atheists, please explain yourselves..

[glaucon]

Not that I wish to speak for Stranger, but I had to comment on this (il)logic:

...
Unless you can prove, that God does NOT exist, then you are resting your conclusion on personal choice.
...

Wholly incorrect, and in fact, absurd.
There is no such thing as negative evidence.

Flying pink elephants (like god..) do not exist.
I do not need to exhaust all of reality searching for proof that they don't exist to establish this.

As with all non-obvious entities, if one chooses to support their existence, then the burden of proof lies upon the supporter thereof.

 

[fedr808]

in the same way mass and wight are interchangable..i did more than explain the difference of what i meant

Mass and weight are two very different things...

 

[fedr808]

Oli, we cannot take the Quran's statement of a particular statement by just one verse alone. We must judge it with other verses related to the subject.

"Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do. " Quran 27:88

This clearly illustrates that mountains do move, as clouds do. How can someone know of this scientific miracle 1400 years ago? We only recently figured this out.

The verse which you cited from Scifes' post: "We placed firmly embedded mountains on the earth, so it would not move under them…" Quran, 21:31

Harun Yahya explains it thus: As we have noticed, it is stated in the verse that mountains have the function of preventing shocks in the Earth. http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153782/science/miracles_of_the_holy_quran.html

Take care

Dude, you are acting very unintelligently.

Any religious interpretor would tell you that it mentions the idea of moving mountains as a represantative of the deity's force.

Back then there would have been absolutely no way they could have figured out that mountains do in fact move.

 

[brokenpower]

It's like asking any adult who is religious if they believe in Santa Clause.

I believe Bill Maher pointed out something great when he asked a Bible store owner if he believed in Santa Clause and the man said "no, that's ridiculous"

Sure it's impossible for an would be ethereal being to deliver toys to millions of children and know if they are good and bad, but it's absolutely possible for an ethereal being to hear everyone's prayers and watch over them.

Give me a fucking break.

Look up the story for the Egyptian God "Horus"

The story of Horus is almost EXACTLY identical to the claimed story of Jesus.

 

[brokenpower]

please see the below link for the incredible coincidences between the story of horus and jesus

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparsison_horus_jesus_chart.htm


I'm sorry but i cannot believe in something that was clearly plagiarised by an earlier civilisation

 

[brokenpower]

oh there are also many more similarities that the Jesus story has stolen from

see link

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/parallels_chart.htm


I understand these sites are old, but you can fact check them if you like... it is incredibly accurate.

 

[codanblad]

Not that I wish to speak for Stranger, but I had to comment on this (il)logic:

"Unless you can prove, that God does NOT exist, then you are resting your conclusion on personal choice."

Flying pink elephants (like god..) do not exist.
I do not need to exhaust all of reality searching for proof that they don't exist to establish this.

As with all non-obvious entities, if one chooses to support their existence, then the burden of proof lies upon the supporter thereof.

i agree that burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, so when a person makes the claim 'god does not exist', where is their proof? i know they are responding to someone else's claim, and that it is rational to retort that 'i see no evidence/presence of your god', but saying 'there is no god' is making your own claim.

my personal opinion is religions make a lot of shit up, and i don't know what made the universe etc., but i can't prove god does not exist.

 

[werzil]

How can you prove existence of something that requires a determinable, sensible "measurement", when it is already any of the senses available to do so? How does a thermometer 'know' what heat/temperature are?

How do you use your "godliness", to see or hear, or record "your senses" of God?
This not possible, only see, hear but not "record", except memory of "lack of external senses", when God is seen or heard, or tasted or felt. If you are the sum total of every experience your "self" has realized, then you are the realization of all your sensed experience.
How to sense your own senses? What device to build that will record your experience, as your senses relay this to "you"? When do your experiences become, or add to, "you"?

Only God can answer this, by saying, or inferring: there are no senses, only yourself.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Thermometers do not know what heat or temperature is or what the temperature is at any given time.

 

[werzil]

Atheist is like thermometer: because atheist cannot say, what is temperature?
Theist instead say: cannot know temperature, but can reason that heat is cause.

Neither can say "heat does not exist".

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

Wholly incorrect, and in fact, absurd.
There is no such thing as negative evidence.

You claim a negative fact, God does not exist.
What is the basis of your claim, if not negative evidence?

Flying pink elephants (like god..) do not exist.

Flying pink elephants, if they existed, could be seen with the naked
eye, as their nature would be the same as African, and Indian ones.
Read any scripture, and you will see that God's nature is different.
If you still conclude that God can only exist on the basis of sight, then
you may as well stick to it and forget discussion.

I do not need to exhaust all of reality searching for proof that they don't exist to establish this.

Of course you don't.
If you, or anyone cannot see them with eyes, throughout the whole of history, then it stands to reason.

As with all non-obvious entities, if one chooses to support their existence, then the burden of proof lies upon the supporter thereof.

