You can't prove that god doesn't exist

[cosmik debris]

About two or three time a month I hear that meme in this forum. So I decided it needed a separate thread all its own.

My opinion is that you can't prove that Daffy Duck doesn't exist either. That puts god and Daffy Duck at equal levels of credibility according to the initial argument.

And don't get me started on Batman!

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Daffy Duck isn't hanging my kind because his imaginary cloud being said so

Your example appears flawed. That's OK, though, because it doesn't matter that no one can prove God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Prove he does exist before you start hanging children for being gay or any of the other nasty things religionists do in the name of their Gods. And after that, prove he wants gay children hanged, loving couples torn apart, children put into foster care because their dad's gay, prove he wants everyone in another religion killed, maimed or attacked because they don't believe in him.

[Kutjara]

2. Dawkins debunks this very neatly in "The God Delusion."

His argument is close to the one you state, but uses a more probabilistic approach. He essentially says that there are many things in the world that we don't believe in, yet we can't prove they're false. The example he gives is of a teapot orbiting the Earth, halfway out to the moon. Nobody can prove it's not there, but most people would think it silly to believe. He then goes on to show that God falls well below the probability necessary for us to believe He/She/It exists.

It's a neat argument, but contains one fatal flaw: it requires a grain of basic intelligence on the part of the listener to be understood. It's therefore useless against the average fundie.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. and what a fatal flaw that be!

wonderful. I still have not gotten my copy of Delusion.

[Kutjara]

8. You'll love it. It's a very stimulating read.

None of the arguments he makes are necessarily new to the average intelligent atheist/agnostic, but he states them in such clear, refreshing and uncompromising ways, it's as if you're reading them for the first time.

[jobycom]

25. Unless it's more complex than you state, it is easily debunked.

Imagine your teapot orbiting the Earth. You can assert it is there, but you have to show some evidence that it is there for anyone to take it seriously. A blip on the radar would work. A sighting by a credible witness. A photograph with proper documentation. Without anything to indicate it is there, there is no reason to assume it is, especially since the only assertion that it is there comes in a hypothetical statement. In other words, you have no reason to believe it is there unless you can either see it or experience it in some indirect way--seeing it's shadow, for instance, or whatever.

Now, the definition of god (at least the one we are talking about) is of a being or force which created the world, the universe, and everything. Look around. You can see a world. You know there is a universe from many different inputs. So the product of this creation, if such a creation exists, is apparent and real. We see the shadow of the teapot, in other words. We see the handywork that this god thingie is alleged to have created.

In addition, we know something caused the universe to be here. Well, not exactly true, we can also speculate that the universe has just always existed, although it is very difficult for our minds to wrap around that concept (though, ironically, if we can do so, then we can also wrap our minds around the concept of a god who has just always existed). But either way, we can see the possibility, even probability, that at one time the universe did not exist, to go along with the certainty that it is here now. So, something must have created it. Whether that something be "natural" forces we can't identify yet (and if so, where did those natural forces originate, which puts you right back to looking for a primal cause), or some form of controlling entity (a creator, whether god, God, or something beyond) is still unknown, but the result is known.

Which means that we know something beyond our understanding brought the universe into existence. The argument therefore is over what this force was, not wether it exists (again, precluding the belief that the universe just always has been). Which gives us more reason to believe this force is a "being" beyond our comprehension than that there is an orbiting teapot which has no sensible indicators.

I'm just going from your description. The actual proof by Dawkins may take my objections into account. :shrug: (And I'm now officially arguing both sides in this thread. I think I'll go fix my damn car's AC--an endeavor more likely to yield satisfactory results than arguing something I don't care one way or the other about). :)

[Kutjara]

39. You're right, Dawkin's argument is more complex.

The point I paraphrased is one of the simpler ones he made, as an introduction to using probability to answer religionists who think that, because God can't be "disproved," he must exist. Dawkins makes a large number of more sophisticated arguments that, taken collectively, form the core of the book. One of those arguments is that a creator God would have to be at least as complex as His creation, which merely begs the question of what created the Creator. If it was a natural process like evolution, then God is merely another entity in the universe. He is also unnecessary, because evolution and other physical forces could have created what we see without his help.

Dawkins goes into some detail on the various conceptions of God within the Christian or pseudochristian tradition, from fully interventionist, prayer-answering God, all the way down to 'get the ball rolling at the Big Bang then retire' God. He shows why each of these conceptions fails to answer the central questions they set out to answer, and in fact raise more issues than they resolve.

There's a lot to digest in the book, all of it thought-provoking and mentally refreshing.

[mainegreen]

50. There are many good arguments against god, but the 'at least as complex' one aint one of them.

Or at least not in any form I've seen.
:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. The original analogy was from Bertrand Russell in 1952

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

I don't know how Dawkins expresses it.

In your own argument, I take issue with this:

But either way, we can see the possibility, even probability, that at one time the universe did not exist, to go along with the certainty that it is here now. So, something must have created it.

'Probability'? Where has that crept in from? How are you suddenly bringing in numbers to the likelihood of there being a beginning to the universe?

Why must something have created it? How can 'creation' happen when there is no universe? Isn't creation an event, and thus part of the universe?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

146. LOL.

I love Dawkins.

[sandnsea]

3. All cultures have a god

supreme being type structure. Going back to the stone age and fertility gods. There was worship before there was writing.

Do you have an explanation for that?

[bluerum]

5. Humans are and always have been, a-scared of the dark eom.

[Skittles]

9. scared of reality

yup

[katsy]

6. Controlling their environment.

Controlling what they couldn't explain.

Then organized religion took over to control the message to the masses (and the tithe provides job security).

JMO.

[cosmik debris]

7. Do I need one?

Does the explanation have to be that these stone age people knew more than I do? Perhaps the explanation is that they knew less than I do. How can you give credibility to their superstitions when you do not know the origin of their belief?

[sandnsea]

14. It's every culture

From the stone age to the present. Almost imprinted need to worship. Every culture has it.

Seems that is a valid place for a believer to begin from. Why is the history of humanity wrong??

[cosmik debris]

18. The question is...

Why is your explanation correct. Why do you assume that because every culture has god(s) that makes them real. It is just as valid to say that every culture has lunatics, and that explains the bizarre belief that carved stone likenesses can induce fertility. Can you consider other possible explanations or are you committed to that single explanation?

[sandnsea]

24. "Do you have an explanation for that?"

That's what I said. Certainly indicates that I'm not insistent on one answer over another. It's just something that's always been interesting to me.

[Kutjara]

21. Religious belief could have had evolutionary advantages.

It's possible that cultures that were predisposed to believe in gods were more strongly united than those that weren't. When such cultures came into conflict, the greater unity and sense of common purpose enabled them to prevail over less homogenous groups. Over the long course of human conflict, those groups that believed outcompeted those that didn't, until the non-believers were made virtually extinct.

Now we live in an era in which conflict itself is a danger to our collective survival, yet we cling to religious beliefs that serve to inflame racial and cultural tensions, emphasize differences instead of similarities and preach war against unbelievers.

Just like the human appendix, religion is an evolutionary adaptation we can now do without. Actually, it's probably more like sickle-cell anemia: useful in environments where malaria is present, deadly elsewhere.

[PassingFair]

45. Especially when they kill everyone who doesn't play along!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. not the culture in the left veggie drawer of my fridge, thank you very much.

Actually, we are flawed beings, and have this unique habit of making things up when we don't understand them. Ask any pro athlete which shoe or sock she/he puts on first before a game, and they can give you chapter and verse.

Religions came to be because our scientific knowledge was so limited ye olde daze. When science began to compete seriously and offer substantive answers, religious leaders responded by holding 1000 yr gay and fun party called the Dark Ages. That was their effort to stamp out any person daring to question the religious leaders. The Dark ages managed to set back science something awful. Even today, we still suffer from many of the problems they created.

Religion is a sad, deadly, and gruesome mistake. Once you learn enough about the multiverse, religion takes a hike. But many people hate the idea of having to use their brains, so they rely on faith, then demand that their faith has OUR ANSWERS.

[Evoman]

15. Yes.

Ignorance.


On edit: oh yeah, and each of those cultures worshipped something completely different...if that doesn't clue you in to the fact that what your worshipping is bullshit, I don't know what will.

[jobycom]

No they don't.

All cultures may have something that we assign the word "god" to, but that doesn't mean every culture has a god in the way we think of god, as some powerful divine creator. Many pagan cultures, ranging from tribal to Hindu or Buddhist, do not have a divine, all powerful, literal god, but we tend to assign our values to their culture and assume their beliefs are similar. Many cultures venerate the forces of nature without seeing a true divinity behind them.

As for pre-historic cultures, we have no way of knowing whether they believed in a god in the way we define them. We find little figurines of pregnant women or sketches on walls of the sun with rays touching the ground and we assume that they believe in a divine power. That's our own assumption, based on our attitudes, though. The figurine could be just a woman, or it could be a veneration of pregnancy and fertility itself without having any other-worldly connotations, in the way we put up a statue of Nolan Ryan to honor his virtues without proclaiming him a god.

The assumption that all cultures have a god is just not true.

[Kutjara]

23. Very true. I often use the example of Ronald McDonald.

In the distant future, long after our civilization has collapsed, archeologists will stumble across all the enormous plastic and fibreglass statues of Ronald McDonald (in close proximity to the remains of huge yellow semicircles), and think that the figure represents a globally-worshipped deity, whose temples all sported golden arches.

[sandnsea]

26. "supreme being type structure"

An almost ingrained need to worship something outside themselves. Yes, all cultures have something. I think anthropologists have done a pretty good job differentiating between spiritual figurines and play dolls.

[jobycom]

28. "something" doesn't equate to "God"

I'm not arguing anything an archaelogist or anthropologist (well, most) would disagree with, and you are right, they do differentiate between "spiritual figurines" and play dolls. But just because a figurine is a symbol of some abstract or even universality doesn't mean that the abstract or universality approaches what we call "God" nowadays. That's the point I'm arguing against the post I responded to. We may choose to call a fertility icon a "god" and some may take that to mean that the culture which produced this "god" believes in a higher reality, but even that higher reality doesn't equate to what we mean by "God" in popular parlance (apologies to the Big Lebowski). The OP is discussing the grand concept of an all-powerful god, not a simple concept of an abstract. Think of the American flag. We stand for it, we salute it, we sing and pledge to it--it has an abstract meaning beyond its physical reality. It means something bigger than us. But it isn't a god in the sense that the OP was using the word. A future anthropologist (heck, even a contemporary anthropologist) might call it a "god," but it isn't an all-powerful being in any of our minds.

So just because these fertility symbols and even altars and temples indicate an awareness and even a reverence to symbolic or metaphoric representations, they are no proof of a belief in a "god" in the sense we use the word.

To put it another way, I can prove all cultures laugh at Daffy Duck. It's simple. I go through every culture, I find something that they laugh at, and I choose to call it Daffy Duck. Voila! All cultures have a Daffy Duck. But that's only by my terms, not necessarily by theirs. That's what we do by assuming all such reverenced items are "idols" or "religious" or "gods." We make the argument fit our terms.

Not all cultures believe or believed in god in the sense that we commonly use the term now.

[sandnsea]

29. oh honestly

The lengths people will go to.

A fertility icon is something outside oneself to control circumstances in the real world.

They are found with the earliest man.

That's the point. People have an almost imprinted need to worship or believe that some "other" is involved in their life. Whatever it's called.

