Atheists what is your proof?

[lightgigantic]

Rotting teeth might be expected if teeth just evolved. You know, as long as you live long enough to reproduce and see that your offspring survive then that's all Mother Nature needs you for. You can starve to death after that.

erm ... who exactly is mother nature and what precisely are her needs?

But, just for fun, let's say some omnipotent, omnisicient being designed humans... You would think that he (or she) would've had the foresight to make teeth that don't decay.

if you would expect a temporary world designed primarily for housing eternal living entities under the duress of pursuing temporary desires to be decked out with eternal teeth in the name of fulfilling the criteria for a perfect design brief, I think you still have a
bit more explaining to do .....

 

[SolusCado]

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.

Ahh - interesting choice of words. I would argue that the claim that defies the belief of virtually all of mankind before you would be the 'extraordinary' claim. Atheism as a movement really didn't get started until the 19th or 20th century. For the thousands of years before that, theism was the norm.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

erm
you do realize that the notion that everything is by-product of physical processes is an idea, don't you?

 

[gmilam]

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.

Personally I have always labelled myself an agnostic because I don't believe in "god".

My understanding was/is that an atheist is someone who BELIEVES god does NOT exist, which is a form of belief. I have no "belief" when it comes to this subject - only unanswered questions.

However, I have had MANY people on both sides of the discussion tell me that I am, in fact, an atheist. So I've come to the conclusion that it's the believer that defines the atheist.

Call me what you want.

As for divinity. I guess you'll have to define that for me too.

Are you asking me if I think the universe may be a living conscious thing? I would have to say that I don't know. I am alive and conscious. I am part of the universe... That's about all I have to go on.

 

[jpappl]

Ahh - interesting choice of words. I would argue that the claim that defies the belief of virtually all of mankind before you would be the 'extraordinary' claim. Atheism as a movement really didn't get started until the 19th or 20th century. For the thousands of years before that, theism was the norm.

How does this make the theist claims any stronger ?

Again, the theist is making the claim thus has the burden to provide the proof of something existing.

Otherwise we can chase that train all day long and we will never catch it.

 

[spidergoat]

erm
you do realize that the notion that everything is by-product of physical processes is an idea, don't you?

Right, that idea does not exist, but it represents a relationship between abstract symbols.

 

[SolusCado]

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.

Which is why I made the point regarding testable parameters. If the majority of mankind for the thousands of years preceding me also believed in this invisible leprechaun, I'd think there might be something to it. I might not just jump on the bandwagon without some education on the subject, but I wouldn't dismiss it for no reason other than his attributes made it impossible for me to take it on faith.

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.

I am an agnostic theist. And I think if theists weren't so often in a position of having to defend their beliefs to the world you would probably find more of them. Their refusal to acknowledge that they don't in fact know is a defense mechanism. One that makes them a poor Christian in my opinion, since Christianity is predicated on faith, on not knowing. Those that fear that faith don't have conviction.

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.

Frankly, if the entire reason to evaluate the religion is because I am being ordered or threatened to do so, that alone would make me suspicious of the religion. And I realize that there are millions of Christians that do little better (and the Catholic Church has a history of threatening), which is why they are a bigger thorn in my side than atheism. Too many "Christians" give Christianity a bad name. But, even that is in the Bible, so it is also one of those things that just further strengthens my own convictions.

 

[gmilam]

erm ... who exactly is mother nature and what precisely are her needs?

I don't think Mother Nature has any needs.

if you would expect a temporary world designed primarily for housing eternal living entities under the duress of pursuing temporary desires to be decked out with eternal teeth in the name of fulfilling the criteria for a perfect design brief, I think you still have a
bit more explaining to do .....

The teeth don't have to be eternal. I'll settle for 100 years.

 

[SolusCado]

How does this make the theist claims any stronger ?

Again, the theist is making the claim thus has the burden to provide the proof of something existing.

Otherwise we can chase that train all day long and we will never catch it.

It doesn't make the theist's claims any stronger, but it doesn't make them any weaker either. I am saying that if either an atheist or theist is trying to convince someone of their position, the burden of proof is on them. It is a balanced requirement that applies equally to both sides. If you are content to believe in God you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. If you are content to believe there is no God, you shouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. And you should be free to pursue either belief without condemnation from the other side.

And again, I realize "Christians" have a history of doing just that - and I take issue with them as much as I do the atheists I was just describing.

 

[SolusCado]

Personally I have always labelled myself an agnostic because I don't believe in "god".

My understanding was/is that an atheist is someone who BELIEVES god does NOT exist, which is a form of belief. I have no "belief" when it comes to this subject - only unanswered questions.

However, I have had MANY people on both sides of the discussion tell me that I am, in fact, an atheist. So I've come to the conclusion that it's the believer that defines the atheist.

Call me what you want.

As for divinity. I guess you'll have to define that for me too.

