To know there is no god?

[superluminal]

Ok. I'm frankly fed up with most theists here constantly basing arguments on the idea that atheists claim that there is absolutely no god or even the possibility of one.

When I search for the definition of athiest or atheism, I find there are sites that get it right, sites that get it wrong, and sites (usually xian) that just plain lie about it.

So, for the sake of clarity, let's get it right here.

The atheists that I know and associate with and any atheists that I've read will not take the stance that there is proof for the non-existence of some kind of god. Our stance is simply that there is no compelling evidence to support one. Others find holy-book references enough. Not us.

There are many competing gods but any given theist is an atheist regarding all but the one he chooses to believe in.

So, the typical atheist argues that there is no good reason to believe in any gods as they are presented. There is nothing that leads us to the inescapable conclusion that some form of supernatural being is in existence.

So, can we please stop using this particular lie in our theist vs. atheist discussions?

Anyone care to add to this?

 

[lightgigantic]

problems arise when the atheist makes claims that god is imaginary or a culturally derived phenomena (which requires the advocate to take a firm stance regarding god's non existence)

 

[spidergoat]

I make that claim, due to it's probability, not due to it's certainty. There may indeed be some kind of entity out there, or the universe itself may be alive in a way we don't comprehend yet, but that is far from being the God offered to us in religion.

 

[superluminal]

problems arise when the atheist makes claims that god is imaginary or a culturally derived phenomena (which requires the advocate to take a firm stance regarding god's non existence)

Without proof, god is imaginary. What don't you understand about that? Make up any idea you wish. Until it's verified as real somehow, it's imaginary. Get it? That does not say that it's proven to not exist.

And the cultural phenomenal aspects of god are attempts to explain the god phenomena precisely because so many people believe it without good evidence.

(which requires the advocate to take a firm stance regarding god's non existence)

A complete lie. Why do theists lie so much?

 

[lightgigantic]

I make that claim, due to it's probability, not due to it's certainty. There may indeed be some kind of entity out there, or the universe itself may be alive in a way we don't comprehend yet, but that is far from being the God offered to us in religion.

then your basis is tentative since there are theists in the field of molecular reductionism that offer arguments for god's existence based on probability (how many monkeys sitting at a type writer would it require for the encyclopedia Britannica to be written by chance?)

 

[(Q)]

problems arise when the atheist makes claims that god is imaginary or a culturally derived phenomena (which requires the advocate to take a firm stance regarding god's non existence)

Theists are unable to demonstrate anything about their gods beyond their own imaginations, even to other theists. Therefore, there is no stance to claim the non-existent when the claim for existence cannot be substantiated.

The buck simply stops there.

 

[superluminal]

then your basis is tentative since there are theists in the field of molecular reductionism that offer arguments for god's existence based on probability (how many monkeys sitting at a type writer would it require for the encyclopedia Britannica to be written by chance?)

What the hell is "molecular reductionism"? What "field" is this?

And I can't believe that you still bring up the monkeys-at-a-typewriter thing. Only 6th graders don't know the flaws of that particular strawman nowadays.

 

[(Q)]

then your basis is tentative since there are theists in the field of molecular reductionism that offer arguments for god's existence based on probability (how many monkeys sitting at a type writer would it require for the encyclopedia Britannica to be written by chance?)

Then, the probability exists for anything one can conjure from their imagination. How many time must a theist attempt to demonstrate the existence of their god and one would show itself?

 

[lightgigantic]

Without proof, god is imaginary. What don't you understand about that? Make up any idea you wish. Until it's verified as real somehow, it's imaginary. Get it? That does not say that it's proven to not exist.

which brings us back to the analogy of the high school drop out
In other words it is commonly observed that claims rest on application to arrive at an improved knowledge base

And the cultural phenomenal aspects of god are attempts to explain the god phenomena precisely because so many people believe it without good evidence.

the argument doesn't address the cause of the social phenomena of god, namely saintly persons (in other words it doesn't address the nature of the perception of saintly persons, particularly the processes they apply based on normative descriptions in scripture)

A complete lie. Why do theists lie so much?

unless you are interested in making bold claims of confidence, perhaps you should delineate the distinction between saying "God does not exist" and "God is an imagination" (in particular to the claims of a saintly person - ie a person who has practically applied the process of religion to arrive at a point of direct perception that is not available to one who has not done so completely)

SB 11.2.42: Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things — these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

Due to eating, a hungry person attains a certain direct experience (pleasure
nourishment and relief from hunger), similarly due to taking shelter of god a person attains a certain direct perception (devotion to god, direct experience of god and detachment from all other things)

If a hungry person is experiencing these symptoms from eating, how would you proceed to establish that their experience of eating is illusory (or culturally received etc etc)

 

[superluminal]

I just wonder why no theist here has ever admitted the fact that they don't really know that there is a god. We atheists have admitted from the beginning that there is always a possibility that some sort of god thingy exists, just that there's currently zero reason to accept such a thing.

The theist's of course know for sure that their particular god is real and all others are not. Pretty funny if you ask me.

C'mon theists. Grow up and admit the truth. You have an imagined friend in the sky. That's all.

