heavenly rewards and takes away their full effort in the progression of themselves and their fellow man. We are all leftists here and should put humanity before anything.

Allende was an atheist btw :thumbup1:

Revolution starts with U

22nd March 2011, 05:38

Tho I tend to stand on the so-called "militant atheism" side of thing (tho I advocate no militism, violence, or ban on religion, and am not an atheist, but an ignostic) I consider MLK a great revolutionary, and he was heavily based in his religion.
Religion doesn't cause problems, people do. Religion is naive, idealistic, and dangerous. But people will just use something else to do the same shit in the absence of it.

EspirituDeAmaru

22nd March 2011, 05:57

Well Im not talking about the outright forceful ban on religion (I believe education roots out religious thoughts; backed up by statistics) Of course some can interpret religion in a passive way as MLK did but he got most of his teaching from ghandi who was more spiritual rather than a theist. But the dangers are in those who take it fundamentally or invoke it politically

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon

hatzel

22nd March 2011, 17:44

Evidence once again is in our anatomy and in science which has proved that a god is not needed to create life on earth.

This isn't actually proof of anything...the clue is in the words 'not needed'. If your statement was 'science has proved that a god could not possibly have created life on Earth', it would be proof. At the moment, it's akin to saying 'science has proven that mankind is not needed to clean dog crap off the pavement, because the rain can do it, ergo mankind doesn't exist'. That's not proof. That's a suggestion which would then need to be backed up by something concrete, which, as smk has pointed out, you cannot provide.

he got most of his teaching from ghandi who was more spiritual rather than a theistn

Though, of course, as I'm sure you know, Ghandi was a theist. Being 'spiritual' (whatever that's supposed to mean) doesn't mean one isn't a theist. If we're going to get all Ghandi-esque here (as you seem to have a certain level of respect for him), let's see what he has to say on the matter...

Everyone has faith in G-d though everyone does not know it. For everyone has faith in himself and that multiplied to the nth degree is G-d. The sum total of all that lives is G-d. We may not be G-d, but we are of G-d, even as a little drop of water is of the ocean.

I like that quote very much :)

ComradeMan

23rd March 2011, 20:39

I like that quote very much :)

Gospel of Thomas: 77 "Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am
there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
;)

Revolution starts with U

23rd March 2011, 22:34

And you worship that vanity? :scared:

hatzel

23rd March 2011, 23:35

And you worship that vanity? :scared:

Ell-oh-ell :laugh:

Viet Minh

23rd March 2011, 23:47

And you worship that vanity? :scared:

To be fair if I was claiming to be the son of God I wouldn't be so humble as to suggest I was living under a rock..

Sosa

26th March 2011, 08:22

5wV_REEdvxo
SlaCq3dKvvI
sNDZb0KtJDk

ComradeMan

27th March 2011, 11:57

To be fair if I was claiming to be the son of God I wouldn't be so humble as to suggest I was living under a rock..

I think you and RSWU have missed the point and it's a point I only seemed to understand after studying some of the Hindu Sadhus and there ideas of non-duality. The idea is of the unity of all-and-all. In another Gnostic gospel there is an allusion to this where Jesus accuses his disciples of making their own good and evil- again we have this idea of duality and non-duality. The metaphor is not that he was living under a rock, FFS, no sense of metaphor! :lol: The idea is of the single unity of all things...

JerryBiscoTrey

27th March 2011, 13:51

Tho I tend to stand on the so-called "militant atheism" side of thing (tho I advocate no militism, violence, or ban on religion, and am not an atheist, but an ignostic)

So you stand on the side of militant atheism but are neither militant nor an atheist? :p im jus playin around i get what you meant

hatzel

27th March 2011, 14:05

So you stand on the side of militant atheism but are neither militant nor an atheist? :p im jus playin around i get what you meant

On the other hand, there are plenty of revolutionary leftists who are neither revolutionary, nor leftist. And that's why we have OI :lol:

Revolution starts with U

27th March 2011, 15:12

I think you and RSWU have missed the point and it's a point I only seemed to understand after studying some of the Hindu Sadhus and there ideas of non-duality. The idea is of the unity of all-and-all. In another Gnostic gospel there is an allusion to this where Jesus accuses his disciples of making their own good and evil- again we have this idea of duality and non-duality. The metaphor is not that he was living under a rock, FFS, no sense of metaphor! :lol: The idea is of the single unity of all things...
I was actually joking. I get the sentiment, and I actually agree with it. If you are saying "I am that rock and the air you breathe" in the context of all of us are... I agree with that.
But that's mostly taken to mean Jesus/God is/are that, and no one else.

So you stand on the side of militant atheism but are neither militant nor an atheist? :p im jus playin around i get what you meant
I've never been one to run from a label :thumbup1:

ComradeMan

27th March 2011, 15:42

I was actually joking. I get the sentiment, and I actually agree with it. If you are saying "I am that rock and the air you breathe" in the context of all of us are... I agree with that.
But that's mostly taken to mean Jesus/God is/are that, and no one else.

I am not sure about that and certainly the very early Christians and Gnostics seem to have had different ideas.

The irony is that is what through studying the sadhus in Vedic religions that this little idea came- not from any cleric! ;)

Revolution starts with U

27th March 2011, 15:45

I've never met a gnostic or coptic christian. So Im going to have to go with all those Paulites I deal with on a daily basis :D

Viet Minh

27th March 2011, 16:48

I think you and RSWU have missed the point and it's a point I only seemed to understand after studying some of the Hindu Sadhus and there ideas of non-duality. The idea is of the unity of all-and-all. In another Gnostic gospel there is an allusion to this where Jesus accuses his disciples of making their own good and evil- again we have this idea of duality and non-duality. The metaphor is not that he was living under a rock, FFS, no sense of metaphor! :lol: The idea is of the single unity of all things...

To me that seems more spirituality than religion, the difference being in that the power lies within us, so religions pray to or worship a mysterious entity, spiritualists (eg Buddhists, Taoists) meditate and look within for that power.

ComradeMan

27th March 2011, 22:23

To me that seems more spirituality than religion, the difference being in that the power lies within us, so religions pray to or worship a mysterious entity, spiritualists (eg Buddhists, Taoists) meditate and look within for that power.

Exactly- but there are spiritual currents within all "religions" really.

Viet Minh

28th March 2011, 00:24

Exactly- but there are spiritual currents within all "religions" really.

Truedat, the two are almost interchangable, very few religions don't have an element of spiritualism, and vice versa. To me its all equally bollox though! :p

Revolution starts with U

28th March 2011, 00:27

JerryBiscoTrey

28th March 2011, 00:33

On topic tho; if you theists are looking for a good argument for your sky wizard ;) check out William Lane Craig. It's by far the best argument for any type of theistic deity that I have seen.
He makes some shaky and contradictory uses of the term "timeless" and his theory is heavily depndant on current interpretations of physics. Which is not bad per se, but makes it weak to any kind of change.
Either way... it's a decent logical argument.

