In regards to atheism.

[Michael 345]

Proof That God Exists
QUESTION: Is there any proof that God exists?

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/proof-that-god-exists-faq.htm

If anyone cares to check this link

THIS is why I became a ATHEISTS

Thesist put this forward as proof

Rambling

rambling

rambling

lots more rambling

god? Nope

Thought bubble

Does a person who does not believe in the devil have the same title atheists?

Never seen proof of the devil either

Here's a challenge for ANY god or devil who exist

And in this age of equal opportunity there is no sex or age or weight or height or planetary or entity discrimination

First one who turns up gets me

I can't believe I have been waiting 5 minutes and no entity turned up

Guess it's the ATHEISTS life for me

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Pourquoi niez-vous que Dieu n'existe pas, quand c'est vrai?

Doble negativa.

 

[Sarkus]

Because I don't need to.
Plus that would take us off topic.
I'm determined to stay on topic. Aren't you?

It will keep us very much on topic:
Why do atheists lack belief when there is so much evidence for God? We are not convinced by so-called "evidence" that is put forward.
Why are you not convinced? Post some evidence that convinces you and we can discuss why we are not convinced.
See - very much on topic.

And you probably should post some if you want to actually discuss anything meaningful.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here goes..
More obfuscation.

No, you really don't understand how logic works.

You'll notice no one, anywhere,ever, offering evidence that purple cosmic unicorns don't exist.
You know why? Because no one's saying they do. So there's no discussion to be had.

If someone asserts that PCUs exist, then we have a discussion.
And the first point will be: "OK, what makes you think they exist?"

No, only of the claim (no matter how hidden), that God does not exist.

Why would anyone set out to prove such a thing does not exist?

Unless someone is asserting it does.

Oh, you are? OK. Make your case.

That is where this discussion still is.

Make your case. In 1300 posts you have yet to do that.

Until then, the atheist stance prevails simply by default.

 

[Sarkus]

No it's not. The easiest way is for ya'll, is to start talking, and stop hiding behind terms, and feeble excuses.

Oh, the irony!
Where are the terms I'm hiding behind? Where are the feeble excuses?

Start talking. The first thing is why do you deny that God does not exist, when that is true?

Are you sure you meant the double negative??
As for me, I deny that God exists and I deny that God does not exist. I am in the camp of "I don't know". I lack belief that god(s) exist thus I am atheist. I, like others here, can't accept that God does not exist for me because I don't know if that is true or not.
This position has been explained to you numerous times.

 

[DaveC426913]

No it's not. The easiest way is for ya'll, is to start talking, and stop hiding behind terms, and feeble excuses.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.

Unless there is first a compellingly made assertion of the existence of something called God - there is nothing to even refute.

Your attempt to go on the offense is a transparent ploy to whitewash the hundreds of issues and questions you have refused to address.

 

[DaveC426913]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

And that's still you. Otherwise there's nothing for anyone to refute.

 

[gmilam]

No. It's me throwing you a bone.

Jan.

As I said, troll. Asshole also comes to mind.

 

[DaveC426913]

[dupe]

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not trying to go out of my way to knock Jan, but this ploy is getting excruciatingly transparent.

Imagine Jan at an Inventor's fair.

Jan: "This is my Perpetual Motion Machine. It produces free energy."
Bob: "It does, does it? Let's see it work."
Jan: "Here's an ancient document showing a design. It's ancient so you know you can trust it."
Bob: "I want to see yours work."
Jan: "LOTS of people believe in perpetual motion. You'll find plenty of plans for PMMs on Google. How it works is your problem to figure out."
Bob: "More interested in your device, here."
Jan: "PMM just IS! Prove it doesn't work!"
Bob: "I'm not actually saying it doesn't, I'd sort of first like to see it demonstr..."
Jan: "Hah! You can produce no evidence that my PMM is not what I say it is!"
Bob: "Actually, we're just extremely dubious that..."
Jan: "PMM IS! PMM IS!"

Does that pretty much mirror the last 1300 posts (and without hyperbole I might add)?

 

[Jan Ardena]

As I said, troll. Asshole also comes to mind.

Is this ''in regards to atheism''?
If yes, how?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this ''in regards to atheism''?
If yes, how?

Yes. It is a "point of order". i.e. it is about the nature of the discussion. gmilman is simply not being diplomatic about it.

You have stopped arguing in good faith. That is plainly apparent. You have been called out on your discussion tactics - by most everyone.

The point is: argue in good faith. Or be treated like someone who doesn't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof.

Unless there is first a compellingly made assertion of the existence of something called God - there is nothing to even refute.

Your attempt to go on the offense is a transparent ploy to whitewash the hundreds of issues and questions you have refused to address.

As far as I know, if someone makes a claim, it is up to them to at least give a reasonable explanation, if they cannot produce the evidence, so they can back it up.

I don't know what you mean by go on the offense, but you guys seem to be always asking for evidence, despite reasonable explanation, so I figure I can ask for evidence, or at least a reasonable excuse for why God does NOT exist, for you.

