To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

I can't help myself, I have to jump in here.

PureX, you have no evidence that I don't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my house. By your logic, you should therefore believe that I do.

This is a false analogy, in that I am not proposing that anyone believe anything. I am simply pointing out that it's irrational to draw conclusions when there is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that you do not have a giant diamond in your house. So it would not be irrational of me to draw that conclusion. Yet if there really were NO evidence one way or another, then it would be illogical of me to draw a conclusion one way or another.

 

[MSizer]

This is a false analogy, in that I am not proposing that anyone believe anything. I am simply pointing out that it's irrational to draw conclusions when there is no evidence.

There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that you do not have a giant diamond in your house. So it would not be irrational of me to draw that conclusion. Yet if there really were NO evidence one way or another, then it would be illogical of me to draw a conclusion one way or another.

Wrong, there is a great lack of evidence for the existence of a diamond in my house, and that is exactly why you can write it off. If you disagree, then what is the evidence that I have no diamond?

 

[Madhuri]

Wrong, there is a great lack of evidence for the existence of a diamond in my house, and that is exactly why you can write it off. If you disagree, then what is the evidence that I have no diamond?

Well for one you know where to look and what to look for. Just for starters.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The relative weight to be given to the lack of evidence is wholly a function of the extent to which such evidence might be expected. To say that a skunk just sauntered through you house is one thing. To assert that a skunk just got into a fight in your house is quite another.

 

[MSizer]

Well for one you know where to look and what to look for. Just for starters.

Do you know where my house is? Even if so, can you see it's contents right now? Have you ever?

 

[PureX]

Wrong, there is a great lack of evidence for the existence of a diamond in my house, and that is exactly why you can write it off. If you disagree, then what is the evidence that I have no diamond?

It is extremely unlikely that a diamond the size of a refrigerator could have ever been formed. The evidence for this is the process that forms diamonds, and the size of all the other diamonds that have been found. If it were formed, it is extremely unlikely that it could ever have been found without us all hearing about it. The evidence of this being that all the larger diamonds on Earth are well known, documented, and usually displayed for all to see. It's very difficult to keep such a thing a secret. And lastly, even if it had formed and been found in secret, it is extremely unlikely that it would have ended up in your house, as opposed to all the other places it would be more likely to end up.

So there is plenty of evidence to support the inauthenticity of your claim.

 

[Madhuri]

Do you know where my house is? Even if so, can you see it's contents right now? Have you ever?

Obviously not but this is a hypothetical situation. Let us assume that we do know where your house is and that we are at your door right now. The point is, we have some idea of the nature of what we are looking for and the clue that it is in your home.

God is a much more difficult puzzle. People everywhere have a different concept of what God is and where to find Him. Westerners usually assume that their lack of evidence of a Christian God implies that there is no God at all. But what if I argue that God is the energy that pervades the universe? What if I argue that God is the Source, or that thing which instigated the creation of this universe, in whatever manner (ie/ big bang). What if I argued that God IS the universe? God can mean something different to every living person. That makes investigating it in a legitimate scientific institution rather complicated.

 

[MSizer]

It is extremely unlikely that a diamond the size of a refrigerator could have ever been formed. The evidence for this is the process that forms diamonds, and the size of all the other diamonds that have been found. If it were formed, it is extremely unlikely that it could ever have been found without us all hearing about it. The evidence of this being that all the larger diamonds on Earth are well known, documented, and usually displayed for all to see. It's very difficult to keep such a thing a secret. And lastly, even if it had formed and been found in secret, it is extremely unlikely that it would have ended up in your house, as opposed to all the other places it would be more likely to end up.

So there is plenty of evidence to support the inauthenticity of your claim.

No, there is not. There is very high improbability of truth to my claim, based on my inability to provide you with any evidence (such as for example a sales receipt for the diamond, or a photo of it). It is the same as the claim for god.

 

[DarkSun]

You stated that, "From where I'm standing, I don't understand how there can not be a Creator." It stands to reason that you cannot understand processes that adequately explain how things have come to be without there being a god by your own admission. If you haven't taken the time to understand that's fine, but no one is calling you a moron for not taking the time to understand.

Is it so hard to believe that I believe in God and evolution, abiogenesis theory and the big bang?

Oh, no wait. It's just easier for you to assume I'm ignorant because I disagree with you. That isn't arrogant at all [ /sarcasm].

You certainly haven't convinced me of any creator god's existence, I still see no reason to even begin to accept such a notion as that.

I don't want to convince you. I'm just trying to show you that your disbelief in a creator God is equally as founded as my belief in one. Until you show me the proof pointing one way or the other, your opinion to the contrary is null and void.

 

[MSizer]

But what if I argue that God is the energy that pervades the universe? What if I argue that God is the Source, or that thing which instigated the creation of this universe, in whatever manner (ie/ big bang). What if I argued that God IS the universe?