[trotsky]

31. Yes, most people do appear to have this "imprinted need to worship or believe"

However, having this need in no way indicates that the "other" actually exists.

You are making a logical error.

[sandnsea]

33. lol, I haven't made that conclusion

I'm asking other people to tell me what their conclusion is.

Why does an almost "imprinted need to worship or believe" exist in every culture.

It's a discussion board.

Discuss.

[trotsky]

35. The human mind is a pattern recognizing machine.

That's our evolutionary niche. We recognize patterns and can make predictions based on those patterns. That gave us our edge in hunting and gathering. Unfortunately sometimes we can be mistaken about whether a pattern really exists, or what the real reason is for a pattern. But that desire to find patterns has always been there.

[sandnsea]

66. So

Separately and electively, cultures across the ages recognized "a pattern" and independently came to the conclusion that "the pattern" was a supernatural force that required worship. They independently came to the same conclusion; but they're all, to this day, just ignorant and wrong because 10% of the population says so - and produces no scientific evidence to back up their conclusion.

[trotsky]

67. No, you're completely missing the point.

First off, you have no proof that all cultures believed A) in a "supernatural" force, or B) that it required worship. Please go ahead and list all cultures that have ever existed AND the evidence that each one believed in both A) and B) to prove me wrong. Thanks.

I'll spare you that chore because we have plenty of evidence that the conclusions many DID come to were quite a bit different - animism, polytheism, monotheism, non-theism (Buddhism). So that pretty much demolishes any argument you were trying to make about them coming to the "same" conclusion.

But hey, let's have some fun and let me ask you: What percentage of the world's population, 10,000 years ago, believed the earth was round? Any? Maybe a couple of people? Everyone up until that point probably thought the earth was flat as flat can be, huh? So were they right, and that tiny tiny minority who believed otherwise was full of it? How about the belief that the sun orbited the earth? Or that diseases were caused by demons? The skeptics were fools because everyone else came to the same conclusions?

Do you perhaps now understand the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

Aw, forget it. You win. I'm not going to be an atheist anymore because virtually every person in pre-history believed in some kind of "supernatural force" and worshiped it. What great "evidence" you have!

[sandnsea]

68. way to avoid the question

I never said the conclusion was precisely the same - I said the conclusion centered around a "supreme being type structure", "a supernatural force that required worship", belief that "some 'other' is involved in ones life". I described this spiritual connection as vaguely as I could, to be inclusive of the varying conclusions every culture has come to, be it "animism, polytheism, monotheism, non-theism (Buddhism)" or anything else anybody wants to bring up to try to avoid the topic.

So far I have been given ignorance as the reason for this occurence, with no scientific evidence. And the seeking of patterns, with no evidence as to why all this pattern seeking resulted in the same conclusion, the recognition of some sort of "other".

Before those who believed the earth was round had evidence to the contrary, they were on an equal footing with the flat earth folks. They made their case scientifically. You either do the same, or admit the whole thing is in the realm of beliefs and neither group has any more credibility than the other.

[trotsky]

104. My gosh, I know you can't be this dense.

no evidence as to why all this pattern seeking resulted in the same conclusion

I just pointed out some of the many ways this conclusion DIFFERS from culture to culture and person to person. But you keep regurgitating the same disproven points. Buddhists (not a tiny group of people), for just one example, do not believe in a "supreme being type structure." They, and many other religions do not think that anything necessarily "requires worship."

How about you go take a comparative religions course first, so you can actually LEARN what people believe before you tell them what it is they believe, then come back here and try to state whatever it is you're trying to argue in a clear, logical fashion?

[sandnsea]

106. Something beyond the self

I don't care what you call it, as I've said. All cultures have some sort of construct that directs the inner being. Some 'other', some teaching, something beyond self-reliance. You can twist and distort all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

[trotsky]

108. But I'm not distorting, I'm simply reporting facts.

Facts that disagree with you. You've simply shifted your argument again, rather than outright stating what it is you're trying to prove. Now it's a "construct that directs the inner being." No more mention of "supreme being" or "supernatural" anymore.

I think you realize that you've lost. Thanks for playing.

[sandnsea]

110. It's the same premise

You can't answer it. That's all.

[trotsky]

122. No, a vastly different premise.

You realized just how unsupported your first one was, and now you've backslid to something so generic it means nothing. Hope you had as much fun as I did.

[cosmik debris]

130. I think you may be wrong there trotsky

All the evidence indicates that he can be that dense. Possibly denser.

[PassingFair]

46. Oh honestly...

...and there's a difference between "worship" and simple superstition and
ancestor veneration.

Feeling happy at finding a "lucky penny" or 4-leaf clover is NOT the same
as WORSHIPING a GOD.

...neither is ancestor veneration, or meditation for the purposes of enlightenment.

[mudesi]

52. What are you implying?

Are you implying that because human beings, with their innate curiosity, have always endeavored to explain the environment around them that God exists?

Because that implication would be both logically fallacious and self impeding.

[sandnsea]

55. explaining their environment

Ah, okay. Now that's an explanation. They made fertility figurines and created other icons as a means of explaining/controlling the cycles of life. Why icons??

[cyborg_jim]

56. Anthropomorphisation

[sandnsea]

57. and why

When people weren't even aware of the mechanisms of reproduction, why transfer that mysterious unknown to an inanimate object.

:shrug:

[cyborg_jim]

69. Eh? You're talking about idols, they're not transfering the power to the actual object

It's what they represent that is important.

[sandnsea]

70. Yeah, a belief system

in a spiritual "other". People seeking "patterns" and they all coincidentally concoct some sort of power outside themselves?

No scientific evidence as to why this is.

[cyborg_jim]

72. Um, you are really surprised that people would concoct an OUTSIDE power?

I mean seriously? I'd be pretty surprised if people were concluding the opposite.

[mudesi]

62. Because they were ignorant

When one is ignorant of knowledge, one makes things up as a way of "explanation". They didn't know the biology of reproduction, so they "explained" it by saying some "god" must work behind the scenes.

They used to think Earth was the center of the universe, too.

They didn't know about static electricity to explain lightning.

They didn't know about plate tectonics to explain earthquakes.

Until this knowledge became known, "God did it" was an easy way to explain such events. It's all ignorance, nothing more.

[sandnsea]

64. Evidence?

Where's the scientific evidence to prove 90% humankind have all been ignorant?

[mudesi]

71. What more evidence do you need?

They thought lightning was Zeus. They were wrong.

They thought hurricanes and floods and earthquakes were God's punishment. They were wrong.

They thought the sun revolved around Earth. They were wrong.

They thought (think) homosexuality was a choice, or a sin, or the devil's doing. They were wrong.

They thought disease was caused by "bad blood", and that they could cure disease by bloodletting. They were wrong.

They thought (think) human reproduction was a "miracle", as opposed to a biological function. They were wrong.

They thought God caused the plague. They were wrong.

They thought people with schizophrenia were possessed. They were wrong.

They thought people with depression didn't have enough God in their lives. They were wrong.

They thought autistic people, people with down syndrome, people with genetic defects, people born without arms and legs, people born blind, people born deaf, people born transgendered, conjoined twins, people who get cancer, and any other hereditary function/dysfunction passed down through random genetic mutation was God's will, or God's punishment, or God's test, or the Devil's possession, or all of the above. They were wrong.


They thought (think) Jesus floated in the air after waking from the dead, that he walked on water, that he turned water into wine. They were wrong.

[cyborg_jim]

73. But, but... there were a lot of people who believed wrongly! Hah!

Being wrong is more popular than right and hence being wrong is right and being right is wrong.

[sandnsea]

74. Fair enough

They were also right about not eating pork, as it used to be a key source of trichinosis. Circumcisions did help prevent disease. We shouldn't kill each other. We should help the poor. We have a responsibility to take care of animals and the planet. They were right about a lot of things too. So what does that prove really?

[cyborg_jim]

75. It proves that the merit of the claims has nothing to do with the merit of the claimants

[sandnsea]

76. Huh? n/t

[cyborg_jim]

77. Messenger. Don't shoot him. Don't praise him either. The message is the important bit.

[sandnsea]

78. Makes no sense

If the messenger is wrong because the messenger is ignorant, then the messenger is absolutely the problem. But if there's no evidence to prove that that messenger is always ignorant, or even that the specific message surrounding the god-like belief system is 100% ignorant, then we're back to square one. The messenger, across cultures and thousands of years, created that belief system, over and over. Parts of it have proven scientifically useful, parts not. So how does that make the teensy minority atheist superior?

[cyborg_jim]

79. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day

If the messenger is wrong because the messenger is ignorant, then the messenger is absolutely the problem.

No - that is the wrong conclusion.

The message is wrong. Why is the message wrong? Because the message writer was ignorant of the right answer. The presentation of the message is irrelevant - it's just wrong.

The problem is that people often make the wrong assumption that because the ancients got some things right, and we can see why they did, that the reasons they attribute for being right are valid.

And how do we know what was right and what was wrong? Why by jove, we test it!

But if there's no evidence to prove that that messenger is always ignorant, or even that the specific message surrounding the god-like belief system is 100% ignorant, then we're back to square one.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does the fact the Egyptians built pyramids means Ra's chariot carries the sun across the sky? They certainly got some engineering right, does that make their theology valid?

The messenger, across cultures and thousands of years, created that belief system, over and over.

Humans are basically the same across cultures and thousands of years - should I expect something different? Does that make humans right in general?

Ostensibly not.

So how does that make the teensy minority atheist superior?

How is the majority theist superior?

Again, it doesn't. This is the whole point. Ideas must stand on their own irrespective of their origins.

[sandnsea]

84. And conversely

Scientists have come to erroneous conclusions, which doesn't lead one to dismiss all their conclusions. Many conclusions - like evolution, big bang, and even global warming - haven't been proven 100%, but most of us give them the consideration of the science they're based on.

Religious have their own set of incidents that they have documented as happening. The only thing anybody can really say against their set of "facts" is that they don't believe them. It's impossible to "prove" a god-like existence when the 'opposition' concludes disbelief is a valid argument.

Perhaps this god-like existence is as difficult to explain as how the earth was created. Perhaps civilizations have gotten it wrong repeatedly. But the fact that civilizations continue to have that basic belief, through the traditions of their own religions, is as compelling as scientists holding to evolution. The historic markers of "miracles" to the religious is as clear as the fossil record to an evolutionist.

I am honestly not a religious person at all. I just find the atheists sneering condescension at 90% of the world annoying, to say the least.

[cyborg_jim]

85. Science is a progression - erroneous conclusions are inevitable

Many conclusions - like evolution, big bang, and even global warming - haven't been proven 100%

Science cannot provide 100%. Ever.

Religious have their own set of incidents that they have documented as happening.

Sure, but you can probably guess the kind of weight I give them.

It's impossible to "prove" a god-like existence when the 'opposition' concludes disbelief is a valid argument.

*Sigh* This is effectively saying assertion is valid argument.

1) The sky is purple.
C) The sky is purple.

1) Up is down.
C) Up is down.

1) The moon is made of cheese.
C) The moon is made of cheese.

Valid? I didn't think so.

But the fact that civilizations continue to have that basic belief, through the traditions of their own religions, is as compelling as scientists holding to evolution.

No, it really isn't.

Again I ask: must humans be right? Is reality a democracy?

The historic markers of "miracles" to the religious is as clear as the fossil record to an evolutionist.

