God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[lightgigantic]

What god are you calling an eternal phenomena? It certainly can't be the Abrahamic God as that really showed up with the start of Judaism by establishing a personal relationship between man and God. Prior to that, gods were just facets of nature that people chose to glorify and worship.

if you want to accept the tenable field of archeology and anthropology as absolute, you are correct

And then you don't even want to get started and what we call Greek "myths" nowadays. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are people who are worshiping Zeus to this very day.

regardless of the societies and ideologies you want to cite that god has been persevered after in, it still stands that he has the before mentioned qualities

 

[AAF]

Please explain what you mean by "proposition of principles".
Both terms have a wide usage and I want to be clear of exactly what you mean before I decide how to proceed.
If you can, please provide examples of your meaning of "propositions of principles" in both religious and non-religious contexts.

Hello Sarkus;


What are, exactly, the propositions of principles?
That is a tough question to answer in a few sentences. But let's try it anyway.

There are two types of propositions; i.e. propositions of principles and propositions of structures. The latter type can be proven true and falsified as well beyond any doubt; while the former type of propositions can never be proven true and can only survive or NOT to survive the attempts at falsifying it.

Recall Copernicus' theory of the Solar System & Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation! Well, the Copernican theory is an example of propositions of structures; and the Newtonian theory is an example of propositions of principles. That is because the Copernican theory can be proven true directly and decisively and beyond a shred of a doubt. The Newtonian theory, by contrast, can only survive attempts after attempts at disproving it; and it can never be proven true, once and for all, by any sort of evidence. In short, it's a proposition of principles; and hence it can be falsified only either by the lack of logical consistency or by finding one clear exception to its predictions.

As another example, let's say 'Paris is in Europe'. This statement is a proposition of structures and possible to confirm or disconfirm directly and without any doubt. But, if we say that 'Paris is the soul of Europe', such a statement can't be anything else but a proposition of principles; and so it can only be disconfirmed logically, if inconsistent, or by contrary evidence. And there is no way of confirming it at all.

Now, all theological propositions, from the most significant to the least important, fall into the 'propositions of principles' category. And none of them is a proposition of structures. Take, for instance, the main theological proposition of 'God exists'. There is absolutely no way of proving such a proposition as true. Even if some powerful entity does and performs and carries out all those fantastic acts that 'all-powerful God' is supposed to do on Judgment Day, none of those extraordinary actions will prove that 'all-powerful God does exist'. Since it's always possible that such a presumed deity is just one ordinary galactic dictator among many others, whose power is finite and limited, and who wants to satisfy his gigantic megalomania by exploiting naïve humans and fooling them into worshiping him. In brief, no matter what entities of this kind can do, they would never prove that their power is infinite. And that is because the 'existence of infinite power' is always a proposition of principles and must remain so forever and with no possibility whatsoever of proving it as real and actual and true.

 

[SnakeLord]

Its more a case that ad hom gets a mention as a fallacy of discussion because it is unproductive and a sure way to throw all attempts at discussion out the window

Is that an admittance that all the times I have seen you ad hom it's because you're trying to get out of the discussion?

If you say yes I'll take notes, if you say no your entire argument goes down the shitter. Somehow however I sense that you'll justify yourself for it while condemning everyone else for doing the same.

this is what tends to distinguish discussion on this thread from the discussion amongst persons deemed as credible (regardless of their stance on theism/atheism) in the academic world

You're mistaken. Spend some time watching legit. debates with "credible" people. What you clearly do not understand is that emotion is always a part of debate, it wouldn't be a human debate otherwise. As such people will find certain things offensive - whether you personally intend them to be or not. It's all about personal sensibility/fragility.

- if you want to actually have an intelligent discussion don't ad hom

I have witnessed ad hom in pretty much every post you've ever made. Is this to state that you've never wanted an intelligent discussion? (this only requires a yes or no.. somehow I doubt I'll ever get an answer)

you probably cannot discuss the empirical reasoning behind the cutting edge knowledge of rocket science - but you are probably capable of discussing whether a person who is making claims of the cutting edge knowledge of rocket science is qualified or not

Ok.. pay attention... We're not talking rocket science.. Ok? So.. discussion with who? (we're talking Lenny here and the Lenny process which exists.. who are we discussing with?)

 

[AAF]

AAF,

"Atheism: "Time in infinite."
Theism: "Time is infinite."

Therefore, atheism is right so there is no god!"

Huuuumm..... there is something wrong with this picture....

:crazy:

Hello Truth-Seeking Dude;

Your LOGIC is wrong.
This is the right LOGIC:

· Every entity whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
· Infinite time renders the concept of 'God' contradictory.
· Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[AAF]

SnakeLord: "Given that my profile clearly states that I live in England, I'd consider it less of a "bet" and more 'plain bloody obvious'. Anyway, my apologies but I don't get the relevance of your statement to anything I said. …".


Re: I apologize for the unintended implication, but your 'alias' says very clearly that 'you're the lord of snakes'; and there are no snakes in Ireland and NOT many of them in England either; correct? Look at this God of 'lightgigantic'; He should have chosen to live in the Australian Outback: http://allsaivism.tripod.com/snakes.html
Okay, that is not the whole story! The truth is I found the idea of having an English atheist (e.g. SnakeLord) thrown into the sea (sorry, pal) by an Irish theist (e.g. Saint Patrick) irresistible; it was not funny; but it was irresistible & exhilarating!

=================================================

SnakeLord: "…Not really, no. I absolutely resent people trying to indoctrinate the young and innocent, but I am far beyond the stage of believing in fairy tales because someone else happens to. Let's try and stick to the discussion here. You claimed that the onus is on the atheist to disprove the claims of the theist. Simply put: you're wrong and I have shown why. You now talk about Ireland and conversion. What is that all about? …".


Re: As a matter of geography, there are no native snakes in Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, New Zealand & Antarctica. Now, is to indoctrinate the young & the innocent appalling? Yes, it is; but it's the norm everywhere. So let's stick to the discussion as you suggested. Theists cannot prove their hypothesis of 'God exists', because they can have no evidence for it. But, and this is very important, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure, you can ask them for it, if they ask you to join them, just for the fun of it. But if the aim, as it should be, is to convince reasonable theists that 'there is no God', then the onus of disproof must be on the shoulders of the atheists. And that is because it's always possible to disprove the 'existence of God' in so many ways.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "…And, seeings as they love me oh so much, the very second I say "thank you but no", they should respect that and walk away right? Furthermore, by loving me ever so much the minute I ask them questions they should not take it as me attacking their faith, but should answer it as politely as they possibly can and understand that questions are an integral part of life - that others will not instantly believe what you say simply by virtue of you saying it. The 'atheist' cannot answer those questions for himself - no sir, the onus is on the oh so loving theist - which was the very point of my post. Oh, and just incase you are one of those oh so loving theists.. I don't want to spend eternity with you. Man, I don't want to spent a weekend with you. Let it also be said that while they might love me, I have no such feeling in return. In saying I really don't care about softening the impact on their poor little loving hearts when they decide to try and shove their beliefs in my face. I have no need nor desire to "observe every courtesy in that book" and I get the impression you would be the same if I told you to observe every courtesy in the Book of Lenny simply because if you don't I'll be offended. …".


