Atheists what is your proof?

[SolusCado]

So it is of this world after all?

What is of this world? :bugeye:

I never said that knowledge derived from logic is the only valid knowledge. I did suggest that such spiritual practices as meditation constitute a valid method for achieving self-knowledge and exploring the mind. However, one cannot take this kind of knowledge on faith from another person, it's essentially personal.

Ok; fair enough. Though Christianity teaches essentially the same thing. One's relationship with God comes from meditation (i.e. prayer), and results in a closer relationship to God (i.e. increases self-knowledge), and is at its core a personal thing that cannot be learned from another.

 

[spidergoat]

But it's still of this world. If it's in your mind, it's of this world.

 

[SolusCado]

Really? Then why do almost all discussions about "god" (in quotation marks) wind up being about God (captial G -aka Jehovah)?

I don't believe in Jehovah, however I do equate the word "god" with the Universe (aka - Pantheism). Am I an atheist?

Probably because most of the theists on this forum are Christians. As for whether Pantheism equates to atheism, I'm really not sure. I guess it depends on how you would describe the God/Universe. e.g. Why do you call yourself a Pantheist rather than an atheist? To what do you ascribe divinity?

 

[SolusCado]

But it's still of this world. If it's in your mind, it's of this world.

But according to Christianity, it isn't just "in our minds". There is a connection between our consciousness and something that exists "outside our world/universe" I realize you do not believe this to be the case, but your beliefs have no bearing on the beliefs of others. - So whether you see it as "of this world" or not is irrelevant, Christians do.

 

[Kernl Sandrs]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me.

Ok, I'll let you. But just this once!

I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is?

No, you prove there is a god. It's your crazy idea, don't put the burden of proof on us. Prove to me there is.

Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked.

What other proof is there?

At the same time you cannot prove the opposite.

I'm not trying to. Honestly what is it with you religious zealots and wanting to fight and bicker?* I've never seen any athiests on other forums asking Christians why they believe what they do. Or maybe I have and don't remember...I don't know. But to my knowledge I haven't. Someone's going to call me out on this one...


*And if I can recall correctly, it's not just non-believers you fight with; you also fight amongst each other, don't you? Ya'll sure do like to kill "in the name of god" don't ya? Good thing nobody told you not to do that...

oh wait...

Really, what's the harm in believing in Him?

erm...what? So I should just believe in whatever you want me to, just for the hell of it? Actually there's some personal harm there. You know, free will, personal preferences, all that good stuff. I don't have to and I don't want to. Do not ask this ever again. ever.

By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists?
No they're not [athiests].

If not, what made you or your parents convert?

Because I'm 18 and in college and have my own vehicle, so by default I know the secrets of the universe. But in 10 or so years when I'm living on my own, this infinite knowledge will seemingly vanish, and I'll be looking to them for answers again.

Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist

I don't. Do you stereotype atheists as all thinking alike?

FOR SHAME.

when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be?

My guess is because it doesn't try to explain how the universe came to be. I'm almost certain it tries to explain how we as people, and all other lifeforms came to be. Not the universe itself, but the things that inhabit it.






http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof

 

[jpappl]

Probably because most of the theists on this forum are Christians. As for whether Pantheism equates to atheism, I'm really not sure. I guess it depends on how you would describe the God/Universe. e.g. Why do you call yourself a Pantheist rather than an atheist? To what do you ascribe divinity?

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature."

This is similar to what I mentioned in the other thread.

God is everything essentially thus it is not separate.

 

[spidergoat]

But according to Christianity, it isn't just "in our minds". There is a connection between our consciousness and something that exists "outside our world/universe" I realize you do not believe this to be the case, but your beliefs have no bearing on the beliefs of others. - So whether you see it as "of this world" or not is irrelevant, Christians do.

I didn't mean to imply that it's "only" in your mind. I'm just trying to pin down where you think this realm that is so far beyond scientific observation intersects with the real one. The answer appears to be "in your mind".

 

[SolusCado]

They do. How are you going to prove I have an INVISIBLE elf.

I can just keep saying it's there but you're not seeing it. And on and on.

You can't test for it. You can only say there is no evidence for it.

Well, you start by establishing a perimeter so that said elf cannot escape, narrow down the perimeter until you have scoured the entire yard. If you got hold of something invisible, I'd say you had a pretty strong case.