William Lane Craig is very eloquent and intelligent, however he has a sneaky debate style. When debating the existence of God he gives usually five profound points in his opening statement. The points are so profound that the debate usually goes back and forth between the the first and second point the entire time and then by the end of the debate he says something along the lines of "see! you werent able to answer points three, four, and five, i must be right!"

When debating about one specific topic, he tends to get very preachy and sentimental. For an example of this, watch his debate with Bart Ehrman on the historical authenticity of the Gospels.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 08:24

I've seen Craig debate Chrisotpher Hitchens and never seen him coming out on top. Hitchens destroys W.L. Craig

I'm not even a Hitchens fan

ChrisK

29th March 2011, 08:35

William Lane Craig is very eloquent and intelligent, however he has a sneaky debate style. When debating the existence of God he gives usually five profound points in his opening statement. The points are so profound that the debate usually goes back and forth between the the first and second point the entire time and then by the end of the debate he says something along the lines of "see! you werent able to answer points three, four, and five, i must be right!"

He must have done policy debate. That was my neg argument style: here's eight arguments that all take time to respond to. Oh wait you missed one! HAHAHAHA I win!

JerryBiscoTrey

29th March 2011, 19:04

I've seen Craig debate Chrisotpher Hitchens and never seen him coming out on top. Hitchens destroys W.L. Craig

I'm not even a Hitchens fan

Also with the Hitchens-Craig debate it is important to note that the debate took place in a Christian high school. So Hitchens was a little milder than usual lol

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 20:14

Any evidence for the existence of God?

Difficult one- but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan put it.

Meridian

29th March 2011, 20:27

There could never be evidence for or against God because God is not even supposed to exist empirically, aside from the tales in the Bible and so on.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 20:42

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 20:54

Absence of evidence is many cases IS evidence of absence. If a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se

Not so- when humans could not see Pluto it did not mean that Pluto did not exist.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 20:58

Not so- when humans could not see Pluto it did not mean that Pluto did not exist.

Note I said MANY and not ALL.

In the case of Pluto...it was found to exist when they looked for evidence. There wasn't a lack of evidence

Octavian

29th March 2011, 21:00

The burden of proof for this argument is on the people suggesting the existence of god. In this age of information, reason, logic and, science any average person should be able to easily see not that god doesn't exist, but that there is no reason to believe one does.

Any evidence for the existence of God?

Difficult one- but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan put it.
This isn't an argument. It's simply throwing your hands up and the air and issuing the illogical challenge of proving a negative. For example most people don't believe Leprechauns exist but that doesn't prove they don't.
An excellent illustration of this was given by James Randi. The argument is that you can't prove reindeer do not have the ability to fly. You could test this by taking 1000 reindeer, numbering them, and placing them in single file at the top of a tall building. Now if you were to push them off one by one and as most people assume based on the knowledge of reindeer physiology that none of them fly. Now that doesn't prove reindeer can't fly, it simply shows that at that specific time, at that altitude, at that temperature those 1000 specific reindeer can not fly.

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 21:06

The burden of proof for this argument is on the people suggesting the existence of god. In this age of information, reason, logic and, science any average person should be able to easily see not that god doesn't exist, but that there is no reason to believe one does.

This isn't an argument. It's simply throwing your hands up and the air and issuing the illogical challenge of proving a negative. For example most people don't believe Leprechauns exist but that doesn't prove they don't.
An excellent illustration of this was given by James Randi. The argument is that you can't prove reindeer do not have the ability to fly. You could test this by taking 1000 reindeer, numbering them, and placing them in single file at the top of a tall building. Now if you were to push them off one by one and as most people assume based on the knowledge of reindeer physiology that none of them fly. Now that doesn't prove reindeer can't fly, it simply shows that at that specific time, at that altitude, at that temperature those 1000 specific reindeer can not fly.

Ceteris paribus- but it's a rather inane example by Randi, in my opinion.

Viet Minh

29th March 2011, 21:10

I would be more likely to believe in God if it wasn't for the various established religions. If you take them as any kind of argument for the existence of God then I think it can almost all be explained away, or put down to lies, exageration and fanciful story-telling. I can't say with certainty that there isn't some sky wizard of some description or lack thereof, but I'm fairly sure that God as per the Christian teachings does not exist, I don't know enough about Judaism or Islam to comment, but if they acknowledge the old testament then I'm fairly confident in calling bullshit.

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 21:14

I don't know enough about Judaism or Islam to comment, but if they acknowledge the old testament then I'm fairly confident in calling bullshit.

:crying: I think you'll find the Old Testament is pretty central to Judaism and not really central at all to Islam (albeit considered a "Book").

Viet Minh

29th March 2011, 21:24

:crying: I think you'll find the Old Testament is pretty central to Judaism and not really central at all to Islam (albeit considered a "Book").

I have every respect for people who are religious, I have to admit I am not a true anti-theist because i don't know enough about any religion to justifiably reject it, to me I prefer to look at the effect than the cause. So with Christianity I can look at the Bible as a very sensible idoelogically sound idea, peace and equality and all that, but then there's the reality; crusades, witch hunts, jehovahs witnesses :D Not that you can blame the ideology for every despot that abuses it, I'm just not convinced as to how much good it does, or bad it prevents. Then again I suppsoe we'd never know unless we could visit an alternate universe without religion.

Ocean Seal

29th March 2011, 21:32

Absence of evidence in many cases IS evidence of absence. If a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se
So what you're saying here is that if your doctor didn't check for cancer it would not be there? And here is the difference if you cannot find malignant cells then there cannot be cancer. And you're looking to find malignant cells instead you find healthy cells. If a cell is healthy then it is not malignant. Therefore, if you only find healthy cells then necessarily you don't have cancer.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 21:47

So what you're saying here is that if your doctor didn't check for cancer it would not be there?

Where did I say that exactly? or are you putting words in my mouth

The evidence for cancer would be finding malignant cells...therefore finding all healthy cells is evidence for the absence of malignant cells.

Viet Minh

29th March 2011, 21:54

:crying: I think you'll find the Old Testament is pretty central to Judaism and not really central at all to Islam (albeit considered a "Book").

Sorry bro I go a bit overboard with the anti-theism sometimes, like I said to Rabbi K its nothing against anyone who is religious, its usually because I'm thinking of the right wing evangelist preachy types who annoy me sometimes, so don't take it personally.. ;)

Ocean Seal

29th March 2011, 22:16

Where did I say that exactly? or are you putting words in my mouth

The evidence for cancer would be finding malignant cells...therefore finding all healthy cells is evidence for the absence of malignant cells.
And for cancer to exist there must necessarily be malignant cells. Is there something on the planet that God needs to exist, and without that he would not exist? Because you cannot draw the parallel there. Cancer needs malignant cells because if there are no malignant cells then there is no cancer. In fact cancer is when a series of malignant cells multiply and invade other tissues. Without malignant cells, cancer, by definition, cannot exist.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 22:17

And for cancer to exist there must necessarily be malignant cells. Is there something on the planet that God needs to exist, and without that he would not exist? Because you cannot draw the parallel there. Cancer needs malignant cells because if there are no malignant cells then there is no cancer. In fact cancer is when a series of malignant cells multiply and invade other tissues. Without malignant cells, cancer, by definition, cannot exist.