Are you asking me if I think the universe may be a living conscious thing? I would have to say that I don't know. I am alive and conscious. I am part of the universe... That's about all I have to go on.

Yeah, you sound like an agnostic to me. Which frankly comes through in your posts. There is an attitude of derision that seems to come from most atheists that you have not displayed. Thank you.

 

[spidergoat]

Ahh - interesting choice of words. I would argue that the claim that defies the belief of virtually all of mankind before you would be the 'extraordinary' claim. Atheism as a movement really didn't get started until the 19th or 20th century. For the thousands of years before that, theism was the norm.

It is extraordinary in scientific sense, not necessarily the popular sense. We used to believe that diseases could be caused by witchcraft, but that is still an extraordinary claim, given what we now know about germ theory, parasites, viruses, and genetics.

Atheism is as old Hinduism, Buddhism, and Epicurus.

 

[M00se1989]

"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.

I like this one(=

God made people. God made sperm. God made coca cola. God made Science. God made Lizards with the capability to diverge into different species through time like God-zilla or Sarah Palin. God made marijuana. God made Heroin and cocaine. God decides when to rape your children and what religious books you follow. god made the H-bomb because he slipped when drawing Japanese eyes. God made atheists so he would have someone to argue against. God made other religions just for sheer added confusion. God made Hitler because the Jews killed his "one and only son". Last but not least God made bacon because it's too good to be kosher. MMMM.... Bacon.... Thank God for that.

God made me write this.

I think he just enjoys watching us play with ourselves(=

 

[SolusCado]

It is extraordinary in scientific sense, not necessarily the popular sense. We used to believe that diseases could be caused by witchcraft, but that is still an extraordinary claim, given what we now know about germ theory, parasites, viruses, and genetics.

All considered radical ideas that DID have to be proven to be taken seriously.

Atheism is as old Hinduism, Buddhism, and Epicurus.

Yes, which is why I specifically said "most" of mankind. I recognize that there have been atheists since the time of the Greeks, but - as you say - the "popular" belief has been some sort of theism. In that sense, it is still an extraordinary claim to claim otherwise. So in some sense, both claims are extraordinary - which is why I've been saying that BOTH are due the burden of proof - depending on who is trying to sway whom to their way of thought.

 

[spidergoat]

The supernatural is by definition extraordinary, since there is no reliable evidence in favor of it, and yet natural processes have been proven to be behind everything from reproduction to tsunamis.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Originally Posted by jpappl
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. ”

Which is why I made the point regarding testable parameters. If the majority of mankind for the thousands of years preceding me also believed in this invisible leprechaun, I'd think there might be something to it. I might not just jump on the bandwagon without some education on the subject, but I wouldn't dismiss it for no reason other than his attributes made it impossible for me to take it on faith.

The point is there are no testable parameters to prove god either.

It doesn't matter how many people believe or not. Furthermore, you would admit that the populace who have driven the beliefs from earlier times were operating without the information we have available today.

So yes it is absolute faith that you are placing in an idea.

I am an agnostic theist. And I think if theists weren't so often in a position of having to defend their beliefs to the world you would probably find more of them. Their refusal to acknowledge that they don't in fact know is a defense mechanism. One that makes them a poor Christian in my opinion, since Christianity is predicated on faith, on not knowing. Those that fear that faith don't have conviction.

Yes I agree, many times it's impossible for them to say they have faith and not knowledge. So it appears they are afraid to admit it.

But well said.

Frankly, if the entire reason to evaluate the religion is because I am being ordered or threatened to do so, that alone would make me suspicious of the religion. And I realize that there are millions of Christians that do little better (and the Catholic Church has a history of threatening), which is why they are a bigger thorn in my side than atheism. Too many "Christians" give Christianity a bad name. But, even that is in the Bible, so it is also one of those things that just further strengthens my own convictions.

Again, well said. I agree and it is too bad that we can't agree to disagree. So much suffering and hatred over the debate, it's sad.

One of the issue for people like myself is that we see religion as a hinderance to progress or what I view as progress.

You and others like you get lumped into that group which represents a wall between where we should be and are.

That's not fair anymore than lumping all atheists together but it happens.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think Mother Nature has any needs.

then why bring it up?
:shrug:

The teeth don't have to be eternal. I'll settle for 100 years.

still doesn't explain much about your zany ideas about the perquisites for a properly designed universe

 

[lightgigantic]

Right, that idea does not exist, but it represents a relationship between abstract symbols.

if you agree I'm not sure where you go from here to your ideas having a monopoly on reality

 

[spidergoat]

They have always been abstract representations of reality, but they are closer to reality than yours.

 

[Kernl Sandrs]

hehe

 

[lightgigantic]

They have always been abstract representations of reality, but they are closer to reality than yours.

Yup ... ideas and feelings do not exist except for the ideas and feelings that everything is a result of physical processes
:crazy: