Responsibility of the Theist

[Neverfly]

try this
"the president exists in the white house "

"Prove it to me"

"I can't, because it's a matter of you falling in line with the rules and regs of admittance to the white house"

"Ok then. You are full of shit and deserve to be derided."

:shrug:

Ridiculous.
The existence of the president CAN be independently verified and is well documented with a large amount of supporting evidence.

The existence of a deity is not independently verifiable nor falsifiable by any means whatsoever and is documented only by ancient scribblings during the ages of superstition.

Your analogy fails miserably.

 

[Neverfly]

As a theist (muslim), I have no problems with my faith being ridiculed by the non-theists. I used to think that atheists (especially westerners) are always anti-islam, but then I observed that the atheists basically questioning whatever religions. There is not so much freedom to do so in my home country (Indonesia), it is a well-known fact that saying you don't believe in God, especially in written state, can get you in jail (it's prohibited by constitution). There were some influential leaders jailed because questioning religions or God. Therefore, to see atheists ridiculing or criticizing my religion is kinda fresh air to me, because it makes me think and examining my belief (I consider it as a feedback). However, I HAVE problem if I am treated differently because of my faith. For example, if because I am a muslim I am not allowed to enter certain places like restaurants. But if that should happened, I probably just walk away and wish the place a bad bad karma, hehe.

How oppressive. Truly, I am sorry for you.

i have come to know god through experience, and i could share that with you if you wanted me to.

Perhaps you could explain this experience and the abundant evidence it provides?

 

[lightgigantic]

Ridiculous.
The existence of the president CAN be independently verified and is well documented with a large amount of supporting evidence.

verified by who (or what) exactly?
what does it mean to be be "verified independently"?

The existence of a deity is not independently verifiable nor falsifiable by any means whatsoever and is documented only by ancient scribblings during the ages of superstition.

Your analogy fails miserably.

On the contrary, its closer than you think

 

[Neverfly]

verified by who (or what) exactly?
what does it mean to be be "verified independently"?

You need to ask what independent verification is?
And yes, I can independently verify that the president exists and so can you.

Unlike God, he makes public appearances. Attend one.

On the contrary, its closer than you think

On the contrary, it isn't.

Don't let pride get in your way Lightgigantic. It's ok to admit your analogy failed. I end up doing it frequently myself.

Do you realize that if you claim that the president is unfalsifiable, it actually DETRACTS from any theist claims you can make?

Not a big deal. Admit your analogy was flawed and try to come up with a better one.

 

[CptBork]

I used to think that atheists (especially westerners) are always anti-islam, but then I observed that the atheists basically questioning whatever religions. There is not so much freedom to do so in my home country (Indonesia), it is a well-known fact that saying you don't believe in God, especially in written state, can get you in jail (it's prohibited by constitution).

That sort of attitude (by the Indonesian government) contributes a great deal to the friction between atheists/westerners and Muslims. If people won't let you criticize their ideas and beliefs, it means they're insecure, because they know their beliefs are founded on weak principles and are afraid of seeing them challenged by rational thinking. As I've said before, good ideas don't need violence and discrimination to defeat bad ideas, they win based on merit alone.

I'm a bit surprised with seeing what you wrote, because SAM's always told us how Indonesia represents a particularly enlightened, pacifist sect of Islam that doesn't compel anyone to follow it by force. I complained that we in the west welcome and tolerate immigrants and visitors from every corner of the globe along with their unique traditions and cultures, and that few if any Muslim countries reciprocate with equal openness. Indonesia was the counterexample she attempted to use.

 

[lightgigantic]

You need to ask what independent verification is?
And yes, I can independently verify that the president exists and so can you.

Unlike God, he makes public appearances. Attend one.

just getting down to brass tacks
so you've seen the president in person?

On the contrary, it isn't.

Don't let pride get in your way Lightgigantic. It's ok to admit your analogy failed. I end up doing it frequently myself.

Do you realize that if you claim that the president is unfalsifiable, it actually DETRACTS from any theist claims you can make?

Not a big deal. Admit your analogy was flawed and try to come up with a better one.

I see you haven't clued on the direction that the analogy takes

 

[Neverfly]

just getting down to brass tacks

Of course we are.

so you've seen the president in person?

As a matter of fact, yes.
Now, knowing this, are you going to point out that I cannot PROVE that who I saw speaking to the crowd, wearing a white shirt with sleeves rolled up and a tie, was not an impersonator? An alien? A dragon in human form?

