General Chat / The logical and emotional problem of evil.

@ MA:
1) Sure I did, you said, "the Native Americans had very peaceful cultures without ever having known about your god" to which I responded "That's not the discussion"
2)The POE is not an argument for the existence of God MA hah. It's a defense of Theism, i.e., it is an argument against Theism. So really, the Atheist is presupposing God exists in order to attempt to prove that he does not exist.
3)Really? So you believe that the physical world does not exist? Anything that you touch, smell, or see? How about the belief that you exist? You don't believe you exist?
4) Stop with the Ad Hominems or I wont respond to you anymore. If you can't be respectful you can have a conversation with yourself.

1 and 3. The native american discussion ties directly into point number 3, that there is no object basis for anything experiential. And to answer your questions, it's not possible to prove that I exist, taste, or smell beyond the fact that I experience them. While that might seem like some sort of out-there, solipsistic logic game, it's still true.
2. You still don't understand atheism. It's not an argument. I don't give a fuck about your god, and therefore, I don't need an argument either way. All this talk of "burden of proof", and yes I'm aware that you didn't bring it up, misses the point entirely that I don't care. A lack of belief doesn't require any action, thus I make no action to prove or disprove it.

You mean my cat muffins is an Atheist?! How horrible! Lordy... It means my unborn child is an Atheist as well. After all, they all lack a belief in God...
It's important not to be mislead in believing that Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. It's this type of "re-defining" of terms that can mix you up. Atheism is the belief that "there are no gods". This, as much as the theist, is a claim to knowledge that bears a burden. Atheism is derived from the Greek "a-theos" (no gods) to make "athe-ism" belief that there are no gods. Since this is not what you believe Cole, how do you differentiate between Atheism (normally defined as there are no gods), Agnosticism (the absence of belief in God, or the belief that you don't know) and Verificationism (a belief that's been dead for over 50 years)?
I think this step for the Atheist actually represents an admission of ignorance. For many of them, they realize that they have no arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, and so they re-define Atheism to hide their ignorance. When they speak in the public square, they will spout off about how God does not exist. Yet when pressed to give evidence of this, they will change their stance and re-define Atheism as a lack of belief to hide their burden.

You clearly understood what he meant to say or you wouldn't have been able to argue it, meaning that his word choice was effective, yet you go off on trying to redefine what he actually meant. I guess there's a good reason for why my words come across as attacks, and that's because you aren't aware of how much hypocrisy is hiding in your posts. Call out my logical fallacies only to make your own. Say that atheists have no proof to back up their argument without realizing that you have no proof of your own. Demonize people who preach and then start 3 separate topics to talk about your religion. This really isn't a socratic dialogue so much as a chance for you to feel like you're defending the faith and feel good about yourself.

plus, drop the pseudo intellectual bullshit ice. gets old real fast.

You mean my cat muffins is an Atheist?! How horrible! Lordy... It means my unborn child is an Atheist as well. After all, they all lack a belief in God...

My cat has brown hair. She is a brunette.

I don't get what you're trying to argue here. What does applying human qualities to pets and fetuses do?

It's important not to be mislead in believing that Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. It's this type of "re-defining" of terms that can mix you up. Atheism is the belief that "there are no gods". This, as much as the theist, is a claim to knowledge that bears a burden. Atheism is derived from the Greek "a-theos" (no gods) to make "athe-ism" belief that there are no gods. Since this is not what you believe Cole, how do you differentiate between Atheism (normally defined as there are no gods), Agnosticism (the absence of belief in God, or the belief that you don't know) and Verificationism (a belief that's been dead for over 50 years)?

That isn't what agnosticism means. Agnosticism is position that gods can neither be disproven or proven. Verificationism is 'the view that a statement or question is only legitimate if there is some way to determine whether the statement is true or false, or what the answer is'. Atheism is the disbelief (or lack of belief) that there are gods. What are you trying to prove by arguing semantics anyway?