It really isn't. The historic markers of "miracles" are as muddy as hell - even to the religious who will argue all day long about miracles - especially if they're claimed by another faction.

The fossil record is there for all to see.

I just find the atheists sneering condescension at 90% of the world annoying, to say the least.

As opposed to the arrogant certainty of the theists sneering at everyone else who doesn't agree with their personal vision of 'truth'?

Please, pull another one.

[sandnsea]

87. The weight "you" give them

No, the historic documentation of miracles really isn't muddy as hell at all. But it doesn't matter, because "you" won't give them any weight anyway.

Can you prove love? There is certainly a documented history of loving acts, but they cannot be proven to have all occurred due to the notion of "love". Yet very few people would say love doesn't exist.

God can't be proven to the atheist because the atheist chooses not to believe. They're both belief systems, whether the atheists likes it or not.

Gotta go do the chocolate jesus bunny thing for my grandson. Bye.

[cyborg_jim]

88. OH YOUR GOD - NOT THE LOVE ARGUMENT *AGAIN*!

No, the historic documentation of miracles really isn't muddy as hell at all.

Yeah it is - but I'd love to see what you think constitutes a well formed miracle.

But it doesn't matter, because "you" won't give them any weight anyway.

Yep, that's right. I'm the closed-minded atheist. Always wanting evidence - how annoyingly inconvenient of me.

Can you prove love? There is certainly a documented history of loving acts, but they cannot be proven to have all occurred due to the notion of "love". Yet very few people would say love doesn't exist.

Love is... chemistry. It exists, it's just not as romantic as people would love to think it is. Hell, romantic love for the most part consists of wildly unrealistic expectations.

It's not that mysterious, it's not that strange; gene propagation is the name of the game.

Why doesn't anyone ask me to prove hate?

God can't be proven to the atheist because the atheist chooses not to believe.

No, god can't be proven because the theist really can't pony up the readies for his belief. Most can't even give a coherent explanation of what it is *they* believe.

How the hell can I even begin to entertain that their beliefs are right in the face of this?

They're both belief systems, whether the atheists likes it or not.

All belief systems are not equal, whether the theist likes it or not.

[sandnsea]

92. bwahaha

Love is chemistry??? Okaaay. Prove hate. Prove fear. Prove loyalty.

Do you not believe anyone has ever had a premonition of some future event? Prove it did or didn't happen.

The Catholic Church has beatified around 3,000 saints that have included documentation of "well formed miracles", 3 each. 9,000. But what good would it do to list them for you, you flat wouldn't believe any of them.

You want scientific proof to prove something unscientific, it's impossible. You believe nothing happens that can't be scientifically proven, despite the absolute proof that plenty of things happen that can't be scientifically proven. It's what you choose to believe.

At the end of it all, it's just as likely that all science does is uncover what that god-like being put here in the first place.

[More Than A Feeling]

94. All of them chemistry based.

When it comes to premonitions, how many feelings do people have that ultimately turn out to be nothing at all? We only remember the ones that we can interpret after the fact as being in some way related to something that happened later. That doesn't mean that the feelings and the event are in any way related. Or if they are its in a perfectly explainable way, such as when a person who knows they are not performing their job well has a bad feeling before going into a meeting with the boss. They might about to be fired, or not, but that bad feeling comes from past experience and awareness of future possibilities, and the uncertainty that those possibilities induce. Nothing supernatural about that.

As for miracles, how about a list of all the things once deemed to be supernatural that we later found out weren't?

Lack of knowledge is not a reason to infer a supernatural explanation. It means studying more, getting better technology, and finding an answer based on evidence, not lack thereof.

What science doesn't assume is that there was any god-like being to put anything there in the first place. That assumption is not warranted by any evidence.

[sandnsea]

97. No, not bad feelings

Premonitions, seeing actual events before they occur.

Science gets things wrong too. Remember when they thought women didn't need their ovaries and kids didn't need their tonsils? How come that doesn't mean we dismiss everything scientific??

Science uncovers the natural world. Psychology uncovers the human mind. Religion uncovers the inexplicable soul.

They can co-exist.

[cyborg_jim]

100. Again, at what point was it stated that science would be correct first time?

It's pretty much guaranteed not to be - the *PROCESS* is the important thing. It is self-correcting.

Remember when they thought women didn't need their ovaries and kids didn't need their tonsils? How come that doesn't mean we dismiss everything scientific??

Who do you think rectified these errors eh?

Answer that and stay fashionable.

Psychology uncovers the human mind.

Why have you split psychology off from science? Humans are 'the natural world'?

Religion uncovers the inexplicable soul.

What soul?

How can you uncover the inexplicable?

Meaningless.

[cyborg_jim]

95. What's so funny?

Love is chemistry??? Okaaay.

Yeah. What magic do you think it is that causes love? I would love to hear an explanation.

For the most part what I see is the action of sexual hormones - people get horny -> people find mate -> people experience sexual feelings -> people interpret that as love, in the many ways that occurs. All the rest is greeting card material and the usual human self-aggrandising that we are so great and special in everything.

Seriously - what exactly do you find so difficult to accept here?

Do you not believe anyone has ever had a premonition of some future event?

No.

Prove it did or didn't happen.

Impossible. I can only go on the recorded predictions - that are poor.

The Catholic Church has beatified around 3,000 saints that have included documentation of "well formed miracles", 3 each. 9,000. But what good would it do to list them for you, you flat wouldn't believe any of them.

I doubt a Muslim would either.

Do Muslims not believe in the existence of miracles or just the authority of the Catholic Church?

(Not to mention how, in these scientific times, the Catholic Church has been finding it harder and harder to get justifiable reasons for making saints of people - oh, like say, the rather hilariously tenuous reasons for JPII's beatification, odd that).

You want scientific proof to prove something unscientific, it's impossible.

When people claim things happen they can be tested. The problem nowadays is that when miracles get tested they evaporate. Odd that.

You believe nothing happens that can't be scientifically proven, despite the absolute proof that plenty of things happen that can't be scientifically proven.

Absolute proof? How interesting. Where would this be located then? In the Vatican?

It's what you choose to believe.

Yeah, reality.

At the end of it all, it's just as likely that all science does is uncover what that god-like being put here in the first place.

Yeah, that's what the Christians thought as well until science started contradicting god. Shame when that happens.

[sandnsea]

96. You don't believe in anything then

If you don't even believe in love. Has nothing to do with sex.

Tetraneutrons, dark energy, plenty of things happen that can't be scientifically proven. Miracles have happened. Premonitions have happened. I can't believe you don't know anybody who has had a real premonition of a very specific event. Ghost sighting. Something. We don't have the scientific explanation for every event, but it doesn't mean they aren't real.

If science uncovers the perfection the god-like like structure put here in the first place, then its science that gets it wrong and has to correct itself, not what was originally here.

Science and religion can co-exist. Neither can prove the existence or non-existence of the other.

[cyborg_jim]

98. Again, what the hell does it mean to 'believe in love'

That just sounds like a tautology.

Has nothing to do with sex.

Romantic love has nothing to do with sex? Sure...

Tetraneutrons, dark energy, plenty of things happen that can't be scientifically proven.

And these things can't be scientifically proven because...?

Miracles have happened.

Like...?

Premonitions have happened.

Like...?

I can't believe you don't know anybody who has had a real premonition of a very specific event.

And I should why?

Ghost sighting.

Can't see what ain't there.

We don't have the scientific explanation for every event, but it doesn't mean they aren't real.

Actually the point is that not having a scientific explanation for an event doesn't mean there's a free for all on explanations.

If science uncovers the perfection the god-like like structure put here in the first place, then its science that gets it wrong and has to correct itself, not what was originally here.

That does not parse at all.

Science and religion can co-exist. Neither can prove the existence or non-existence of the other.

Um, how do you 'prove' the non-existence of an idea? What a silly thing to say.

[sandnsea]

99. Enjoy your cynicism

It's obviously all you've got.

:hi:

[cyborg_jim]

101. What is cynical about honest scientific investigation?

Are you afraid of reality? Does it bother you if love isn't mystical? Does it bother you if people can't really predict the future? If there isn't really a god?

Well, enjoy your ignorance.

[sandnsea]

102. You described sex

not love. Are you saying all love is sexual?

You're denying the reality of inexplicable events that just about everybody is familiar with.

All because you're afraid to admit science has been just as unreliable as religion.

Science, religion. They can't prove the existence or non-existence of the other.

They ought to co-exist.

[cyborg_jim]

103. Most people mean eros when they think of love

It doesn't help that the term is loaded with many meanings in English.

You're denying the reality of inexplicable events that just about everybody is familiar with.

No, I'm pointing out the reality that people can be incredibly mistaken about these things.

All because you're afraid to admit science has been just as unreliable as religion.

How the hell can you say that with a straight face? Do you have *ANY* idea just how much you benefit from science on a day to day basis?

Science, religion. They can't prove the existence or non-existence of the other.

Again, what does it mean to 'prove' the existence or non-existences of an idea? That doesn't make any sense. They both 'exist'. There's no need to 'prove' religion doesn't exist for it be faulty or valid any more than it does for science.

They ought to co-exist.

What does that have to do with the validity of their claims?

Nothing.

[sandnsea]

105. Most people think of love

when they say love. The fact that you don't is telling.

Any evidence presented to support the existence of a god-like structure taught through religions - is met with disbelief justified with the excuse that religious ideas have been wrong.

Being wrong in the past is not a valid reason to disbelieve in the future. The number of times science has been wrong is actually evidence of that. Of course most of us don't dismiss what science offers our daily lives.

You've presented nothing to prove that the historic human construct of god-like belief systems is without merit. There is an historic documentation of miracles, in most if not all of these belief systems, that give credence to the existence of this god-like structure. It is as valid as the historic documentation of fossils.

You want evidence of the existence of a god-like structure - but you pre-emptively decide not to believe anything presented. You create the same impossible scenario that the religous do.

[cyborg_jim]

109. Telling of what?

Are you seriously going to pretend that the word 'love' in English is not hideously overloaded?

Any evidence presented to support the existence of a god-like structure taught through religions - is met with disbelief justified with the excuse that religious ideas have been wrong.

The ideas presented do not stand up to scrutiny - that would be the basic point yes.

Being wrong in the past is not a valid reason to disbelieve in the future.

Last time I checked religion is generally dogmatic - that means that is pretty much is valid. Wrong things stay wrong.

The number of times science has been wrong is actually evidence of that.

Again I posit that you don't get science. Science is self-correcting. It *NOT* about being correct first time - it is about removing all the errors so that what is left is closer to being correct.

The alternative system of saying what is right and then maybe it is but if it isn't just pretend it is anyway doesn't stand up so well in comparison.

You've presented nothing to prove that the historic human construct of god-like belief systems is without merit.

Not my job bub - it's those who are proposing gods that need to present the justification. Have to have something proposed before it can be argued against.

It's without merit simply because no merit has been provided. That's how it works.

There is an historic documentation of miracles, in most if not all of these belief systems, that give credence to the existence of this god-like structure.

Not when they're competing religions they don't. "His miracle was by Satan, no it was by Zeus," yeah, that gets us somewhere fast.

It is as valid as the historic documentation of fossils.

Yeah... um... no, it really isn't. History doesn't work like that. You know why? Because people can make shit up. You don't just say, "well, this ancient civilisation said that god helped them to defeat this other civilisation" and then conclude that a god actually did - especially not when everyone was claiming that win or lose.

Fossils don't tend to lie so much.