Re: Of course, if they are not polite, then every 'courtesy in the book' is off. But why do you want to ask them questions about their 'God'? Do you really think they can teach you something about 'Him'? By the way, you have to follow your 'theists' to their 'heaven', if you don't like to spend an eternity with me. Since, according to the books of your 'theists', both 'hell & limbo' are for the 'unbelievers'; correct?

=================================================

SnakeLord: "…You mistake anger for questioning belief. If you make a claim I will call you on it. It's not because I'm angry, it's because I'm a sane, normal human being. If some guy knocked on your door and started impressing you to a belief in leprechauns you'd either slam the door, (even though he might very well love you), or you'd question him. If you just bowed down and accepted everything he said then you're ill. …"


Re: Sure, you can do all that; but the most effective way to get rid of the 'insisting theists' is to start right away disproving their deity. You can't believe how timid they are! In almost every case, they just run away; and they would never ask you again to join them. It's that simple.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "…Certainly, what do you think happens on this very forum? You know, I was speaking to my wife about 30 minutes ago. She mentioned my brother who is now borderline christian, (he says he wont label himself but he has a belief in god). He's a troubled person and ended up making friends with some of the 'god squad' as he calls them. I have been going along with him to church on a Tuesday, (I'm leaving in around 2 hrs time), where they do a 'course' for would be christians. They preach the bible, sing religious songs and.. thankfully.. hand out free booze. my wife said that my brother has become a lot calmer since joining this thing. My wife's sister asked why I go along. I explained that, (aside from the free booze), people need to hear different perspectives. If for instance you raised your daughter with the express belief that prostitution was the best thing she could ever do - and there was no outside perspective to that, not only would it not be fair on her, but she would undoubtedly live life on her back. In the same way I go to this church thing to provide a different perspective to people that are on the edge. Now, while there I welcome the thoughts, beliefs and opinions of others - but I will question them, and would expect the same in return. Currently, not by preaching but by questioning, 2 people have decided to leave the church and course. Now, in the larger picture a disservice might have been done, but it is simply unfair to not hear all sides of the picture. The only person that can give it the atheist perspective is me, the only one that can give it the theist perspective is them. Again: the onus is on them to support their claims and they must accept and welcome questioning. The fact that they fall apart because of those questions is not my fault or concern. …".


Re: So you're the one, who is attacking the theists 'the god squad' in their 'lair'; right? I agree, in this particular case, the questioning is the proper way to engage your 'theists'. Is it possible for 'prostitution' to be sacred and held in high regard? It is quite possible; and the ancient Babylonians had done it for centuries on end and for the sake of their Ishtar (Venus):
http://www.bilderberg.org/babylon.htm
The Babylonian religion was 'cool', man; don't you think so?

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… jews don't, muslims don't, evolutionists don't. christians on the other hand push their beliefs upon others, (at your home, in schools yada yada). I disagree with that. To discuss religious issues I come to this forum or visit a church etc - and in those instances I do ask for it. Not asking for it doesn't change anything, the doorbell still rings. … ".


Re: That is because you live in England. If you were living in Jerusalem or Mecca, Jews & Muslims would have, certainly, tried to push their beliefs upon you. Evolutionists would have done the same at Cambridge & Oxford.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… A) Less with the condescending. B) See, you make a claim and just expect me to accept every word of it. If you don't now want questioning, (which you clearly don't by telling me not to protest), then you're a fool of the highest order. C) Let's look at the evidence: You stated that the onus is on the atheists and as an example used a case of monkey brain eating jungle dwellers that believe it is healthy. You then stated that the atheist was trying to convince the theist that monkey meat was unhealthy when this is an unrealistic way of looking at the scenario. In reality the monkey meat eater is trying to convince the atheist that monkey meat is healthy and the atheist is questioning that claim. The onus therefore without a shadow of a doubt is on the monkey meat eater. IF the atheist was telling the monkey meat eater that monkey meat is unhealthy then yes, the onus would be on him to show it to be the case because the positive claim is being made by him. Still with me so far? Good. If the theist, (the monkey meat eater), makes the positive claim - ergo monkey meat is healthy, the onus is on him to support his claim with something valid. Now to my analogy: A man that doesn't have a belief in a specific entity crash lands on an island where everyone else believes in this entity. You argued that length of belief and amount of believers is suitable for you to believe in it also, but I argued that this was wrong. I showed you that to you, the unbeliever, the amount of them is irrelevant to your disbelief. IF they intended to get you to believe in their leprechaun, (they are making the positive claims), then the onus is on them to support their claims. Whether these leprechaun believers are nice and welcoming, generous and warm hearted is of no relevance to your lack of belief and their needing to support their claims. I hope that was made clear to you. I'd hate for you to puff up your ego again that much for no good reason. Ok, my dear little friend? … ".


Re: Sorry, my 'elfish' friend; you're making a mess of my 'monkey-meat' analogy for the third time! The analogy goes like this: monkey eaters cannot be convinced to give up their bad habit by merely asking them to provide evidence for their belief that 'monkey meat is healthy'. Therefore, it's absolutely necessary to disprove their belief over and over and over again, in order to get them out of it. The same applies to the theists concerning their erroneous belief that 'all-powerful God must exist'. And so it's the task of the atheists to disprove the 'existence of God' over and over and over again until the theists are convinced. And there is no place, within this context, for puffing the 'ego', or parading the 'superego' or displaying the 'id':
http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L8-4StructureMindIdEgoSuperego.html
It's just the truth, here, and nothing but the truth.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… Well, quite simply because me, (an atheist), and all the atheists I happen to know don't give a rats shit what other people believe in. Wasn't that obvious? … ".

Re: Yes, in this restricted sense, it should be obvious.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… Well then, you clearly know more about me and my friends than I do. Bravo. Sorry, now I'm being condescending. Let me ask instead. Hi, AAF.. do you know my friends? If the answer is no do you honestly think you can speak for them? Do you think, by not knowing my friends that you can honestly state that I lack reason because I know them well enough to speak for them? Well? … ".


Re: I don't know your friends, except, perhaps, the ones around here. But the point was that it is not possible to speak for the atheists collectively, because they include among them just almost every type of persons under the sun.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… No. Which is why I only mentioned the atheists that... I know. … ".

Re: That is correct. There is no way of speaking for that collection of all sorts of people called 'atheists'.

=================================================

SnakeLord: "… Why ever not"?


Re: Theological propositions cannot be proven true by any kind of evidence, because they have been assumed ad hoc as ultimate principles with no room for inference, deduction, induction, and the like.

 

[SnakeLord]

Now, is to indoctrinate the young & the innocent appalling? Yes, it is

Indeed. Little more worth saying.

Theists cannot prove their hypothesis of 'God exists', because they can have no evidence for it. But, and this is very important, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The absence of evidence removes any value in believing in that thing. There is not one iota of evidence for Lenny the leprechaun and so believing in him is idiocy. Simple. He might exist, that's hardly the point.

But if the aim, as it should be, is to convince reasonable theists that 'there is no God', then the onus of disproof must be on the shoulders of the atheists.

Therein is the point you clearly do not understand. The theist is the one trying to do the convincing. In saying, the onus is on him. If he cannot show evidence for his god it's his own problem.

But why do you want to ask them questions about their 'God'?