I am both atheist and agnostic by the way, the two aren't mutually exclusive, as agnosticism has to do with knowledge, not belief.

Arguing semantics here does not help prove your point in any way, shape, or form. Fine, atheism is the lack of belief, disbelief, and denial of gods. It is also the belief that there are no gods. All those things are pretty much the same. What do you gain from that 'argument'?

I think this step for the Atheist actually represents an admission of ignorance. For many of them, they realize that they have no arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, and so they re-define Atheism to hide their ignorance. When they speak in the public square, they will spout off about how God does not exist. Yet when pressed to give evidence of this, they will change their stance and re-define Atheism as a lack of belief to hide their burden.

What burden? How many times do I have to say it? The burden of proof lies on the one who asserted a positive claim. You cannot prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove a negative claim.

Say I say that I have a purple zebra living in my garage. Is it up to you to prove me wrong? No. Am I correct until proven wrong? Of course not. You can't prove the zebra isn't real, but that doesn't mean it is real. It would be up to me to prove my claim. Until then, you have no reason to believe it.

What makes the above comparison any different to your claim that the Christian god exists?

Please have a purple zebra.

Ya know...my dad always told me to never argue religion or politics. But, mama always said life is like a box of chocolates. The people at ChristianMingle.com say that God actually works his magic through their website. Aerosmith said "Let the music do the talkin'". And Fred Sanford always told Lamont that this is the big one. There are lots of things for us all to believe or disbelieve. Who really knows? The great thing is...the choice is ours. Can't we all just get along?

BTW....where the HELL is Comet?

EDIT: You should probably rename this thread to "Bitchfest Disguised as an Intellectual Discussion".

Hello everyone! First time poster here! (Long time forum viewer)

I would just like to say one thing.

IceKnight366's post-

"I think this step for the Atheist actually represents an admission of ignorance. For many of them, they realize that they have no arguments to prove that God doesn't exist, and so they re-define Atheism to hide their ignorance. When they speak in the public square, they will spout off about how God does not exist. Yet when pressed to give evidence of this, they will change their stance and re-define Atheism as a lack of belief to hide their burden."

The alternate view-

"I think this step for the believer actually represents an admission of ignorance. For many of them, they realize that they have no arguments to prove that God does exist, and so they re-define believing to hide their ignorance. When they speak in the public square, they will spout off about how God does exist. Yet when pressed to give evidence of this, they will change their stance and re-define believing as a belief to hide their burden."

Pardon my poor use of "belief" and "believing" in the last sentence, but you get the point. To everyone here- choosing to be a believer or not to be a believer is a choice! No one should try to convert others to believe or not to believe. Let's stop this nonsense and go back to a happy religion/anti-religion FREE community of ROLLER COASTER TYCOON lovers

Did I really used to be as annoying twat as FantastisCo is now? If so, sorry.

For fucks sake, man, I agree with (most) of what you say, and you come across as an ass to me.

@ MA:Second, your argument is self-refuting MA. First you are argue, "we should not believe anything that can only been known through experience"(never mind that you give no argument for this). But now you say that we should not believe them because they can not be proven. Proven how? 100%? Empirically? You give no reason. Therefore, I'll assume empirical evidence is what you are talking about. The question is, can the logical statement "We should only believe what can be proven scientifically" be proven scientifically? Obviously not...

Of course it's possible to prove that you exist! As Descartes so intriguingly put it, I doubt therefore I am! After all, if I don't exist, than who is there to do the doubting?! In fact on your view, not only do you not exist, neither does anyone else. In fact, the physical world itself doesn't even exist! And finally, science itself does not exist because it is based on our understanding and interpretation of experienced facts. Thus, (if I have your view correct) it makes this argument doubly self contradictory.

I'm skipping the rest of what you said because it was rude and hateful.


I'm always amazed at how discussions like this can bring about such aggression. Please stop the personal attacks as I have not used personal attacks (Could you imagine if I did?!). If you can't talk with maturity and respect, please don't.