I am aware that there are 2 positions that are accepted, God IS, and God does not exist. God IS, is the default position (hence the need for atheists), and God does not exist (the atheist position) is the opposing position for which there must be a reason for.

You don't accept 'the fool doth say in his heart, there is no God', so what is the evidence that God does not exist? Or are you simply rebellious to the norm?

And that's still you. Otherwise there's nothing for anyone to refute.

I simply observe the two positions, and accept that God Is. You're the ones who take it upon yourselves to claim (albeit not very well hidden), that God does not exist. So back it up.

I'm not trying to knock Jan, but this ploy is getting excruciatingly transparent.

I don't need a ploy, but I try to be as transparent as possible, so what I say can easily be understood.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't know what you mean by go on the offense, but you guys seem to be always asking for evidence, despite reasonable explanation, so I figure I can ask for evidence, or at least a reasonable excuse for why God does NOT exist, for you.

You're the one that is repeatedly stating that "God does not exist for you". You make the claim about us and then insist that we are making the claim?? Dishonest, Jan. Bigly dishonest.

I am aware that there are 2 positions that are accepted, God IS, and God does not exist.

Accepted by you as being the 2 positions, at least. For many of us here there is the position that God's existence is an unknown. We of that position certainly don't state that God does not exist.
You don't like the "probably", seemingly because it differs from the strawman that you so desperately want to fight against. So you dismiss it as "fake", and you insist that the position is actually one of "God does not exist for you". Note, again, that it is you who are making the claim about the other position, not them. That you mistake / misrepresent their position is bad enough, but to then assert that they are claiming what they are not, and that they have to support what you claim about it: blatant bullcrap on your part.

God IS, is the default position (hence the need for atheists),...

Default for who??? Who says it is the default? It is the prevalent position, sure, hence the need the atheists who disagree with its assertions, but that does not equate to it being the default. The default is non-existence - the same as the default position of everything else: we don't start with the default position that unicorns exist, do we? But I guess you are giving prevalence and popularity a say in what is the default position, right? You're giving belief in God special treatment, right? The fact that billions of people may hold the same view does not make it the default. My default, once I grew up and got an education, was not to accept claims as true without some level of support behind them. That includes the claim that "God is".

and God does not exist (the atheist position) is the opposing position for which there must be a reason for.

You have been given a reason: insufficient / lack of / unconvincing evidence to hold the belief, starting from the default position of non-belief.

You don't accept 'the fool doth say in his heart, there is no God', so what is the evidence that God does not exist? Or are you simply rebellious to the norm?

Rebellious to those norms that I find unconvincing or unsupported. Are you just a sheep to the norm, without thinking critically about what it is you believe??

I simply observe the two positions, and accept that God Is.

Why (ignoring the false dilemma you have created for yourself)?

You're the ones who take it upon yourselves to claim (albeit not very well hidden), that God does not exist. So back it up.

Few here have made such a claim. Most claim that they don't know whether God exists or not, and some would go further and say that the more attributes you assign to God the less likely they consider it is that it exists as described.
I repeat again, though, that it is you who is making claims about our position. It is you who claims that we are claiming that God does not exist. You are pushing this claim upon us when it is simply not there. All because that is what your strawman looks like, the strawman you have built for yourself, the caricature of atheism that you feel you can at least understand. Just a pity it bears little resemblance to actual atheists.

I don't need a ploy, but I try to be as transparent as possible, so what I say can easily be understood.

Stop lying so brazenly, Jan. You are only transparent in that it is patently clear that you have no desire here to actually discuss, no desire to understand, no desire to do anything but try to argue that all atheists are the same as your strawman; and you are transparent in your efforts to evade, divert, and basically troll, rather than engage.
Your actual position, though, Jan, is as opaque as ever, and what you say is clouded with equivocation, with redefinition of words, that make it anything but easy to understand.
And you know that.

 

[Michael 345]

I'm not trying to go out of my way to knock Jan, but this ploy is getting excruciatingly transparent.

Imagine Jan at an Inventor's fair.

Jan: "This is my Perpetual Motion Machine. It produces free energy."
Bob: "It does, does it? Let's see it work."
Jan: "Here's an ancient document showing a design. It's ancient so you know you can trust it."
Bob: "I want to see yours work."
Jan: "LOTS of people believe in perpetual motion. You'll find plenty of plans for PMMs on Google. How it works is your problem to figure out."
Bob: "More interested in your device, here."
Jan: "PMM just IS! Prove it doesn't work!"
Bob: "I'm not actually saying it doesn't, I'd sort of first like to see it demonstr..."
Jan: "Hah! You can produce no evidence that my PMM is not what I say it is!"
Bob: "Actually, we're just extremely dubious that..."
Jan: "PMM IS! PMM IS!"

Does that pretty much mirror the last 1300 posts (and without hyperbole I might add)?

