God-damn !!

[jAQUAN]

all I'm saying is that proving or disproving a deity's existence is equally impossible.

[silverx2]

proving is slightly less impossible.

[PAlexC]

all I'm saying is that proving or disproving a deity's existence is equally impossible.

No harm, no foul intended. Just wanted to explain the difference between proving and disproving.

[jAQUAN]

silver, I know you too well to believe that you have a vested interest in anything but egging this on. Good show btw.

[deepakflash]

Damn, why do I see people pulling each others hair trying to explain a non existing matter.
How simple would life be if there were no religious books, no God-belief.

Why not close all relegious books, forget about such complicated unexplainable beliefs and just live life "simple" by doing good things. If there is something called "heaven", I am sure we will all get ticket to heaven if we just did this.

(I just cant wait to see FL quote this back... come on baby)

[ViRGo_RK]

I refuse to think you're being serious or any more than a troll right now, because I refuse to hate humanity that much.

[silverx2]

silver, I know you too well to believe that you have a vested interest in anything but egging this on. Good show btw.

in order to disprove something you need to be 100% clear that it does not exist.

are there other life forms out in the universe? some people would say no not a chance. in order for them to prove that point that would need to visit every single planet in the universe and not find a single sign of life. All it would take to prove they are real is one tiny microbe.

the same thing could be said about "god" there is no way to prove he does not exist. its like chasing a shadow you will never catch it. but on the flip side i have no idea how you would prove he exists short of deepakflash getting hit by lightning and having his burns look like a tattoo of the words "**** you I'm real!"

either way the fact that people are still arguing this is hilarious.

[cancerinform]

You didn't understand a word I said.

Looks like if you say so. What did you say or mean?

[the sherrif]

KK peeps this will be my last response in this thread – and probably my last in Flashkit for a year or so (my motto is if it’s not a polemic, it’s not worth writing =D ) – I really don’t have the time, even though I love this type of debate; there really is no bigger question.

Thanks for your reply, FlashLacky. Some good points there, although the generally fuzzy responses you’ve given are exemplary of the everyday religious moderate. You’ve not really given me enough to chew on =D. If I asked you to plainly state your beliefs in a list, I imagine I’d receive some ambiguous Monty Python-esque evasions about the virgin birth being a metaphor or Moses being a ‘good story’. Something I’ll touch upon in a moment. First, A couple things:

Materialism is not something that deepakflash has talked about in any clear or reasoned way

It’s implicit. Materialistic science is a tautology of terms, and I was just making the distinction between what we consider good science and, say, alchemy, astrology, or homeopathy. Even theoretical physics falls into this classification. Some mathematicians will say, ‘I don’t care what my eyes tell me, if the math adds up, it must be right’, but that’s not how good science works. String theory may never be taken seriously by The Royal Society unless the claims it makes are shown to be true, something which sadly may never happen (although the LHC may provide some insight.) Einstein’s theory of General Relativity didn’t become famous until it acquired solid empirical foundation from the experiments of Author Eddington several years later.

This is also why God and Science are incompatible. Science is the process by which we give natural (materialistic) a priori explanations for the environment in which we live. The God hypothesis is our first (and worst) attempt to explain the environment through unnatural (supernatural*) means. Reading up on the Philosophy of Science, Ockham's razor etc. will provide some insight. Any attempt to prove the existence of God through science only results in an even larger leap of faith, because it must always terminate with a supernatural or metaphysical claim about the cosmos. This isn’t anything to do with whether I think science is ‘the truth,’ it’s just that the two types of philosophy are mutually incompatible. We now have explanations for our cosmos, which if we had known at the dawn of civilisation, religion would never have taken root in the first place.

I did not say that social expectations or law was a carbon copy of everything Christian. But, if you are not familiar with which religious values I am referring to, you are not familiar with the origins of western law.

The system of Law in and of itself has nothing to do with which principles of behaviour we decide to write into it. I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Indeed, justice predates religion and has survived in spite of the teachings of Jesus; I’m glad that we don’t live in a society that forgives our oppressors, or adopts the flagrantly immoral false choice of pacifism. All the things that a healthy democracy holds dearly are held in spite of religion, and are not based upon laws or the beliefs of a particular society; they are based upon our inalienable rights (a concept of deistic/atheistic origin). I’d like to say more, but I’d only fall short of what two of the finest books ever written could say about the matter:
Rights of Man (1791) - Thomas Paine
The Age of Reason (1807) – Thomas Paine

*to claim God isn’t supernatural is being intellectually dishonest.


It appears strange to me that theistic people in this thread, who claim to have read books about this stuff, seem to think that the onus of proof is in the Atheists court. Perhaps when you say ‘books’, you actually mean some unintelligible drivel by Rick Warren, or the like. Anyway, I have some things to say. Firstly, it is that the vast majority of Atheists do not state ‘God does not exist’ dogmatically. This is because a) the vast majority of rationally thinking atheists realize that the position is untenable, b) they don’t have a vested interest of making that claim, and c) the vast majority of atheists state their claims reluctantly. I don’t want to be an atheist, because I love the prospect of surviving my own death and meeting up with lost relatives, yet I have no rational reason to believe that God exists. No argument for the existence of God can be made without using logical fallacies, and no argument I’ve heard can be made which can’t now be sufficiently refuted using cold, unbiased logic, and hard facts. This is called Critical Atheism, is a particular type of Explicit Atheism, and is the position which the vast majority of Atheists take. The term ‘9/10ths atheist’ might ring a bell.