That's a word game. I could say that my cat Neo is from now on named charles, but that doesn't mean the cat who I used to call neo no longer exists. I don't deny the existence of the universe, and there's no need to call it god, becuase it already has a name.

 

[DarkSun]

I can't help myself, I have to jump in here.

PureX, you have no evidence that I don't have a refrigerator sized diamond in my house. By your logic, you should therefore believe that I do.

Like the other person debating, you have grossly misunderstood what was being said. Well done.

 

[PureX]

There is very high improbability of truth to my claim, ...

So there is plenty of evidence to support the inauthenticity of your claim.

You say tomato, I say tomato ...

My conclusion would be based on actual evidence: the process of forming diamonds, the process of finding them, the process of cataloguing them and displaying them, and who does this around the world. You're conclusion is being drawn from evidence you don't have: a receipt, and a photo.

Which of these seems more rational to you?

 

[DarkSun]

Do you know where my house is? Even if so, can you see it's contents right now? Have you ever?

That's not the point. We could somehow find evidence to disprove the existence of a diamond at your house. So yes, because that evidence is there, we should conclude that the diamond doesn't exist.

However, I see no evidence pointing towards God's inexistence. And yet you still disbelieve in Him? Why? When there is absolutely no one on earth who has ever been able to prove or disprove His existence by quantifiable means?

Face it. You don't believe in God for no other reason than that's just how you perceive the world. In that sense, theists are no different from atheists who show belief in God without any quantifiable, empirical proof.

Both groups of people are equally justified.

 

[blackout]

That's a word game. I could say that my cat Neo is from now on named charles, but that doesn't mean the cat who I used to call neo no longer exists. I don't deny the existence of the universe, and there's no need to call it god, becuase it already has a name.

There are many versions of my name,
i have spelled... and cast them with care,

and each one has it's own particular ...
power/charge/meaning/nuance/numerology...

Each one is an expression of 'me'.

Truly, my existence requires no name at all.
It is enough to simply BE.

But humans like to label their experiences of life.
Word games are very powerful.

Word gives life to World,
and World gives life to Word.

 

[Commoner]

However, I see no evidence pointing towards God's inexistence. And yet you still disbelieve in Him? Why? When there is absolutely no one on earth who has ever been able to prove or disprove His existence by quantifiable means?

That's so lame. I can't "disprove" invisible pixies aren't pulling me down towards the center of the planet, should I believe it? Should I just rename gravity to "invpix" and start giving it supernatural attributes?

Why don't you believe in random stuff you can't disprove - or even in stuff that could never be disproven. If I tell you the world is going to end in 93 years, would you continue your life believing in that until you find "proof" to the contrary? What a silly idea that would be.

 

[Commoner]

"But who is more ignorant: the man who cannot define lightening, or the man, who does not respect it's natural awesome power? "

The two are not mutually exclusive. A smart man can do both.

 

[Commoner]

The "Leprechaun/Santa Clause/unicorn/etc., analogies are all false analogies, and are rather insulting, besides. They're false because in each of these cases the item is specified and so is a field of search. It is reasonable, then, to conclude that these items don't exist because they have not been found in the places where they are supposed to exist. In the case of "God", however, the item in question has never been fully specified, and the field of search is far to big for anyone to actually search. So no search has ever been done, and there is no evidence at all upon which to draw any conclusions one way or another.

Really, tell me, where should I search to "disprove" unicorns? How do you know where they are supposed to exist?

"God" is pretty much specified (at least by the major religions). If you have another idea of god, you can make your own definition, but it still has to be defined somehow. Otherwises, God exists and Ugibothu and Jolighuma also exist, so does Kookoofila. (can't tell you anything about who/what they really are, but I can feel them. So can others, they just call them by different names).

We don't just "believe" things exist unless we actually have some evidence for them (well, we might do so for the more trivial things).

 

[themadhair]

So PureX is claiming that god is not sufficiently defined to begin a search, and yet earlier I seem to remember him suggesting that the god idea is workable. Seems like another example of a contradiction. Sorry, I meant dynamic concept.

 

[logician]

In a chaotic multiverse, there is no need for a creator. Probably don't want one either.

 

[rageoftyrael]

any atheist who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, is working on faith. most atheists don't do that, so try not to make sweeping statements about our beliefs. most of us disbelieve in the existence of god, precisely because there is no reason to believe in god, due to the fact that there is no evidence.

I've always felt that putting a god into the mix of the creation of the universe merely complicates things, but it seems as if it could all have happened naturally anyway, so why add magic? but i will certainly allow for the possibility that there is a god, precisely because i can't disprove god. i just don't believe, which duh, obviously is my opinion, as any theists opinion is that there is a god. So, when someone says they believe in something, they are basically saying in my opinion.