@ Cole: Quite separately, I'm glad to talk to you Cole, you seem to be the only one who is actually willing to show respect and dignity.

By "lack of belief" we mean the absence of a belief. My cat has an absence of belief in God (she has no belief). Similarly, so does my unborn child. Indeed, so does the plant Jupiter. They all lack beliefs in God, so by that definition they are all Atheists.

What we need to understand here is that ANY claim which makes a claim to knowledge requires evidence. So which of these views makes truth claims?

-Agnosticism: This is not majority view of Agnosticism. This type of Agnosticism is a sort of Strict Agnostic as it's called. Keep in mind however, the statement "'God exists' can neither be proven nor disproven" is a truth claim and therefore requires evidence to believe in it. But how could one prove that God can never be proven or disproven? Indeed, this a large burden to hold. But this more narrow type of Agnosticism does not include the majority of Agnostics who just aren't sure. The most common Agnostic belief is a statement of ignorance. A type of, "I don't know" belief. Which is fine! We've all been there! This broad type of Agnosticism does not require any evidence to believe in.
-Verificationism: Verificationism is the view that MA holds here. That the statement "God exists" is just a meaningless statement because it can not be scientifically verified. The problem is, that statement itself can not be scientifically proven, and therefore is self refuting.
Atheism: Is the view that "there are no gods". Just as the statements "'God exists' can neither be proven nor disproven", "God exists" and "We should only believe what can be scientifically verified" are ALL claims to knowledge which require evidence, so does the Atheist view "There are no gods" require evidence. The Atheist can not hide by claiming to be the exception.

Thus, if in Atheist, you bear a burden of proof for your claim "God does not exist". Or if you'd like to adopt an absence of belief, you can neither believe that God does not exist, nor ever say that God does not exist (As many people on this thread already believe). You simply need to withhold belief (become agnostic). This is why professional Atheists don't take this position in formal debates. Because in a debate about "Does God exist", if they say that Atheism is the absence of a belief, they wont be providing a negative to the debate "Does God exist." And therefore would just automatically lose the debate.

The popular move which Atheists often make to avoid their burden (It seems you understand the positive claim being made by the Atheist in this case or it seems you would not have mentioned it) is to state that you can not prove a negative or that it's impossible to prove that something does not exist, which is patently false. For example, you can prove that there are no living Tyrannosaurus Rex on the face of the earth. We can prove that there are no Muslims in the United States Senate. Or, you can show that certain things are self contradictory. For example, you can show that there are no round squares. So this type of popular Atheistic line fails demonstrably.

NOW, if an individual has no good arguments or evidence in favor or Atheism, than he or she shouldn't be an Atheist. They should make more mild claims like "I don't know" or something of that sort.

@ KONG: Thank you for being civil and respectful

Many of you want to hear arguments for God's existence! This is fine (per the mod's not locking the thread), but right now we are talking about why Atheism is true. We can get to arguments for Theism in a while, but in the mean time, lets stay on topic and not dodge. So far, no one has given ANY arguments for the truth of the claim "God does not exist". All that has been done is a repeated dodge attempt by saying "Well, Theists don't have any evidence either!" The question is, What GOOD reason is there to believe that Atheism is true, i.e., that God does not exist? If no evidence can be given, than none of you should believe that "God does not exist". You should hold more mild claims like "I don't know" or something of that sort.



It seems to me that a lot of people are being offended by what I am saying. But I have not personally attacked anyone, called anyone stupid, hypocritical, an a**, pseudo intellectual, or judged anyone's character, etc... Perhaps I should apologize. I'm used to talking to other Atheists who desire to have these types of discussions and to have their beliefs questioned in search of truth (Theists should enjoy this learning experience too). But all I've seen here is people throwing ad hominems at Christianity because "It has no evidence or defense". And yet when I provide a defense, people say I am arrogant or rude. I don't think I have said anything rude or arrogant, and if you can not have your beliefs challenged and reply respectfully, please don't reply. My apologies if I have offended someone. But I challenge some of you to not reply out of anger as I have not.