You want evidence of the existence of a god-like structure - but you pre-emptively decide not to believe anything presented.

No - what is presented makes a very weak case. It's not my fault that those who believe in gods can't pony up very compelling evidence.

[sandnsea]

111. Love is chemistry, eros

That's what you said. You pretend you don't know what it means to believe love exists; or hate, or fear or loyalty. These things exist, and you know it, yet you can't prove it. So you play games and avoid what you said, rather than deal with realities that can't be explained.

I have never presented one specific religion, rather said quite a while ago that perhaps the reason mankind has changed their religious constructs is because it is no easier to explain a god-like structure than it is to explain the beginning of the world. Why is it okay for science to get things wrong, but not okay for religion?

Merit is provided. You choose to ignore it.

Just like the flat earthers ignore the fossil record.

It's all about belief systems. Men, women, race, culture, politics. Religion. Even science changes. It doesn't turn everything upside down to allow people the possibility of some sort of external influence.

[cyborg_jim]

113. You are wrong I'm afraid

These things exist, and you know it, yet you can't prove it. So you play games and avoid what you said, rather than deal with realities that can't be explained.

*Sigh*. No it really doesn't work like that. You see we describe things as 'love', 'hate', 'loyalty' - but these things don't have fundamental existent qualities. They are abstract descriptions for qualities of the systems they operate in. So it's not really a matter of proof per se - it's ontology. Again they're ideas so it's not a matter of proving they exist so much as the ideas are relevant. Ideas clearly don't exist in the same fashion as one would say a 'rock' exists.

Either way love is NOT inexplicable - which really seems to be your contention here.

Why is it okay for science to get things wrong, but not okay for religion?

Again I don't think you get the fundamental point here - how does one determine what is wrong in religion? Religion doesn't provide any such mechanism. The reason science it is superior is because it DOES provide a way to show how something is wrong.

It is okay for science to get things wrong because the whole point about science is that when you show something is wrong you can make some progress with what is right!

How do you show things are wrong in a religious setting?

Merit is provided. You choose to ignore it.

I'm hardly ignoring it - I'm pointing out the reasons why doesn't have merit.

Just like the flat earthers ignore the fossil record.

LOL. Talk about your mixed metaphors.

It's all about belief systems. Men, women, race, culture, politics. Religion. Even science changes. It doesn't turn everything upside down to allow people the possibility of some sort of external influence.

Possibilities are irrelevant. If religions claim to have truth they should have it, not just claim it.

[sandnsea]

126. Hysterical

You've managed to convolute a simple thing like love beyond all recognition.

Science doesn't even have all truth. Why should religion be held to a different standard? Religion does have a mechanism to uncover erroneous teaching. Hate and chaos instead of love and harmony. Slavery isn't a good teaching after all. Trial and error? Yeah, just like science. The process of continual elimination, which is what you said earlier.

Science doesn't discover anything. It only uncovers what is already here. It will never uncover how it all got here, or why humans have multi-faceted layers of being that did not evolve into any other species. Including love.

[cyborg_jim]

140. Simple? Pah, maths is simple

Love is a slippery beast with ill-defined parameters.

You know when people started developing AI systems they thought it would be really easy - after all, computers are really good at maths and all that stuff we think is simple is not as hard as maths right?

Wrong.

All the stuff we think is simple is in fact really difficult. It is really difficult because we don't tend to spend our lives trying to define precise ontologies for these things. They're associative concepts with dynamic and changing meaning - and that's just what our brains are good for doing and so we just don't get that until we are forced to really try and pin the concept down.

Science doesn't even have all truth.

How is that relevant?

Why should religion be held to a different standard?

That's what religion is demanding - that it be held to a different standard.

I'm not holding it to a different standard - which is why it looks so bad in comparison.

Religion does have a mechanism to uncover erroneous teaching. Hate and chaos instead of love and harmony.

I see.

Slavery isn't a good teaching after all.

Ah, so your contention is that slavery caused widespread hate and chaos in the societies that had it!

(Let's not have historical fact get in the way of that shall we?)

Yeah, just like science. The process of continual elimination, which is what you said earlier.

So religion is in fact social science. With extra crap.

Umm... yeah, that's not helping your case at all is it? Unless you can tell us what good the extra crap is.

Science doesn't discover anything. It only uncovers what is already here.

And here I am being lectured about making the concept of love convoluted in the face of this semantic confusion.

It will never uncover how it all got here,

Will religion?

How?

or why humans have multi-faceted layers of being that did not evolve into any other species. Including love.

And what makes you so damn sure of this?

[sandnsea]

142. Have children?

Love is simple.

Religion is many things - that's why I call it an other, god-like structure. Different structures add different aspects of the human condition. Some say they have the complete truth, others don't say that at all. Some have a creation story, others don't. You can't say religion demands it be held to a particular standard, because the consistency is the reliance on something besides self.

Slavery has not proven to be a harmonious institution in the long run of mankind. Scientists interpret data wrong, religious interpret their data wrong. Big deal.

Hey, I'm not sure of much of anything. Nobody is. That's my entire point.

[cyborg_jim]

171. Wait a sec - what happened to all those other forms of love?

Religion is many things - that's why I call it an other, god-like structure.

Even when they have nothing to do with gods?

You can't say religion demands it be held to a particular standard,

If a religion says, "this is truth, absolute, from god, unchanging forever" then yeah, it is.

because the consistency is the reliance on something besides self.

I don't know who said it earlier but you REALLY need to actually learn something about the wide space of religious ideas before you start making incorrect generalisations.

Slavery has not proven to be a harmonious institution in the long run of mankind.

There are those who would argue that wage slavery is an example of slavery today.

Face it - slavery has enabled mankind to achieve many things because the economic benefits of cheap labour are so great.

It's not a nice reality is it? But it's reality all the same. Slavery works.

Scientists interpret data wrong, religious interpret their data wrong. Big deal.

So we've come down to equivocating religion and science to being the exact same thing.

Well done. You've successfully argued for the redundancy of religion.

Hey, I'm not sure of much of anything. Nobody is. That's my entire point.

As difficult as you may find this to believe it is actually possible for other people to be more sure of things than you. You have demonstrated a severe lack of domain knowledge in both science and religion. This is not a bad thing per se but you are arguing against people who are significantly more informed than you are.

I think it's time for you to readjust your outlook.

Men may be born equal but ideas are not.

[jgraz]

179. translation: have fun rotting in hell

The ulimate fallback position of the salvationist. If you can't win an argument through logic (which they never can), simply assert that the atheist is somehow morally inferior to the faithful.

I think this is the true evolutionary source of religion: the need to believe that I or my tribe is somehow superior to "those people" over there. It makes it sooo much easier when we decide to kill them and take their land.

[trotsky]

107. "Love" is perhaps the perfect analogy to "god."

Love exists only in the mind of the person experiencing it.

Same with god(s).

Glad we could come to an understanding here!

[sandnsea]

112. Yeah, in nearly every mind

How could humans from the beginning of time "concoct" love if it weren't real.

[cyborg_jim]

114. How could George Lucas concoct Star Wars if it weren't real?

[Zhade]

116. LOL!

Indeed, that's the level of "sophistication" the other's argument reduces to.

[sandnsea]

121. EVERYbody didn't concoct Star Wars

That's the point.

[cyborg_jim]

125. If everyone had concoted Zeus, or Yahweh or Thor you might have a point

Otherwise you're saying that because one group of people came up with Star Trek, another Star Wars, another Babylon 5, another Firefly, another Andromeda, another Galaxy Quest that there must be something to this roaming around the galaxy in spaceships malarky.

Having similar themes isn't really convincing.

[sandnsea]

127. There isn't something to roaming around the galaxy

in spaceships?? Really??? You can say that definitively can you. Hmmm.

[cyborg_jim]

128. Yes I can actually.

Since we aren't doing it.

[sandnsea]

129. Nobody's doing it?

In the entire universe?? You sure? Every sighting has a scientific explanation?

[cyborg_jim]

139. Leaving aside the fact that we're not talking about the entire universe

What does it mean for a 'sighting' not having a scientific explanation? I assume you are referring to UFOs?

I'll guess Battle Star Galatica is more your kind of universe - we're the lost tribe! It's Cylons in the sky! Everyone panic!

[sandnsea]

141. god-like structure doesn't apply to the universe??

Well, yeah, it does. You're insisting something isn't real just because it hasn't yet been scientifically proven. Again, lots of things haven't yet been scientifically proven. It doesn't mean they're false.

[cyborg_jim]

169. Is it possible for you to keep track of the specifics? Thanks.

You're insisting something isn't real just because it hasn't yet been scientifically proven.

No, I'm insisting those who are so damn certain of something SHOULD be able to scientifically prove it. Otherwise they should shut-up.

Again, lots of things haven't yet been scientifically proven. It doesn't mean they're false.

That doesn't give carte blanche to people to claim they're true though. There are an INFINITE number of things that are not just not 'yet' scientifically proven but cannot be - especially those that mutually exclude each other.

One cannot give equal credence to all claims of truth when they DO NOT have equal merit.

[Zhade]

131. Another excellent riposte.

NT!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

152. Exactly. People make shit up ALL THE TIME.

I write. When I write, I--gasp--make shit up. I invent things tat don't exist. Rooted in reality, perhaps, but completely nonexistent.

[cosmik debris]

155. I believe you are casting aspersions on Daffy Duck

I can understand bad-mouthing Batman, but Daffy is sacred. :)

[trotsky]

120. Again, real inside the mind.

But nowhere else. Thank you for acknowledging that.

[sandnsea]

123. So love isn't real

Is that what you're saying?

[Zhade]

132. The chemical processes that create the emotion are very real!

That's pretty clear.

[trotsky]

145. Are you even bothering to read my posts?

The subject line in particular said: "...real inside the mind."

Just like god(s). Love can inspire people to do good and bad things. Gods can do that too. But there is no evidence whatsoever that either exists outside the mind.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

160. But...but...I don't want it if it's not romantic and feel-good!

Real life is gritty, nit-picky, inglamorous, frequently boring, full of things that are done to just be done--it is not particularly glorious and romantic. Real peace and love and honor and appreciation must come from realism, not fantasy, from what is, not what we wish or hope.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

151. Love is chemical and emotional.

I do not love somebody because God is whispering in my ear that I do so.

[sandnsea]

157. Well nobody said that

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, based on two posts I've read so far.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

159. Honestly, I don't see how there are things that can't be discovered or explained in this world.

Look how far we've come in the past ten years. The past 50 years. Look how far we've come since the Romans and Greeks. Just because we do not know now is no reason that we won't know someday. Any Greek looking at society today would be utterly perplexed.

I look forward to the day when awe will come from knowledge of the understandable complexity of our world, not fear of sky-men and willful ignorance as to the provable nature of things. To me, true beauty is that which has been dismantled, put together again, and thoroughly understood, not that which has been preserved as some sort of untouchable sacred cow. That may seem disillusioning to people who enjoy magic and mystery and fantasy, and I have been as a writer one of those such people, but it's ultimately so much more fulfilling and useful for the future.

[sandnsea]

161. I didn't say that either

I said science uncovers what's already here. Who's to say when we get to the bottom of it all, we don't find God. I don't know. Honestly don't care one way or the other. Religious don't know. Scientists don't know. Atheists don't know. So what. Live and let live.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

162. I generally try that as well, to let people alone.

However, the problem is that science has the potential to know, much moreso than does religion. Religion has already tried to know. It has largely failed at doing so.