Yes shame on us. Are you suggesting that we just take it on faith. What's the point.

No, not at all - I'm suggesting that atheists should stop pretending that their position is any more viable. If you want to call yourself agnostic, and truly admit that you just don't know, fine - that I can respect. But to claim that you believe nothing without proof, and yet make claims regarding the veracity of God WITHOUT proof - only to fall back on "I'm not the one making the claim, so I don't need to provide proof", is an intellectual fallacy. Or for that matter, to narrowly define g/God in such a way that it negates the reason for Religious followers' faith just so you can say the g/God can't be shown to exist is just a way of tying the hands of the other person for no other reason than to hold your head higher.

Incidentally, I am not accusing any one person - on this thread or otherwise - of such actions. I am calling these actions out as common positions, they may or may not apply to anyone in this thread.

Say I was in charge, the supreme ruler of the earth and I said that if you have to accept Lord Kazamatron as your savior. Yet you had no evidence of Lord Kazamatron and when you ask for any they say we can not know Lord Kazamatron we only know he is there.

Your telling me that you wouldn't have a few more questions for me. Or would you just accept it on faith.

If you were supreme ruler, I probably wouldn't have much choice, would I? In any case, the body of Christian theology has a LOT more information than simply one man making the above claim.

The key for both is to not force that which does not fit into it.

I agree 100%!

You misunderstood. That is what I am saying as well. If he thinks that we are just going to say god did it and walk away he doesn't know us very well.

We are curious and we want explanations, so we will keep pushing for new knowledge forever.

Doesn't matter whether you believe or not, you're still human.

Agreed.

 

[gmilam]

Probably because most of the theists on this forum are Christians. As for whether Pantheism equates to atheism, I'm really not sure. I guess it depends on how you would describe the God/Universe. e.g. Why do you call yourself a Pantheist rather than an atheist? To what do you ascribe divinity?

I don't call myself either atheist or pantheist. I call myself Glenn.

Do you need me to describe the universe for you? OK, the universe is all there is. You, me and everything we know were created by and are part of the universe.

Divinity? That's that candy my grandmother used to make.

 

[SolusCado]

Nah, I think they'd just push him off a cliff.

 

[SolusCado]

I don't call myself either atheist or pantheist. I call myself Glenn.

Do you need me to describe the universe for you? OK, the universe is all there is. You, me and everything we know were created by and are part of the universe.

Divinity? That's that candy my grandmother used to make.

You ask if you are a pantheist or an atheist. I am saying that the answer to that question lies in how you define the divinity of the universe. If you say that there is none, that it is what it is and there is nothing divine, then you are an atheist. If there is any question to you being an atheist, I'd have to ask what the question is.

 

[spidergoat]

...No, not at all - I'm suggesting that atheists should stop pretending that their position is any more viable. If you want to call yourself agnostic, and truly admit that you just don't know, fine - that I can respect. But to claim that you believe nothing without proof, and yet make claims regarding the veracity of God WITHOUT proof - only to fall back on "I'm not the one making the claim, so I don't need to provide proof", is an intellectual fallacy. Or for that matter, to narrowly define g/God in such a way that it negates the reason for Religious followers' faith just so you can say the g/God can't be shown to exist is just a way of tying the hands of the other person for no other reason than to hold your head higher...

But the atheist position is more viable. Science can show that the Judeo/ Christian God does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't define it, it isn't really a concept worthy of debate, is it?

 

[SolusCado]

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature."

This is similar to what I mentioned in the other thread.

God is everything essentially thus it is not separate.

Frankly, I agree with this perspective in regards to our physical being. I do however believe in a spiritual nature to man that cannot be viewed through a physical lens. Likewise, the presence and relationship of God is one that cannot be viewed through a spiritual lens. If all you are ever looking through is a physical lens, that is all you will ever see. This is why atheists can't see God.

 

[spidergoat]

Nothing spiritual exists. Ideas and feelings do not exist, even though we may consider and evaluate them. They are by-products of a physical process. They are an abstract state of relationship to memorized symbols.

 

[SolusCado]

But the atheist position is more viable. Science can show that the Judeo/ Christian God does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't define it, it isn't really a concept worthy of debate, is it?