Give me one valid reason why not. Is there anything specifically wrong with asking questions? They tell me that this and that is true. I question them. t's quite common for people to do that.

Do you really think they can teach you something about 'Him'?

Wouldn't know unless I asked... right?

Sure, you can do all that; but the most effective way to get rid of the 'insisting theists' is to start right away disproving their deity.

All that "proof" nonsense is for alcohol and mathematicians. What I will say is that you have your apparent "effective methods" and I clearly have mine. Don't be thinking for one second that what applies to you must apply to me.

So you're the one, who is attacking the theists 'the god squad' in their 'lair'; right?

No idea how you come to that conclusion.

you're making a mess of my 'monkey-meat' analogy for the third time!

Clearly you don't even know what you're saying.

The analogy goes like this: monkey eaters cannot be convinced to give up their bad habit by merely asking them to provide evidence for their belief that 'monkey meat is healthy'.

Nobody is asking them to give up their bad habits. They are asking for evidence that monkey meat is healthy to the person trying to get them to eat monkey meat. C'mon pal, wake up. I know very few atheists that honestly give a shit what you personally believe in. It's when you try and push them into that belief where they start asking for evidence. It's not because they really give a damn whether you continue to believe in it or not, it's because they wont, and most likely can't, without that evidence.

And so it's the task of the atheists to disprove the 'existence of God' over and over and over again until the theists are convinced.

To any specific atheist determined to turn a believer into a non-believer, but that's not how it typically goes.

Re: Yes, in this restricted sense, it should be obvious.

Should be obvious, yeah.. I can only wonder why you didn't pick up on it.

But the point was that it is not possible to speak for the atheists collectively, because they include among them just almost every type of persons under the sun.

Which has.... absolutely fuck all to do with my friends - the ones I spoke for.

Re: Theological propositions cannot be proven true by any kind of evidence

I disagree.

 

[AAF]

SnakeLord: "The absence of evidence removes any value in believing in that thing. There is not one iota of evidence for Lenny the leprechaun and so believing in him is idiocy. Simple. He might exist, that's hardly the point. …".


Re: 'Lenny the leprechaun might exist' (http://members.localnet.com/~valeriej/mascot.htm) in spite of the fact that 'there is not one iota of evidence' for his existence. That is exactly and precisely the point of contention, here. On one hand, you think people must not believe in 'Lenny' because of lack of evidence for his existence. On the other hand, I argue that people have every right to believe in the existence of their beloved 'leprechaun', unless his existence is ruled out completely and beyond any iota of doubt. Since it's faith, here, not science; and the Big 'Lenny' has a heck of a job to do for society! We have to remember that theists believe in 'God', not for His own sake, but for the huge rewards, if He really exists. Quite frankly, life would have been more wonderful and much easier, if there were a Big 'Daddy' in heavens! Even if He dumps you in 'hell' for your 'sins', He can't be that merciless & heartless to keep you there for the entire eternity; right?

================================================

SnakeLord: " Therein is the point you clearly do not understand. The theist is the one trying to do the convincing. In saying, the onus is on him. If he cannot show evidence for his god it's his own problem. …".


Re: If I don't get it, then you've done a poor job for explaining it. The theist is trying to save you! Yes, he/she must be delusional and misguided, but that is because the atheist has done a lousy job for NOT letting him/her see the simple truth of 'there is really no God'. The atheist, therefore, should stop whining; because it's his/her fault of being lazy & unconcerned that the theist, now, is so wild & lionized and doing all the convincing & the scolding & the shouting; am I right?

================================================

SnakeLord: " Give me one valid reason why not. Is there anything specifically wrong with asking questions? They tell me that this and that is true. I question them. it's quite common for people to do that. …".


Re: Yes, it's quite common; but asking someone questions about something implies two things: you're very interested in that something & and that someone has what you're looking for. And so you should not complain, when that someone goes ahead and does the 'convincing' on you; correct?

================================================

SnakeLord: " Wouldn't know unless I asked... right? …".


Re: For a rookie or novice, maybe; but you told me, in one of your previous posts, that you're a veteran on this theological issue. And therefore, you must be cocksure that theists have no evidence whatsoever for their belief in 'God'.

================================================

SnakeLord: " All that "proof" nonsense is for alcohol and mathematicians. What I will say is that you have your apparent "effective methods" and I clearly have mine. Don't be thinking for one second that what applies to you must apply to me. …".


Re: It is not quite clear what you mean by the word 'alcohol' within this context, but 'proofs' are no nonsense, except, perhaps, for a few inborn 'philistines'. And 'proving' is not a matter of 'your methods versus my methods', but it is a matter of logic & reason & very effective & highly regarded by rational human beings. Otherwise, you couldn't be clamoring & complaining, right here, about the inability of theists to provide you with evidence for the existence of their 'God'. Wait a minute; I think I know, now, what you mean; 'to prove alcohol is genuine, you have to taste it first'. Or as they say, the proof is in the pudding; correct?

================================================

SnakeLord: "… No idea how you come to that conclusion. …".

Re: Well; I think you told me earlier that you go to church every Tuesday to give would-be Christians the atheist take on it. From this piece of information, I concluded that you must have been doing battle against the 'god squad' inside their church; yes; no?

================================================

SnakeLord: "… Clearly you don't even know what you're saying. …".


Re: What are you trying to say? Do you mean I don't even know that you are making my 'monkey-meat' analogy sound 'stupid'? Surely, I know; you restated it as 'theists are monkey eaters'; and that is a mess, because it makes my analogy a kind of smearing & libeling & ugly & bad. And that is because everybody knows that 'theists are theists' & 'monkey eaters are monkey eaters'; and the two groups are not necessarily related. Monkey eaters & theists are similar in only one major respect: the two groups are extremely hard to convince; and the similarity between the two ends there.

================================================

SnakeLord: "… Nobody is asking them to give up their bad habits. They are asking for evidence that monkey meat is healthy to the person trying to get them to eat monkey meat. C'mon pal, wake up. I know very few atheists that honestly give a shit what you personally believe in. It's when you try and push them into that belief where they start asking for evidence. It's not because they really give a damn whether you continue to believe in it or not, it's because they wont, and most likely can't, without that evidence. …".


Re: Do you think I'm asleep, comrade? Monkey eaters are not very generous; and highly unlikely, they would ever try to convince you to eat their meager source of animal protein. And of course, you could be right that 'very few atheists that honestly give a shit what you personally believe in'. And that is one of the main reasons why most theists are so aggressive & pushy & unruly & wild. They think they know the truth and the atheists don't. In short, if you neglect your intellectual duty to show them the truth, you have no one to blame but yourself, when those lionized theists try to impose their views upon you.

================================================

SnakeLord: "… To any specific atheist determined to turn a believer into a non-believer, but that's not how it typically goes.…".


Re: Again, you could be right. However, such negligence, on the part of the atheists, is a strategic mistake of disastrous consequences for the atheists, for the theists, and for everybody else, and for the future of civilization itself. By all accounts, theists are delusional & 'cockamamie' and must be reminded constantly of the fact that 'there is, really, no God'; if not, the Middle Ages are going to be back in business in no time at all.

================================================

SnakeLord: "… Should be obvious, yeah.. I can only wonder why you didn't pick up on it. .…".