@ MA:Second, your argument is self-refuting MA. First you are argue, "we should not believe anything that can only been known through experience"(never mind that you give no argument for this). But now you say that we should not believe them because they can not be proven. Proven how? 100%? Empirically? You give no reason. Therefore, I'll assume empirical evidence is what you are talking about. The question is, can the logical statement "We should only believe what can be proven scientifically" be proven scientifically? Obviously not...

Of course it's possible to prove that you exist! As Descartes so intriguingly put it, I doubt therefore I am! After all, if I don't exist, than who is there to do the doubting?! In fact on your view, not only do you not exist, neither does anyone else. In fact, the physical world itself doesn't even exist! And finally, science itself does not exist because it is based on our understanding and interpretation of experienced facts. Thus, (if I have your view correct) it makes this argument doubly self contradictory.

I'm skipping the rest of what you said because it was rude and hateful.


I'm always amazed at how discussions like this can bring about such aggression. Please stop the personal attacks as I have not used personal attacks (Could you imagine if I did?!). If you can't talk with maturity and respect, please don't.

Solipsism is a well known school of philosophy, a movement of which your buddy Descartes was a part of, so I don't know which argument you think I'm not making. True, Descartes proved that he knew he existed, but in that, you missed the other part in that he acknowledged that it is the only thing that he could prove. Of course it's possible to prove that I exist, but it's not possible to prove that you exist unless we accept certain priori as fundamentally true, which we can't. Now, if you want to go back and read what I said before, then you might see that it's exactly what I just fucking said. You keep jumping right to the slippery slope (which is why your arguments come off derogatory and inflammatory, by the way), and assume that I'm obviously in some cult that thinks it's impossible to smell or taste. That's not the case. What I'm saying is that you can't base an argument for an objective truth off of experiential information. For example, there is a global understanding of the colour, blue, but ask someone who is blue/green colorblind how they experience it.

So anything that is critical of your opinion is hateful now?

ice, you have very little grasp of the subject matter. smarty pants.

Solipsism is a well known school of philosophy, a movement of which your buddy Descartes was a part of, so I don't know which argument you think I'm not making. True, Descartes proved that he knew he existed, but in that, you missed the other part in that he acknowledged that it is the only thing that he could prove. Of course it's possible to prove that I exist, but it's not possible to prove that you exist unless we accept certain priori as fundamentally true, which we can't. Now, if you want to go back and read what I said before, then you might see that it's exactly what I just fucking said. You keep jumping right to the slippery slope (which is why your arguments come off derogatory and inflammatory, by the way), and assume that I'm obviously in some cult that thinks it's impossible to smell or taste. That's not the case. What I'm saying is that you can't base an argument for an objective truth off of experiential information. For example, there is a global understanding of the colour, blue, but ask someone who is blue/green colorblind how they experience it.

So anything that is critical of your opinion is hateful now?

Descates was not a solips MA. Do you study philosophy?. The goal of Descartes was to establish certain self evident propositions (Cogito ergo sum), not to establish a sort of generalized solipsism. Moreover, he was an obvious Theist. Therefore it's quite evident that he believed in at least two minds. But just a little reading and you could have prevented yourself from making this mistake. Aside from this mistake, this quote exemplifies Descartes ideas on the mind.

"I experienced in myself a certain capacity for judging which I have doubtless received from God, like all the other things that I possess; and as He could not desire to deceive me, it is clear that He has not given me a faculty that will lead me to err if I use it aright."
— René Descartes (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (Meditations on First Philosophy)

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."
— René Descartes


Lets get on the same page here, you are now retracting what you said. For originally you state "it's not possible to prove that I exist", but now you accept Descartes solution and believe that you DO exist. So I'm sorry to report MA, but this belief is logically invalid. The belief that we can not objectively prove anything through experience is false, because we can prove that we exist.

