And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself.

 

Their personal beliefs don't make any sense :(

 

If the beliefs were consistent, logical, honest, had some explanatory value, had no derogatory implications, etc, it would make life with them much easier.

Then consider that they probably think the same of yours. Even if yours are actually more logical, honest, etc.

Funny how Christians always expect atheists and others to "keep their views to themselves", but they never practice what they preach.

 

Last time I checked, it wasn't atheists trying to have "In No God We Trust" put on our currency.

 

It's not atheists trying to erect tablets on public land.

 

It's not atheists who make people swear allegience based on their beliefs.

 

It's not atheists who come ringing my doorbell trying to tell me all about their wonderful belief system and how I should change.

 

It's not atheists who would shut down a prom rather than let someone with differing beliefs participate.

 

It's not atheists who spend the entire month of December just *assuming* that everyone they meet shares their particular mythology.

 

We've never had an atheist president saying that Christians shouldn't be considered good citizens -- but we had a Christian one saying that about atheists.

Have we ever had an atheist president? Unless you mean Presidents of different countries than the United States.

No, and we probably won't for many years, due to the rampant bigotry against atheists. They are one of the most feared and despised groups in the country. In a recent study, atheists ranked as the group most Americans would least like their children to marry -- below all other often-disliked religious and social groups.

 

The point was more what the nice Christian president said, and how there was absolutely NO consequence for him saying it.

We have had atheists try to change all of those based on their beliefs though. Just a while ago there was one that went after the pledge of allegiance so that his four year old daughter wouldn't have to say the "under God" part. And the ones that tried to remove federal funding from historic sites because the sites were churches. Christians have just had more people and a much longer time to do all this.

 

There are the more extreme members on both sides. And they're the ones that you notice.

Funny how Christians always expect atheists and others to "keep their views to themselves", but they never practice what they preach.

 

Last time I checked, it wasn't atheists trying to have "In No God We Trust" put on our currency.

 

It's not atheists trying to erect tablets on public land.

 

It's not atheists who make people swear allegience based on their beliefs.

 

It's not atheists who come ringing my doorbell trying to tell me all about their wonderful belief system and how I should change.

 

It's not atheists who would shut down a prom rather than let someone with differing beliefs participate.

 

It's not atheists who spend the entire month of December just *assuming* that everyone they meet shares their particular mythology.

 

We've never had an atheist president saying that Christians shouldn't be considered good citizens -- but we had a Christian one saying that about atheists.

And only nitwits like you generalize Christians, lets take a look at what you said of Christians and compare it to the largest denomination, Roman Catholics, shall we?

 

No

No, separation of state and church endorsed by the Council of Bishops of the USA

No, the Catholic Church is more of a bring-a-non-Catholic-friend kind of place, and the only people I can think of who does that is Jehova's Witnesses.

No, I go to a Catholic School which I have been to its prom and there have been Jews and a Muslim who I met there, as well as they attend my school.

You're not required to believe in Christian, but if someone tells you Merry Christmas/Hanuka/Happy Holidays don't say they're politically incorrect and you should be polite and respond.

And I'm sorry to hear that for whatever president said that, but the Catholic Church believes anyone of any creed that does not lead directly to violence can be good (affirmed in Diginitatis Humanae).

 

So congratulations on generalizing 2.1 Billion people under 30,000 different belief systems, I would say that's bigotry.

We have had atheists try to change all of those based on their beliefs though. Just a while ago there was one that went after the pledge of allegiance so that his four year old daughter wouldn't have to say the "under God" part.

That was an attempt to undo the effort by Christianists to impose their religion on everyone else. It is not an example of anyone trying to force atheism on everyone else.

 

Many Christians seem to think that the mere absence of promoting their religion automatically implies atheism, as if there is no possibility of simple neutrality.

 

If he was trying to get the pledge changed to "under no god", then you'd have a point. He wasn't.

And only nitwits like you generalize Christians, lets take a look at what you said of Christians and compare it to the largest denomination, Roman Catholics, shall we?

Yes, for a religion that claims to be the One Real Truth, you guys seem to have an awful lot of trouble agreeing on anything. How many thousands of sects, versions and cults do you folks have at this point? ;)

 

I wasn't speaking specifically of the RC church, but that was a nice collection of straw men there! The RCC has its own collection of serious problems, which I don't really want to get into. Most folks already know what they are. The RCC is an interesting curiosity for me, though, largely for its creativity in being dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology and layering an entire additional set of beliefs on top of it.