Re: 'Pick up on' what? On the fact that you know your friends better than anybody else? I guess not!

================================================

SnakeLord: "…Which has.... absolutely fuck all to do with my friends - the ones I spoke for. …".


Re: I thought you're British; I mean a real 'British'; you know; the one with a white wig, who rarely makes an eye contact with you & calls himself a 'lord'. This kind of British really hates the 'f' word; and whenever you mention it to him, he bombards you with a barrage of 'horrendous, savage, barbaric, uncivilized, uneducated, etc., etc., etc.' as a punishment for it!

================================================

SnakeLord: "… I disagree. …".


Re: You can disagree; but you can't provide evidence against it; can you?

 

[SnakeLord]

That is exactly and precisely the point of contention, here. On one hand, you think people must not believe in 'Lenny' because of lack of evidence for his existence. On the other hand, I argue that people have every right to believe in the existence of their beloved 'leprechaun', unless his existence is ruled out completely and beyond any iota of doubt.

This is where the problem is. Look, I don't care what people believe in. People have the right to believe in flying omnipotent marshmallows for all I give a damn. IF they try to force that view upon you, then they should expect questioning. NO the onus is not on the disbeliever to disprove the claims of the believer that's trying to lump those beliefs onto the disbeliever.

and the Big 'Lenny' has a heck of a job to do for society! We have to remember that theists believe in 'God', not for His own sake, but for the huge rewards

Function of the entity does not argue for it's existence or lack thereof. Furthermore, Lenny actually keeps the world operating. If it weren't for him we wouldn't even be here. Now, your arguments imply that you must now disprove what I have claimed and if you can't it's because you're lazy. I apparently do not have to even begin to show evidence for my claim, but you need to show evidence against my claim. Bizarre.

He can't be that merciless & heartless to keep you there for the entire eternity; right?

Why ever not? Is there a specific rule book for gods that says they can't be nasty bastards? What legal system is in place to prevent the actions of any god that decides not to play nice?

The theist is trying to save you!

Right then, and as such the onus is on him to support his claims. One can hardly expect the person that doesn't believe those claims to have to disprove those claims - which is what you're arguing.

but that is because the atheist has done a lousy job for NOT letting him/her see the simple truth of 'there is really no God'

No disrespect but you're talking out of your rectum. I'm at home, giving one to the missus over the dining room table when the door rings. It's some religious nutcase trying to sell me religion. The onus is now somehow on me to disprove his horseshit?

The atheist, therefore, should stop whining; because it's his/her fault of being lazy & unconcerned that the theist, now, is so wild & lionized and doing all the convincing & the scolding & the shouting; am I right?

No you're not right.. you've lost the plot.

but asking someone questions about something implies two things: you're very interested in that something & and that someone has what you're looking for. And so you should not complain, when that someone goes ahead and does the 'convincing' on you; correct?

Or, if that question is something like, hmm let's say; "have you got any evidence?" it's not because you're all that interested, it's not because you want what they're selling, it's because you wont succumb to their mental doggy doos unless they can provide evidence for their claims.

Re: For a rookie or novice, maybe; but you told me, in one of your previous posts, that you're a veteran on this theological issue. And therefore, you must be cocksure that theists have no evidence whatsoever for their belief in 'God'.

Every day is a new day.

Re: It is not quite clear what you mean by the word 'alcohol' within this context

I was pointing out the worthlessness of the word "proof". It should be left to alcohol, (which has proof [i.e 40% proof]), and mathematicians. I suppose we could get round to it one day perhaps, but for now simple 'evidence' would suffice.

but it is a matter of logic & reason & very effective & highly regarded by rational human beings

Is it really? See the thing is.. Well, you said on your last post:

"Theological propositions cannot be proven.."

Therefore you can't bring it into this discussion regardless to how effective, logical, rational yada yada it is.

So tell me, why am I sitting here telling you to leave proof out of the discussion which you are arguing against, when you yourself stated that 'proof' cannot be given in such arguments?

But anyway, do go about telling me how one can disprove the belief in god. You seem to think it's simple and only lazy people don't, so inform me as to your methods.

Otherwise, you couldn't be clamoring & complaining, right here, about the inability of theists to provide you with evidence for the existence of their 'God'.

Enough with the theatrics. This is a discussion, not a stage show.

Re: Well; I think you told me earlier that you go to church every Tuesday to give would-be Christians the atheist take on it. From this piece of information, I concluded that you must have been doing battle against the 'god squad' inside their church; yes; no?

I go for the free booze and to offer alternative views. My issue comes with you using the term "attacking" and "battle", instead of discussion and questioning. They are vastly different.

Surely, I know; you restated it as 'theists are monkey eaters'; and that is a mess, because it makes my analogy a kind of smearing & libeling & ugly & bad.

Well forgive me. I suppose, considering we're in the middle of a discussion regarding theism, that the analogy you used would have actually had some relevance to the discussion.

Indeed when you said it..

"Theists have been around for thousands of years. Their hypothesis is very conventional. And they are very much in the majority. With credentials like these, they don't have to prove anything. The situation, here, is very similar to eating monkeys in the Rain Forest! Do you think that you can convince some tribe of the Rain Forest; it's very unhealthy to eat monkeys"

I was under the impression from the above that your monkey meat eaters were comparable to the theists.

Monkey eaters & theists are similar in only one major respect: the two groups are extremely hard to convince; and the similarity between the two ends there.

Can't say I've met many monkey meat eaters, nor would I even claim that monkey meat is unhealthy.. I wouldn't know. However therein is the point.. I'm not making claims and thus am not trying to "convince" anyone. There is the point I have repeated: The onus is on the one making the claim/trying to do the convincing, not the one listening to the claimant.

Monkey eaters are not very generous; and highly unlikely, they would ever try to convince you to eat their meager source of animal protein.

Then they have little value in this discussion.

In short, if you neglect your intellectual duty to show them the truth, you have no one to blame but yourself, when those lionized theists try to impose their views upon you.

"Show them the truth" - i.e you become the claimant and thus the onus is then on you. The onus will always be on the one making the claims. You say it is your intellectual duty to show them the truth.. much like the same would be true for them.. The onus in each instance where you have a claimant, (this is true), is on them.

However, such negligence, on the part of the atheists, is a strategic mistake of disastrous consequences for the atheists

Utter verbal flatulence.

Re: I thought you're British; I mean a real 'British'; you know; the one with a white wig, who rarely makes an eye contact with you & calls himself a 'lord'. This kind of British really hates the 'f' word; and whenever you mention it to him, he bombards you with a barrage of 'horrendous, savage, barbaric, uncivilized, uneducated, etc., etc., etc.' as a punishment for it!

What have you been smoking?

Re: You can disagree; but you can't provide evidence against it; can you?

Ah, but according to your arguments I, the claimant, don't need to provide evidence, you have to prove me wrong. Lol.

 

[Godless]

Man, why is it that theist never understand. When they claim a god exists, they are the CLAIMANT!! the burden of evidence is on their shoulder, they make the claim, they need to provide the f*cking evidence!

It's as simple as that!

If I where to claim, I have an invisible purple butt monkey on my shoulder and only if you believe me, you would be able to see him, would you believe me? No! of course not, you require evidence of this phenomenon.