With that in mind, this is why, in a debate (and I’ve seen several at my university between internationally renowned theologians, philosophers etc.) I’ve never (not once) heard the theist actually attempt to argue that the burden of proof is on the Atheist. This is because atheists aren’t the ones making claims about the universe. They aren’t the ones claiming to know that which is unknowable. Theists are the ones which require the willingness to believe that which we have to prove, i.e. faith.

Since some believe God exists and others believe it does not exist, the conversation about God can go forever

Except that isn’t all that’s being discussed here.

Proving God exists is one thing. Claiming to know his mind is quite another. Even if you do get to the deistic position, you can’t just assume things like the origins of morality. In fact, you can’t assume anything else. You have all your work ahead of you. This is what pisses me off about most theists: not only do they claim that God exists, they claim to know his mind. This distinction between theism and deism is one which most ‘believers’ are completely unaware of. This is why an 8 year old child can (and often do) see straight through the claims of religion; because they find out that there are 5 other main religions of the world each worshiping different gods, (at least 2 of which share absolutely nothing in common) and about 10,000 dead religions and deities which no one believes in anymore, for no particular reason. They realise that they are [insert religion] for no other reason than the fact that they have Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Peoples Temple/Scientologist/ parents. To get from the deistic position takes guts and some knowledge, maybe even a little faith, but to get from the theistic to the deistic position, it takes neanderthal levels of cognition.

Finally, to answer the thread’s original question, I’ll answer it with a quote. I hope someone finds out its meaning and learns something:

“I Tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” – Thomas Jefferson

[gerbick]

Hell, I like your posts. I tend to learn, rethink, even research from your posts.

Thanks for sharing. And if I could convince you to continue to contribute, I would.

[david petley]

top shelf.

david

[FlashLackey]

Thanks for your reply, FlashLacky. Some good points there, although the generally fuzzy responses you’ve given are exemplary of the everyday religious moderate. You’ve not really given me enough to chew on =D. If I asked you to plainly state your beliefs in a list, I imagine I’d receive some ambiguous Monty Python-esque evasions about the virgin birth being a metaphor or Moses being a ‘good story’. Something I’ll touch upon in a moment.

Hah! Instead of theorizing about what my beliefs and responses might be, why don't you simply ask? Do you see the irony in calling my responses "fuzzy" and then criticizing responses that I haven't even made?

I think that my responses have been perfectly clear. Let me know which ones are not and I will do what I can to clarify.

It’s implicit...

No it's not. Again, you either don't seem to get the main point I was making or you find it inconvenient toward an opportunity to discuss your knowledge of pop philosophy and drop names that read like a philosophy 101 syllabus.

My confronting deepakflash really had nothing to do with atheist or theist beliefs. It was about conduct and knowledge. Had this thread been started by someone discussing Ockham's Razor and Payne's deism in a civil, intelligent manner, I probably wouldn't have commented at all (and I doubt it would have even made it to 2 pages in this forum). Perhaps against better judgement, I jumped in because deepakflash boasted of his ignorance of this subject and brazenly threw around criticisms anyway, despite many well-reasoned, intelligent responses.

My goal was not to convince him, you or anyone else what they should or should not believe. It was to demonstrate through discussion and logic to deepakflash that there is a lot more to this subject than he realizes, including atheist philosophies and understanding. That way, even if he remains a life-long atheist, at least he will be one that is more engaging and fun at parties.

This is also why God and Science are incompatible. Science is the process by which we give natural (materialistic) a priori explanations for the environment in which we live. The God hypothesis is our first (and worst) attempt to explain the environment through unnatural (supernatural*) means. Reading up on the Philosophy of Science, Ockham's razor etc. will provide some insight. Any attempt to prove the existence of God through science only results in an even larger leap of faith, because it must always terminate with a supernatural or metaphysical claim about the cosmos. This isn’t anything to do with whether I think science is ‘the truth,’ it’s just that the two types of philosophy are mutually incompatible. We now have explanations for our cosmos, which if we had known at the dawn of civilisation, religion would never have taken root in the first place.

You haven't even really made an argument here except apparently that there are books or ideas that support your own.

What do you mean by "a priori explanations of our environment?" Did you mean to say "posteriori explanations?"

A priori is knowledge that you have without experience. A priori knowledge is impossible without faith. There is not one experience of the environment that a person can prove to another person that they had without relying on faith that the experience actually was what they think it is. Again, as Random pointed out early in this thread, it can't even be proved that our experience isn't some kind of dream or entirely false and illusionary.