 

BTW, I've heard far more derogatory comments about Catholics from other Christians than from atheists...

We have had atheists try to change all of those based on their beliefs though. Just a while ago there was one that went after the pledge of allegiance so that his four year old daughter wouldn't have to say the "under God" part.

That was an attempt to undo the effort by Christianists to impose their religion on everyone else. It is not an example of anyone trying to force atheism on everyone else.

 

Many Christians seem to think that the mere absence of promoting their religion automatically implies atheism, as if there is no possibility of simple neutrality.

 

If he was trying to get the pledge changed to "under no god", then you'd have a point. He wasn't.

And funnily enough I agree with a lot of the actions, just not the way they're done. There's no place for 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance, I only disagreed when the guy involved his daughter's entire kindergarten class and acted almost as a moral guardian. Generally, when those involved actually do end up doing it solely to impose their will on others by going after the minor things rather than the bigger issues behind it.

So you agree that "under God" being added to the pledge is wrong, but you have a problem with someone who also thinks it is wrong standing up for what he believes in? Why?

So you agree that "under God" being added to the pledge is wrong, but you have a problem with someone who also thinks it is wrong standing up for what he believes in? Why?

Because he claimed to speak for a class of kindergartners when he did.

And only nitwits like you generalize Christians, lets take a look at what you said of Christians and compare it to the largest denomination, Roman Catholics, shall we?

Yes, for a religion that claims to be the One Real Truth, you guys seem to have an awful lot of trouble agreeing on anything. How many thousands of sects, versions and cults do you folks have at this point? ;)

 

I wasn't speaking specifically of the RC church, but that was a nice collection of straw men there! The RCC has its own collection of serious problems, which I don't really want to get into. Most folks already know what they are. The RCC is an interesting curiosity for me, though, largely for its creativity in being dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology and layering an entire additional set of beliefs on top of it.

 

BTW, I've heard far more derogatory comments about Catholics from other Christians than from atheists...

You've probably heard poorly of Catholics because 1 They & Eastern Orthodoxy were the Churches that everyone fractured from so obviously you'll have resentment against those whose mindsets you oppose, 2 Many detest our hierarchical system. By the way, the Catholic Church was not "dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology" rather Protestants protested many of the Catholic institutions.

 

I did not say the Catholic Church is without fault, it is flawed like all other human institutions, but we don't do what you claim. I also see Catholics as some of the most open minded, tolerant and logic oriented Christians. I particularly find it funny when people have the misconception that Catholics are anti-science when it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who invented the Big Bang Theory and Pope John Paul II gave like 5 addresses on how science and faith are complimentary and not conflicting.

 

And as a part of Catholic tolerance, we don't say non-believers will burn in hell like some of the absurd sects. Everyone is entitled to their own creed, and as long as they maintain a good life, their religion or lack therefore should not be questioned. Although I do get annoyed by arrogant atheists who scoff at theists (and vice versa).

 

 

As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm against the entire thing as I find it so foolish that every morning I am subject to swear my loyalty to America. More so, claimed 'under God' and last I checked this is no theocracy and I find it rather inappropriate even though I do swear my allegiance to my God.

You've probably heard poorly of Catholics because 1 They & Eastern Orthodoxy were the Churches that everyone fractured from so obviously you'll have resentment against those whose mindsets you oppose, 2 Many detest our hierarchical system. By the way, the Catholic Church was not "dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology" rather Protestants protested many of the Catholic institutions.

Not sure why you are assuming I am a Protestant, but I'm not. I don't really care about Catholic doctrine; it's sillier than some belief sets, less silly than others, but that doesn't really matter.

 

I have a poor opinion of the Catholic Church because everything I have seen of its behavior suggests that it is an organization that is mainly concerned with maintaining its own power, wealth and prestige over all else. In this it is similar to most other large organizations or governments.

 

I also take a dim view of some of the church's policies. I spent the 1990s living in the Boston area and was rather disappointed at seeing how the Cardinal Law scandal was "managed".

 

Finally, the church's history is rather bleak. That said, I do think it has finally taken some steps forward to more enlightened thinking, though it has a long way to go.

 

I particularly find it funny when people have the misconception that Catholics are anti-science when it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who invented the Big Bang Theory and Pope John Paul II gave like 5 addresses on how science and faith are complimentary and not conflicting.