I guess "God" would have to be defined first if we're going to go anywhere with this.

hatzel

29th March 2011, 22:19

The evidence for cancer would be finding malignant cells...therefore finding all healthy cells is evidence for the absence of malignant cells.

That is to say, evidence of absence is evidence of absence...we knew this already :) But it doesn't really address the question of absence of evidence...

Delenda Carthago

29th March 2011, 22:27

Any good evidence for the existance of god?

Yes.

http://mamsitia.clan.su/logo/souvlaki1.png

If thats not a proof of God creating the universe, I dunno what is!

Revolution starts with U

29th March 2011, 22:27

i hate having to look up dead useless latin

...and im not even seeing how this one fits

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 22:31

i hate having to look up dead useless latin

...and im not even seeing how this one fits

Latin is far from useless--- seeing as up to 80% of your language (higher register) may derive from it- in my opinion of course. Just be thankful the Etruscans didn't win in the end- that would have fucked up etymology and spelling indeed!!!! :laugh:

Revolution starts with U

29th March 2011, 22:35

Seems to me english is largely germanic and norse. All the latin influence is mostly actually french, which derives from latin.

Sosa

29th March 2011, 22:35

Note that the issue isn't whether "absence of evidence" provides absolute and complete proof of absence. Instead, it's just evidence of absence: given the right circumstances, it provides justification to at least doubt that something is present and to think it likely that it is, in fact, absent.

The simplest argument for atheism is that one should disbelieve a hypothesis whose expected consequences don't mesh with any evidence. More bluntly: absence of evidence is evidence of absence -- at least after you've looked. If you poke around enough in the places where it would reasonable to expect evidence of X and you don't find any, that's a pretty good reason to believe there is no X. This is surely why sensible people don't believe in elves, fairies, or the bogeyman under the bed.

You look under the bed at random times, check the locks on windows and doors, make discreet inquiries about other beds in the neighborhood, and so forth. Of course, a sufficiently frightened child could remind you that no finite number of inquiries or peeks under the bed could logically establish there wasn't a very clever and maybe incorporeal bogeyman; but you then might point out that common sense and science wouldn't get very far if they took every such mere ''logical'' possibility equally seriously.

At a certain point, we simply have to rely on ''inference to the best explanation'' of all the evidence we can get, and accept, at least provisionally, conclusions that have been shown in this way to be true ''beyond a reasonable doubt.'' These are not processes that anyone yet seriously understands, but they are ones on which jury trials and the rest of our lives manifestly depend.

The well-known ''problem of evil'' in the case of God is just a special case of this strategy: one would reasonably expect an omni-being to have created a moral world; the patent lack of such a world (in the plethora of cases that have nothing to do with ''free will'') provides reason to doubt there's any such being, as does the overall poor record of answered prayers (where one remembers to count not only positive anecdotes, but all of the failures people tend not to remember). And note that this argument doesn't justify mere agnosticism: people are presumably not agnostic about bogeymen; rather, it justifies full disbelief. What's bad enough for bogeymen is bad enough for God.

Source: "Meta-atheism: Religious Avowal as Self-Deception," by Georges Rey in Philosophers Without Gods (http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/PhilosophersWithoutGods.htm)

Revolution starts with U

29th March 2011, 22:37

It doesn't matter, that's just a dumb meaningless phrase thrown around. There is absence of evidence of all kinds of things we don't have to argue about.
Just another way for theists to say "it's just what I believe."

ComradeMan

29th March 2011, 22:48

Seems to me english is largely germanic and norse. All the latin influence is mostly actually french, which derives from latin.

Those are the Latin words- of course you are right that French is Romance language and ultimately derives from Latin. In this normal register we have a ratio of 8:13 Latin/Romance to Germanic- so that is about 38%. If you take very formal language- academic etc then you find it rises rapidly.

The Latin utterances in Anglian parlance are evidenced- naturally your assertion that French is de facto a Romance language and derives ultimately from Latin is correct. In this normal register we discover a ratio of approximately 38%. If you consder ultra-formal language, e.g. academic etc they you encounter a rapid increase in frequency!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg/600px-Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg

hatzel

30th March 2011, 00:55

So now we're going to turn this thread into a Latin Appreciation Society...?

Viet Minh

30th March 2011, 01:06

So now we're going to turn this thread into a Latin Appreciation Society...?

nolite te bastardes carborundorum :tongue_smilie:

Octavian

31st March 2011, 05:42

So what do we have so far as evidence of the existence of god?

mikelepore

31st March 2011, 11:19

hatzel

31st March 2011, 11:40

People as asking for evidence related to an idea that can be rejected immediately because it is self-contradictory: an all-knowing being that has made a lot of mistakes, a being that wants us to believe in its existence but it refuses to show itself, a being that is extremely compassionate but it exhibits sadistic behavior, etc. Its nonexistence is knowable from the contradictions in the idea itself.

Nobody here (except maybe the atheists) has applied any of these characteristics to any deity, as far as I remember. This 'being' doesn't 'know' anything, nor 'want' anything, nor is it 'compassionate'. Don't know where you got that crazy idea from...:confused: Or, presumably you got it from wanting to make some weak point based on your idea of the deity :lol: But, as there are no doubt plenty of religions who make no claim of their god(s) being particularly nice, how exactly do you reconcile that with your 'proof' that there is no god?

Viet Minh

31st March 2011, 15:36

There is more evidence for the existence of bigfoot than God. Discuss!

Revolution starts with U

31st March 2011, 17:39

God as unknowable is even more worthless than the God of the Bible.

mikelepore

2nd April 2011, 00:41

Nobody here (except maybe the atheists) has applied any of these characteristics to any deity, as far as I remember. This 'being' doesn't 'know' anything, nor 'want' anything, nor is it 'compassionate'. Don't know where you got that crazy idea from...:confused: Or, presumably you got it from wanting to make some weak point based on your idea of the deity :lol: But, as there are no doubt plenty of religions who make no claim of their god(s) being particularly nice, how exactly do you reconcile that with your 'proof' that there is no god?

You don't have any word at all until you give it a definition. If you remove items from the standard definition, but don't substitute anything in place of them, the sound is not a word. I could refer to a screwdriver, but I also warn you that I don't mean something that has been manufactured, and I don't mean something that you hold in your hand, and I don't mean something used to rotate a screw, then what do I mean? All that would remain would be the air blowing out of my mouth. Of course God is what the actually living population means when they say that name. If, like Einstein, you said God when you really meant a nickname for the law of physics, then you should instead say "nickname for the laws of physics."

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 01:33

You don't have any word at all until you give it a definition.