[sandnsea]

164. Oh religion has given us a lot

In terms of a moral compass, basic health, how to treat the planet, etc. Now it's being put in scientific terms. Great. The two can co-exist.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

166. I generally believe that those things, except for in a few rare cases, happened in spite of religion

not because of it. I saw the debate upthread about what religion has given us, and must agree with those who said that religion's impact has not been very positive, simply because though religion might have given the right message, it gave it for wrong, inaccurate reasons. Now that the right reasons are known, it is hard to get people to understand that religion really had no idea what it was doing--it was taking stabs in the dark and occasionally hitting something useful. It might have been acceptable in the Middle Ages, just as feudalism might have been a fairly reasonable system of social organization during that time, but it is hardly acceptable now, just as feudalism is not acceptable.

[sandnsea]

173. Your belief system

Science takes stabs in the dark too. Remember when we all at margarine instead of butter? Remember when pregnant women took Thalidomide? Remember playing with mercury?

Science has been just as wrong as religion has. It's not evidence of non-existence of a god-like structure.

All anybody has done in this thread is shown that it all boils down to what people believe. People don't believe in a god-like structure because they don't believe any of the real evidence that shows otherwise. People don't believe in evolution for the exact same reasons. Belief systems. Let people have them. Who cares.

[cyborg_jim]

177. Again, you do not seem to know how to differentiate these things

Science has been just as wrong as religion has. It's not evidence of non-existence of a god-like structure.

No it isn't.

The whole fucking point is that evidence for a god would be evidence. But there isn't any. So it's irrelevant what is right or wrong about religion.

People don't believe in a god-like structure because they don't believe any of the real evidence that shows otherwise.

THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE. You can keep saying otherwise but it doesn't make it true. You clearly do not seem to be able to grasp the difference in the quality of the claims being presented. You seemed to ignore my point about the Catholic Church earlier. I'll repeat it:

Isn't is amazing how miracles tend to evaporate when put under investigation?

Miracles require people like yourself who are naive about how things really work in this world to believe that all explanations are just as valid.

People don't believe in evolution for the exact same reasons.

No, people don't believe in evolution because of a lack of evidence - there is a FUCK LOAD - they do so because they already have some belief system that tells them they can't and constructs all sorts of lies about evolution - such as the one you are swallowing that says the evidence for god is just as good as it is for evolution.

No, it is not.

Belief systems. Let people have them. Who cares.

YOU CARE! Unless that is you WANT the Republicans in government...

[sandnsea]

178. No, They Don't

Not all miracles evaporate when investigated. Doesn't matter, because you just wouldn't believe any of them anyway. You have a belief system that tells you you can't.

Going ape shit over religion is actually what convinces the religious to go with the Republicans. That's what helps put Republicans in government. You aren't going to wipe out religion. Let them believe whatever they want. In their churches. Dogma in church. Science in school. It was that way for years and reason will return and it'll be that way again. A lot faster if we just get on with it and stop getting in this stupid pissing matches with them. That's how you get out of a dysfunctional relationship. You quit arguing with them and just go.

[cyborg_jim]

181. You keep repeating that over and over

Not all miracles evaporate when investigated. Doesn't matter, because you just wouldn't believe any of them anyway. You have a belief system that tells you you can't.

It might be more true if you keep on saying it.

Going ape shit over religion is actually what convinces the religious to go with the Republicans.

This is not 'going ape shit' - this is pointing out the facts of the matter.

That's how you get out of a dysfunctional relationship. You quit arguing with them and just go.

Very astute.

Quit arguing with Republicans - just let them go. All beliefs are equal. None are better than others.

Slavery is good.

Up is down.

Black is white.

No belief is better than another right?

[sandnsea]

183. Stay in the dysfunction

Go right into the church and sit there for the next 50 years and argue with them about their beliefs.

Sound like a good idea to you?

[cyborg_jim]

185. Well since you have been claiming that religion has been changing

To remove what doesn't work from what doesn't then actually yes; eventually god will be removed as an unnecessary component. Hell, that's already true in many cases.


You do know that the more educated a populous are about these things the less likely they are to be religious right?

[sandnsea]

188. Whenever they get so smart

they can explain every miracle and how unscientific people got quite a bit accurate in their "myths", then good on them.

[cyborg_jim]

190. Again, the point you seem to keep on missing

How do we determine the right myths from the wrong myths...?

Because once you realise that science is the one doing that differentiation then it all seems rather moot that people are claiming a god is responsible for their mythical knowledge if the mythical knowledge is unreliable.

Then one comes to the rather simple conclusion that gods had nothing to do with it in the first place - it was all people.

And I would still like a bona fida example of a miracle - like spontaneous limb regeneration. That would be totally unexplainable by science. But it's never happened. So there we go.

[sandnsea]

192. Science uncovers what is already here

Play along.

"God" said let the land lay fallow.

:shrug:

Thousands of years go by. Humans learn to write and compile information and pass it on from generation to generation. Eventually, through trial and error, and observation, and documentation, and experimentation,

man concludes...

planting the same crop it the same ground, year after year, is a really bad idea.

Man, science, uncovered a truth that was already here. Maybe the really wise Moses observed the same thing then. But he sure didn't have the science to back him up, he'd have documented the reasons for his conclusion if he had. Instead he owed it to a divine epiphany.

It was right. Some of it's right. Some of it's wrong. The wrongness of religion in the past doesn't theoretically make it any less reliable than the wrongness of science in the past. You have to admit, science got margarine spectacularly wrong.

Seems to me it's a whole lot easier to say we don't know how it all got here. But the more we uncover, the more we discover the marvels of the planet and life, the better we can take care of it all for the future. Science and religion can co-exist.

[cyborg_jim]

193. UGH

Man, science, uncovered a truth that was already here.

What has that got to do with anything?

Instead he owed it to a divine epiphany.

So what? Does that make him right about it?

The wrongness of religion in the past doesn't theoretically make it any less reliable than the wrongness of science in the past.

The Bible is fixed, so yes, it does.

You have to admit, science got margarine spectacularly wrong.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Really.

Seems to me it's a whole lot easier to say we don't know how it all got here.

Um, we don't, that's why saying a 'god' is responsible is wrong.

I'm not the one making the claims about knowing how it all got here remember? I'm the one blasting the logic of those who claim they do.

Science and religion can co-exist.

AGAIN, what precisely can religion do that science can't? When you take all the useful bits of religion that are scientifically viable why should we bother with the rest of the stuff that isn't?

Again, you are only giving an argument for science superceeding religion as an inherently superior method for derriving truth.

If you want to persuade me there's some worth to religion you need to start telling me what it is religion can do that science can't - which thus far seems to be to persuade people that reality is subjective.

[Zhade]

191. Yes, they do. There is no corroborating evidence for miracles.

Unless, of course, you can produce some.

Which you can't.

[cyborg_jim]

175. The point is sandnsea is none of the stuff that works did so because it was religious

You're not arguing for co-existence, you're arguing for science superceeding the religious ideas.

Unless, as I asked before, you can give a good reason why the rest of the religious cruft that has no particular use should be rated as highly as the stuff that has some use?

Is the theology of the Egyptians valid because they built pyramids or not?

[sandnsea]

182. Not the point

These were ignorant people, thousands of years ago. And yet they ordered the world around the sun. They also created a story of creation over time, most religions do. These ignorant people without the benefit of thousands of years of scientific study and documentation, probably got the basics right. Weird, huh? How'd they do that? They got letting land lay fallow right. They got circumcision right. They got things right, thousands of years ago. However they did it, I think it quite dismissive to call them ignorant.

[cyborg_jim]

184. Ugh

And yet they ordered the world around the sun.

What? The Hebrews? Solar-centric beliefs? Um... no.

They also created a story of creation over time, most religions do.

If you knew the history of beliefs you'd know they started as Babylonian myths...

These ignorant people without the benefit of thousands of years of scientific study and documentation, probably got the basics right.

The basics?

Weird, huh? How'd they do that?

Apparently they required the intervention of the divine.

Or you know, maybe, like everyone else, they did what worked and didn't do what didn't work.

They got circumcision right.

That is a contentious issue. Don't pretend otherwise. Don't turn this into a circumcision thread either - it's long enough.

I think it quite dismissive to call them ignorant.

No, it would be quite correct to call them ignorant. They were ignorant of the reasons why things work the way they do. Consequently they created a whole load of crap that is irrelevant.

Again, you simply do not get the basic points here.

[sandnsea]

187. You asked about the Egyptians

Yes they did.

Let there be light. And yes they did, whether they realized it or not.

But it's all myths, so none of it counts.

The reasons scientists got margarine wrong, now we just don't want to talk about that.

[cyborg_jim]

189. I can't even begin to make sense of the first part

But it's all myths, so none of it counts.

Again, the fundamental point that you seem to be missing:

How are we determining the wrong myths from the right myths...?

The reasons scientists got margarine wrong, now we just don't want to talk about that.

Sure. Let's talk about it. Getting it wrong is not a sin. Getting it wrong, pretending it's right anyway - that's the problem.

[sandnsea]

194. Humans

Be it humans organizing a religion around the sun, or humans theorizing orbiting around the sun, it is all an attempt to explain the world around us and humans' place in that world. The very fundamental root of it, we don't know. But it's the same a billion years ago as it is today. We won't "discover" it, whatever it is, if we ever figure out. We will only uncover what is alredy here. We just don't know it yet. So how did ignorant people, thousands of years ago, manage to know things that we've only "discovered" in the last 100 years.

You don't even think about it, because it's all a myth, so it doesn't count.

[cyborg_jim]

195. Egyptian mythology didn't organise around the sun

Jeeze, do you know anything beyond the superficial knowledge you appear to have of Juedo-Christianity?

The very fundamental root of it, we don't know

We know the Earth orbits the sun - so claiming otherwise is just plain wrong.

We won't "discover" it, whatever it is, if we ever figure out. We will only uncover what is alredy here.

That. Is. A. Discovery.

UGH.

So how did ignorant people, thousands of years ago, manage to know things that we've only "discovered" in the last 100 years.

UGH! How can you confuse things so spectacularly?

Clearly we didn't "discover" these things in the last 100 years did we? Silly, silly, silly.

The difference would be that, since the scientific method took off, we now have coherent, predictive, and mathematical descriptions that explain the phenomena responsible for the results. That we be, we know why eating pork can be bad - the fact that it can be bad doesn't require much effort beyond suffering ill effects. (But conversely it's also insane overkill for a god to ban it outright when proper food preparation is adequate - and for people to believe the ill effects were because of a gods displeasure of the food choices people made).

You don't even think about it, because it's all a myth, so it doesn't count.

Don't talk to me about myths not counting until you know a few.

Knowing people knew stuff without the scientific method to help them, whilst cool, doesn't indicate anything beyond the fact that people can figure this stuff out eventually by trial and error. It sure as hell doesn't mean Yahweh was telling Moses the dinner menu or Prometheus stole fire from the gods.

The explanations are wrong. Pure and simple.

[sandnsea]

196. ???

http://www.touregypt.net/aten.htm

You don't want to focus on results. Getting the result right, without the benefit of science, is part of what makes thousands of years of myths and religion compelling.

Talking about pork and agriculture doesn't mean I think the Judeo-Christian religion is centered around pork and agriculture.

