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

[DarkSun]

Interesting that when it gets to the point where you simply can't support your argument anymore, your solution is to just leave. Very telling.

Yep. That's what's going on. You have me all figured out. :sleep:

 

[DarkSun]

Well...good luck!

Haha. Kay. Catch you later.

 

[Magic Man]

Yep. That's what's going on. You have me all figured out. :sleep:

I don't mind so much. My main problem is that this is just going to come up again later in another thread, and you're still going to have learned nothing. That's the frustrating part.

 

[Alceste]

Why is everyone in this thread constantly assuming I'm ignorant, instead of actually considering what I'm saying? It's starting to get frustrating.

I can only assume you're disappointed to discover what you're saying does not merit serious consideration. It took all of the people you are arguing about three seconds to see the glaringly obvious flaws in it (i.e. you can not prove a negative, and the burden of proof rests with the person making a positive claim), and all the rest of these pages have been a futile attempt to get you to see it too. If you can't see it, fine, but drop the persecution complex. You're just wrong, is all. Intelligent people can be wrong. Ask Einstein.

And I've never defended the "rationality" of belief in the tooth fairy. I've just said that based on the evidence, belief and disbelief are equally justified.

And you're wrong.

Personally, I'm astounded that you can't see where I'm coming from.

That's the point: I CAN see where you're coming from. We all can. And you're wrong.

Something doesn't have to be based on evidence in order to see it as true. Example? Disbelief in God.

Disbelief is not a belief. "Not collecting stamps" is not a hobby. "Not running a marathon" is not a sport. Until you grasp this basic truth, you'll continue to be wrong and the rest of us will continue to not seriously consider what you're saying.

Fred still believes there is no God. Prove it.

Why have you ignored three of us, all of whom told you we would be skeptical of the statement "there is no god", because it can not be proven?

Proposition: It is unlikely that God exists.

There is plenty of evidence of this, depending on how "god" is defined. The Christian god, for example, did not do any of the things attributed to it in the Bible. This is a fact. The world was not created in six days, the critters of the land and sea were not created separately, Noah did not take two of every beastie on a boat, there never was a global flood, and with these FACTS in mind it is reasonable and rational to extrapolate that many if not most of the other "miracles" attributed to God in the Bible are also mythical or allegorical. So, it's unlikely Jesus walked on water, or fed a crowd of hundreds with a single loaf of bread, or rose from the dead, or was born of a virgin.

Taking all the evidence into account, it actually IS quite likely that the God of the more literal-minded Christians does not exist at all. If everything that defines him as an intervening intelligence does not occur, and never has occurred, then there is no qualitative difference between his non-existence and the possibility he exists but these Christians have defined him wrong.

Proposed fact: It is unlikely that God exists.

This is a reaction to a proposed fact on examination of the evidence, not proposition of a fact requiring evidence of its own. It's meaningless unless the details of the specific "God" being discussed have first been proposed. Above, I've shown how it is reasonable to conclude that God as defined by the literal-minded Christians is mythical.

Still believe that? Why?

Still believe I can fly, and my boyfriend is an alien, and I have a slurpee tree in my back garden, and clown feet? Why not?

Wrong. Science doesn't address the supernatural, it addresses the material.

And many theists propose their deity interferes with the material world. Scientists has attempted to measure these points of interference and discovered that they can be attributed to natural causes or cognitive bias on the part of believers. Prayer, for example, has been extensively studied in hospitals and found to have no measurable impact on patient outcomes.

I'd like to see your evidence.

Again, for the last time, YOU are the one making a claim of fact. The burden of proof is on you. Define your god, and present your evidence that it exists, and then we will see if it merits belief. If you can't or won't define God, there's no point discussing whether or not it exists. If you will define your God but can't or won't present your evidence, I am under no obligation to take you seriously.

 

[Cobblestones]

"Not collecting stamps" is not a hobby. "Not running a marathon" is not a sport. Until you grasp this basic truth, you'll continue to be wrong and the rest of us will continue to not seriously consider what you're saying.

LOL! That is the best retort possible. So true too. I don't get what DS doesn't get about this.

 

[Kenect2]

"Proving a negative" is simply contraposition.

P --> Q
~Q
-------
~P

Why do people continue to subscribe to the myth that you "can't prove a negative?"

 

[Alceste]

"Proving a negative" is simply contraposition.

P --> Q
~Q
-------
~P

Why do people continue to subscribe to the myth that you "can't prove a negative?"

Contrapostitives do not prove negative statements.

I'd be interested in hearing how you would frame the question of the existence of God as a contrapositive.