Well the theist say that a god exist, but its invisible, and you have to believe the claimant just on his say so! Never mind thousands of years of tradition, never mind millions of followers, never mind all that crap! can a theist provide evidence of their god! Period! that is the question, the burden of evidence is always on the one making outlandish claims!

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Simply stated, Ockham’s Razor is this: "Get rid of redundant entities".

God is a redundant entity. Because it's much simpler to assume that the world is eternal. The hypothesis of Creator explains nothing. It simply pushes the PROBLEM one floor upstairs! It's futile and redundant.

Can God create Himself?
He must. Because God is not just any creator. God, by definition, is an Absolute Creator. The Absolute Creator, who cannot create Himself, is a contradiction in terms.

But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.

Whether God can or cannot create Himself, a believer must land himself upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:

God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.

Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant.

In many respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of a little spot, which is completely black and completely white at the same time! Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory.

Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
The concept of God is contradictory.
Therefore, God does not exist.

In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it's false. To do away with it, its self-contradiction is enough. No further disproof is required.

So why do people claim from time to time that 'God' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically?

The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please inmates and get along with them even on the expense of reason and logic.

The last refuge for the folks of faith to save their 'Eternal God' from the ravages of logic and reason is to suppose that either He is timeless or He is living outside time all by Himself!

Nice try! But it doesn't help them at all. To say that God is outside of time is logically equivalent to and the same as saying that He does not exist.

moreover, getting rid of time is absolutely impossible. And even when you deny time in words, you affirm it logically in a big way. The reason for this absolute impossibility is that the flow of time forms a homogeneous continuum of all rates from the infinitely small to the infinitely large all at once. And each rate of time flow implies the rest as a necessary consequence.

Take as an example the ordinary pendulum clock!
It has three hands that run at different rates.
These three hands of the clock are only a partial snapshot of the actual flow of time.

The second hand implies on its side an infinite series of hands that run at faster and faster rates until end up with the moment hand where the rate of time flow is infinite.

The hour hand of the clock, also, implies, on its side, an infinite series of hands which run at slower and slower rates and have as their limit the eternity hand which does not move at all.

Thus there is no escape from time. And life of God outside time is meaningless.

In fact, time is an essential attribute of God.
No time; no God, but the reverse is not true.
That is to say that there is always time whether there is God or not.

Finally, we should not forget that 'God' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'God' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, if you were given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch. In this sense, even though God has no basis in reality, as an ideal is absolutely perfect and useful and you should keep Him as a guiding star and blueprint for impoving yourself at all levels.

no god didnt contradict himself he didnt speak a word .


maybe you mean the bible contradicts itself on behalf of god,


if god is infinite that means god has no start or end, he always way, it is difficult to imagine true infinity and eternity isnt it,

the human mind gets boggled over the actual thought proccess of infinity thats why we like to assume the universe and everything was "created" all the time,


if god is infinite then he was never created and will never die he always existed therefore didnt need to create himself

get it?

 

[wesmorris]

to me if one really respects the idea of god, they would never venture statements as to its properties. if the mind is so boggled by such contemplation, it must be a boggled mind that states so casually and "factually" even the generalities of the "entity" in question.

 

[wesmorris]

every claim as to what "god" must be comprised, be it general properties or specific events.... that claim is necessarily and exactly the exclamation of one person's relationship to an idea. as the necessarily subjective statement of the invidual flows from their mind, it is merely an expression of how their mind is organized... how this particular idea fits into their perception of what must comprise "reality". it cannot be validated as an objective truth due to the very nature of having the capacity to make such a statement. that one is "self" terminally contaminates the possibility of a truly "objective" (since self is subject and subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity) statement, as the most a "self" can authoritatively state is how it thinks its reality must be based upon its experience and instinct.


So people "believe things" because it allows them to cope (in terms of their perception of what it is to survive) with their percieved circumstance. The details of the beliefs as varied as the individual, and serve to modify the social dogma over time... evolving through a feedback loop in and out of the minds of the populous.

 

[AAF]

no god didnt contradict himself he didnt speak a word .

maybe you mean the bible contradicts itself on behalf of god,

if god is infinite that means god has no start or end, he always way, it is difficult to imagine true infinity and eternity isnt it,

the human mind gets boggled over the actual thought proccess of infinity thats why we like to assume the universe and everything was "created" all the time,

if god is infinite then he was never created and will never die he always existed therefore didnt need to create himself

get it?

Hi EmptyForceOfChi;

God does not contradict Himself.
And even, if He did contradict Himself, that sort
of contradiction would be worthless and devoid of any
evidential value from the standpoint of logic and pure reason.
The only significant contradiction, therefore, is the self-contradictory
definition of God. His very concept is logically contradictory.
And that, simply, means God does not exist.

 

[AAF]

:bawl:



SnakeLord: " This is where the problem is. Look, I don't care what people believe in. People have the right to believe in flying omnipotent marshmallows for all I give a damn. IF they try to force that view upon you, then they should expect questioning. NO the onus is not on the disbeliever to disprove the claims of the believer that's trying to lump those beliefs onto the disbeliever ".


Re: Theists, generally, welcome questioning & like all other believers, feel quite flattered and honoured to catch your attention. Furthermore, they honestly think they have a whole battery of convincing evidence (waiting right there for you to examine), including the marvellous design of your eyes & their 'unbelievably exquisite' ancient books. Accordingly, you might spend all your entire life asking for more & examining & rejecting one after one after one of their supposed divine evidence; and they would never run out of it. You're in a big trouble, ‘pal’; curiosity kills the cat!

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Function of the entity does not argue for it's existence or lack thereof. Furthermore, Lenny actually keeps the world operating. If it weren't for him we wouldn't even be here. Now, your arguments imply that you must now disprove what I have claimed and if you can't it's because you're lazy. I apparently do not have to even begin to show evidence for my claim, but you need to show evidence against my claim. Bizarre ".


Re: Well, if the 'function of the entity' argues for the force of gravity, it must argue for 'Lenny the leprechaun' as well. As pointed out earlier, the problem of the theists is not that they don't have any claim of evidence for the existence of their 'God'; but their real trouble is that none of their supposed evidence is evidential or has any 'proving' value at all. And so it's left for the atheist to show us the goods and disprove this imaginary entity of the theist once and for all; can you do it, 'Bizarre-Busting Lord'?

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Why ever not? Is there a specific rule book for gods that says they can't be nasty bastards? What legal system is in place to prevent the actions of any god that decides not to play nice "?


Re: Gods, by definition, have to be good & nice at heart. And if gods are not good, then they must be, automatically, demoted to devils & demons!

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Right then, and as such the onus is on him to support his claims. One can hardly expect the person that doesn't believe those claims to have to disprove those claims - which is what you're arguing ".


Re: If you ask your theist to support his claims, he, most likely, will do it and happily so, for the sake of his friend (you) and for the sake of his 'God'. In return, you (SnakeLord), most certainly, will call his supporting evidence 'inferior & bogus'. But if you look at it, objectively & soberly, you will realise that you cannot really be quite certain about the soundness of your verdict on his supposed evidence. And that is because the value of evidence, for the most part, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, what appears to be poor evidence, according to your judgement, can be very good according to the best estimate of a rational & objective & equally competent judge like you. Curiosity, therefore, has killed the cat!