But the biggest logical mistake you make is that because we can not objectively prove or disprove certain things (other minds, the physical world, you are a brain in a vat, etc..) that therefore they don't exist. Or at the very least, therefore we aren't justified in believing they exist. But the question is, where did that come from? I saw no logical argument provided by you that leads to the conclusion, that therefore these things don't exist... Or any inplicit or explicit premises that lead to the conclusion that therefore we aren't justified in believing in these things. What reason is there to doubt our sensory intuitions of the physical world (that your car really exists or that it's hot outside), or our experience and intuition that other minds exist (that your own mother isn't really conscious)? In fact, if this is your view, than there is no point in continuing this conversation. For after all, who is it that you are having a conversation with?! NO professional philosopher holds to such a extreme position and so there really isn't a point in wasting my time. In fact, if denying the objectivity of the physical world and of other minds is the ALTERNATIVE to belief in God, than the Christian can NEVER again be accused of being illogical or irrationality. Because what could be more irrational than that?!

Indeed no argument was given. Moreover, no argument was given in favor of Atheism.

Why are you acting Naive? There is nothing wrong with an opposing opinion(I welcome other people's opinions!), it's your attitude. Calling me a Hypocrite, a dick, attacking my post as a chance to feel good about myself?, saying I'm preaching? etc... If you continue, this is the last time I will respond to you.

@ Cole: Quite separately, I'm glad to talk to you Cole, you seem to be the only one who is actually willing to show respect and dignity.

By "lack of belief" we mean the absence of a belief. My cat has an absence of belief in God (she has no belief). Similarly, so does my unborn child. Indeed, so does the plant Jupiter. They all lack beliefs in God, so by that definition they are all Atheists.

What we need to understand here is that ANY claim which makes a claim to knowledge requires evidence. So which of these views makes truth claims?

-Agnosticism: This is not majority view of Agnosticism. This type of Agnosticism is a sort of Strict Agnostic as it's called. Keep in mind however, the statement "'God exists' can neither be proven nor disproven" is a truth claim and therefore requires evidence to believe in it. But how could one prove that God can never be proven or disproven? Indeed, this a large burden to hold. But this more narrow type of Agnosticism does not include the majority of Agnostics who just aren't sure. The most common Agnostic belief is a statement of ignorance. A type of, "I don't know" belief. Which is fine! We've all been there! This broad type of Agnosticism does not require any evidence to believe in.
-Verificationism: Verificationism is the view that MA holds here. That the statement "God exists" is just a meaningless statement because it can not be scientifically verified. The problem is, that statement itself can not be scientifically proven, and therefore is self refuting.
Atheism: Is the view that "there are no gods". Just as the statements "'God exists' can neither be proven nor disproven", "God exists" and "We should only believe what can be scientifically verified" are ALL claims to knowledge which require evidence, so does the Atheist view "There are no gods" require evidence. The Atheist can not hide by claiming to be the exception.

Thus, if in Atheist, you bear a burden of proof for your claim "God does not exist". Or if you'd like to adopt an absence of belief, you can neither believe that God does not exist, nor ever say that God does not exist (As many people on this thread already believe). You simply need to withhold belief (become agnostic). This is why professional Atheists don't take this position in formal debates. Because in a debate about "Does God exist", if they say that Atheism is the absence of a belief, they wont be providing a negative to the debate "Does God exist." And therefore would just automatically lose the debate.

The popular move which Atheists often make to avoid their burden (It seems you understand the positive claim being made by the Atheist in this case or it seems you would not have mentioned it) is to state that you can not prove a negative or that it's impossible to prove that something does not exist, which is patently false. For example, you can prove that there are no living Tyrannosaurus Rex on the face of the earth. We can prove that there are no Muslims in the United States Senate. Or, you can show that certain things are self contradictory. For example, you can show that there are no round squares. So this type of popular Atheistic line fails demonstrably.

How come I have to prove that your god isn't real? YOU are the one who is making a claim. YOU are the one that needs to prove your claim. I am definitely not claiming that god(s) don't exist, as I don't know for sure. All that I am saying is, I don't believe in any.