Or so said Aristotle. But as we know from Korzybski, the map is not the territory, as the word is not the thing described. Actually I just realised that general semantics pretty much negates your entire post, and, as such, there's little point in my continuing, as we're not going to find any shared ground here, are we? However, I'll take the time to address one more thing specifically:

Of course God is what the actually living population means when they say that name.See apothatic theology. The 'actually living population' is entirely incapable of ever applying accurate attributes to G-d, as you attempted to. Not least because doing so would be to apply human conceptions (which are, by nature, constrictive; see general semantics) to a non-human entity. That's anthropomorphism, we might even call it a classic pathetic fallacy. And your point, which I originally quoted, was based entirely on such pathetic fallacy and cataphatic theology, neither of which have any resonance with me...

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 02:25

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 03:29

Luckily, though, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with what is and isn't worthless, but what does and doesn't exist :) Something worthless can still exist...

ComradeMan

2nd April 2011, 10:29

....and the lesson is...

Don't argue with a rabbi about semantics of religious ideas! :laugh:

I would add- if we say there are about 4-5 billion religious people in the world of various religious groups and beliefs, I challenge anyone to find exactly two people who have exactly the same belief. Beliefs in common is not the same as saying "exactly the same". My point beling this, we have 4-5 billion definitions (ideas, beleifs about, personal convictions) of God at least and it's going to take a long time to debunk each one of them as well as its being futile to talk of a general definition.

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 16:46

and the lesson is...

Don't argue with a rabbi about semantics of religious ideas! :laugh:

Why? All he did was cop out to, "it's like, just, like, what I believe man."
I mean, if you're naive enough to believe in God, I guess you're probably naive enough to think that a good argument.....
Hey, whatever.

I would add- if we say there are about 4-5 billion religious people in the world of various religious groups and beliefs, I challenge anyone to find exactly two people who have exactly the same belief. Beliefs in common is not the same as saying "exactly the same". My point beling this, we have 4-5 billion definitions (ideas, beleifs about, personal convictions) of God at least and it's going to take a long time to debunk each one of them as well as its being futile to talk of a general definition

The more you talk about it, the more you prove just how worthless God is.

hatzel

2nd April 2011, 17:36

Why? All he did was cop out to, "it's like, just, like, what I believe man."
I mean, if you're naive enough to believe in God, I guess you're probably naive enough to think that a good argument.....

Actually, I said that mikelepore's point were a great big pathetic fallacy, made absolutely no reference to any potential deity other than the Christian deity, and was based on a hugely outdated understanding of language.

I mean, if you're naive enough to believe that the only potential god is the generally understood Christian one, and that this god is an actual person, and that the word 'god' (or screwdriver) is the same thing as the being, a god (or a screwdriver), I guess you're probably naive enough to think that's a good argument......

:laugh:

ZeroNowhere

2nd April 2011, 17:43

The 'actually living population' is entirely incapable of ever applying accurate attributes to G-d, as you attempted to. Not least because doing so would be to apply human conceptions (which are, by nature, constrictive; see general semantics) to a non-human entity.'I believe in God/Jabberwocky, whatever the hell that means.' Hegel would have loved this. God is the thing-in-itself! It's practically dishonest theological noncognitivism.

Of course, he had dealt with similar conceptions when dealing with intuitionist theories that repudiated philosophical understanding of God.

So God is worthless. Nobody can know what it is till we die. And once we die we can't come back and tell everybody. SO NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW WHAT GOD IS! I think that your mode of argumentation here is wrong. You are arguing that a human word, 'God', has a meaning which cannot be known by anybody. This doesn't mean that nobody knows what God is, however, that just means that the word 'God' has no meaning. 'God' is three letters, and does not have meaning by merit of having these three letters in it.

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 17:54

Actually, I said that mikelepore's point were a great big pathetic fallacy, made absolutely no reference to any potential deity other than the Christian deity, and was based on a hugely outdated understanding of language.

All i hear is "god isnt what that guy believes, or that guy, or that guy. or anyone." I mean, it's like, just what I, like, believe man.

I mean, if you're naive enough to believe that the only potential god is the generally understood Christian one, and that this god is an actual person, and that the word 'god' (or screwdriver) is the same thing as the being, a god (or a screwdriver), I guess you're probably naive enough to think that's a good argument......

I think, first, he is working off the popular conception of an incoherent word, which is far more important than all this pseudo-intellectualims the religious elites attempt to practice.
Second, I think he would be willing to say any conception of God is just as incoherent.
:laugh:

ComradeMan

2nd April 2011, 18:23

The more you talk about it, the more you prove just how worthless God is.

Define what you mean by worthless, unsubjectively....

Like the Rabbi said, worthelessness is not an argument against existence.

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 18:46

Define what you mean by worthless, unsubjectively....

There is no objective basis for it's existence, nor can there be. It cannot be used in the material world for anything.
Worthless.

Like the Rabbi said, worthelessness is not an argument against existence.

:rolleyes:

ComradeMan

2nd April 2011, 22:44

There is no objective basis for it's existence, nor can there be. It cannot be used in the material world for anything.
Worthless.

:rolleyes:

Something that cannot exist cannot be worthless! You're mixing terms here. By saying something is worthless you are inadvertently acknowledging its existence in a sense.

Revolution starts with U

2nd April 2011, 23:14

Something that cannot exist cannot be worthless! You're mixing terms here. By saying something is worthless you are inadvertently acknowledging its existence in a sense.

I'm no atheist. I'm not saying God does or does not exist, tho I lean towards the does not (except as a concept in people's minds). I'm saying the whole thing is nonsense and even were it to "exist" there is absolutely no material use for it.
It just makes people feel better for no reason at all.

ComradeMan

4th April 2011, 12:53

I'm no atheist. I'm not saying God does or does not exist, tho I lean towards the does not (except as a concept in people's minds). I'm saying the whole thing is nonsense and even were it to "exist" there is absolutely no material use for it.
It just makes people feel better for no reason at all.

But you say there is "no material use" and then go on to say it "makes people feel better". Contradiction there?

Revolution starts with U

4th April 2011, 17:19

That's the thought of God, not God itself.

ComradeMan

4th April 2011, 19:18

That's the thought of God, not God itself.

How do you know? :lol: Now we get into chicken-egg arguments....

mikelepore

4th April 2011, 19:26

See apothatic theology. The 'actually living population' is entirely incapable of ever applying accurate attributes to G-d, as you attempted to. Not least because doing so would be to apply human conceptions (which are, by nature, constrictive; see general semantics) to a non-human entity. That's anthropomorphism, we might even call it a classic pathetic fallacy. And your point, which I originally quoted, was based entirely on such pathetic fallacy and cataphatic theology, neither of which have any resonance with me...

It's anthropomorphism to apply human-like characteristics to something non-human. If the characteristics are not human-like, then it's not anthropomorphism. If anthropomorphism if we say that a falling apple "wants" to go toward the center or the earth (and, unfortunately, junior high school teachers often talk that way), but it's not anthropomorphism is we say an apple is accelerated by gravity.

If you don't want to be anthropomorphic about God, and try to avoid non-human terms, you will find that it doesn't help clarify anything. Instead of saying "thou shalt not commit murder because it makes God sad and angry", try saying "thou shalt not commit murder because of the programming of a cosmic hologram simulation." Although anthropomorphism has been avoided, there is no contribution of explanatory power or predictive power.