=========================================

SnakeLord: " No disrespect but you're talking out of your rectum. I'm at home, giving one to the missus over the dining room table when the door rings. It's some religious nutcase trying to sell me religion. The onus is now somehow on me to disprove his horseshit "?


Re: I'm very sure mine can't talk; can yours do it? Very good then; let it do the talk to that 'religious nutcase' of yours! You see, SnakeLord; those Tuesday's Trips to the 'god squad' put you right into the 'Bull's Eye' of your saviours' target-finding machine. You're in a serious trouble, 'buddy'; and it will not surprise me the slightest bit, if this 'god squad' finally succeeds in making a 'good theist' out of you; my sympathy….

=========================================

SnakeLord: " No you're not right.. you've lost the plot ".


Re: No; I have not. Theists are doing all the convincing and the scolding and shouting, because atheists are aloof, disorganised, unmotivated, have nothing to lose, or outright lazy. Until recently, atheism has been represented, throughout history, by very few extraordinary luminaries, but with no followers or grass roots at all. And that is a big 'plus' for my point.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Every day is a new day ".


Re: That is true. But it's also true that there is nothing new under the sun.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Is it really? See the thing is.. Well, you said on your last post: "Theological propositions cannot be proven.." Therefore you can't bring it into this discussion regardless to how effective, logical, rational yada yada it is. So tell me, why am I sitting here telling you to leave proof out of the discussion which you are arguing against, when you yourself stated that 'proof' cannot be given in such arguments? But anyway, do go about telling me how one can disprove the belief in god. You seem to think it's simple and only lazy people don't, so inform me as to your methods ".


Re: Theological propositions cannot be proven true. But, and this is very important, theological propositions can be proven false. And it takes only one clear exception or one obvious contradiction to prove a specific theological proposition false; and that is the beauty of it.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Enough with the theatrics. This is a discussion, not a stage show ".


Re: That is a good advice, especially when it comes from a 'fussy' lord like you! But it's absolutely true that if proofs were worthless, you would not have been, here, railing against the theists for their lack of evidence to support their 'Divine' hypothesis.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " I go for the free booze and to offer alternative views. My issue comes with you using the term "attacking" and "battle", instead of discussion and questioning. They are vastly different ".


Re: 'Enough with' the semantics! I have my own ways; and you have yours. And they are NOT 'vastly different'.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Well forgive me. I suppose, considering we're in the middle of a discussion regarding theism, that the analogy you used would have actually had some relevance to the discussion. Indeed when you said it. "Theists have been around for thousands of years. Their hypothesis is very conventional. And they are very much in the majority. With credentials like these, they don't have to prove anything. The situation, here, is very similar to eating monkeys in the Rain Forest! Do you think that you can convince some tribe of the Rain Forest; it's very unhealthy to eat monkeys". I was under the impression from the above that your monkey meat eaters were comparable to the theists ".


Re: That is accurate. Theists & monkey eaters, within this context, are comparable with regard to their resistance to persuasion and contrary evidence.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " "Show them the truth" - i.e. you become the claimant and thus the onus is then on you. The onus will always be on the one making the claims. You say it is your intellectual duty to show them the truth.. much like the same would be true for them.. The onus in each instance where you have a claimant, (this is true), is on them ".


Re: That is not quite correct. It's true that the burden of proof is on the claimant. But (and pay a close attention, please), in theological & philosophical & scientific settings, the CONS (i.e. those who deny) have always the high ground; and their situation is far better strategically & tactically; and their task is much easier than that of the PROS (i.e. those who affirm). The reason for this clear advantage is that the cons have the two powerful logical laws of contradiction & excluded middle on their side. Also, they have the entire field of that specific domain open to them. By contrast, the pros must define what they affirm, and hence must restrict their field of operations considerably. And most importantly, no amount of evidence is enough for establishing the validity of what they affirm. And no matter how great that amount of supporting evidence is, one single failure (one single anomalous instance) can destroy their case in a blink of an eye. Consider, for example, the famous 'presumed innocence' of the legal person. Regardless of many years that 'presumed innocence' remains intact and in good standing, it goes with the wind upon committing one single 'miserable' felony. And that is just the way it is.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Utter verbal flatulence ".


Re: It is no ' verbal flatulence'; it takes just one single felony, and your presumed innocence is history! Moreover, any failure to take their intellectual duty seriously (i.e. on the part of the atheists) constitutes a strategic mistake with disastrous consequences for the atheists, for the theists, for everybody else, and for the future of civilisation itself. By all standards, theists are delusional & 'cockamamie' and must be reminded constantly of the fact that 'there is, really, no God'; if not, the Middle Ages would be back in business in no time at all.

=========================================

SnakeLord: " What have you been smoking ".


Re: I smoke 'Joe the camel' (http://www.wclynx.com/burntofferings/adsjoecamel.html) would you like to try it? So, I was, in your view, way off in imagining you as a nice 'British nobleman'; is that what you meant? Not anymore, 'farm boy'!

=========================================

SnakeLord: " Ah, but according to your arguments I, the claimant, don't need to provide evidence, you have to prove me wrong. Lol ".


Re: 'Lol' or no 'lol, you can deny it, but you can't provide any evidence against it! However, let me clarify one important point. The SnakeLord Method of 'Asking Questions' can be made very effective in finding out the truth, if the set of questions is prepared beforehand and executed according to the rules of the Socrates' Method (http://www.creatorix.com.au/philosophy/03/03f06.html). According to this latter method, the claimant is led step by step to discover absurdities and contradictions in his own claim through a series of well-designed questions. And of course, to discover an absurdity yourself is much more convincing than that of having somebody else pointed it out to you. The question, now, is (can you do it)?

 

[SnakeLord]

Accordingly, you might spend all your entire life asking for more & examining & rejecting one after one after one of their supposed divine evidence; and they would never run out of it. You're in a big trouble, ‘pal’; curiosity kills the cat!

You're clearly missing the point. While at home bonking the missus over the dining room table, I am not asking anyone for anything, (other than the missus ). If you knock on my door trying to sell me your wares, you must be able to provide suitable evidence for the existence/value of that thing. If it's a hoover, you best show me that it really does suck up even the tiniest little specks of dust if you expect me to buy it. Now, pay attention.. they can believe any crap they want to. IF they intend to try and sell it to me then they must have enough evidence to be able to convince me that the crap they are claiming is true. The onus is not on me to disprove their claims, it's on them to support them. Do you understand? Yes or no?

but their real trouble is that none of their supposed evidence is evidential or has any 'proving' value at all. And so it's left for the atheist to show us the goods and disprove this imaginary entity of the theist once and for all; can you do it, 'Bizarre-Busting Lord'?

You seem to be quite confused. None of their evidence is evidential = not evidence = no reason to believe in their crap. IF they want me to believe in their crap then they must be able to provide suitable evidence to convince me of it's truth. What in the world makes you think I need to go out of my way to disprove the crap that others claim?

Re: Gods, by definition, have to be good & nice at heart.

I've looked. Where is god defined in such manner? Furthermore, I suppose that's subjective... The way I see it I could never define a god that annihilates every living being on a planet as "nice" or "good". I could never define a god that turns a woman into salt for being curious, sulphur bombs an entire city, allows evil snakes to infiltrate and corrupt mankind, and ends up burning the mass majority of mankind for all eternity as "nice". In saying, the jewish/christian god is clearly not a god.