And since you are completely ignoring the second half of my argument, here it is again for you:

Say I say that I have a purple zebra living in my garage. Is it up to you to prove me wrong? No. Am I correct until proven wrong? Of course not. You can't prove the zebra isn't real, but that doesn't mean it is real. It would be up to me to prove my claim. Until then, you have no reason to believe it.

What makes the above comparison any different to your claim that the Christian god exists?

NOW, if an individual has no good arguments or evidence in favor or Atheism, than he or she shouldn't be an Atheist. They should make more mild claims like "I don't know" or something of that sort.

I don't claim that there is no god, and I don't completely rule out the possibility. Of course I don't know for sure. But until there is even a shred of evidence that there is a god, I won't believe.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in unicorns.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in giants.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in Bigfoot.

Why is that so hard to understand? I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

I suggested reading this essay by the late Carl Sagan. It makes more of an argument for agnosticism than for atheism, but it is still a good read to better explain the burden of proof.

http://www.godlessge...INKS/Dragon.htm


Also, please stop trying to change definitions. It doesn't matter exactly what the word 'atheism' means. You are arguing against ME, not the word 'atheism'.

EDIT: I would also like to remind you, that being agnostic has nothing to do with belief. I can be, and am, both agnostic and atheist. I don't believe in a god but I do not know for sure if one exists or not.

Lets get on the same page here, you are now retracting what you said. For originally you state "it's not possible to prove that I exist", but now you accept Descartes solution and believe that you DO exist. So I'm sorry to report MA, but this belief is logically invalid. The belief that we can not objectively prove anything through experience is false, because we can prove that we exist.

I only refute myself if you cut off half of the quote. Which would be pretty convenient. What I said was "...it's not possible to prove that I exist ...beyond the fact that I experience [existence]." You know, "I think, therefore I am." That statement doesn't extend beyond yourself, though, and that includes the concept of God. You can't think through someone else's head to prove that they exist.

*Though before you argue that, you might want to read my next response*

But the biggest logical mistake you make is that because we can not objectively prove or disprove certain things (other minds, the physical world, you are a brain in a vat, etc..) that therefore they don't exist. Or at the very least, therefore we aren't justified in believing they exist. But the question is, where did that come from? I saw no logical argument provided by you that leads to the conclusion, that therefore these things don't exist... Or any inplicit or explicit premises that lead to the conclusion that therefore we aren't justified in believing in these things. What reason is there to doubt our sensory intuitions of the physical world (that your car really exists or that it's hot outside), or our experience and intuition that other minds exist (that your own mother isn't really conscious)? In fact, if this is your view, than there is no point in continuing this conversation. For after all, who is it that you are having a conversation with?! NO professional philosopher holds to such a extreme position and so there really isn't a point in wasting my time. In fact, if denying the objectivity of the physical world and of other minds is the ALTERNATIVE to belief in God, than the Christian can NEVER again be accused of being illogical or irrationality. Because what could be more irrational than that?!

You know, for a guy who loves to call out logical fallacies, you sure love this slippery slope. I don't think other things don't exist, and I don't hold myself to strict an extreme solipsistic view point of the world. This came out of one statement: "There is no objective basis for pretty much anything experiential, including morality and god." On my original point, none of this Descartes business matters and now you're asking me to clarify answers to questions that don't address the point of what I said. All evidence for/against god comes from "experiencing" his presence. Like if I prayed to cure a disease and took medicine and got better, the believer would attribute my miraculous recovery to the prayer (God solved everything, the pill did nothing) and I would attribute the cure to the medicine (God did nothing, it was all the medicine). How can the same scenario both strengthen my argument and my opposition's argument, unless the basis of our argument was incorrect?

Ultimately, I don't care which side of the argument you end up on, as long as you realize that there is no true argument for or against, and you're basically grasping at logic to validate your leap of faith. And before you take that the wrong way, I fully admit that this leap of faith doesn't diminish your point, because as you've so dutifully pointed out (in a I'm-not-touching-you kind of way), nobody can prove the opposite to take it away from you. You do you, Fantastico.