So the problems don't stem from anthropomorphism. The problems stem from resorting to undetectable agencies to explain the visible world. It doesn't matter so much whether the version of the story spells it "elohim" or "magic fairy dust" -- the problem is in the invocation of purely hypothetical and invisible agencies.

We can't see gravity or electricity either , but we can see unambiguous symptoms of them, we can see the informative deflection of the the gauges on measurement instruments. In the case of God, we detect nothing at all.

Revolution starts with U

4th April 2011, 19:56

How do you know? :lol: Now we get into chicken-egg arguments....

Well first, the egg came first. That's indisputable. The "chicken" was born to a "chicken-like" ancestor.
I've said a million times science has already answered most of these age old questions.
Second, that's kind of my point. We can't pin God down. It may exist. Either way, it's useless to even talk about it. Maybe God is just what fuels your mind. By definition, we'll never know. It is useless to the physical world.

Revolution starts with U

4th April 2011, 19:58

@Miklepore

QFT (Quoted For Truth)

Sadena Meti

13th April 2011, 14:10

Viet Minh

13th April 2011, 14:21

I was once flipping through the channels on my TV, when I stumbled on the strangest thing. It was a religious channel and there was a guy with a banana. He began talking about how the banana is such a perfect fruit, it fits well to the hand, it's easy to eat, it doesn't make a mess, and it's good for you. Therefore, there must be a god.

I will never forget this clear and reasoned argument.

It seems strange that a plant would be easily accesible and edible, surely thats contrary to the 'survival of the fittest' where logic would suggest that thistles or nettles or thorned bushes would be the only survivors, and yet grass which is the most accesible and widely eaten substance is also the most abundant.

Sadena Meti

13th April 2011, 14:25

It seems strange that a plant would be easily accesible and edible, surely thats contrary to the 'survival of the fittest' where logic would suggest that thistles or nettles or thorned bushes would be the only survivors, and yet grass which is the most accesible and widely eaten substance is also the most abundant.

With many fruits they have evolved to be very edible so that animals disperse their seeds in their feces. Ever seen a banana seed? They are tiny, and there are tons of them in each banana.

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 16:46

Exactly. Survival of the fittest, in a darwinian sense, means whatever makes you "fit" in your environment. It's not about being the toughest, it's about being succesful enough to pass on your seed.

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 16:49

It seems strange that a plant would be easily accesible and edible, surely thats contrary to the 'survival of the fittest' where logic would suggest that thistles or nettles or thorned bushes would be the only survivors, and yet grass which is the most accesible and widely eaten substance is also the most abundant.

MEGA FACE-PALM!

Sorry--- back to biology class for you....! :lol:

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 17:12

This is when you post the "double facepalm... because sometimes 1 just isn't enough" meme:lol:

Viet Minh

13th April 2011, 19:12

MEGA FACE-PALM!

Sorry--- back to biology class for you....! :lol:

What I meant was on the surface it seems like that plant wouldn't last very long, but as a whole the species is more succesful because it spreads more quickly with the aid of animals who eat and disseminate the seeds.

And anyway you're the relgious fundamentalist of the site, why are you preaching biology to me now? :tt2:

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 19:18

What I meant was on the surface it seems like that plant wouldn't last very long, but as a whole the species is more succesful because it spreads more quickly with the aid of animals who eat and disseminate the seeds.

And anyway you're the relgious fundamentalist of the site, why are you preaching biology to me now? :tt2:

If I were a religious fundamentalist, I would not be here. Religious fundamentalists hate people like the good Rabbi and myself...

Irony....

Keep studying the bananas! :tt2:

hatzel

13th April 2011, 19:21

And anyway you're the relgious fundamentalist of the site

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhyrrdD79m1qasseto1_500.jpg

:(

Che a chara

13th April 2011, 19:25

I remember watching one of them Mary-bothering-like channels a year back or so, and I also distinctively remember a reference to food, or more specifically fruit, made by a preacher, and she claimed that fruit and it's lack of fulfillment is proof of the existence of God, as when you're hungry for many a piece of fruit doesn't suffice, so you keep on going back to the cupboard or the bowl to fill yourself but when you go and pray while hungry it's supposed to give you instant satisfaction and fulfillment and you don't feel hungry anymore :lol: though i can laugh at it, i also understand that's how it is with some religious folk.

Sadena Meti

13th April 2011, 19:33

This is like the third thread I've recommended this book in, but what can I say.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He systematically goes through the "proofs" for the existence of God and takes them apart.

PDF eBook
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf

MP3 Audio Book
http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion/

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 19:37

This is like the third thread I've recommended this book in, but what can I say.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He systematically goes through the "proofs" for the existence of God and takes them apart.

:laugh:

By systematically attacking strawmen and exaggerations enough to receive criticism from the atheist camp too.

Sorry, that's probably (at least in my opinion) the worst book an atheist could ever recommend.

hatzel

13th April 2011, 19:42

Richard Dawkins

*Cough* (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-left-hostile-t132454/index.html)

Viet Minh

13th April 2011, 19:47

If I were a religious fundamentalist, I would not be here. Religious fundamentalists hate people like the good Rabbi and myself...

Irony....

Keep studying the bananas! :tt2:

I know I was being facetious. ;)
My point was to the casual observer, ie the creationists who don't understand evolution, it may appear as though this is the work of God. There was a similar debate over the evolution of the eye, where some argued it was such a perfect 'tool' it showed elements of intelligent design. However this was later disproven by showing the stages of its evolution, often in seperate species at the same time.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhyrrdD79m1qasseto1_500.jpg

:(

:confused:

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 19:50

On Dawkins.....

Just one example of this---

Here:-
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/521113-ratzinger-is-an-enemy-of-humanity

"He is an enemy of truth, promoting barefaced lies about condoms not protecting against AIDS, especially in Africa."

This comment obviously attacking the Pope.

but...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/07/catholic-church-condoms-africa

"The Catholic church is right: the condom is no cure for Aids in Africa
The countries preaching abstention and faithfulness have seen a drop in cases"

Without wishing to become an apologist for the Catholic Church in totality, however...

Oops....
:cool:

Che a chara

13th April 2011, 19:50

And what do you say when there's a famine?

Go home, it's over :crying:

Or curse Stalin or Mao

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 19:56

If every argument attacking the existence of God is a straw man... what does that say about God?

Viet Minh

13th April 2011, 20:01

hatzel

13th April 2011, 20:10

If every argument attacking the existence of God is a straw man... what does that say about God?

That there can be no argument which isn't a strawman, therefore there exist no arguments which could possibly prove or disprove His existence, therefore anybody who tries to is an immature eejit who should run along home and have a long, hard look at themselves, and ask why they are so insecure about it? Yeah, yeah, that sounds logical. I'm pretty sure we already agreed on that a few pages ago, though...

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 20:14

If every argument attacking the existence of God is a straw man... what does that say about God?

.... and this is a strawman in itself.

The point being that many found Dawkins attacks on religion, especially Christianity, rather superficial and based on cherrypicked targets and strawmen- even some atheists were not keen on his "scientific" method.