 

[cato]

we should make this a sticky at the top of the religion section, then we can simply reference it when people say stupid stuff.

also list this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[VitalOne]

Without proof, god is imaginary. What don't you understand about that? Make up any idea you wish. Until it's verified as real somehow, it's imaginary. Get it? That does not say that it's proven to not exist.

And the cultural phenomenal aspects of god are attempts to explain the god phenomena precisely because so many people believe it without good evidence.

HAHAHA....so you an atheist are saying that evidence causes something to become true? Otherwise its imaginary? This is why I kept stating that evidence does not cause something to become true, its true with our without evidence....

Hey guys the Sun revolved around the Earth until it was calculated not to, oh yeah blackholes never existed before they were discovered, no such thing as dinosaurs until they were discovered, etc....

Thanks for the great laugh...

 

[superluminal]

which brings us back to the analogy of the high school drop out

Didn't even bother to read any further LG. Your argument from process has been shown to be fatally flawed a dozen times here. It holds no interest for anyone anymore.

What esle do you have?

 

[VitalOne]

How did I even imply that? Please explain.

You just said so "Without proof, god is imaginary. What don't you understand about that?"

 

[lightgigantic]

What the hell is "molecular reductionism"? What "field" is this?

And I can't believe that you still bring up the monkeys-at-a-typewriter thing. Only 6th graders don't know the flaws of that particular strawman nowadays.

I agree that it is a tentative argument, much like the argument for the probability of god not existing is tentative

Then, the probability exists for anything one can conjure from their imagination.

hence the claim on probability, either way is tentative - it sthe nature of tentative arguments that their foundations are very flexible and can be used by any party

How many time must a theist attempt to demonstrate the existence of their god and one would show itself?

another tentative argument, since theists argue that if god was demonstratable to all he would not be god since he would fail to be transcendental (the mundane senses would have a superior capacity to god, thus god would be in the same category of empirical phenomena)

The argument is offered that just as the president is not directly perceivable to everyone, yet certainly exists in a position of power, so does god

 

[lightgigantic]

Didn't even bother to read any further LG. Your argument from process has been shown to be fatally flawed a dozen times here. It holds no interest for anyone anymore.

What esle do you have?

its strange how a certain aspect of the community of atheists here seem to have think they have addressed the issue of how knowledge can be attained without application

- then again, perhaps its not ......

 

[superluminal]

HAHAHA....so you an atheist are saying that evidence causes something to become true? Otherwise its imaginary? This is why I kept stating that evidence does not cause something to become true, its true with our without evidence....

I see your confusion and the reason you seem to keep lying about this.

Evidence does not cause anything to be ultimately true or false. This is a strawman you keep leaning on because you have no better argument.

What evidence does is verify whether the thing you postulate is true or not. Until such evidence is gathered and analyzed, you have no reason, other than in your imagination, to believe a thing.

Get it now?

 

[VitalOne]

I see your confusion and the reason you seem to keep lying about this.

Evidence does not cause anything to be ultimately true or false. This is a strawman you keep leaning on because you have no better argument.

What evidence does is verify whether the thing you postulate is true or not. Until such evidence is gathered and analyzed, you have no reason, other than in your imagination, to believe a thing.

Get it now?

Man just when you think someone can't reach an even higher degree of stupidity.....

Don't you understand what imaginary means? Imaginary means "existing only in the imagination or fancy; not real; fancied". You stated

Without proof, god is imaginary. What don't you understand about that?

Therefore you implied that evidence is the CAUSE of something being true....

 

[superluminal]

its strange how a certain aspect of the community of atheists here seem to have think they have addressed the issue of how knowledge can be attained without application

- then again, perhaps its not ......

It's not esoteric knowledge that's the point here. You claim that a god is responsible for certain aspects of the world. You then must show how this is so.

You hide behind this childish argument even though it's been dealt with as wrong many times.

The highschool dropout can experience the effects of electrons directly. No one has ever conclusively experienced the effects of a god directly.

Every phenomenon claimed to be of supernatiral origin has been shown otherwise. This leaves the ones that still are not explained. No evidence points to a god for these...

 

[lightgigantic]

I just wonder why no theist here has ever admitted the fact that they don't really know that there is a god.

thats the point - there are certain classes of theists that do have direct experience

SB 11.2.42: Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things — these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

Due to eating, a hungry person attains a certain direct experience (pleasure
nourishment and relief from hunger), similarly due to taking shelter of god a person attains a certain direct perception (devotion to god, direct experience of god and detachment from all other things)

If a hungry person is experiencing these symptoms from eating, how would you proceed to establish that their experience of eating is illusory (or culturally received etc etc)

We atheists have admitted from the beginning that there is always a possibility that some sort of god thingy exists, just that there's currently zero reason to accept such a thing.

then if one examines whether the atheist has applied the same processes that a saintly person, it becomes obvious why

The theist's of course know for sure that their particular god is real and all others are not. Pretty funny if you ask me.

the differences in world experience also accounts for the funny differences in view between a high school drop out an d a physics professor

C'mon theists. Grow up and admit the truth. You have an imagined friend in the sky. That's all.

ooops looks like you just made a positive statement regarding the nature of god's existence again (negative absolutes often wind up with the speaker having their shoes in their mouth)