Indeed no argument was given. Moreover, no argument was given in favor of Atheism.

You really don't get it. We're not in a formal debate, and I don't really care if you flip to my side. I'm a non-believer because I have no motivation to believe or not believe, and it seems that my default position happens to be not believing. I'm a "non-believer", because in the context of this conversation, the question is "do I believe?" This is not a question I define myself by, but because you asked, I had to answer. That doesn't require me to provide an argument or proof.

Why are you acting Naive? There is nothing wrong with an opposing opinion(I welcome other people's opinions!), it's your attitude. Calling me a Hypocrite, a dick, attacking my post as a chance to feel good about myself?, saying I'm preaching? etc... If you continue, this is the last time I will respond to you.

Why? Because you offer yourself up to be the victim so willingly, and I can't help myself. And because you deserve it. I called you a dick because you took someone else's work and posted it as your own. I called you a hypocrite because you demand things of others that you don't expect of yourself (and gave examples). And don't you think for a second that because you don't use words that are banned from American television that you're not being condescending or dismissive. I'll quote you: "But just a little reading and you could have prevented yourself from making this mistake." I like to imagine you saying this with your head tilted as far back as possible to look down your nose just a bit more, as you sip your imported tea. Seriously, if Kevin Enns thinks you're a dick, then "for fucks sake", you are. (Oh, hey, Kevin. Missed you, buddy.)

Let's make this easier for you to "debate", with arguments, and logic, and circle-jerking: I'm a dick. My word choice is not "professional". That doesn't mean I'm wrong. If it's my words that you have a problem with, then ignore the words.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=NPGUIpv-JxI

MA and RRP make good points.

I had no idea RRP and RMM were two seperate people until I saw these two posts one after the other...

Those who are bound by the devils snares can be redeemed, only if they show true truition and live in harmony with the rest of us it seems. Nevertheless when one requests fogiveness they must not fall back into the ways of evil. evil being, ignorance, violence and selfishness. The lord has trust in us, thats why we all live in free will but evil has prevailed in the winds since we were primitive. were just natrually so destructive. Mankind is far from kind, blind to the 4th dimention, blurry visions no intentions of alteration. Its time to turn over a new leaf, i seek peeps to understand me clearly. I wish for many to Put positive actions into practise and hear the devilish voices in heads vanish, silence, deminish, no longer a nemesis. remain in the holy frame of mind. dont be blinded by money find another source to live comfortably. i feel sorry for the people in poverty, for the majority its unhealthy. ones thats born into wealthy families are lucky, life is hunky dory, unworried, spoon fed luxury so let me conclude my story, i believe money is evil. without it theives wouldnt exist and everyone would be equal.

How come I have to prove that your god isn't real? YOU are the one who is making a claim. YOU are the one that needs to prove your claim. I am definitely not claiming that god(s) don't exist, as I don't know for sure. All that I am saying is, I don't believe in any.

And since you are completely ignoring the second half of my argument, here it is again for you:

Say I say that I have a purple zebra living in my garage. Is it up to you to prove me wrong? No. Am I correct until proven wrong? Of course not. You can't prove the zebra isn't real, but that doesn't mean it is real. It would be up to me to prove my claim. Until then, you have no reason to believe it.

What makes the above comparison any different to your claim that the Christian god exists?




I don't claim that there is no god, and I don't completely rule out the possibility. Of course I don't know for sure. But until there is even a shred of evidence that there is a god, I won't believe.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in unicorns.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in giants.

Until there is proof, I won't believe in Bigfoot.

Why is that so hard to understand? I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

I suggested reading this essay by the late Carl Sagan. It makes more of an argument for agnosticism then for atheism, but it is still a good read to better explain the burden of proof.

http://www.godlessge...INKS/Dragon.htm


Also, please stop trying to change definitions. It doesn't matter exactly what the word 'atheism' means. You are arguing against ME, not the word 'atheism'.