Humans made mistakes in lots of areas. Approving of ownership of other humans, for instance. Many native cultures made that mistake, not just the US culture. Religion didn't make it right, religion is responsible, in this country, for correcting that wrong. There's nothing scientific about it. Scientifically, no reason not to own each other, the way we own dogs and land. Yet it's one of the most wrong things that there is. Religion corrected itself. Humans made that happen, just like humans make scientific corrections.

Which still doesn't explain the things gotten right thousands of years ago, without the benefit of even a scientific method. Crop rotation is a fairly recent implementation. Why it works is knowledge gained even more recently. The facts were always there, it was the uncovering of what has always been a reality. That's why people let the land lay fallow every 7 years.

[cyborg_jim]

197. FFS

You don't want to focus on results. Getting the result right, without the benefit of science, is part of what makes thousands of years of myths and religion compelling.

NO IT ISN'T! The point is that the myths and religion ADD NOTHING to the results. The results speak entirely for themselves.

And the fact that there are as many, if not more, useless results with the useful results speaks volumes.

Talking about pork and agriculture doesn't mean I think the Judeo-Christian religion is centered around pork and agriculture.

Did I imply otherwise?

Humans made mistakes in lots of areas. Approving of ownership of other humans, for instance.

I don't see that as a mistake. It is a choice. It has benefits and downsides.

Religion didn't make it right, religion is responsible, in this country, for correcting that wrong.

Not really, religion was irrelevant since there were religious on both sides of the debate.

Religion corrected itself. Humans made that happen, just like humans make scientific corrections.

So again - when we take all the scientifically valid stuff from religion why do we need religion any more?

It's been superceeded. It is outmoded. What does it do science cannot?

Which still doesn't explain the things gotten right thousands of years ago, without the benefit of even a scientific method.

Try X.

X works.

Do X.

Meh?

Crop rotation is a fairly recent implementation.

It is? Where? Crop rotation has been going on in many places for many, many years.

Why it works is knowledge gained even more recently.

Provided by... science!

So again, I must ask, because you aren't answering:

JUST WHAT DOES RELIGION ACTUALLY DO?

[sandnsea]

198. Explains the world around us

And has managed to sometimes get it right, without the benefit of science and not always trial and error either.

They practiced crop rotation for centuries, many for religious purposes. They got it right without knowing why.

George Washington Carver revolutionized crop rotation in the late 1800's. That's recent years, historically. At least to me. The science has developed further, since then.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm.htm#rotation

Columbus didn't "discover" America. He uncovered what was already here. Science doesn't create anything, doesn't "discover" anything that didn't previously exist. It's all here. Somehow, thousands of years ago, humans managed to explain some of this existence through religion alone. Since then, science has explained even more. But it is possible that some "other" exists that holds this all together. Or not.

Doesn't matter to me. It can all co-exist.

[cyborg_jim]

202. You don't seem to get that religions don't pop up overnight do you?

They practiced crop rotation for centuries, many for religious purposes. They got it right without knowing why

Yes, so given that they didn't know why it worked why do you put so much stock in the explanations they thought up? Especially when they did many other things for religious purposes that are demonstratively unnecessary.

Columbus didn't "discover" America. He uncovered what was already here.

Being silly with semantics is your favourite game it would seem.

Somehow, thousands of years ago, humans managed to explain some of this existence through religion alone.

...producing mostly flawed explanations. So what?

I still don't see what religion actually does.

Science has a clearly defined methodology. Religion is just a collection of collected cultural guesswork - there's no structure to it.

What is the religious modus operandi? When one wants to gain knowledge using the religious method what does one do? Wait for divine inspiration?

It's pretty clear just how reliable that is. So why do you persist in insisting that religion actually 'does' something when it is pretty clear that just isn't analogous to science in that fashion?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

150. Only fundamentalists seriously use the term "evolutionist."

*scratches head in thought*

[sandnsea]

154. As opposed to a "religious"

You've scratched all the gray matter out, deducing things that aren't there. :eyes:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

158. I don't call people "that religious" or "you religious."

Talk about gray matter.

[sandnsea]

163. I didn't either

The "religious". As a group. Like evolutionists, as a group. Or scientists. Religists or religionists aren't words. They're the religious.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

165. "Evolutionist" is a fundie hot-button word used to suggest that evolution is a "cult."

Such people can only understand the world in their fearful, mythological ways, so they must misrepresent science as being taken on faith like religion, when in fact the two are very different and science has nothing to do with faith or how hard you "believe" something. I generally become suspicious of people who use "evolutionist" for that reason, as those who do are usually those people who do not accept evolution as the perfectly valid theory it is.

[sandnsea]

170. Oh bullshit, it's the English fucking language

Give it up. Anybody on DU who knows me knows the idiocy of what you're saying.

[cyborg_jim]

172. No, sorry, you're wrong

It's a term created by creationists to allow them to equivocate evolution with a belief system, rather than as science.

When was the last time you heard about a gravitationist? Fucking ridiculous ain't it? Yet you've swallowed the bullshit hook, line and sinker because, as you have adequately demonstrated on this thread, you simply do not understand why some ideas are better than others.

[sandnsea]

174. creation - ist

You just used "ist" yourself. Oh My Chocolate Bunny!!!

Oooh, the scary "ist" suffix.

:eyes:

[cyborg_jim]

180. Your point?

[mudesi]

80. None of those things are "right"

There were not right about not eating pork. Trichinosis is caused by eating meat infected with the larvae of a species of roundworm. (source). It was ignorance of that fact that made them come to the conclusion to not eat pork.

Circumcisions do not help prevent disease. Viruses and bacteria cause disease. It was ignorance of that fact that made them circumcise their children.

As for not killing one another, helping the poor, and taking care of animals and the planet, what do any of these things have to do with ignorance of facts? And if you're implying that religious people, or belief in a God, or that religion in general has made those things self evident, then I have a bridge to sell you; considering the millions of people being killed and robbed, and mother Earth being stripped of her natural resources on a daily basis all in God's name.

[sandnsea]

91. Wrong

Trichinosis was more prevalent in pork due to a pig's feeding habits. Fact. Studies on circumcision continue to prove they help prevent disease. Fact. We have additional methods of preventing disease, but it doesn't negate the original warnings "handed down by god".

People break the scientific law every single day. That they break any perceived religious law isn't evidence that there's anything inherently wrong in the religious law. Why do we believe killing each other is wrong, if we're all the same as animals? They do kill each other, over the female of the species for the most part. They don't have any remose over it. Why do we?

Theists and atheists have a different belief system. Neither one can prove they are right and the other is wrong. It is all what one chooses to believe.

[Zhade]

117. Wrong. I cannot believe in these unproven gods, even when I tried very very hard.

Not a choice, anymore than my being queer is a "choice".

Also, not a belief in no gods. A lack of belief in the purported, unproven ones.

Burden of proof's on you believers, not those of us who don't buy into it.

[sandnsea]

124. You dismiss any evidence

So it can't be proven to you anyway.

[Zhade]

133. Um, no I don't. My, have you been stalking me?

Do you know my entire life history? No?

My mind? No?

Then how can you possibly claim with a straight face what I do and don't do?

You can't. You're wrong. I know my mind, you don't. Deal with it.

[mudesi]

138. They were NOT handed down by God

>>Trichinosis was more prevalent in pork due to a pig's feeding habits. Fact. Studies on circumcision continue to prove they help prevent disease. Fact. We have additional methods of preventing disease, but it doesn't negate the original warnings "handed down by god".<<

This is the entire point I've been making consistently. The original warnings were the result of ignorance, not God. Early humans observed that eating raw pork caused illness and deduced that they shouldn't eat raw pork, but they were unable to explain why raw pork caused illness and thus, through ignorance, explained it away as "God warning them".

Repeat it over and over: Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.

[WhollyHeretic]

143. Good point

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[sandnsea]

144. Were you there??

Moses sure seemed to think they were handed down by God. Perhaps they observed this and concocted the dogma, perhaps not. Perhaps Moses was just a really wise man that documented a large number of observations and chose to call them laws from God. Perhaps he really did receive them from a spirtual trance-like state. You can't prove it one way or the other. You've only got what you believe to be true. A belief system. Regardless, these were religious practices that were good for the time. I'm sure these practices saved a lot of lives. So however these people got them, it was a good idea. Not ignorant at all.

[mudesi]

153. Nope

>>Perhaps he really did receive them from a spirtual trance-like state<<

If you believe that, then you don't really want to acknowledge the result of hundreds of years of scientific observation, deduction, and conclusion.

I don't believe he didn't have a spiritual trance-like state, I know it, because I'm not ignorant of the fact that humans are not capable of such a thing. It's the same reason I know Jesus did not rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. They didn't have rocketry back then, and the probability that he spontaneously resuscitated is next to zero.

Jesus also didn't walk on water, because such a thing is physically impossible. This is a result of hundreds (even thousands) of years of scientific knowledge about gravity. I didn't have to "be there" in order to prove that it didn't happen.

While it may be true that religious practices were good for the time, and that they may have saved many lives, they were still based wholly and completely on ignorance.

[sandnsea]

156. Oddly enough

I can believe in the hundreds of years of scientific observation, deduction and conclusion - and in spiritual trance-like states as well. They might even be a state brought on by the brain itself, like the unknowns about love. Maybe someone has an enormous amount of scientific observation, but can't get to the conclusion in their normal state of mind. Maybe something extra-ordinary happens in a small group of the population, like higher IQs for instance, where all this observation explodes into a flash-trance like "epiphany". Hell I don't know. I know beyond all doubt they happen though. Maybe not to Moses or Jesus. But they happen. I also know beyond all doubt end-of-life going to the light scenarios happen too. Maybe it's the same sort of thing, in different situations. Maybe we all have an eternal electrical component to our DNA. We don't know everything yet.

[Odin2005]

59. People anthropomorphized nature out of ignorance

Next lame pro-theism argument?

[mudesi]

63. Yes. What you said. (nm)

[sandnsea]

65. See #64

Scientific evidence please.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

147. "People can be stupid" sounds like a good place to start.

No, seriously. If you can't figure out why that big orb in the sky goes away for twelve hours at a time, you're going to start making up reasons why, on a level you can understand. (Level you can understand = there must be somebody like me, only stronger, pulling the sun across the sky in a chariot.)

[jobycom]

10. Of course Daffy Duck exists.

Daffy Duck exists as a fictional creation. I can prove it--I can pull out a comic book. I can also prove that he is fictional, and not an actual being, by tracking down his creator or someone who witnessed his creation.

The problem with trying to prove whether god exists is that the word existence isn't defined. If there is a god, and this god created everything that we know of, everything that we can know of, then that god created what we know of as existence. So what does the question even mean? We can't prove something outside of our very system of sensing and knowing something.

It's a question of faith. You either believe he exists (whether you've thought through exactly what that means or not), or that he doesn't, or that you just can't know. My believe is that there is no god, other than a metaphor for questions we can't answer. But that's what I believe. I would be a fool to claim I could prove my belief to anyone other than myself.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. so about that rock thingie. can an all powerful gawd have enough power

to make a rock that even he/she/it cannot lift? And if not, then doesn't that make the gawd limited in his/her/its powers?

yes, an old, simple question, but a serious question nevertheless.

[More Than A Feeling]

16. Actually the answer is yes, surprisingly. I came up with this one when I was a Christian

The scenario goes like this: suppose a person is walking down a narrow canyon, with walls too hard to climb, and she comes to a fork, with two passages in front of her. She wants to go down the right passage. Now, God wants her to go down the left passage, so he creates a rock and places it in the right passage. It is so heavy she cannot lift it, and so she goes left. God could lift it if he wanted to, but then she would do something he didn't want her to.