I believe God exists.
The other alternative is to believe God does not exist.
Both positions are subjective, and personal.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Atheist is like thermometer: because atheist cannot say, what is temperature?
Theist instead say: cannot know temperature, but can reason that heat is cause.

Neither can say "heat does not exist".

Atheists are not like thermometers.

Thermometers cannot reason that heat is cause.

 

[glaucon]

You claim a negative fact, God does not exist.
What is the basis of your claim, if not negative evidence?

As usual, you have no conception of logic whatsoever.
The basis of my claim is evidence to the contrary.

Flying pink elephants, if they existed,

... blah, blah...

They don't.

Both positions are subjective, and personal.

Incorrect.

To choose to believe in a pink flying elephant would be subjective and personal (redundant), not to mention insane.

 

[jpappl]

Cod,

my personal opinion is religions make a lot of shit up, and i don't know what made the universe etc., but i can't prove god does not exist.

And so you are an agnostic. Do you believe in God ? or Gods ?

If there is no evidence for it, the burden of proof is not on those claiming it does not exist. Because there is no evidence. The burden is on those claiming it does exist.

Jan,

Read any scripture, and you will see that God's nature is different.

Scripture written by men and of course god's nature has to be different because we can't see, sense, touch or hear god.

I believe in Pink Elephants in fact I saw one flying the other day. If you claim that there are not Pink Elephants. Please provide proof please.

Ridiculous.

 

[codanblad]

And so you are an agnostic. Do you believe in God ? or Gods ?

If there is no evidence for it, the burden of proof is not on those claiming it does not exist. Because there is no evidence. The burden is on those claiming it does exist.

burden of proof is on any person making any claim. the fact that your claim is in response to another does not exempt it from that. ur claim is in bold. prove it.

i don't believe in god/s, but i can't prove they don't exist.

 

[jpappl]

burden of proof is on any person making any claim. the fact that your claim is in response to another does not exempt it from that. ur claim is in bold. prove it.

i don't believe in god/s, but i can't prove they don't exist.

And I take the exact same position. I am an agnostic, but I don't believe in god(s). Just can't prove they don't exist.

But I don't have to believe they do exist without some evidence. That is the distinction for me.

So I agree on the answer to the larger question. But if someone where to say they saw a pink elephant that flew or an alien or something else that was unknown and extrodinary. Would it be your burden of proof to provide evidence against such an extrodinary claim ?

 

[eddie23]

i still haven't grasped why atheists don't believe in god..

if it's because we can't directly sense him..then it isn't the first thing we believe in that's beyond our direct senses..

so.. i don't know....:shrug:..i'm lost with trying to understand these guys..they say they stick to logic yet they don't show how logic supports them,,just how logic supposedly contradicts everyone other than them...

so please enlighten me..

Here is the way it works.
If you tell me you dont beleive in the sun then I show you the sun and the proof that it exists.
The same for a god.
If you are the one claiming it exists then the one burdoned with proving it.
that is the scientific method. It is also common knowledge of every child on the planet.
Remember as a kid and some other kid told you something you didn't beleive.
What did you say to them? Prove it!
So that is what those of us who see noe evedince of said god are asking for.
It is your respocibility to prove it does exist not ours to prove it doesnt.

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

As usual, you have no conception of logic whatsoever.
The basis of my claim is evidence to the contrary.

You claim "God does not exist", please explain how you know this.
What is the logical basis of your knowledge?

... blah, blah...

They don't.

Why? Because we cannot see them, which is how we would know if they
existed. If you try to apply the same method to God, then you are either
ignorant, burying your head in the sand, or both

Incorrect.

To choose to believe in a pink flying elephant would be subjective and personal (redundant), not to mention insane.

To choose not to believe in PFE's is subjective and personal.
I don't know anyone who believes in PFE's.

Putting God and PFE's in the same bracket is further evidence that
your atheism has little to do with logic, or is in any way rational. But
is your personal choice, for whatever reason.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

eddie23,

Try this little experiment.
Find a number of dictionaries, type "God" into the search engine, and I am
pretty sure "Supreme Being", "Creator", will be the basis of definition.
After some thought, think what the effects of such a being would be, and how
you could derive proof that that being exists, outside of everything that already exists within your range of perception.
Then let me know what you conclude.

jan.

 

[eddie23]

eddie23,

Try this little experiment.
Find a number of dictionaries, type "God" into the search engine, and I am
pretty sure "Supreme Being", "Creator", will be the basis of definition.
After some thought, think what the effects of such a being would be, and how
you could derive proof that that being exists, outside of everything that already exists within your range of perception.
Then let me know what you conclude.

jan.

Word play and, or other peoples definitions still do not prove anything.
I do not need to prove the non-existance of something that there is no evidence og.
However those of you that make the claim need to show the proof.
A definition is not proof of existance and neither is a book written by people who left no evedince of having ever existed.
If the bible is to be taken as history then those that beleive it must also seriously take the story of atlantis ( another myth or fable.)as fact and real also.