Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Dirty Penguin]

None the less.....
Believing in God is considered quite rational.

The belief in "God" is no different than the belief in gods. Shucks, Hindus have plenty. All gods, including the Abrahamic god are on equal footing.

I suppose you're waiting for a fingerprint...a photo?
Good luck with that.

Extraordinary claims, such as yours, requires extraordinary evidence.....:sad:

 

[Orias]

Ah, so it's right for whoever reads whatever dictionary you got that definition from.

Regardless, even if a word has multiple correct senses, that doesn't mean every sense applies in every case. Another reason context and meaning are so important, not just words.

I agree, but when it comes down to metaphysics, philosophy, or ontology, it applies.

Sure, it's not like objection doesn't exist. Concrete material, and ourselves is what can be truly known, and labeled. Though labels may not clearly define certain Aspects, such as metaphysics, objection can certainly prove that we "know" that we are speaking to a person over a cell phone.

But the label "belief" insists that we believe in our labels, essentially leading to ignorance.

well thats not what the dictionary says

and i have not found you credible at all when it comes to wording, as a matter of fact you have shown yourself to make up definitions on the fly to fit your personal fantasy.

Actually, it is, and get realistic, we don't "know" everything.

I think your just posting to be belligerent.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

None the less.....
Believing in God is considered quite rational.

Only to the believers.

Just because you have failed to do so...doesn't mean you got it right.

Some of us use to, but were able to rise above the conditioning and cognitive dissonance to see the complete lack of facts to support such a belief.

I suppose you're waiting for a fingerprint...a photo?
Good luck with that.

I'd accept any physical evidence, maybe a super bowl ad or something. I'm sure he's got a big enough budget.

-Q

 

[Wombat]

The belief in "God" is no different than the belief in gods........All gods, including the Abrahamic god are on equal footing.

Nah...Some Gods are long dead, no followers/dead faiths, some have one foot in the 'Thetan' Volcanic grave, and ONE is seen revealed in ALL the worlds Major Living Religious Traditions.

Shucks, Hindus have plenty.

No.
They don't.
To assume so is a gross, simplistic, misrepresentation.

" Just as a single force in space can be mathematically conceived as having various spatial components, the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects. A Hindu deity (god or goddess; note small g) represents a particular aspect of the Supreme Being. For example, Saraswati represents the learning and knowledge aspect of the Supreme Being. Thus, if a Hindu wants to pray for acquiring knowledge and understanding, he prays to Saraswati. Just as sunlight cannot have a separate and independent existence from the sun itself, a Hindu deity does not have a separate and independent existence from the Supreme Being. Thus, Hindu worship of deities is monotheistic polytheism and not simple polytheism.

Hindus declare that there is only one Supreme Being and He is the God of all religions. There is no "other God." Thus the Biblical Commandment "Thou shalt have no other God before me," really means, "Thou shalt not deny the Ultimate Reality or worship any power other than the Ultimate Reality."
Hindu Deities

Extraordinary claims, such as yours, requires extraordinary evidence.....:sad:

Ordinary understanding just requires a bit of basic ordinary research

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nah...Some Gods are long dead, no followers/dead faiths, some have one foot in the 'Thetan' Volcanic grave, and ONE is seen revealed in ALL the worlds Major Living Religious Traditions.

So how does that invalidate my claim that all gods are on equal footing or are you just saying "Nah" because you're a believer?....

No.
They don't.
To assume so is a gross, simplistic, misrepresentation.

Nope. I assumed nothing. I'm well aware of Hinduism's "monotheism" which, again, is why I definitely said all gods are on ("equal") footing. The Judeo/Christian/Islamic as well as Hinduism or any other past or present ones.

Ordinary understanding just requires a bit of basic ordinary research

This statement has nothing to do with my original comment. A statement was made ("I suppose you're waiting for a fingerprint...a photo?"). Additionally a claim was made that "God", specifically the Abrahamic god, was the cause.....It's an extraordinary claim and in order to be taken seriously it would require extraordinary evidence considering the claim is not exclusive to the Abrahamic religions.

 

[PolyHedral]

This is the "known" scientific realm, maybe there is a realm where our laws do not exist?

Some laws must exist, otherwise you end up with logical inconsistency and silliness.

think for a second, if there is a reality where our laws do not exist, what makes you think we are capable of understanding it?

We have mathematicians.

Theory, the father of both science and religion, giving quantum physics to understand the basic creation of the known existing universe, lends hand to understanding "dimensions". Some highly intelligent theoretical scientists believe that maybe there are "places" in which our known laws won't work. Granted this is all theoretical, but sometimes theory leads to fact.

The theory of everything, which is usually where these super-dimensional ideas come from, works everywhere in the universe, by definition.