Voila, God has created a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it! :silly:

[jobycom]

17. It's a diversionary tactic, not a question.

However a person chooses to answer it is simply a diversion from the real question. The correct answer would be that if god exists and is all powerful, we cannot understand all the rules and how they would apply. We can play linguistic games to create traps, but that hardly proves that the traps would mean anything to a god.

Use the parent/child analogy if you want. A child does not understand why a parent tells her something, but that doesn't mean the parent doesn't understand.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. no offense, but god was created in the mind of man. not the other way. nt

[jobycom]

20. And once you prove that, post it here, since the post is about proof, not assertions. nt

[cosmik debris]

22. You reversed the question

Can you prove that Daffy Duck does NOT exist? Especially to someone who takes it on faith that he does exist? Do you have any proof that will overcome faith?

[jobycom]

27. Not at all.

I demonstrated that "existence" is a relative term, that was my only point with DD. He exists, just not in the way you meant, just as the question of god's existence uses a different meaning of "exists" than that of Daffy Duck's existence.

[cosmik debris]

47. Only in the R/T forum

does the word "existence" make for a semantic argument. Oh well.

[Evoman]

54. ..............

:crazy:

[More Than A Feeling]

12. Indeed, precisely the opposite of the way it works for everything else

There are so many wondrous and strange things people might believe if only we didn't rely on evidence. We don't believe those things though, except when it comes to gods. Even the things that are normally compared to gods, like love. If I claimed that Nicole Kidman loved me, but I'm never seen with her, I have no letters from her, and she has a restraining order from that time I tried to...wait, what were we talking about? The point is that noone would believe me, and they'd be right to do so. Same lack of evidence, different social result.

[papau]

30. Evidence of what is needed to believe in God? - and why is it needed? - Do you define away

a metaphysical God by saying you refuse to accept metaphysics - or to even discuss the topic other than to say there is no "evidence" - without defining the evidence you would need.

Over and over personal experience and faith are spoken of as the way to faith in God and some particular way of expressing that faith - but the no god crowd closes its ears and pretends that because they do not have those life experiences - no one can. What an arrogant presumptive illogical group of people.

Assertions that religious thinking is illogical or sickness - as in the "God delusion" - and attempts to drive the religious out of the public square via sarcasm and other dirt throwing, blaming actions of the mentally ill who happen to also be religious on religion will not work - especially when the dirt throwing is coming from those that are too stupid to realize that what they are mouthing are just assertions - and a joke to those of us that value logic. When assertions prove something get back to me.

For those that would make "science" your god, chew on this science fact. You can not explain creation - there is no explanation for why the big bang started, or why positive matter is not balanced by negative matter - to the point the two types of matter convert into energy - indeed into an energy that created itself from nothing if you are to be "believed".

Sorry, the no God crowd is not credible until it can be believed about creation coming out of nothing.

But faith is about belief in something you can not prove, and you are entitled to your faith in no god without my getting in your face, just as I should be able to have my faith in a god without "you" (meaning the atheist crowd) getting in my face.

But if you get my face, do not be surprised at the reaction.

[More Than A Feeling]

32. My response:

Evidence of what is needed to believe in God? - and why is it needed? - Do you define away a metaphysical God by saying you refuse to accept metaphysics - or to even discuss the topic other than to say there is no "evidence" - without defining the evidence you would need.

Evidence is needed because as I noted, there are many things that may or may not be true. An endless list of things. There has to be way to decide which actually are true, and which are not. Moreover, it has to be evidence that can be shown or demonstrated in some way to other people, so that they can examine it, and decide whether it supports the claim. As for what kind of evidence, what has been put forth so far is not convincing. It's up to the people making the claim to find other evidence if it is available. The character of the evidence depends on the characteristics of the god claim that is being made.

Over and over personal experience and faith are spoken of as the way to faith in God and some particular way of expressing that faith - but the no god crowd closes its ears and pretends that because they do not have those life experiences - no one can. What an arrogant presumptive illogical group of people.

Personal experience is easily misinterpreted, and faith is a an emotional commitment, and as such, does not have to be based on anything that actually exists, especially where people who share that commitment meet to reinforce that commitment. I should know. I used to have that commitment.

Assertions that religious thinking is illogical or sickness - as in the "God delusion" - and attempts to drive the religious out of the public square via sarcasm and other dirt throwing, blaming actions of the mentally ill who happen to also be religious on religion will not work - especially when the dirt throwing is coming from those that are too stupid to realize that what they are mouthing are just assertions - and a joke to those of us that value logic. When assertions prove something get back to me.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a god exists, and so it is their assertions that prove nothing.

For those that would make "science" your god, chew on this science fact. You can not explain creation - there is no explanation for why the big bang started, or why positive matter is not balanced by negative matter - to the point the two types of matter convert into energy - indeed into an energy that created itself from nothing if you are to be "believed".

Lack of knowledge does not justify a supernatural explanation. All sorts of things were once believed to be supernatural in origin, but now we know that they aren't. Those sorts of explanations have a lousy track record.

Sorry, the no God crowd is not credible until it can be believed about creation coming out of nothing.

See above.

But faith is about belief in something you can not prove, and you are entitled to your faith in no god without my getting in your face, just as I should be able to have my faith in a god without "you" (meaning the atheist crowd) getting in my face.

You've been told repeatedly about the claim that atheism is a belief in no god. Religious ideas are not exempt from challenge in the marketplace of ideas. Either they will be supported with evidence, or they will fall before more credible ideas. That's how it works in a free, democratic society.

I have no idea what you mean by "getting in your face." You'll have to explain further.

But if you get my face, do not be surprised at the reaction.

Have you considered not investing your identity in ideas so vulnerable to challenge?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

40. Response II:

no my dear, the burden of proof that God does not exist & your explanation for creation is on you. The only ideas more vulnerable to challenge than my own are your ideas that need not think but can assert and claim no need to prove.

Atheists are afraid of the challenge in the marketplace of ideas - as proven by their running away from their inability to explain creation. They want evidence, but can supplr none of their own for the non-existence of God - a problem that solve by saying they do not have to supply evidence - they are special I guess.

First, I don't have to explain "creation", since I do not claim that the universe was "created". Second, consider how many claims I could make, that you would have to believe if you had the burden of proving that they weren't true. It isn't just in the area of religion. In many areas of the law, the burden of persuasion is upon the person making the claim *caution: I am not a lawyer.*

The atheist crowd has so invested their identify - indeed their self esteem as they seem to need to get in folks faces and scream look how smart I am and you are not - you're emotional - that lose it when it is pointed that that they are but another faith believing in that which can not be proved. I do find it a weak ploy - indeed an admission of failure - for the atheists crowd to demand that logic not be applied to them and that no one say they are people of faith in the unprovable,

See previous responses about this claim.

If lack of knowledge does not justify a supernatural explanation, an equal lack of knowledge does not justify putting down those that believe in God - or do you have special rules just for atheist logic. Lack of knowledge could justify an agnostic view - but it certainly does not justify atheist certainty or atheist put downs of the religious.\

Like I said, when identity gets entangled with ideas about the supernatural, people tend to take more offense than they would have to if they treated them merely as ideas, to be believed as far as the evidence warrants.

As to "The burden of proof is on those who claim that a god exists" - BULLSHIT IT IS. If the athiests claims not agnostic lack of knowledge, but instead claims the right to assert the religious are - insert anything here - then the athiest must prove their claim.

See above. Also, lack of knowledge implies lack of belief, unless you are willing to believe anything that you want, regardless of whether it reflects the way things are.

Personal experience is easily misinterpreted because you know the correct interpretation - what arrogance, and indeed what little insight into what little you really do know. Faith is indeed an emotional commitment - to the all those of faith - including the atheist.

I know enough to know that strong emotional experiences, tight-knit communities, and good deeds say a lot for our potential as human beings, but nothing about them suggests that they require the existence of the supernatural to exist.

See previous responses about your claim that atheists have faith.

When you are ready to describe the scientific experiment that proves your point - as in your "Evidence is needed because as I noted, there are many things that may or may not be true. An endless list of things. There has to be way to decide which actually are true, and which are not. Moreover, it has to be evidence that can be shown or demonstrated in some way to other people, so that they can examine it, and decide whether it supports the claim. As for what kind of evidence, what has been put forth so far is not convincing. It's up to the people making the claim to find other evidence if it is available. The character of the evidence depends on the characteristics of the god claim that is being made." - - let me know.

Interesting. You are skeptical about that, and yet I don't see that you are willing to be as skeptical about claims for god. Also, I'm not sure which point of mine in that chunk of text you are asking me to prove via scientific experiment. There are lots of points in there, please be more specific.

Frankly you can't prove or disprove a thing about God - and neither can I. But you do seem to need to act like you have that superior knowledge that as mentioned above - allows you to not have a misinterpreted Personal experience.

You could prove it, if you had some evidence. If that evidence was convincing, then I would believe it. Heck, if there was evidence, then I could prove it, despite not believing in any gods prior to acquiring said evidence. That's the thing about convincing evidence. It doesn't depend on what beliefs you had prior to acquiring it.

Since there is no evidence that either of us knows of, you can't prove it to me. I as previously noted, won't believe in the absence of evidence. That's all my "superior knowledge" consists of-refusal to believe without evidence.

Edited to change "Extreme skepticism" to "You are skeptical about that"

[Cronus Protagonist]

82. Pearls before swine, my friend

There's no proof the person you're writing to has the intellect to understand your arguments, therefore I doubt their value is being realized as you must have hoped.

[Zhade]

115. The person is not even honest - been caught plagiarizing TWICE on these boards.

NT!

[opiate69]

119. Damn, Zhade... I had almost forgot about that.. thanks for the reminder!

[PassingFair]

48. About this alleged "superior knowledge"....

Religions make the claims, atheists do not.

[Cronus Protagonist]

81. This post would be better if it were comprehensible

I tried mentally adding a few commas and missing words but still, I don't think I got the point, if there is one.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opiate69]

34. Funny you of all people should call anyone else arrogant..

For those that would make "science" your god, chew on this science fact. You can not explain creation - there is no explanation for why the big bang started, (snipped scientifically inaccurate nonsensical rambling).

Right..we can not explain why the big bang started.. however, only the intellectually lazy/impaired make the leap from that to "God did it... and not just any god, but my god"

Sorry, the no God crowd is not credible until it can be believed about creation coming out of nothing.

Sorry, the God crowd is not credible until it can believed about God coming out of nothing.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[opiate69]

38. Is English your primary tongue??

[Cronus Protagonist]

83. Thanks for that, I wish I had it earlier :P

Made me laugh anyway :)

[opiate69]

90. Hehe.. I'm here to serve.. (I've been looking for a use for that around here for years now)

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. 'the "but only God could create God" idea that is not in any religious thinking'

Perhaps that's the big problem with religious thinking, then. It demands one thing has to have been created, but not another.

[Zhade]

135. Yep. We usually call that a double-standard.

Somehow, religionists are blind to it.

[cosmik debris]

49. Do you get dizzy from such circular arguments?

We reject metaphysics as proof of metaphysics?????

Faith is the way to faith???

That certainly makes me dizzy.

And your idea that personal emotional experience is equal to universal truth is mind bogglingly ridiculous.

But best of all, you restated the absurd argument that I made in the OP.

"You can not explain creation..."