Positive: If P, then Q
Contrapositive: If not Q, then not P.

So, if God exists, then what?
If what, then God does not exist?

 

[Kenect2]

Contrapostitives do not prove negative statements.

You quoted the proof I posted, yet for some reason you have decided to ignore it. Why? Perhaps it will be more clear if I add the contraposition.

(P --> Q) --> (~Q --> ~P)
~Q
--------
~P

The negative of P is thus proven.

I'd be interested in hearing how you would frame the question of the existence of God as a contrapositive.

Positive: If P, then Q
Contrapositive: If not Q, then not P.

So, if God exists, then what?
If what, then God does not exist?

I went over that in my post on the last page. I used the example of a train wreck in order to highlight a more natural case, as opposed to an analytical case. The analytical case of shape is an easier example of the principle.

All quadrilaterals have four sides
If a shape does not have four sides, then it is not a quadrilateral.

The analytical case is true by definition and irrefutable. Obviously, natural cases tend to be more difficult to make. The case of the train wreck in my earlier post seems fairly clear to me however. As for the case of a god, well, one would have to look for the evidence that one would expect for the god. The lack of such evidence has been posted in this forum and many other forums, ad nauseum. One of the common arguments is referred to as the problem of evil.

 

[Alceste]

You quoted the proof I posted, yet for some reason you have decided to ignore it. Why? Perhaps it will be more clear if I add the contraposition.

(P --> Q) --> (~Q --> ~P)
~Q
--------
~P

The negative of P is thus proven.

Right, but in the context of the existence of A god, or god-like being, you need to define Q. If god exists, then what? It's all very well to say "then there should be no evil", but evil is accounted for in a theistic mind. Not well, but they have an explanation that satisfies them - Satan, free will, the fall from grace, sin, whatever. Since the existence of a benevolent god is a their proposal, you need to incorporate their explanation for the existence of evil into your counter-argument.

Anyway, the "can't prove a negative" adage applies to disbelief in the supernatural because those who propose a supernatural realm refuse to define Q. If you define it for them, as above, they'll tell you you've got it wrong. If you get it right (according to them) then your evidence will be subject to all manner of caveats and exceptions because, after all, it's the SUPER natural we're talking about. It obeys no rules.

I went over that in my post on the last page. I used the example of a train wreck in order to highlight a more natural case, as opposed to an analytical case. The analytical case of shape is an easier example of the principle.

Sorry, missed that one.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Let's say I am a train wreck investigator. Someone calls me and reports there is a train wreck at a certain location. Before I go to the location, I notice that there are no other reports of the wreck. I then check the schedule to see which trains could possibly have crashed at this location at this time, and after contacting all those trains, I find that all are accounted for. As I am driving to the location, I expect to see smoke, but there is none. I expect to hear sirens of fire trucks and police, but I hear none. When I get to the location, I see no train wreck, no other responders, no spectators, no damaged tracks and indeed, no evidence that the report was true. What more proof do I need that there was no train wreck corresponding to the report? Haven't I successfully "disproven" the report? What more proof do I need that the report was fraudulent? In fact, sometimes reports are fraudulent. Sometimes, a lack of evidence where one would expect evidence can fairly be considered "proof of a negative."

Given that type of argument, we can systematically examine all creation hypotheses. Some religions hypothesize a kind of large tree from which life blossomed. Where is the bark and leaves of this tree? Nowhere to be found. Where is the cracked shell that we might expect if the world was hatched from some primeval egg? Nowhere to be found. Where is Auðumbla the primeval cow? Nowhere to be found. There are a bunch more creation hypotheses that you can examine if you like. I doubt it's possible to commit yourself to more than one of them.

I agree, but the problem with this is there are almost limitless creation myths. It would theoretically be possible to prove God doesn't exist if you define God specifically. But since God isn't defined specifically, we cannot do anything about it. Based on the definition, we can make predictions and test to see if they hold. We can think of what to expect if such a God were to exist and see if that is indeed the case.

I have personally not seen one person's God model justified with evidence.

 

[DarkSun]

I don't mind so much. My main problem is that this is just going to come up again later in another thread, and you're still going to have learned nothing. That's the frustrating part.

I think it's more frustrating that you seemingly understand what I'm saying, claim I'm wrong... and then provide arguments which don't disprove me. And then when I counter those arguments with the original statement, apparently it's me who's repeating myself. :S

 

[McBell]

I think it's more frustrating that you seemingly understand what I'm saying, claim I'm wrong... and then provide arguments which don't disprove me. And then when I counter those arguments with the original statement, apparently it's me who's repeating myself. :S

... and you're still going to have learned nothing...