Also, reminds me of a joke from the Big Bang Theory:

[Leonard and Sheldon are discussing Sheldon's work on string theory]
Leonard: At least I don't have to invent 26 dimensions to get the math to work out. [spots something else] And in what universe is that true?
Sheldon: All of them.

 

[Willamena]

Some laws must exist, otherwise you end up with logical inconsistency and silliness.

A silly universe couldn't exist?

 

[Magic Man]

None the less.....
Believing in God is considered quite rational.

Yes, believing in God is considered quite rational by most people who believe in God. That doesn't make it rational, though.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, it is, and get realistic, we don't "know" everything.

Well, technically the dictionary doesn't say that. But everyone uses "subjective" wrong, anyway.

 

[PolyHedral]

A silly universe couldn't exist?

"Silliness" on the order of "Everything and nothing exists and happens at once in every order at the same time." It's entirely plausible to have an ordinary-silly where the sky is green, or the woves grye in the wabe.

 

[Willamena]

"Silliness" on the order of "Everything and nothing exists and happens at once in every order at the same time."

Isn't that an image of a multiverse?

 

[PolyHedral]

Isn't that an image of a multiverse?

No, because it is logically inconsistent.

EDIT: Misread. Err... maybe? Not sure "at the same time" is meaningful in the idea of a multiverse.

 

[Willamena]

No, because it is logically inconsistent.

How does it differ from an image of a multiverse?

Edit: That's cool.

 

[PolyHedral]

No...I do believe it began....in the beginning.....with the singularity.

In order for it to be describable as a beginning, there has to be a "next." By your own logic, this means it isn't a singularity any more.

Faith needs no proving.

Then proof should take precedence, including when the proof suggests the faith is misplaced. Anything else would be illogical.

 

[EmpiricalAgnosticAtheist]

TS, you're confused. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in any specific god(s).

You're referring to a very specific type of person- gnostic atheists, or one who not only doesn't believe in any specific god(s), but also believes that the existence of deities is a knowable thing. Simply put, gnostic atheism = belief that god(s) absolutely don't exist.

There's a whole spectrum of different types of atheists, and the group you take issue seems to be the group generally identified as abrasive, cynical, etc.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

TS, you're confused. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in any specific god(s).

You're referring to a very specific type of person- gnostic atheists, or one who not only doesn't believe in any specific god(s), but also believes that the existence of deities is a knowable thing. Simply put, gnostic atheism = belief that god(s) absolutely don't exist.

There's a whole spectrum of different types of atheists, and the group you take issue seems to be the group generally identified as abrasive, cynical, etc.

:clap

 

[Orias]

TS, you're confused. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in any specific god(s).

You're referring to a very specific type of person- gnostic atheists, or one who not only doesn't believe in any specific god(s), but also believes that the existence of deities is a knowable thing. Simply put, gnostic atheism = belief that god(s) absolutely don't exist.

There's a whole spectrum of different types of atheists, and the group you take issue seems to be the group generally identified as abrasive, cynical, etc.

There is a different thread for this.

 

[Thief]

In order for it to be describable as a beginning, there has to be a "next." By your own logic, this means it isn't a singularity any more.

Look around do you still see it?
But moving the discussion to....'now'....doesn't help.

Then proof should take precedence, including when the proof suggests the faith is misplaced. Anything else would be illogical.

Faith will prevail.
Proof goes to the ground.
Your discussion fails when you do.

Faith carries on.

 

[Wombat]

So how does that invalidate my claim that all gods are on equal footing or are you just saying "Nah" because you're a believer?.....

Because even if you treat the narratives that surround a faith as pure myth/just story it becomes apparent that humanity has deemed some myths/stories as worthy of preservation and others as junk for the dustbin of history, lucky to have the name of their god/character alone preserved...if that.
If on nothing other than degree of ‘appeal’ to and wothyness of ‘preservation’ by humanity- not “all gods are on equal footing”.

Nope. I assumed nothing. I'm well aware of Hinduism's "monotheism".

Shucks...I guess your awareness of Hinduism's "monotheism" escaped me when you declared-

“The belief in "God" is no different than the belief in gods. Shucks, Hindus have plenty.”#623

Maybe it was the bit “...belief in gods. Shucks, Hindus have plenty” that threw me?

Probably meant "plenty" of "belief".......huh?

 

[Willamena]

Shucks...I guess your awareness of Hinduism's "monotheism" escaped me when you declared-

“The belief in "God" is no different than the belief in gods. Shucks, Hindus have plenty.”#623

Maybe it was the bit “...belief in gods. Shucks, Hindus have plenty” that threw me?

Probably meant "plenty" of "belief".......huh?

That might be because the monotheistic "god" is Brahman.