The above example was just one example of such a strawman/false argument.

Now, I don't have a problem with evolution or science and I am not a member of one of those radical fundamentalist churches in the American South- my own opinion was that Dawkins was attacking the most extreme forms of fundamentalist religion and common knowledge type stereotypes or strawman that somewhat invalidated his case against religion as a whole.

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 21:16

That there can be no argument which isn't a strawman, therefore there exist no arguments which could possibly prove or disprove His existence, therefore anybody who tries to is an immature eejit who should run along home and have a long, hard look at themselves, and ask why they are so insecure about it? Yeah, yeah, that sounds logical. I'm pretty sure we already agreed on that a few pages ago, though...
I think I agree... tho of course we probably stand on opposite sides of the issue.

.... and this is a strawman in itself.

Can you cite me one argument against the existence of God that you wuold not, nor have not, already labeled a straw man? Every argument I have ever seen brought up you label a straw man. It speaks more about the nature of God than any argument either side has made; for, or against.

The point being that many found Dawkins attacks on religion, especially Christianity, rather superficial and based on cherrypicked targets and strawmen- even some atheists were not keen on his "scientific" method.

Can you name one argument against the existence of God that doesn't rely on cherrypicked targets and straw men?

The above example was just one example of such a strawman/false argument.

That argument had nothing to do with the existence of God. But I know I'm not the first one to relate to you that if you want to see less straw men, you should start throwing out less of them yourself :thumbdown:

Now, I don't have a problem with evolution or science and I am not a member of one of those radical fundamentalist churches in the... South-
You mean Vatican City?

my own opinion was that Dawkins was attacking the most extreme forms of fundamentalist religion and common knowledge type stereotypes or strawman that somewhat invalidated his case against religion as a whole.

Spare me your appeals to authority. If God only exists in the minds of those who believe in it, St. Aquinas' arguments have as much validity as Joe the Plumber's.

ComradeMan

13th April 2011, 22:47

^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry- but someone recommended Dawkins and the point was made.

No, I don't mean the Vatican- they don't have a problem with evolution.

What appeals to authority?

Oops...

Try to follow the threads more.... :unsure:

Where does this bullshit idea that "no argument is not a strawman"- rendering all debate and discussion futile- come from?

Dawkins made an assertion- commonly held, and empirical evidence was presented suggesting it was false. What's the problem?

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 22:56

Sorry- but someone recommended Dawkins and the point was made.

No, I don't mean the Vatican- they don't have a problem with evolution.

The Vatican's stance on evolution is far from enlightened. Their stance is "science cannot contradict scripture. So we're understanding scripture wrong."

What appeals to authority?

Idk, one's like this:

my own opinion was that Dawkins was attacking the most extreme forms of fundamentalist religion and common knowledge type stereotypes

Where does this bullshit idea that "no argument is not a strawman"- rendering all debate and discussion futile- come from?

From you calling every argument against God's existence a straw man. Can you name one that isn't?

I argue that water does not boil at 100c ceteris paribus at sealevel on Earth.
Someone says that it doesn't-
I prove to them it does -
Strawman?

YOu may want to explain how that analogy applies to the topic at hand.

Revolution starts with U

13th April 2011, 22:58

Dawkins made an assertion- commonly held, and empirical evidence was presented suggesting it was false. What's the problem?
Yes, and Dawkins was talking about condoms and aids in that argument. Yet this thread, and Dawkins being brought up in it were on the topic of good evidence for the existence of God. Two unrelated concepts.
Do you even know what a straw man is? You engage in them all the time.

hatzel

13th April 2011, 23:35

So has anybody else realised that the whole religion section always seems to merge into one and the same (off-topic?) discussion, spread across multiple threads? :rolleyes: It's like Bud vs. Gacky in here, man alive! :laugh:

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 10:32

Yes, and Dawkins was talking about condoms and aids in that argument. Yet this thread, and Dawkins being brought up in it were on the topic of good evidence for the existence of God. Two unrelated concepts.
Do you even know what a straw man is? You engage in them all the time.

Stop having a tantrum, topics can digress in a discussion.

I went back and changed the analogy to make it fit the topic more.

El Chuncho

14th April 2011, 10:42

You cannot argue either way. There is no good evidence for the existence of god, nor for the nonexistence of god. I do believe you can disprove certain things about the Christian concept of god, but not the idea that the universe was created by some force. You have ''god'' in more religions that Christianity. Who says they do not worship they do not worship the same god(s) with human personification?

I might not believe in YHWH or Xenu or whoever, but I do think that looking for evidence that god doesn't exist is a waste of time; the same with looking for evidence that he does.

hatzel

14th April 2011, 12:00

And now we're back on the first page again, with all this 'you can't prove it either way, so stop trying'. As far as I'm concerned...if you're religious, and try to find proof of your god, then you haven't even found the god yourself. You're an uncertain theist. If you're not religious, and try to find proof that there is no god, then you're the inverse: an uncertain atheist. In both cases, you only search for proof to confirm that you're right, no doubt because you fear your entire world would collapse if it turned out you were wrong in this matter. That's not a healthy approach, and as far as I'm concerned, the OP is about as pathetic as the guy in the peanut butter video at the beginning of the thread. Both need to start trusting themselves a little more, I think...

The issue is that both of these people are not even content to themselves have the proof. The OP felt obliged to share with everybody, theist and atheist alike, that we evolved, sure as he was that this was 'proof' that there is no god. The same can be said of the peanut butter guy, who felt obliged to tell everybody. They don't even have proof, and already they're sharing their proof with everybody, forcing it down their throats! Hence I quoted Shestov on the first page, and I will repeat the exact same quote again:

When a man tries to convince others of his truth, that is to say, when he tries to make what he has discovered obligatory for all, he usually believes that he is guided by the most exalted of motives – love of neighbour, the desire to dissipate the darkness of error, etc. The theory of knowledge maintains these pretensions as well as does ethics. Both, indeed, set it down that truth is one, that it is truth for all. But the theory of knowledge and ethics, like the humanitarian wise men, does not clearly discern whence the need comes which man feels to bring it about that all should recognise one truth.

No, he who tries to lead all men to his unique truth is not thinking of his fellow man. But he does not dare, he cannot himself, accept his truth as long as he has not obtained its recognition, real or fictional, by all others. For it is less important for him to possess truth than to obtain universal recognition. That is why the theories of knowledge and ethics occupy themselves so much with limiting as much as possible the rights of questioners. Aristotle already considered all “exaggerated” curiosity the sign of a defective education. This way of dealing with objectors would appear less convincing if men were not more concerned with the general recognition of their truth than with the truth itself.

