Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Betrayer0fHope, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    Which ones? Never saw any, never experienced any and definitely can only read about any.

    And them stories came before the bic lighter or MS windows.

    I would ask what is the purpose of believing illogical occurances, while looking to see if both feet are on the ground.

    Truth is adequate evidence. Even the religions themselves state; thou shalt not lie.

    So i ask, does magic exist?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    I would simply say "I have never seen any convincing evidence that a god exists." The burden is on the theist to provide evidence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    You can hand-select them if you want, try your damnedest to get 1,000 who agree. I will find an interpretation of the Bible that not all 1,000 will agree with, or some idea about heaven, or God, or Jesus, or the Devil, that not all 1,000 will find consensus on.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    once again, just as its tragi-comical to use a thermometer to measure distance, the same so for using empirical means for determining the validity of a non-empirical claim.

    Part of "asking reality" is to make sure you have the right tools for the job

    hehe
    good ol flexible soft science to the rescue, eh?

    soft science is constantly in a state of addressing its own current misinformation

    geez, at least in classical empiricism they have things that everyone can universally agree to (like cm and ml)
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2009
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    its quite simple

    if a person doesn't have access to the means to verify a claim, they're in a state of ignorance

    doesn't matter whether we are discussing god or the price of eggs in china
    If I have no experience of the means of determining the substance behind the claim of the price of eggs in china, it's perfectly rational to disregard it
    :shrug:

    When you start talking about logic as sufficient for determining truth its clear you are taking a radical departure from philosophy and have no idea what you are talking about
    its also unfalsifiable to talk of distances with the demand that one exclusively use thermometers as a tool ... that's why we have tape measures I guess


    hehe

    you can't even tolerate a scriptural reference to how a claim can be verified much less discuss them ... (and no need to address the hazy past ... just have to look down a few posts)
    its only unfalsifiable for die hard empiricists, mush like distance is unfalsifiable for die hard thermometerists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thanks

    You illustrate #1 & #2 perfectly

    and finish off a #4
    nice touch!
    :bravo:
     
  9. CranE Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I don't think there is a 'burden' at all. I think both viewpoints have beliefs based off something, whether its religion, logic, etc. And should be able to explain their views if questioned.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    given that verifying any claim of knowledge also requires an element of burdening oneself (namely with qualification) it appears you are over-simplifying it ... at the very least, rocking up to a top grade university with the demand that they relieve themselves of their "burden" upon you probably won't see you take a vocation in the field .....
     
  11. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    It means I have no good reason to believe in supernatural beings. It means that, while you assert the existence of a being, I do not.

    I would (and do) ask the theist what good reason is there for me to believe. What evidence is asserted that is valid and empirical which gives me good reason to accept his claim. This, by the way, is the very same attitude I would take to the person in the tinfoil hat who claims to be receiving alien transmissions or the neighbor who claims to have a purple but invisible dragon in his garage.

    Atheism is simply without-gods. If you have another definition, then it isn't the one I use to self-identify. I am godless. I am not afflicted with the superstitions and delusions of those who assert without evidence that one or more gods exist.

    There are, however, those who hold theistic beliefs who cannot come to terms with atheism of any sort and resort to the childish "you too" argument, pointing their fingers at the big, bad atheists accusing them of making a positive claim.

    Theists have the claim. Without evidence to support it, they have all the appearance of delusion and superstition.
     
  12. CranE Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I believe Atheism to be without-supernatural.

    Atheist's also have a claim, the claim of being without-gods like you said.

    Noone will ever br able to prove a god's existence, noone will ever be able to prove a god does not exist.
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    That analogy is horrid, but aside from that saying that something exists is an empirical claim. Like anything, a claim of existence can be validated by demonstrating an instance of it or demonstrating its unique effects. There is NOTHING that doesn't follow this pattern and inventing the notion of a "non-empirical claim" is nothing short of an attempt to place something out of bounds. Truth is when reality agrees with some concpt / notion. By placing something out of bounds, truth is automatically invalidated; hence, it's a dead give away that the *something* is not true.

    I agree.

    It's universally agreed (because it's universally observable) that anthropomorphism and human emotional needs exist. You are free to ignore that knowledge, but it won't change reality for ya'.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  14. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    "Oversimplifying?"

    This is more pseudo-intellectual bs from the bs-artist himself.

    It really is as simple as this: you have a claim; therefore, you have the burden to demonstrate your claim. If you cannot, it is in your mind -a.k.a. a delusion.

    Pseudo-intellectuals like LG, however, will resort to post-modernist mumbo-jumbo about "qualifications" etc. -all very much the coward's argument since it asserts that if you do not believe in a way he deems acceptable it means you aren't capable of "knowing" the way he is. Therefore you aren't "qualified" to know and, consequently, don't believe.