Here's undoubtedly where you'll try to justify those actions. Ergo: subjective.

If you ask your theist to support his claims, he, most likely, will do it and happily so, for the sake of his friend (you) and for the sake of his 'God'. In return, you (SnakeLord), most certainly, will call his supporting evidence 'inferior & bogus'.

That depends on the evidence. "This book says that..." <-- that is not evidence.

In other words, what appears to be poor evidence, according to your judgement, can be very good according to the best estimate of a rational & objective & equally competent judge like you.

The current evidence would suggest that there is not one thing as an objective theist.

SnakeLord; those Tuesday's Trips to the 'god squad' put you right into the 'Bull's Eye' of your saviours' target-finding machine. You're in a serious trouble, 'buddy'; and it will not surprise me the slightest bit, if this 'god squad' finally succeeds in making a 'good theist' out of you; my sympathy….

A) These knocks on my door have nothing to do with my Tuesday visits.

B) They wont make a theist out of me. I am still sane.

C) We're not buddies.

Theists are doing all the convincing and the scolding and shouting, because atheists are aloof, disorganised, unmotivated, have nothing to lose, or outright lazy.

A) It's always going to be difficult for a minority to make big changes, and yet they are happening gradually.

B) Atheists by and large don't really care what other people believe or want to believe. It is when those beliefs infringe and impose upon the lives and rights of those atheists when it becomes an issue.

C) Religiosity and religious authority in this country are dwindling. It seems the atheists are prevailing.

Until recently, atheism has been represented, throughout history, by very few extraordinary luminaries, but with no followers or grass roots at all.

We're a minority. Until recently womens rights were represented by a handful of flat chested tomboys. Now look at the rights of women. Changes rarely happen overnight, and the atheist has less cause than say women because by and large our nations, (mine at least), is already secular enough. I have no quarrel with people having their silly beliefs and thus have very little to fight against unless they infringe and impose upon my life and rights.

Theological propositions cannot be proven true. But, and this is very important, theological propositions can be proven false. And it takes only one clear exception or one obvious contradiction to prove a specific theological proposition false; and that is the beauty of it.

To use an earlier quote you made: "And that is because the value of evidence, for the most part, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, what appears to be poor evidence, according to your judgement, can be very good according to the best estimate of a rational & objective & equally competent judge like you."

If the value of the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, then you could not disprove anything to anyone that doesn't want it to be disproven. They would simply view that data differently to you - and thus when you say "here, this shows your god doesn't exist", they'll say "no it doesn't" and that's the end of that discussion.

Tell me, what exactly is a "clear exception" or "obvious contradiction" to someone elses mind, someone equally as competent as you that doesn't view the data in the same way?

But it's absolutely true that if proofs were worthless, you would not have been, here, railing against the theists for their lack of evidence to support their 'Divine' hypothesis.

You yourself showed that it was worthless. I am here to discuss issues. I'm not one of these convert types, because I couldn't honestly give a shit what you believe in. I will however debate them A) for my own interest and B) you can learn things you didn't know before.

Theists & monkey eaters, within this context, are comparable with regard to their resistance to persuasion and contrary evidence.

Right, we're getting somewhere. Now, in both instances IF the meat eater/theist is trying to convince you to believe what they believe then the onus is on them.

in theological & philosophical & scientific settings, the CONS (i.e. those who deny) have always the high ground; and their situation is far better strategically & tactically; and their task is much easier than that of the PROS (i.e. those who affirm).

Lenny the leprechaun exists. The onus is now, apparently, on you to disprove it. Enjoy.

Re: It is no ' verbal flatulence'; it takes just one single felony, and your presumed innocence is history!

All due respect but 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'you must disprove my claim that Lenny the leprechaun exists' are two entirely different things.

So, I was, in your view, way off in imagining you as a nice 'British nobleman'; is that what you meant? Not anymore, 'farm boy'!

Eh? You were waffling on about British people wearing wigs, hating the word fuck, and then some other garbage I can't quite remember. As a result I asked what you were smoking. You can imagine me any way you want, if you type nonsense in this forum I will undoubtedly ask you what you've been smoking.

Re: 'Lol' or no 'lol, you can deny it, but you can't provide any evidence against it!

Sure I can. Anything can be 'proven true' to a person who is of the nature that would accept a specific piece of evidence as suitable enough. My brother for instance has never been a theist, but after being dragged to church and having some freaky experience, is now a theist. To him whatever 'evidence' he found/was provided is clearly suitable. He found his 'proof', (such a pointless word), in this experience he had. There you have it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Man, why is it that theist never understand. When they claim a god exists, they are the CLAIMANT!! the burden of evidence is on their shoulder, they make the claim, they need to provide the f*cking evidence!

*************
M*W: That gripes me, too. They turn it around and say atheists don't have evidence of their god not existing. Well, after all, it is their god not ours, so why should we have evidence of something we don't believe in the first place?

Then, there's the problem of every new christian who comes to sciforums. They're like a broken record. Their same ridiculous rhetoric starts over again, and we end up having to replay the counters to their arguments, and it always ends up the same. They either go away when they see they're not going to win the debate, or they stay but have learned nothing because they didn't come here to learn. They come here to witness for their god and to preach. That's the only reason they're here.

I think it should be required that each new member become familiar with sub-forum histories, so the same threads are not repeated everytime a christian joins. Who knows? They might actually learn something if they could just pry open their mind a little with a crow bar. It's like they wear a sign on their forehead that says, "Ignorance is bliss, and I refuse to learn."

What gets me is that they have their own christian forums where they can preach and witness til the cows come home, but they come here. I just believe it is dishonest of them, because their agenda is to manipulate and denigrate honest discussion and debate.

Most atheists spend time reading and researching the long history of the dishonesty of christianity. Christians come here having never read anything scholarly or extra-biblical about their own religion. Doesn't that seem a bit dishonest of them, too? They cannot hold their own in honest debate about their religion, and some of them like IAC, can't hold his on if it takes more than five words. He has never answered a question that was ever asked of him. His presence here is not an honest one.

Christians will never be able to provide any evidence for their beliefs, and atheists will never be able to provide evidence for what they don't believe. What's wrong with this picture? If they can't prove their god exists, atheists don't need to prove something that is not a reality. When they ask us to prove a negative, this is also dishonest of them. Where christians are concerned, I just don't see anything changing.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Hi EmptyForceOfChi;

God does not contradict Himself.
And even, if He did contradict Himself, that sort
of contradiction would be worthless and devoid of any
evidential value from the standpoint of logic and pure reason.
The only significant contradiction, therefore, is the self-contradictory
definition of God. His very concept is logically contradictory.
And that, simply, means God does not exist.

hi ,



i dont get what you mean by "his very concept is logically contradictory therefore he doesent exist"


infinity, was never born, will never die, always was.


peace.

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: That gripes me, too. They turn it around and say atheists don't have evidence of their god not existing. Well, after all, it is their god not ours, so why should we have evidence of something we don't believe in the first place?