Multiple levels of insecurity here, clearly. Not only are the OP and the peanut butter guy so uncertain about their own beliefs, their gut feeling, that they seek proof, but they cannot even accept the 'proof' they find unless everybody else agrees, 'yes, you're right!' I'm going to jump right out and say that a psychiatrist could probably address these senses of self-doubt in both case. As it is, we've got somebody stepping out of their house in the middle of winter, feeling cold, but then saying 'I don't trust that feeling! I won't believe it's cold until I've seen a thermometer, to confirm that it's cold, and then I'll have to tell everybody else "hey, you, this thermometer says it's cold, it does, don't you agree, don't you agree this proves it's cold?", because otherwise I just don't trust my body, my nerves and all that, to be telling me the truth, nor will I trust how I have myself understood the thermometer, I might have misread it!' This is the argument between atheists and theists, which is based on almost the same premise. The only difference is that the guy who doesn't believe it's cold can actually consult a thermometer, get some proof, and then it's just up to people to decide whether the result given, that is, the temperature, deserves to be classified as cold or not. Those in the theist-atheist debate don't even have that. Their so-called 'proof' that it's cold is pretty much just 'it's December' or 'I saw a woman wearing a coat'...:mellow:

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 12:36

"The" Rabbi has spoken! :cool:

The way I see it is this. If an atheist simply states that he or she can only believe that for which he or she has tangible evidence or proof in the absense of that proof he or she cannot believe then so be it. Fair enough. It is not for anyone to dictate the personal/inner-beliefs of another human being. However, if, by the same token another person says that he or she does believe/have faith because of an inner-intuition, personal revelation, particular moment in their life or whatever else then it is not for them to be attacked or criticised either. In each case, as long as the person is sincere, then each person is responding to their own truth. Deus veritas est.

What irritates me about this modern atheistm, typified by the likes of Dawkins, is that it seeks to attack and disprove that which can neither be proven nor disproven in an objective fashion despite the whole argument being very subjective. The constant negative portrayal of the "monolith" of "religion", the constant ahistorical criticism, strawmen or downright falsehoods that are cherrypicked and packaged in one ballistic missile against religion all the time do little else than to entrench the equally recalcitrant, stubborn and closed-minded religious fundamentalist camps.

"Without faith I am nothing", therefore to he or she who has faith then the "object" of that faith is as real as it is unreal to he or she that has no faith. Very often I get the impression that the militant atheists' arguments against "religion" go as deep as rightwingers' arguments against communism.
:rolleyes:

El Chuncho

14th April 2011, 13:24

People can debate this issue all they want but it will just lead you around in circles. Science has no tools to prove that god doesn't exist, it cannot even make a good theory. I argue with Abrahamic fundamentalists about the nature of their god, but not about his existence. I do not believe in him, but do I have evidence to back me up? Not really.

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 18:01

And now we're back on the first page again, with all this 'you can't prove it either way, so stop trying'. As far as I'm concerned...if you're religious, and try to find proof of your god, then you haven't even found the god yourself. You're an uncertain theist. If you're not religious, and try to find proof that there is no god, then you're the inverse: an uncertain atheist. ....

WHere does this leave ignostics and agnostics?

Multiple levels of insecurity here, clearly. Not only are the OP and the peanut butter guy so uncertain about their own beliefs, their gut feeling, that they seek proof, but they cannot even accept the 'proof' they find unless everybody else agrees, 'yes, you're right!' I'm going to jump right out and say that a psychiatrist could probably address these senses of self-doubt in both case. .... Their so-called 'proof' that it's cold is pretty much just 'it's December' or 'I saw a woman wearing a coat'...:mellow:
Tho I agree with the spirit of this, and basically explains why I switched to ignosticism from outright atheism, I don't care for the implication that the atheist is denying his senses when it really seems to be the other camp :lol:
Unless of course it means that both, to the other party, are denying their senses.

The way I see it is this. If an atheist simply states that he or she can only believe that for which he or she has tangible evidence or proof in the absense of that proof he or she cannot believe then so be it. Fair enough. It is not for anyone to dictate the personal/inner-beliefs of another human being.
Once again, the spirit of the message can be lost in the details. I certainly do think we should dictate the personal beliefs of eugenicists and fascists.... provided they try to turn their beliefs into action.

What irritates me about this modern atheistm, typified by the likes of Dawkins, is that it seeks to attack and disprove that which can neither be proven nor disproven
You don't think that tarnishes the nature of God at all?

in an objective fashion despite the whole argument being very subjective. The constant negative portrayal of the "monolith" of "religion", the constant ahistorical criticism, strawmen or downright falsehoods that are cherrypicked and packaged in one ballistic missile against religion all the time do little else than to entrench the equally recalcitrant, stubborn and closed-minded religious fundamentalist camps.

That's not exactly true. The fundamentalist is entrenched by anyone who doesn't share his fundamentalist stance; that means both atheists and liberal secularists.
But once again, you can either show me one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man. Or you can stop calling them straw men. What you also can do is stop attacking their positions of the history of religion as a means of disproving their arguments against God; that's the definition of a straw man.

"Without faith I am nothing", therefore to he or she who has faith then the "object" of that faith is as real as it is unreal to he or she that has no faith. Very often I get the impression that the militant atheists' arguments against "religion" go as deep as rightwingers' arguments against communism.
:rolleyes:

Except it's based on evidence and reason, you know.. the opposite of blind faith :rolleyes:
For most people, their theistic nature is no problem. Finding your inner self is all good. But very often this is translated onto the non-believer as some sort of defect (because the vast majority of people are theists), or as an argument for the basis of morals. Your attempts to untie theism from the baggage that comes with it is disengenous at best.
The fact is it can only be a personal matter. And that is all well and good. BUt most people don't think it is, they think everyone should share their belief. So when an atheist attacks their conception of God, it is a straw man to your belief in God, because it is a personal matter. This makes any argument against God a straw man to someone... and that just makes the whole God issue meaningless.
Can you provide one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man and/or is a reasoned argument in your opinion? If you can't... how do you not see that as a problem of blind faith? I can provide you one for me, which argues for God (William Lane Craig). Tho I think the argument is wrong and based on incomprehensible and contradictory terms (like timelessnes), I think it's a good argument.

EDIT: on the topic of my "baggage that comes with it" yes, atheism can share the same baggage.

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 20:09

WHere does this leave ignostics and agnostics? .

Sitting on the fence....

You don't think that tarnishes the nature of God at all?.

No- because the issue is faith, not proof. If I have proof then what faith do I have?

But once again, you can either show me one argument against the existence of God that is not a straw man. Or you can stop calling them straw men. What you also can do is stop attacking their positions of the history of religion as a means of disproving their arguments against God; that's the definition of a straw man.

So when religious fanatics claim the Earth is only 6000 years old ( a position I do not hold by the way) they can be attacked and this can be used as an argument against religion, yet when some militant atheists etc accuse religion or religions falsely no one is allowed to point that out? Like the old flat-earth nonsense for example?

Except it's based on evidence and reason, you know.. the opposite of blind faith :rolleyes:

Blind faith would be believing something with absolutely no reason at all. However the person who may have had some kind of revelation or "eureka" kind of moment or some kind of enlightenment/inspiration does have their reasons based on their own evidence. :rolleyes:

For most people, their theistic nature is no problem. Finding your inner self is all good. But very often this is translated onto the non-believer as some sort of defect (because the vast majority of people are theists),

By exactly whom, source, evidence and stats- otherwise you are talking about your own experience, i.e. your subjective evidence- just like the believer who has had some kind of revelation. Not all religions are theistic either- Jainism for example.

or as an argument for the basis of morals. Your attempts to untie theism from the baggage that comes with it is disengenous at best.