Way to further the point.....:yes:

 

[DarkSun]

Way to further the point.....:yes:

:no:

And apparently I have to add five characters to a post to make it work.

 

[McBell]

:no:

And apparently I have to add five characters to a post to make it work.

no sense in typing it twice... <---link

 

[DarkSun]

Squall
1.Good to hear from you
2.I checked out the forum and...
Your claims seem fairly valid to me but that might be because I&#8217;m so used to reading your work. I&#8217;m not sure you need to pay particular attention to what each response says. Some of them are total nutters, some are just goading you to get a reaction and some are participating in a really interesting discussion. The trick is to know which is which! Maybe the difficulty about the idea of faith is that unless you have experience of it, you won&#8217;t really be able to express an understanding of it? If we have faith in something, and I reckon everyone does, but spend our entire life calling it something else, then we wouldn&#8217;t be able to identify it, let alone explain or justify it, even if it came up and bit us in the arse!! You seem to be able to view things quite successfully from other people&#8217;s positions but I&#8217;m not convinced your co-contributors share your gift.

Cheers and happy discussing.
Suzaku

I changed the names, by the way.




Anyway, I'm not sure who to take seriously, to be honest.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Anyway, I'm not sure who to take seriously, to be honest.

It is somewhat interesting. While i thought i had shown intentions to seriously debate the topic i see you talk a lot with others. Your main "dialogue" with them however seems limited to both sides telling the other side how tired it is or how senseless the debate would be.

Interesting things to observe i must say....

 

[McBell]

I changed the names, by the way.




Anyway, I'm not sure who to take seriously, to be honest.

that is because you ignored my post:

Yes, you have made yourself clear.
Why it is you think that the only reason no one agrees with you is because of not understanding is beyond me.

We do understand what you are saying.
It's just that you are flat out wrong.



Yes, the choir pats you on the back and you assume that that validates your position.
Of course, that type of ratification is a large part of what is wrong in the world.

so how many people have to disagree with you before you actually stop and realize that you might actually be wrong?

I mean, it only takes four people to agree with you to make you think that anyone who disagrees must not understand your position...

 

[Magic Man]

I think it's more frustrating that you seemingly understand what I'm saying, claim I'm wrong... and then provide arguments which don't disprove me. And then when I counter those arguments with the original statement, apparently it's me who's repeating myself. :S

You claim two things:

1) That atheists reject all god-concepts, and say that anyone who believes in any god-concept is irrational and not as good as them.
2) That belief in God is as justified as disbelief because both positions lack evidence.

Number 1 I've told you several times is wrong.
Number 2 needs some clarification. If you mean "God" as in "omnimax, interventionalist being", then no, both positions are not equally justified because there's evidence against that god-concept. If you mean other god-concepts you have to specify them. Even if you do, it's probably pointless, since as I've told you several times, atheists aren't really concerned with most god-concepts, just the Abrahamic one. You won't generally find atheists calling other god-concepts irrational or stupid. When an atheists says "God" without a qualifier, you can bet he or she is talking about the Abrahamic version.

 

[Magic Man]

I changed the names, by the way.




Anyway, I'm not sure who to take seriously, to be honest.

Well, you can believe whoever that was because they tell you what you want to hear, or you can believe the many others hear who don't tell you what you want to hear, but who tell the truth.

Honestly, I think it's funny that you even quoted that, considering it doesn't even address your point in the least.

He mentions faith. Not really sure what faith has to do with anything. This isn't about understanding or not understanding faith. It's about whether faith, AKA believing something without proof, is as justified as reason, AKA believing something when you have proof.

You seem to be able to view things quite successfully from other people’s positions but I’m not convinced your co-contributors share your gift.

I especially liked this line. Only someone viewing this extremely subjectively from your side would claim this. It is quite obvious from this thread that this is your biggest hinderance. We clearly understand your position, and clearly, instead of trying to understand our position, all you're doing is trying to make yourself clearer.

 

[Alceste]

I think it's more frustrating that you seemingly understand what I'm saying, claim I'm wrong... and then provide arguments which don't disprove me. And then when I counter those arguments with the original statement, apparently it's me who's repeating myself. :S

Hm - a man walks into a room full of English speakers and delivers, in English, a summary of what he feels is a reasonable opinion of their collective mentality. No big words, no fancy, affected foreign phrases, no speech impediment. Everyone in the room says "No, you're wrong". What is the most likely explanation?

A) Nobody understood what he was saying.
B) He is wrong.