Then, there's the problem of every new christian who comes to sciforums. They're like a broken record. Their same ridiculous rhetoric starts over again, and we end up having to replay the counters to their arguments, and it always ends up the same. They either go away when they see they're not going to win the debate, or they stay but have learned nothing because they didn't come here to learn. They come here to witness for their god and to preach. That's the only reason they're here.

I think it should be required that each new member become familiar with sub-forum histories, so the same threads are not repeated everytime a christian joins. Who knows? They might actually learn something if they could just pry open their mind a little with a crow bar. It's like they wear a sign on their forehead that says, "Ignorance is bliss, and I refuse to learn."

What gets me is that they have their own christian forums where they can preach and witness til the cows come home, but they come here. I just believe it is dishonest of them, because their agenda is to manipulate and denigrate honest discussion and debate.

Most atheists spend time reading and researching the long history of the dishonesty of christianity. Christians come here having never read anything scholarly or extra-biblical about their own religion. Doesn't that seem a bit dishonest of them, too? They cannot hold their own in honest debate about their religion, and some of them like IAC, can't hold his on if it takes more than five words. He has never answered a question that was ever asked of him. His presence here is not an honest one.

Christians will never be able to provide any evidence for their beliefs, and atheists will never be able to provide evidence for what they don't believe. What's wrong with this picture? If they can't prove their god exists, atheists don't need to prove something that is not a reality. When they ask us to prove a negative, this is also dishonest of them. Where christians are concerned, I just don't see anything changing.

M*W,

Obviously the reason this thread has over 1,000 responses is because of counter arguments by Christians. You dont want them to leave but when you cannot sway them or get them to accept your beliefs you get angry.

Even when someone comes along asking honest questions (me) who is not a Christian (why-because they do not pray, go to church or had any indoctrination) your response to them is Jesus is BS...take my word for it.

What was the single catalyst which convinced you Jesus was not an actual being? Afterall you and many here are allways saying John is a Christian, just bc i had one Christlike premonition (noteremonition of JC, not stating i am JC)? for that matter i could be Muslim, i could be Jewish i could be anything but i am just me.

So if we are to call for honesty, what was the one turning point that precipitated\convinced you? That's all, obviously i think you are smart too but i dont think everyone else is dumb either.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W, Obviously the reason this thread has over 1,000 responses is because of counter arguments by Christians. You dont want them to leave but when you cannot sway them or get them to accept your beliefs you get angry.

*************
M*W: Hi, John. First, let me say that I don't want christians to leave, but their arguments are always the same as are ours. It just keeps going in circles.

Secondly, there is no way an atheist could convert a christian with a snap of his or her fingers. It doesn't work that way. It literally took me years to transition from a christian to an atheist. Becoming atheistic is not done on a whim. It could be a lifetime of growth and learning, before one experiences that final revelation. Also, I can't speak for any other atheist, because their experience may have been different than mine. Some of us are more hard-headed than others. Everyone's environment is different such as family and immediate surroundings, one's access to libraries and bookstores, and now with the Internet, learning has become so much easier. And it takes the desire to learn. So, I don't think it's a matter of 'swaying' them toward atheism. For me, I just want them to read what I have to say and follow it up with their own research to confirm or deny what I have stated. I want to give them the truth as I know it, but it is up to them to go further with it. Right at about 100% of them will just argue with me and never look anything up, probably out of fear of the unknown, fear of finding that other people might also believe what I believe, and it scares them. Most of them respond to me as if I'm the antichrist, but that's okay. They are coming from a place of fear within themselves... not from me. Let me know if this answered your question.

Even when someone comes along asking honest questions (me) who is not a Christian (why-because they do not pray, go to church or had any indoctrination) your response to them is Jesus is BS...take my word for it.

*************
M*W: I believe you have asked me honest questions. That is why I am answering you. The fact is, most christians don't want to know. I will respect anyone who asks by giving them the best answer I can.

It depends on the sincerity of the one with the question. Most christians don't ask questions, so you are the exception. You say you're not a christian, but when you came here, you appeared to be a fundamental christian, or maybe that was my perception of you. I usually don't start out bashing JC. It's only after it becomes obvious that they are not sincere. Also, like I said before, I don't care if anyone believes me or not, that's why I provide references and bibliographies for them to read, but sadly, they usually come back denigrating those references without having ever read them! For the most part, christians only want to cite references from their bible of choice, but to atheists, the bible isn't a reliable source!

What was the single catalyst which convinced you Jesus was not an actual being?

*************
M*W: That didn't come about until I first came to sciforums, in 2001, I think. Before that, while I was a christian, I traveled all over Europe to holy shrines like Lourdes, Fatima, The Vatican, etc. It was at St. Peter's in The Vatican, and even Rome as a whole, that seemed to be pagan. I was confused at the time to see pagan gods in St. Peter's. I had such an eerie feeling of dishonesty in the church, so much that my skin crawled! I looked around at the tourists, and they all seemed zombie-like. I wondered if I seemed that way to them. Everything was so ritualistic... mindless gestures.

I thought the purpose of my pilgrimage to Rome was to find Jesus and experience the efficacy of his grace. Jesus was an afterthought behind all the pagan gods and saints. I was desparately seeking a firsthand communion with Jesus, but he wasn't there for me. I was very disappointed and distraught, but my search for Jesus continued. I thought that it must be my lack of faith that kept Jesus from revealing himself to me. I had to change. I had to improve my relations with Jesus, and I set out to do just that, but it was as if Jesus kept getting farther and farther away from me. I had prayer groups lay hands on me and pray that I got closer to Jesus. This ignited my thirst for more knowledge about Jesus, and I pursued my research almost fanatically! Then the questions came, and I tried to get answers from the priests, religious people in the community, and from books, etc. All that did was bring more questions. This took a period of years from 1978 until 2001.

When I came to sciforums, I still believed Jesus existed and god created the universe. I collected a library of religious and scholarly references. Then, subtly, the answers to the questions I had were being revealed! It was probably one of stronger christians on the forum who was eloquent and knowledgeable that made Jesus sound like a fictional character! Then I started believing that a character like these christians are describing couldn't possibly exist! Then it became clear to me. Jesus never existed, and there was no creator god! It all made sense. I continued to read everything I could, and with everything I read, the lies of christianity reared their ugly heads.

So, my point is that it wasn't exactly a single catalyst, it was a progressive awakening.

Afterall you and many here are allways saying John is a Christian, just bc i had one Christlike premonition (noteremonition of JC, not stating i am JC)? for that matter i could be Muslim, i could be Jewish i could be anything but i am just me.

*************
M*W: Yes, I thought you were a christian.

So if we are to call for honesty, what was the one turning point that precipitated\convinced you?

*************
M*W: As I've stated above, there wasn't a single catalyst that showed me the truth, it was a series of confirmations. Someone else might have a totally different experience. I don't believe there is one specific thing that will enlighten people with the truth. But if I had to pin point it, I would say my tour of The Vatican sort of slapped me into reality, and what I've learned on sciforums has answered all the questions christianity tried to hide.

That's all, obviously i think you are smart too but i dont think everyone else is dumb either.

*************
M*W: I don't think everyone else is dumb, or they wouldn't come here or stay very long. I think it's more of a fear of finding out something that could rock their world.

 

[John99]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, you make such good post's (not that i allways agree with them) and can't wait to fully read it, i did scan through it but have to go out right now. I will read it tonight.