Your jumping around arguments here. What is the scientific formula for right and wrong?

See other thread for the rest-

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 21:32

Sitting on the fence....

Do you know what an ignostic is? They think the whole debate, for or against, as nonsense. They're certainly not sitting on the fence.

No- because the issue is faith, not proof. If I have proof then what faith do I have?

And that's not a problem to you?

So when religious fanatics claim the Earth is only 6000 years old ( a position I do not hold by the way) they can be attacked and this can be used as an argument against religion, yet when some militant atheists etc accuse religion or religions falsely no one is allowed to point that out? Like the old flat-earth nonsense for example?

No, you can accuse them. What you can't do is think their fallacious arguments about the history of religion somehow disproves their arguments against the existence of God.

By exactly whom, source, evidence and stats- otherwise you are talking about your own experience, i.e. your subjective evidence- just like the believer who has had some kind of revelation. Not all religions are theistic either- Jainism for example.

Well, we're not exactly discussing a scientific topic here. I can't produce repeatable, testable phenomena to make my case. I can only talk about what I've heard. And in my mind, on this topic, Joe the Plumber's arguments hold as much weight as St. Aquinas.

Your jumping around arguments here. What is the scientific formula for right and wrong?

There is none. But many, if not most, theists think it goes something like "God creates morals." You don't? Fine. But you're in the minority.

ComradeMan

14th April 2011, 22:09

Do you know what an ignostic is? They think the whole debate, for or against, as nonsense. They're certainly not sitting on the fence. .

So in a sense they take neither side, they sit on the fence.

And that's not a problem to you? .

No.

No, you can accuse them. What you can't do is think their fallacious arguments about the history of religion somehow disproves their arguments against the existence of God. .

Why do we have to use words like "accuse" etc? So, melodramatic all over the place. Did I actually state the historical falsehoods or misrepresentations invalidate arguments against the existence of God? On the other hand perhaps the likes of Dawkins et al should not use fallacious arguments in their attacks.

Well, we're not exactly discussing a scientific topic here. I can't produce repeatable, testable phenomena to make my case. I can only talk about what I've heard. And in my mind, on this topic, Joe the Plumber's arguments hold as much weight as St. Aquinas. .

So if you had a heart problem would you go to a cardiologist or Joe the Plumber? :lol:

There is none. But many, if not most, theists think it goes something like "God creates morals." You don't? Fine. But you're in the minority.

How do you know? Have you asked them all....? :rolleyes:

Revolution starts with U

14th April 2011, 23:14

So in a sense they take neither side, they sit on the fence.

Technically they're in another yard being against both sides of the fence.

No.

To each his own I guess.

Why do we have to use words like "accuse" etc? So, melodramatic all over the place. Did I actually state the historical falsehoods or misrepresentations invalidate arguments against the existence of God? On the other hand perhaps the likes of Dawkins et al should not use fallacious arguments in their attacks.
Even if you didn't, you imply it.j Perhaps they should. But using fallacy to fight fallacy is fallacious.
What's so melodramatic about accusing someone of fallacy? :lol:

So if you had a heart problem would you go to a cardiologist or Joe the Plumber? :lol:

That's so disengenous I don't even want to respond. God is not like medicine. That's the whole point of this discussion. Unless you are now positing their in fact is an objective basis for God that would make one person more of an expert than another.....

ComradeMan

15th April 2011, 09:42

Technically they're in another yard being against both sides of the fence. .....

Who's to say there is just one fence? :lol:

Even if you didn't, you imply it.j Perhaps they should. But using fallacy to fight fallacy is fallacious.
What's so melodramatic about accusing someone of fallacy? :lol:.....

:rolleyes: melodramatic is rather the use of words like "accuse" and a general bellicose tone.

That's so disengenous I don't even want to respond.

.... or can't respond.

God is not like medicine. That's the whole point of this discussion. Unless you are now positing their in fact is an objective basis for God that would make one person more of an expert than another.....

God is not like medicine indeed but theology and medicine are both academic disciplines and in a theological debate, which I thought this was, I may be somewhat more inclinded to give precedence to a learned theologian than I would to Joe the Plumber. That is not to say that the theologian is always right or Joe the Plumber is inherently wrong- but like I said, if you had a heart problem you might prefer to listen to a cardiologist first. Furthermore, in any religious debate the writings and opinions of theologians or the learned of any religious group have an enormous influence on what is believed.

Revolution starts with U

15th April 2011, 18:03

:rolleyes: melodramatic is rather the use of words like "accuse" and a general bellicose tone.
J'accuse! :D

.... or can't respond.
Originally I was not going to respond. But I anticipated this response (which is quite trolly seeing as how immediately after I, in fact, did respond :rolleyes:)

God is not like medicine indeed but theology and medicine are both academic disciplines and in a theological debate, which I thought this was, I may be somewhat more inclinded to give precedence to a learned theologian than I would to Joe the Plumber. That is not to say that the theologian is always right or Joe the Plumber is inherently wrong- but like I said, if you had a heart problem you might prefer to listen to a cardiologist fir
Yes, but that is because the heart exists in the real world. You can study a heart and learn its function. You can't do that with God.
You can only engage in archaic mental gymnastics and language perversion, and yes, some people are better at that than others. But it's still a bunch of wankers sitting around talking about things they do not, nor can they understand.

Furthermore, in any religious debate the writings and opinions of theologians or the learned of any religious group have an enormous influence on what is believed.
ya, that's part of the problem now, id'nit (thats an appalachian way of saying isn't it, just fyi :lol:)?

Sosa

15th April 2011, 18:40

I was once flipping through the channels on my TV, when I stumbled on the strangest thing. It was a religious channel and there was a guy with a banana. He began talking about how the banana is such a perfect fruit, it fits well to the hand, it's easy to eat, it doesn't make a mess, and it's good for you. Therefore, there must be a god.

I will never forget this clear and reasoned argument.

The irony here is that the modern banana is man made in the sense it has been domesticated. It was genetically modified to look like that. Look at bananas before domestication, they aren't "hand friendly". This is a work of man not work of god

graffic

28th April 2011, 20:12

I don't see why its not unreasonable not to believe in something that you can't see or feel. Religious people might call me "thomas" from the Bible, who refused to believe jesus until he saw jesus's hands. I'm an agnostic/athiest but i'm not anti-religion like Hitchens, I actually think religious people are good people and good luck to them. From a rational point of view its obvious if you read something enough (the bible) or keep saying something enough to yourself you start to believe it. I think faith appeals to emotions and perhaps thats a good thing as humans are emotional beings and not completely scientific, objective creatures. But if there is a God i think it is something very distant that you can't have an intimate relationship with like Christians suggest. Perhaps planet earth was created without a God but then there is the wider galaxy and whatever is beyond that to consider