Are you going to claim that I cannot PROVE that I actually saw him?
If I happened to capture it on video, will you claim I faked the video?

Can I PROVE I saw him?
I can't. See, that is how Science works. Proofs only exist in mathematics.
Evidence is the standard in science. So while the evidence that the current president exists is 99.99% conclusive, I cannot prove it was NOT an alien Elvis clone with plastic surgery and make up doing an impersonation.

He is, however, falsifiable. A slew of simple tests can continue to support the conclusion that the man exists. There are many many many photographs, videos, recordings and mountains of other evidence demonstrating his existence, still produced daily.
YOU CAN go see him yourself.

God, however, is unfalsifiable. There is NO test, whatsoever, that can provide empirical and independently verifiable evidence that he exists.
There are NO recordings, videos, photos, people who have seen him... Only a lot of BELIEVERS that claim they think he must exist because a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself horribly says that he does.

By comparing the two in the same light, as you had, you provide the consideration that if the President is unfalsifiable, with the magnitude of evidence that supports that... Then God must be EXTREMELY unfalsifiable with the major LACK of evidence and magnitude of evidence against it.
Seriously, it blows God into whole new proportions of non existence.

Clearly, you had not considered this.


Also... I note that your pride is still preventing you from honorably admitting to your error. Instead, you try to play it off as if poor simple minded me cannot understand your analogy.
C'mon, buddy. What do you take me for?

I see you haven't clued on the direction that the analogy takes

Typical diversionary tactic.

If you have a clue- Provide it. Consider me a poor simple minded blind fool, if needs be.
I have little tolerance for word games.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course we are.

As a matter of fact, yes.
Now, knowing this, are you going to point out that I cannot PROVE that who I saw speaking to the crowd, wearing a white shirt with sleeves rolled up and a tie, was not an impersonator? An alien? A dragon in human form?

Are you going to claim that I cannot PROVE that I actually saw him?
If I happened to capture it on video, will you claim I faked the video?

Can I PROVE I saw him?
I can't. See, that is how Science works. Proofs only exist in mathematics.
Evidence is the standard in science. So while the evidence that the current president exists is 99.99% conclusive, I cannot prove it was NOT an alien Elvis clone with plastic surgery and make up doing an impersonation.

He is, however, falsifiable. A slew of simple tests can continue to support the conclusion that the man exists. There are many many many photographs, videos, recordings and mountains of other evidence demonstrating his existence, still produced daily.
YOU CAN go see him yourself.

God, however, is unfalsifiable. There is NO test, whatsoever, that can provide empirical and independently verifiable evidence that he exists.
There are NO recordings, videos, photos, people who have seen him... Only a lot of BELIEVERS that claim they think he must exist because a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself horribly says that he does.

By comparing the two in the same light, as you had, you provide the consideration that if the President is unfalsifiable, with the magnitude of evidence that supports that... Then God must be EXTREMELY unfalsifiable with the major LACK of evidence and magnitude of evidence against it.
Seriously, it blows God into whole new proportions of non existence.

Clearly, you had not considered this.


Also... I note that your pride is still preventing you from honorably admitting to your error. Instead, you try to play it off as if poor simple minded me cannot understand your analogy.
C'mon, buddy. What do you take me for?


Typical diversionary tactic.

If you have a clue- Provide it. Consider me a poor simple minded blind fool, if needs be.
I have little tolerance for word games.

No you jumped the gun I'm afraid.

Actually it goes something like this.

"Well since you say that you have seen him, prove that the president exists (to me)"

/grabs popcorn

 

[Neverfly]

No you jumped the gun I'm afraid.

Actually it goes something like this.

"Well since you say that you have seen him, prove that the president exists (to me)"

/grabs popcorn

That's exactly what gun jumper said. I predicted your response, told you that you would do it and YOU STILL DID IT.
Amazing.
:wallbang:
Go back up and actually read it.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's exactly what gun jumper said. I predicted your response, told you that you would do it and YOU STILL DID IT.
Amazing.
:wallbang:
Go back up and actually read it.

I'm not challenging that the president is an impostor.
I am saying that if its really proven to you, prove it to me.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm not challenging that the president is an impostor.
I am saying that if its really proven to you, prove it to me.

Yeah ok.