And you pretend that one statement gives equal credibility to your explanation of creation. And as I pointed out in the OP, that credibility is the same for Daffy Duck as it is for your speculation. You lower your own credibility when you place yourself in the same category as Daffy Duck.

[westerebus]

61. Daffy Duck is trademarked to the

Walt Disney company. So Daffy in some form holds a place among other trademarked objects, processes, inventions and what ever else meets the criteria for a trademark. God as far as I know does not have a trademark. So god is at a disadvantage, score one to Daffy.
Daffy also has a following though no one preaching on morals in his name, score two for Daffy. Daffy's followers did not vote in mass for the present resident in the whitehouse, score three for Daffy. Daffy has neither confirmed or denied the existence of god as far as I know, score four for Daffy.
So why do you hate Daffy? Its obvious duck envy,you can admit it,he's a pretty forgiving duck at least as far as I know.

:+ :silly:

[Evoman]

53. Lol..begging the question much.

"For those that would make "science" your god, chew on this science fact. You can not explain creation - there is no explanation for why the big bang started, or why positive matter is not balanced by negative matter"

I can not explain creation because there is no creation.

[Odin2005]

60. Subjective "religious experiences" cannot be tested by others.

They are thus irrelevant.

[Zhade]

118. Heck, they might even be convenient lies for the sake of winning an argument.

Of course, there's no way to know (which I'm sure we agree is the same problem with their assertive unsupported arguments).

Only among some weak-minded fearful-of-reality believers* would not automatically accepting something without evidence be considered a bad thing. I wonder, did they fall for the debunked-in-real-time WMD lies, too?

(*You better 'believe' I said it - if the mods are going to ignore broadside attacks on all atheists, fuck it, I'll call out the dumbass theists on this thread, which are thankfully a tiny minority among their non-insane fellow believers.)

[WritingIsMyReligion]

149. Stop being so damned logical.

:P

[WritingIsMyReligion]

148. I don't mind faith. I do mind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

We get farther away from being able to rationally believe in god every day. 3,000 years ago the Greeks were beginning to wallow in Apollo pulling the sun across the sky in a chariot, and thunder and lightning being Zeus's rage. We know beyond a doubt that they were absolutely, completely wrong; no reasonable person could seriously believe in that any longer. As I see it, the more we know, the more we realize how silly the entire concept of divinity is, and how much such a hoax has been used to royally screw up the world.

[Unvanguard]

41. The existence of Daffy Duck, or Batman, or God

would be absurd enough that we can legitimately judge that they do not exist.

For the same reason, we would not believe, or even grant much serious consideration to, a person who told us that he or she were God.

It makes sense to be agnostic about, say, whether a coin, when flipped, will end up heads or tails - both possibilities are plausible, and neither can be proven wrong (with ordinary levels of knowledge, anyway). But God is a less innocuous notion.

Of course, mere absurdity without outright disproof still leaves room for radical faith.

[jgraz]

42. The ironic part is that it's actually not that hard to prove god doesn't exist

as long as you use the common, accepted definition of the word "prove". Here's something I posted on the atheist forum a few months ago. I never flame-proofed it for this forum, but it certainly applies to this conversation:

Why do we keep saying "there's no evidence of God"...

...when, by any objective definition, there is strong evidence (one might even say "proof") that there is no god?

The universe behaves in certain ways, and science has verified this. For one thing, it is conservative. The physical laws that apply in one part of the universe apply in all other parts. There is no place, time or special state where physical laws of science break down or change in any fundamental way.

The universe is persistent. Things that are in a particular state tend to stay that way. It is a scientific fact that the sun is still shining, even though I cannot see it at the moment. The earth will not suddenly stop being round, and Nevada will certainly border California next year.

The universe is also observable. Every advance in science, whether large or small, has been driven by and based on observation. There has never, in the history of our existence, been any progress or discovery based on that which cannot be observed in some way.

Finally, the universe is regular. We can apply mathematical and logical rigor to our observations and make predictions. When our math or logic is correct, the predictions are correct. When our deductions are incorrect, the predictions are also incorrect. It is impossible to make incorrect predictions with correct math or logic, and any "correct" predictions based on incorrect math or logic have always been shown to be local anomalies that do not stand up to further investigations.

We know all these things. They have been proven to us over and over again. It is how we can deduce the workings of a doorknob or a light switch, as well as how we know that China exists even though we may not be there right now. None of these things are open to doubt or debate. This is simply how our world works.

And yet, we have a large part of our population that denies this reality on a daily basis. They posit the existence of one or more invisible beings who are exempt from the laws of physics, even the laws of math and logic. They recite as truth stories in which basic properties of matter and energy change in fundamental ways -- where established facts (yes, facts) of physics, chemistry and biology are starkly violated.

This is not simply belief in things for which there is no evidence. We ALL believe in such things. I believe that the Green Bay Packers will win another Superbowl. I believe my pets love me. And I believe that someday, someday, I will be able to wear that pair of jeans that has been in the back of my closet for five years. I cannot provide any evidence of these things, and you cannot prove me wrong (though you would have a fairly good case on the jeans thing). But at least we live in a world where football teams, dogs, parrots and people in better shape than I exist.

But GOD?? An all-powerful, all-knowing entity who created the entire universe through sheer force of will? Someone who can hear our thoughts, affect our reality and grant us eternal life after our material bodies have died? If we have even a basic understanding of the universe in which we live, it is simply not enough to say that we see no evidence of such a being. We see proof, every day, that our world does not behave in a way that would allow for God to exist. It is just not possible for a person or object to transcend universal physical laws. It is almost meaningless to suggest it.

So I propose that we atheists set aside our "no evidence" talking points. There IS evidence -- mountains of evidence -- and all of it proves that God cannot possibly exist. We can demonstrate this, undeniably, as easily as we can show that our sun does not have a chewy caramel center, or that electrons do not wear hats. Someone who believes otherwise is not just engaging in wishful thinking or indulging in fantasy. They are denying fundamental, observable facts that have been proven to be true over and over again.

So we can listen to their stories, and we can decide whether or not to challenge their beliefs. But we cannot say there is "no evidence either way" and continue to call ourselves "atheists". I'm not even sure we can say that and continue to call ourselves "rational".

[smoogatz]

86. A reasonable argument.

Except that there are parts of the universe in which the normal laws of physics don't necessarily apply--like in and around black holes.

But otherwise, I like it.

[jgraz]

176. Well, our current understanding of physics doesn't extend to black holes

but that doesn't mean that black holes have different physical laws. The more we analyze black holes and singularities, the more we understand them. See Hawking's work on black hole entropy for a good example of how even these objects aren't immune to good, old-fashioned scientific analysis.

[Imperialism Inc.]

51. Prove? Perhaps not.

In the sciences all conclusions are tentative. So in that sense then perhaps nothing can be proved. However, if we take gods that are well described, like the Christian God (CG) for example, then we should be able to compare the actual world to how the world would most likely be if that god existed. From there we could put forward a conclusion about godly existence. Of course, at that point the squirming begins. And, since it is an all powerful being we are talking about, he can squirm off to just about anywhere. But that doesn't really harm a case against him based on this methodology. As long as the assumption about how the world would look if there were a CG are sound, the fact that the real world doesn't measure up still reduces the probability of the CG's existence to a vanishingly small number.

As far as being agnostic about Batman etc , yeah, Bertrand Russell really put this one to rest. There is really no point in discussing it. Here is Russell's point through a Dawkins quote.

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so.

[Odin2005]

58. The issue, IMO, is falsifiability.

A theory that is unfalsifiable is a theory that is meaningless. The Question "does God exist?" is therfore meaningless.

[Zhade]

89. You better watch it, or Our Lord and Batty Savior will smite thee!

His Holy Utility Belt shalt smite thee good, worm!

[DemGa]

93. Daffy Duck and teapots

Well no it doesn't put God at an equal level as Daffy Duck. One is representative of the eternal nature of things, one is...a cartoon. The implications are a bit lop-sided.

[Zhade]

134. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Right. Over. Your. Head.

Here's the nutshell: they both have equally credible corroborating evidence for being real, sentient entities. Which is to say, none at all.

[cosmik debris]

137. That blasted wake turbulence

Blew my hat off. We need to work out some sort of warning for that type of low altitude fly-by.

[DemGa]

167. ZOOOOOOOOM

Oh. the. towering. intellects. The example "you can't prove God exists" is without context. Playing by those rules, it becomes a futile and cartoonish exercise. But I think that is the point. I contend that the initial premise does not make the two examples equal due to the implications or the relationship between the two. Sorry, perhaps the point flew so low as to evade your notice.

One of these examples we know is a mental construct created by an artist, the other you may THINK is such a similar thing, but you have no proof. The evidence on my side is humanities collective belief from the beginning of time in God, and the personal feeling of God in individuals throughout time.

So can I prove that daffy duck does not exist? I know the true nature of daffy duck was created as a drawing, a cartoon. This could be proven, no doubt with an easy search on the internet. There you have the nature of daffy duck clarified for you.

Your task of explaining the collective sense of God in humanity since the beginning of time might take many forms (Psychology, etc.), but is far more complex and unknowable with certainty.

So there you have it: daffy duck is a cartoon. The collective sense and personal feeling of God in humanity and individuals, which concerns the eternal expression of things and therefore infinitely wider implicationscannot be shown to be in league with the cartoon.

Hope this helps.

[cosmik debris]

168. You have recreated the paradox, not resolved it

How do you know Daffy Duck, the cartoon, is not a representation of a real Duck and the Bible is a representation of a cartoon god? Just because you can look it up on the internet is not proof. You present the same questions that atheists ask to theists about god. How do you know, were you there, what proof do you have that Daffy Duck/God is real/not real? Bottom line, you can't disprove either. Therein lies their equality. And therein lies the absurdity of the argument that you can't prove that god does not exist.

[DemGa]

199. How do you know Daffy Duck, the cartoon,

"what proof do you have that Daffy Duck/God is real/not real?"

I can trace the essential nature of daffy duck to an artist. Even if daffy duck represents some collective sense of something e.g. actual ducks here on Earth or perhaps "daffiness," I can still trace the form back to its origin i.e. a physical duck or "silliness" in animal representation. There's no reason to look further, it's a dead end beyond that. Daffy duck is real in the context I have described; there is no other inference to follow.

The evidence I have of God is the collective sense of God in humanity which extends throughout time. I can trace this "collective sense" all I want and only arrive at theories to explain it, but I cannot know with certainty whether I am correct. I can try to attach "form" to this collective sense of God but there is no certain form, and therefore no dead end. The evidence irrefutably exists just as the evidence for Daffy Duck exists, only in that case it can be traced to its essential form.

The argument "you can't prove that god does not exist" is in effect true, and the two examples are inherently unequal. But more so, the non-belief in God in spite of the evidence is now a choice and not a necessary conclusion.

This works for Santa Claus too, and I'm sure teapots.

[cosmik debris]

200. There's a laugh!

"The evidence I have of God is the collective sense of God in humanity which extends throughout time."

In other words, lots of people agree with you so you must be right!

Is that the best you can do?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Collective sense of god :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

How could anyone dispute that?:rofl:

[cyborg_jim]

201. Who gives a crap if there is a 'collective sense' - who says its reliable?

[TechBear_Seattle]

203. One is representative of the eternal nature of things, one is...a cartoon

But which is why? And by what standard do you decide that one is one and the other is the other?

[MistressOverdone]

186. Daffy Duck does exist

everybody knows that.