EDIT: I would also like to remind you, that being agnostic has nothing to do with belief. I can be, and am, both agnostic and atheist. I don't believe in a god but I do not know for sure if one exists or not.

Well, by the looks of it Cole, you aren't an Atheist. And thus, you don't have to prove that God exists! It seems to me that you don't have a belief in God, not because you don't think He exists, or that it's not possible that He exists, but simply because you have not yet made a decision to believe in Him. And that my friend, is just pure Agnosticism. A state of mind in which you just aren't sure. As I said, the only way you would need to provide evidence, is if you claim, "God does not exist".

I've read the essay already, and with the similar purple Zebra example, I never ignored your post. Remember I said, right now we are staying on topic and discussing arguments and reasons to believe that Atheism is true. We aren't talking about positive evidence for the existence of God yet. I've made that clear and am not ignoring your posts. If I made the claim that "the purple zebra does not exist" than yes, you have to prove that it doesn't exist. However, such examples like the one you used, are unfalsifiable and so ad-hoc as to be embarrassing. You could certainly prove the zebra doesn't exist. You could touch it (but than the person would claim that it is immaterial), you could listen for it (but than the person would claim that if flies and doesn't make sounds), you could leave carrots out and wait for him to eat them (but than the person would claim that it doesn't eat). Such examples disprove themselves by their degree of ad-hocness. Moreover, claims which are unfalsifiable may be reasonable for the individual to believe who had the experience of the zebra, but do not need to be proven false (indeed that's impossible).

Again Cole, you are not an Atheist. According to the Encyclopedia of philosophy: "An Atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god. That is, that the sentence 'God exists' expresses a false proposition."
The question is Cole, do you make the claim that there is no God? No of course you don't. Simply because you do not hold a belief in God does not make you an Atheist. Otherwise, using the example I gave, even our cats would be Atheists!



@ MA: I did not ignore your post MA. The principle Cogito ergo sum, is not just an argument from experience, but it is a metaphysical principle. It is not because we experience doubt that we think we exist, but that if we don't exist, than who is to be doubting? Thus, as I said, the proposition "We should not believe anything based on our experience" is false (whether this is your belief or not at this point).

Oka, I'm glad to see you retracted your statement on Descartes. Now the question is, are all the arguments for the existence of God only based upon the experience His presence? I believe not.

I don't know who Kevin Enns is, but I'll let the readers decide whether indenting and putting quotes around a statement is considered plagiarism. And whether staying on topic and waiting for evidence against God is being hypocritical. Moreover, that saying that someone is incorrect is being condescending (never mind the fact that your claim was so extreme, I believe a case could be made for you deliberately misconstruing the facts just to support your claim).








So as we can see, we've seen no good evidence against the existence of God! We've seen some Agnostics and people wanting to see evidence, and we've seen others posting 1 liners in an attempt to ad hominem. So in the absence of a defeater against the existence of God, the Theist is more then justified in believing in his/her experience that God exists. Therefore, it would be irrational and irresponsible for an Atheist to attack a Theist for their beliefs. After all, without any evidence against my belief, why shouldn't I trust my experience? God is real to me! What reason is there to doubt my experience?! Indeed, there is none. So on the basis of that alone, all the comments poking fun at Christianity and Theism are irrational and unjustified (never mind the fact such behavior is extremely rude and hateful, and if reversed, not doubt action would have been taken and required).

So the question is, what good reason is there to believe that God exists wholly apart from individual experience? Well, I'm thankful to report that there are a number of such arguments! If there are little responses to this post, than I will post the first argument for the existence of God in my next one.

Well, by the looks of it Cole, you aren't an Atheist. And thus, you don't have to prove that God exists! It seems to me that you don't have a belief in God, not because you don't think He exists, or that it's not possible that He exists, but simply because you have not yet made a decision to believe in Him. And that my friend, is just pure Agnosticism.

Well, by the looks of it IceKnight366, you aren't a good reader.