The system of Law in and of itself has nothing to do with which principles of behaviour we decide to write into it. I’m not entirely sure what your point is. Indeed, justice predates religion and has survived in spite of the teachings of Jesus; I’m glad that we don’t live in a society that forgives our oppressors, or adopts the flagrantly immoral false choice of pacifism. All the things that a healthy democracy holds dearly are held in spite of religion, and are not based upon laws or the beliefs of a particular society; they are based upon our inalienable rights (a concept of deistic/atheistic origin). I’d like to say more, but I’d only fall short of what two of the finest books ever written could say about the matter:
Rights of Man (1791) - Thomas Paine
The Age of Reason (1807) – Thomas Paine

Again, the basis of your argument seems to simply be that there are great books that back you up. Isn't that what you would call "fuzzy" and "not a lot to chew on?"

In fact, our system IS one that forgives criminals and oppressors. That's why criminals who have served their time are protected from punishment beyond their original sentences.

In fact, our system DOES reflect religious views of war and pacifism. I suggest reading up on what religions actually believe a little more before making such assertions. I can't speak for all religions, but here is a segment of the Catholic catechism regarding requirements for a "just war" (not arguing for absolute pacifism as you suggest):

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm

Sounds a lot like the exact same standards society expects from government in such matters to me.

You are welcome to your personal opinion about what is responsible for healthy Democracies. But, it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a Democracy that is only healthy "in spite" of religion, include specific protections for them in it's founding documents and, when referring to inalienable rights, credit them to being afforded by a "Creator?" Why then would Benjamin Franklin write emphatically that no good would come from a lack of religion?

The concept of inalienable rights (or natural rights) is complex and there are varying justifications for it. You are acting like the justification that you subscribe to is the only one. In fact, the concept can also be traced back to Islamic law as well. Why does atheism and deism suddenly get credit for the concept of inalienable rights simply because a justification for it also rose from their ideas?

It appears strange to me that theistic people in this thread, who claim to have read books about this stuff, seem to think that the onus of proof is in the Atheists court. Perhaps when you say ‘books’, you actually mean some unintelligible drivel by Rick Warren, or the like.

Strange, ad hominem arguments aside, the "theistic people" probably believe that the onus of proving one thing to another person is fundementally always on the person trying to do the proving. Is it not?

If you are trying to argue your atheist position, how is the onus to prove or reason why you are right not on you? Just the same, if a person tries to prove the existence of God to someone else, the onus is on them. The "onus of proving" is not a matter of some universally accepted situation. It's a matter of who is trying to convince who.

Since, at least as I have learned it, having faith in God is not a matter of being convinced by another persons arguments but by what you witness and experience inside, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try and "prove" God. Rather, the idea is to encourage people to hear the gospel with an open mind. The rest is, as they say, in God's hands.

Atheists on the other hand, tend to believe that their reasoning and view of the world is "correct" and provable to others. Therefore, anyone who hears their reasoning and disagrees must do so out of some failing or lack of intelligence. I'm sure that there are some zen-like atheists out there. But, I can't recall meeting one that didn't betray their angst in one way or another when discussing religion. I suppose it is easy for me to recognize since I also called myself an atheist for many years, studied atheist philosophy, said and believed many of the same things we are discussing.

Firstly, it is that the vast majority of Atheists do not state ‘God does not exist’ dogmatically.

This has to be one of the stranger claims I've heard. The very word "atheism" means "no god" in the most literal sense. To say that you are athiest means that you believe no God exists. To beat around the bush about it is to be an agnostic.

No argument for the existence of God can be made without using logical fallacies, and no argument I’ve heard can be made which can’t now be sufficiently refuted using cold, unbiased logic, and hard facts.

This is only true of arguments made to convince others of the existence of God and making such arguments is not the point of any religion that I am aware of. Just the same, there is no argument for what anyone believes that can survive all "cold, unbiased logic, and hard facts." However, billions upon billions of people, from 0 AD on have found reason within themselves to believe in the existence of God. True that they can't "prove" it to others. However, it does not logically follow that God does not exist because humans can't prove it to each other while experiencing him themselves.

This is because [b]atheists aren’t the ones making claims about the universe. They aren’t the ones claiming to know that which is unknowable.

Yes they are, on both accounts. Atheist means to believe that there is no God. It's an assertion about something that they can't prove, something that could theoretically be unknowable. To say that you don't know is to be an agnostic, not an atheist.

This is what pisses me off about most theists: not only do they claim that God exists, they claim to know his mind.

One, why should people claiming to know God's mind "piss you off?" Is that in line with the inalienable rights concept that deists and atheists are supposedly responsible for?

Two, who is claiming to know God's mind? Isn't "judge not lest ye be judged" pretty much widely known and understood?

[deepakflash]

^ thats a mammoth, and yet you fail to answer

[FlashLackey]

It's amusing to me that you have trouble accepting the role that faith plays in your beliefs and yet you seem so able to convince yourself of something that is not true.

[chrisranjana]

So once again, what is this thread about ?

[deepakflash]

^ belief, faith, books, heaven, God... and still counting...
... everything that doesn't exist

[silverx2]

im starting to think you dont exist.

[jAQUAN]

^ oooh Burrn!

[hanratty21]

http://whybelieveinagod.com/images.html


thought this seemed like a good thread to post in.

[gerbick]

http://whybelieveinagod.com/images.html


thought this seemed like a good thread to post in.

bingo.