Again- go back up and read that post again. It's allllll there...

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah ok.

Again- go back up and read that post again. It's allllll there...

ok just to be painful

Of course we are.

As a matter of fact, yes.
Now, knowing this, are you going to point out that I cannot PROVE that who I saw speaking to the crowd, wearing a white shirt with sleeves rolled up and a tie, was not an impersonator? An alien? A dragon in human form?

No
I am not saying that the man you saw as an impersonator

Are you going to claim that I cannot PROVE that I actually saw him?

no

If I happened to capture it on video, will you claim I faked the video?

Video or any other secondary media is not direct evidence

Can I PROVE I saw him?
I can't. See, that is how Science works. Proofs only exist in mathematics.
Evidence is the standard in science. So while the evidence that the current president exists is 99.99% conclusive, I cannot prove it was NOT an alien Elvis clone with plastic surgery and make up doing an impersonation.

I am not asking you any of this.
I am asking you to grant me direct perception of the president, just like you are claiming to have had direct perception of him

He is, however, falsifiable. A slew of simple tests can continue to support the conclusion that the man exists. There are many many many photographs, videos, recordings and mountains of other evidence demonstrating his existence, still produced daily.

Once again, secondary media doesn't cut the mustard any more than scripture does for god

YOU CAN go see him yourself.

and here I am, waiting for you to show him to me

God, however, is unfalsifiable. There is NO test, whatsoever, that can provide empirical and independently verifiable evidence that he exists.
There are NO recordings, videos, photos, people who have seen him... Only a lot of BELIEVERS that claim they think he must exist because a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself horribly says that he does.

I'm not sure what makes you say all these things.
I mean if you've ever encountered a normative description in scripture (or how one has to be in order to know god), you've encountered a test ... what to speak of persons who make positive claims on account of following such measures

By comparing the two in the same light, as you had, you provide the consideration that if the President is unfalsifiable, with the magnitude of evidence that supports that... Then God must be EXTREMELY unfalsifiable with the major LACK of evidence and magnitude of evidence against it.
Seriously, it blows God into whole new proportions of non existence.

think again
They are similar in the sense that you can only gain direct perception of them on their terms (granted that you are not a super espionage spy or something in the case of the president). IOW along side the question of "Prove it to me" is the question "Am I qualified?" - I can sit here on my ass all day and say "show me the president" ... and similarly you can adopt the same position on your laurels and say "show me god" ... but for as long as we both stand outside of the means of having that perception granted to us, it will be futile.

Clearly, you had not considered this.


Also... I note that your pride is still preventing you from honorably admitting to your error. Instead, you try to play it off as if poor simple minded me cannot understand your analogy.
C'mon, buddy. What do you take me for?

actually its your gung-ho atheism that has caused you to jump the gun

Typical diversionary tactic.

If you have a clue- Provide it. Consider me a poor simple minded blind fool, if needs be.
I have little tolerance for word games.

The clue is this.

Your assumption that no one knows god and that there is no means to apply one's self in order to know god is simply that - your assumption.

An assumption like that (that no one knows and that there is no means to know) is sufficient to discredit any claim - whether it be the president or the whereabouts of your nose.

 

[Neverfly]

LightGigantic:

The ONLY reason that you are claiming that Direct Media is not evidence is because you have shifted the goalposts to exclude ALL perception other than your own.

This is self defeating and utterly out of tune with what constitutes evidence.

You do not get to invent your own definitions to suit your claim.

Which, clearly, is what you are attempting to do.

You do not need to sit there and wait for me to show him to you. You are capable of directly confirming it all on your own.
You can Shake his hand.
Lay eyes on him.
Smell him.
Hear him.

None of which can be done with God.

My 'atheism' is neither gung ho, nor did I jump the gun. Clearly, your analogy failed.
Rather than say, "Shucks, let me try again."
You played word games.
When that did not cut it, you shifted the goal posts to a ridiculous vantage point and then refused to participate in your own verification-- demanding that I perceive him for you- A Clear Impossibility.

Lastly, you claim that my statement that God is Unfalsifiable as an assumption.
This is also false.
The unfalsifiability of God is an Established Fact Within The Churches.
For the SAME argument that YOU make in OTHER threads: He cannot be measured nor perceived because he exists OUTSIDE of our ability to do so.
You will use that argument when it suits you.
Now, you use an opposite argument because it suits you.