Please please please

Just a tiny deviation

Does that pretty much mirror the last 1300 posts (and without hyperbole I might add)?

YES YES a thousand times yes (sans hyperbole)

 

[Michael 345]

The easiest way is for ya'll

I swear officer I saw what looked like a farmer complete with straw hanging from his mouth flying by

Prove it?

You prove I didn't see him first

 

[DaveC426913]

...you guys seem to be always asking for evidence, despite reasonable explanation,

Correct.

so I figure I can ask for evidence, or at least a reasonable excuse for why God does NOT exist, for you.

To which the answer is: show me this God that objectively exists. You can't.

So, you have nothing to discuss.

i.e. so far, there is nothing on the table to be denied.

I am aware that there are 2 positions that are accepted, God IS,

This is a made up term. Invalid. Arguing in bad faith.

and accept that God Is.

You made up this term. You've openly declared what it doesn't mean: it doesn't mean objective existence. You declared that. Other than in your head, it has no meaning.

You're the ones who take it upon yourselves to claim (albeit not very well hidden), that God does not exist. So back it up.

I have never made such a claim. See above.

I would hazard to say no one here has made such an assertion either. They've stated their belief - everyone is entitled to their beliefs, just like you are. But - as you are uncomfortably aware - no one has any reason to present evidence for it, for the express reason that no one is asserting it as fact.

I don't need a ploy, but I try to be as transparent as possible, so what I say can easily be understood.

Really?
"God Is" is your "Special Term". You pretend it's a trump card. It's a delusion.
I'm not calling it a delusion to be insulting; I'm calling it a delusion because it is being erroneously touted as objective when it is, by definition subjective. That's a delusion.

How is it by definition subjective? Because you made it up. It only has meaning to you. That's the definition of subjective.

 

[DaveC426913]

...God does not exist (the atheist position)

I'm going to address this on its own, because it directly and succinctly addresses the title topic of this thread (which, as Jan points out, is about atheism, not about God).


There is no general atheist position; it is simply a bunch of people who have all come to the same conclusion, in their own way, for their own reasons.
Rational people view the universe, how it operates, and have no need to invent either Gods or unicorns.

'Atheism' is a catch-all, for convenience of discussion [in discussions about spiritual matters]. No rational thinker goes around saying 'Hey here's a fun topic! Let's talk about the lack of God!'


If I told you I were politically liberal, would you assert that I have identical views to every other liberal? No. It's just a general term that has no specific meaning at the individual level. It's a label of convenience. It does not constrain the views of the individual to any particular stance.

The label is not the person. The map is not the territory.


And, frankly, if Jan wants to assert that God exists, start a new thread. As he points out, this thread is not the place for it.

That should have been post 2.
And then this thread would be two posts long.

 

[spidergoat]

I am aware that there are 2 positions that are accepted, God IS, and God does not exist. God IS, is the default position (hence the need for atheists), and God does not exist (the atheist position) is the opposing position for which there must be a reason for.

I don't claim that god doesn't exist, and I'm an atheist. I see no reason to think it's true, and I live my life as if it's nonsense, until further reliable evidence to the contrary. That means- my own feelings, thoughts, or hallucinations are not reliable as true indicators of reality. Any observations that are internal should need justification in the external world as a prerequisite for belief. I think it's OK to have tentative beliefs on the basis of incomplete information, as long as I realize they can't be completely trusted.

Also, people who are now atheists also claim to have known god when they were theists, it's a common thing with religion. You get caught up in it and self-hypnotize. This is evidence that such feelings are the result of the religion, not that an omnipotent being is the root cause. Otherwise, you could never lose your religion, as clearly people do.

 

[Sarkus]

And, frankly, if Jan wants to assert that God exists, start a new thread. As he points out, this thread is not the place for it.

I disagree. This is the place for it in as much as one of the primary reasons for many being atheist is what they see as lack of convincing evidence for the existence of God. To understand these atheist, therefore, one needs to understand why they find unconvincing what theists find convincing.
So if Jan put forth some / any evidence that he finds convincing, as asked of him, then we can examine what about that evidence does not convince the atheist.
It is certainly not for the atheist to try to put forth evidence that they find unconvincing, as they have no idea if it is evidence that the theist is even convinced by it in the first place.

But to understand the atheist one does need to understand what convinces the theist. And from there why the atheist is not convinced.
The two are inseparable sides of the same coin.

So Jan should/does assert that God exists. But we are no closer to an understanding of atheism because he refuses to go any further, refuses to explain what he sees as evidence and why it convinces him. Yes, he's put forth "everything" as evidence, but there is no explanation of why it convinces.
Or maybe circular reasoning starting from the a priori belief that God exists is really all there is.

Either way, I see no issue with the asserting, but in this thread it has to be for the reason of developing further understanding of the atheist.
Simply asserting it so as to be able to conclude one is atheist "because you are without God" is ultimately of no value whatsoever in furthering this understanding.