To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Commoner]

You disagree with the statement: "God probably doesn't exist," do you? That's what I claimed atheists believed in the second paragraph. If I am wrong, please feel free to explain.

Why are you even arguing this point? We're not discussing each person's individual beliefs nor what atheists believe, we're discussing your assertion that belief and disbelief are equally justified given no empirical evidence. Nice straw man.

 

[Willamena]

As someone else pointed out earlier, "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby.

But it can be, if someone engages it actively.

Here.... have a stamp.

 

[Magic Man]

But it can be, if someone engages it actively.

Here.... have a stamp.

No, it can't. It's never a hobby, actually. It can be a preference, but not a hobby.

 

[Willamena]

No, it can't. It's never a hobby, actually. It can be a preference, but not a hobby.

Enough. I'm going to make it my hobby, right here and now, to not collect stamps.

 

[Magic Man]

Enough. I'm going to make it my hobby, right here and now, to not collect stamps.

Good luck with that...

 

[Willamena]

Good luck with that...

Already this morning, I haven't collected three stamps.

 

[Commoner]

Already this morning, I haven't collected three stamps.

What kind of stamps?

 

[Alceste]

You disagree with the statement: "God probably doesn't exist," do you? That's what I claimed atheists believed in the second paragraph. If I am wrong, please feel free to explain.

Yes you are wrong.

I do not believe any of the Gods thus far proposed to me by theists and defined adequately enough to form an opinion exist. The exception is those theists - like Rune Wolf - who define their "God" as "everything that exists", or "the universe", or "love", etc.

If you go ahead and define your god for me I can tell you whether or not I believe it exists.

I think you'll find that if you start listening to the atheists on RF you'll find a large majority view the question of God/s from exactly this perspective, and that only a tiny minority venture onto the shaky ground of claiming "God" (whose?) "probably" (according to what model of probability?) doesn't "exist" (where?)

 

[Cobblestones]

Yeah, but that doesn't make sense, so it can't be true...wait a minute, but even if it doesn't make sense, you're still justified in believing it, right? So, I guess you'd be justified in believing in an invisible, purple 1-pound elephant with an 8-foot-wingspan, too.

And you should. She's a very nice elephant. Her name is Poochie.

 

[Cobblestones]

But it can be, if someone engages it actively.

How would one actively engage in not engaging in something?

 

[Cobblestones]

Enough. I'm going to make it my hobby, right here and now, to not collect stamps.

You should see my not-stamp collection. It's enormous.

 

[Cobblestones]

Already this morning, I haven't collected three stamps.

Wow! You're good!!

 

[Commoner]

How would one actively engage in not engaging in something?

You don't know many slackers, do you?

 

[Magic Man]

Already this morning, I haven't collected three stamps.

Good work. Let me know when it turns into a hobby.

 

[Magic Man]

If you go ahead and define your god for me I can tell you whether or not I believe it exists.

Ah, but see, the problem with that is that it narrows it down too much. If he doesn't define his god, he can continue to be vague and use any definition of god he wants and equivocate to his heart's content so as to confuse the whole debate to the point of being meaningless.

 

[Alceste]

Ah, but see, the problem with that is that it narrows it down too much. If he doesn't define his god, he can continue to be vague and use any definition of god he wants and equivocate to his heart's content so as to confuse the whole debate to the point of being meaningless.

Ah - I see. Once Darksun takes the radical step of defining his God it might suddenly start looking rational for us to reject it, which would not help his argument...

 

[Magic Man]

Ah - I see. Once Darksun takes the radical step of defining his God it might suddenly start looking rational for us to reject it, which would not help his argument...

Either that or it might make it very rational for us to not dispute it, thus ruining his false view of atheists who automatically reject any and all god concepts as if they were all the same.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

1 - You're a native American living freely in Europe. One night, you have a dream about white men coming to your land in big ships. The dream turns bleak. You dream of sickness, of disease, of death, of pain all because of the white men. When you wake up, you were so sure that the dream was real - but when you tell your elders they automatically console you... and tell you that such a thing will never happen, and that it was all a figment of your imagination. You keep believing what you saw to be true, and eventually everyone around you gives up on you as being deluded. Prove that the girl's dream was wrong.

Prove that the girl's dream was right.

2 - You're living in England in the 1750s. You have a firm view in mind that all swans are white. Someone then travels to Australia fifty years later and sends you back a letter telling you that they saw a black swan. But this can't be true. Swans are white. Your friend is obviously lying because black swans clearly don't exist, as you've never seen one yourself before. Prove that the man was lying.

Prove that the man was telling the truth.

3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

Prove that the boy is not deluded and his parents are not feeding lies to him.

(While I am not an atheist, I felt the need to step in with my two cents.)
The arguments I am seeing would be no different than a judge telling a defendant to prove that he was innocent rather than putting the burden of proof upon the prosecution. While there are some countries that do this, you all, hopefully, know this is wrong.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes you are wrong.

I do not believe any of the Gods thus far proposed to me by theists and defined adequately enough to form an opinion exist. The exception is those theists - like Rune Wolf - who define their "God" as "everything that exists", or "the universe", or "love", etc.

If you go ahead and define your god for me I can tell you whether or not I believe it exists.

I think you'll find that if you start listening to the atheists on RF you'll find a large majority view the question of God/s from exactly this perspective, and that only a tiny minority venture onto the shaky ground of claiming "God" (whose?) "probably" (according to what model of probability?) doesn't "exist" (where?)

Oh, okay. Well there goes my whole argument. </sarcasm>

If you go ahead and define your god for me I can tell you whether or not I believe it exists.

I don't pretend to understand the exact nature of what God. I don't think something as incomprehensible as that can be accurately defined with a label. Taoism comes to mind here.

To be honest, I used to go to a Lutheran school, and because some things said there applied vaguely to my concept of God, I thought that I was Christian. Now I'm not so sure.

There was one time where felt overcome with a sense of compassion, of greatness and strength when I was down, but I'm not sure whether that was God or whether that was a case of "need fulfilment" coming to play.

In essence, I partially agree with the statements that: "God is the net sum of all consciousness" - or "God is defined as every particle of the universe" - but something makes, think that God is independant of everything else; acting as the driving force for change in the world. I don't know why I think this. I just do.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Oh, okay. Well there goes my whole argument.



I don't pretend to understand the exact nature of what God. I don't think something as incomprehensible as that can be accurately defined with a label. Taoism comes to mind here.

To be honest, I used to go to a Lutheran school, and because some things said there applied vaguely to my concept of God, I thought that I was Christian. Now I'm not so sure.

There was one time where felt overcome with a sense of compassion, of greatness and strength when I was down, but I'm not sure whether that was God or whether that was a case of "need fulfilment" coming to play.

In essence, I partially agree with the statements that: "God is the net sum of all consciousness" - or "God is defined as every particle of the universe" - but something makes, think that God is independant of everything else; acting as the driving force for change in the world. I don't know why I think this. I just do.

This description/definition of your god is a bit too vague.