 

[Doreen]

LightGigantic:

The ONLY reason that you are claiming that Direct Media is not evidence is because you have shifted the goalposts to exclude ALL perception other than your own.

Speaking of perception, I am skeptical about the perceptions involved in the OP...

The OP writer is strongly implying that one is often confronted by theists saying
'My God is real' and the rest of that conversation.

I am skeptical that this is the case for most people and, frankly, even for the writer of the OP.

I suppose we can build a whole thread on this perception, and then challenge perceptions that come up in the arguments of other people, but it seems to me we might want to begin with the core assumption.

 

[Photizo]

You can Shake his hand.
Lay eyes on him.
Smell him.
Hear him.

None of which can be done with God.

The Word of God contradicts you:

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us...

It's your 'word' against His, you might say...

 

[lightgigantic]

LightGigantic:

The ONLY reason that you are claiming that Direct Media is not evidence is because you have shifted the goalposts to exclude ALL perception other than your own.

the only thing that makes the grade of "direct media" (empirically speaking) is the senses

anything else is a re-presentation

This is self defeating and utterly out of tune with what constitutes evidence.

You do not get to invent your own definitions to suit your claim.

Which, clearly, is what you are attempting to do.

hardly

any claim (whether video documented or other) remains circumstantial at best for as long as it stands outside of being brought before the senses (in a repeatable fashion)
I mean how many bigfoot videos are there out there?

You do not need to sit there and wait for me to show him to you. You are capable of directly confirming it all on your own.
You can Shake his hand.
Lay eyes on him.
Smell him.
Hear him.

Well here I am, sitting on my laurels, waiting for you to deliver the goods
Give me the president so I can see, touch hear and smell him (and I mean directly)
:shrug:

None of which can be done with God.

What on earth makes you say that?Actually it just occurred to me that another fundamental problem with your reasoning on the subject is that you don't even have a qualitative definition of god to begin with ... kind of like trying to move forward in evidencing the president when one is not aware of the qualities that designate a personality as such (ie - their role in the country, their legislative nomenclature etc)

My 'atheism' is neither gung ho, nor did I jump the gun. Clearly, your analogy failed.
Rather than say, "Shucks, let me try again."
You played word games.
When that did not cut it, you shifted the goal posts to a ridiculous vantage point and then refused to participate in your own verification-- demanding that I perceive him for you- A Clear Impossibility.

On the contrary, not even regular science works along the same lines that you are advocating for evidencing the president.

Lastly, you claim that my statement that God is Unfalsifiable as an assumption.
This is also false.
The unfalsifiability of God is an Established Fact Within The Churches.

huh?
perhaps in terms of fideism, ..... which is hardly celebrated as the most exhaustive philosophical tool for inquiry into the nature of god

For the SAME argument that YOU make in OTHER threads: He cannot be measured nor perceived because he exists OUTSIDE of our ability to do so.
You will use that argument when it suits you.

surprise surprise
the president is also like that

Just try knocking on the whitehouse door
You won't get past the first of his 100 secretaries

Now, you use an opposite argument because it suits you.

Nevertheless, there remain quite obvious measures to gain direct perception of the president ... and practically all of them involve falling in line with his desire for us to see him (such as turning up to a scheduled rally in full obedience with security regs ... or heading some major interest, such as being a big business magnate or political analyzer, that shares a common agenda with that of the president)

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Discretion being the better part of valor LG, time for you to wave the white flag.

 

[Neverfly]

Speaking of perception, I am skeptical about the perceptions involved in the OP...

The OP writer is strongly implying that one is often confronted by theists saying
'My God is real' and the rest of that conversation.

I am skeptical that this is the case for most people and, frankly, even for the writer of the OP.

I suppose we can build a whole thread on this perception, and then challenge perceptions that come up in the arguments of other people, but it seems to me we might want to begin with the core assumption.

Hard to say. I've been confronted by far more missionary types than you seem to have.

The Word of God contradicts you:

Not surprising. It contradicts itself, too.

Discretion being the better part of valor LG, time for you to wave the white flag.

Agreed.

 

[lightgigantic]

Discretion being the better part of valor LG, time for you to wave the white flag.

On the contrary, if you can't even evidence the president through the same means as you call for evidencing god, small wonder you are pushing crap uphill
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Not surprising. It contradicts itself, too.

.

so says your word