    If it all seems circular and bullshit-like, its because it is circular bullshit.

    Congratulations LG. You're still full of it.
     
  15. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    You're equivocating the concept of claim. The theist has a positive claim. They assert a god. The atheist has a negative claim -they assert no assertion.

    Please note that by "positive" and "negative" I'm not referring to the colloquial definitions of these words which is something akin to "good" and "bad."

    An atheist asserts only that no good reason has been established to accept the theistic assertion. That is to say, if the there was no theists, all would be atheists. Being without gods or godless is clearly the default position of humanity. No one knows of any of humanities gods until made culturally aware.
     
  16. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    And yet you fail miserably in demonstrating this. Clearly, you have one or two philosophical concepts that you're keen on, but discard all those that subject your preconceived notions, delusions, and superstitious ideas about the universe to any rational light.

    In other words, you talk a lot of words, obfuscate many concepts with a pseudo-philosophical air, but fail miserably in demonstrating any of your assertions.

    And if you're wondering why I've decided to finally call you on your bullshit after several years of ignoring you its primarily because you chose to quote me. Until that one caught my attention, I've been content to simply ignore your posts for the bullshit they are.
     
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi CranE,
    And no one will ever be able to prove that fairies do not exist. But so what?
    If you say "I don't believe in fairies", what does that mean?
    Does it mean that you're 100% certain that there are no fairies, and that you can prove it if asked?
    Or does it simply mean that you currently have no reason to believe in fairies and that the question of fairies doesn't enter into how you live your life?

    (Of course, you would probably still be open to belief in fairies in the unlikely event that they happen to be discovered alive and well in Cottingley (complete with reliable media coverage), right?)
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Here's a rational statement that is not truthful

    All pigs can fly, all horses are pigs, therefore all horses can fly
    The problem is that you are not capable of discussing philosophy, full stop.

    Its not that the only card you can play is the "heavy moderator" because you have nothing else to prop yourself up. Its more like the one you favor when the going gets tough in your discussions, and you simply give in to confidence statements and tentative statements. ("You're deluded" "No, you're deluded" "Listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded" etc etc
    :shrug:
    feel free to demonstrate how any assertion can be determined without simultaneously addressing issues of qualification.

    I've been waiting several years for this, but all I seem to get from you is inflammatory trolling


    get a grip

    you initiated it by talking to me (in third person) in post 18

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Unfortunately, no.

    Knowledge rests upon qualification.

    Anyone who has called upon the expertise of a doctor, lawyer, or car mechanic can understand this.


    The next time your car breaks down go to a doctor and see how far you get

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Skinny ol boy, philosophy is simply not your strong suit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Crunchy cat
    incorrect

    saying that something exists that is capable of being determined by the blunt senses is an empirical claim.

    IOW saying that "it doesn't matter if I am a schmuck or a saint, if I have the right (physical) tools at the right place and use them in the right way, I can see whatever there is to be seen" is an empirical claim.
    Demonstrate to who exactly?
    Any schmuck?
    On the contrary, placing a transcendental claim within the parameters of empiricism is simply absurd.
    so why do you insist on calling upon empiricism to validate a transcendental claim?
    its just when one starts speculating about norms, origins, causes and reactions of human emotional needs that it gets hairy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Bishadi,
    A simple "no" should suffice.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That settles it then.

    Seems like you've ignored the question altogether.

    This is what we are trying to acertain
    Do you regard the concept of "God" as a lie?
    If yes, are you prepared to explain why?

    Yes.
    Haven't you ever watched Darren Brown.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,357
    No, it's not rational at all.
    The conclusion may be rationally based on the propositions (i.e. given X and given Y then conclusion Z), but this does not mean the statement as a whole is rational, especially when your statement asserts its propositions as facts that are demonstrably not truthful.

    One can not demonstrate delusion and at the same time claim rationality - that is a paradox.


    One needs no qualifications to observe something. One merely has to look at it.

    If something can not be observed by the senses then, by default, it is akin to non-existence, as its existence can not be proven.

    You are making the claim that one must be qualified to observe.
    One may need to be qualified to understand what one is observing... but not to make the observation itself.
    When man first saw an elephant, did his lack of qualification in elephants invalidate his observation? No. He may not have understood what the elephant was (a giant? a god?) but he still saw it.

    Please show us this God of yours, and then we might go and get qualified to see if it really is what you say it is.

    A doctor might be able to fix your ailments - but presumably you go to him because you have observed those ailments?

    A mechanic might be able to fix your car - but presumably the observation of it not working led you to search for the mechanic?
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,357
    Derren Brown - genius.
    Psychological Illusionist
    Jedi-in-waiting
    And someone who states up front that he does not believe in any ESP, Magic, Clairvoyance etc.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009

Share This Page