Then why are atheists always resorting to "burden of proof" arguments. Why don't they just disprove God and be done with it? If you are suggesting that different people have different ideas of who or what God is, and THAT is your defense... well, that's like me looking at the variety of different explanations for the nature of the cosmos (quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.) and saying that since Scientists can't define it, it must not exist. Ridiculous! If you can't apply the same rules of logic regarding religion that you do to science, then your position is just as ridiculous.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me. I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is?

Define the "god" of your question and I'll provide a clear answer.

Really, what's the harm in believing in Him?

Definition of "god" pending, belief puts "truth" into a back seat... and I value truth far more than the psychological satiation that might come with belief.

By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists?

They were theists (to my knowledge).

If not, what made you or your parents convert?

For me, it was that I value truth more than psychological satiation; hence, atheism was a natural result. My parents didn't convert. They were indoctrinated into theism from birth and it stuck with them.

Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be?

I don't use the Theory of Evolution as a backbone for atheism. The theory of evolution only explains how life on earth adapted. It doesn't address cosmology. It's not supposed to.

 

[SolusCado]

Nothing spiritual exists. Ideas and feelings do not exist, even though we may consider and evaluate them. They are by-products of a physical process.

Why are you just dropping claims? That's about as effective as me simply stating "God exists. Jesus is his son, and your saviour. Accept him as such or go to Hell." Come on - if you're going to be standing behind a shield of logic and evidence, provide some to the statements you make!

 

[spidergoat]

I don't worry about the burden of proof argument, even if it is true, because it doesn't make for good conversation. Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and without it, they can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
They do. How are you going to prove I have an INVISIBLE elf.

I can just keep saying it's there but you're not seeing it. And on and on.

You can't test for it. You can only say there is no evidence for it. ”

Well, you start by establishing a perimeter so that said elf cannot escape, narrow down the perimeter until you have scoured the entire yard. If you got hold of something invisible, I'd say you had a pretty strong case.

Ok, but he can also go through walls and can not be caged in. He is invisible, we can't see him or contain him.

Welcome to our world.

Originally Posted by jpappl
Yes shame on us. Are you suggesting that we just take it on faith. What's the point. ”

No, not at all - I'm suggesting that atheists should stop pretending that their position is any more viable. If you want to call yourself agnostic, and truly admit that you just don't know, fine - that I can respect. But to claim that you believe nothing without proof, and yet make claims regarding the veracity of God WITHOUT proof - only to fall back on "I'm not the one making the claim, so I don't need to provide proof", is an intellectual fallacy. Or for that matter, to narrowly define g/God in such a way that it negates the reason for Religious followers' faith just so you can say the g/God can't be shown to exist is just a way of tying the hands of the other person for no other reason than to hold your head higher.

Ok. Well that is why most people that are atheist are also agnostic and vice-versa.

There are two questions:

Do you believe a god exists ? Atheist

and

Can you prove it ? Agnostic

Otherwise, the theist can claim that all agnostics are really on the fence when in fact that is not the case.

There are very few agnostic theists.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Say I was in charge, the supreme ruler of the earth and I said that if you have to accept Lord Kazamatron as your savior. Yet you had no evidence of Lord Kazamatron and when you ask for any they say we can not know Lord Kazamatron we only know he is there.

Your telling me that you wouldn't have a few more questions for me. Or would you just accept it on faith. ”

If you were supreme ruler, I probably wouldn't have much choice, would I? In any case, the body of Christian theology has a LOT more information than simply one man making the above claim

Of course but let's assume that I would have a complete religion that is built around the belief in Lord Kazamatron.

Would you abandon your belief for the new one ?

You would want some convincing evidence to leave one belief for another.

And yes, if you don't submit off with the head in front of all the other non-believers. That should take care of it LOL.

 

[SolusCado]

Define the "god" of your question and I'll provide a clear answer.

Oh no - I've already spent days on this forum doing just that. Read through the posts in What is your belief regarding the existence of "God" if you want a definition.

Definition of "god" pending, belief puts "truth" into a back seat... and I value truth far more than the psychological satiation that might come with belief.

This is just not true. Belief provides an answer when nothing else can. Truth is always the goal, and until other things can answer the questions that belief addresses, there is no reason to eliminate belief.