Yes, and don't forget Gregor Mendel. But these are a tiny handful of exceptions. Overall, when it comes to the suppression of knowledge, science and technological advancement to improve people's lives, there has been no group more responsible over the last 2,000 years than the Catholic Church. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Galileo, among *many* others.

 

And as a part of Catholic tolerance, we don't say non-believers will burn in hell like some of the absurd sects.

According to what I've read, Catholics do believe that atheists will burn in hell.

What bothers me most, is that if God really does exist, some theists are way too arrogant claiming to know what he wants/thinks.

What bothers me most, is that if God really does exist, some theists are way too arrogant claiming to know what he wants/thinks.

Agreed 100% here. I have no problem with theism in general. Just the theists that use God(s) to justify their own agendas.

[hide=Reply to Romy (Pt. 1)]

Again, the 'supernatural' can neither be proven nor disproven through the strictly 'natural' means available to us. You and I are both aware of this, I'm sure, so why would you even ask for proof from the start if you know that everything ultimately comes down to personal belief? There is no evidence one way or another, so why even bother?

That's the main point of my argument. There's no need to prove something doesn't exist. You wouldn't expect me to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist whether someone first claimed that he does and whether not, despite the lack of evidence that supports Bigfoot's inexistence.

There is always a need to question. So long as the possibility remains open, then, in order to increase our understanding of the world, we are obligated to pursue the issue until we find closure.

 

Now, in the case of the existence of “God” and the supernatural, we cannot experiment or find evidence through our limited means. This does not mean, however, that we should simply dismiss the possibility; that would be a grave mistake, no matter how slim the chances of the supernatural existing seem to be. We’ll simply have to continue to keep it in mind in the meanwhile, and hope that the future will broaden our means to seek the answer.

 

 

 

Assuming that you're a strong atheist (as I suspect), would it be fair to question your belief that "there is no God"?

Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God.

Please explain to me the difference then, as I’m certainly not seeing any, heh.

 

From what I understand, people can either be classified as a ‘strong’ theist (e.g. “There is a God, and his name is Yahweh”), a ‘weak’ theist (e.g. “I believe there is a God, but I’m not sure who he/she/it is”), an agnostic (e.g. “I don’t know if there is a God”/“I don’t care if there is a God”), a ‘weak’ atheist (e.g. “I don’t know if a God exists, but I don’t believe so anyway”), or a ‘strong’ atheist (e.g. “There is no God”).

 

There is a difference of doubt between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheists; ‘strong’ atheists are certain that there is no God, while ‘weak’ atheists don’t believe God exists, but still acknowledge the possibility that they may be mistaken. So, to get back to my point, which are you?

 

 

 

That's certainly a positive assertion

No it's not, it's definitely a negative asserertion...

Hmm? I’ve never heard of a “negative” assertion, to be honest.

 

An assertion is any statement a person puts forward as fact. Both “there is a God” and “there is no God” are absolute (i.e. “positive”) statements which would normally require concrete evidence to prove (however, there is none in this case, as we’ve gone over). The adjective “positive” is used more or less to highlight the strength of the assertion, so I’m not sure how a “negative” assertion would work or could even exist. :mellow:

 

The closest example I can think of to explain my meaning is “heat”. There is no such thing, technically-speaking, as “cold”; there is only a varying amount of heat energy in an object or environment. Similarly, there are varying degrees of “strength/truth” in an assertion, but there is no “opposite” which can be used to describe a statement intentionally put forward as fact (i.e. an assertion).

 

 

 

so I could demand that you prove to me beyond a doubt that no supernatural deity exists.

The burden of proof does not stand here, just as it doesn't stand for someone who claims Bigfoot doesn't exist. I obviously couldn't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, even if that's the truth. Dedicating my whole life (and let's go as far as saying my children's life, and my children's children's life) to walking around the world, checking everywhere, and not finding Bigfoot, is not enough to prove beyond the slightest doubt Bigfoot doesn't exist, but for someone to say that Bigfoot does exist, it may take a while, but if he really does, he could eventually be found.

Bigfoot =/= God

 

Bigfoot, if he exists, would certainly be a living organism - one which we could possibly obtain physical evidence for in order to prove/disprove his existence. God, on the other hand, would be a supernatural being if he exists in the first place. [broken record] We cannot even attempt to find physical evidence of a being which transcends nature itself, so the “burden of proof” cannot reasonably be applied in this situation. [/broken record]

 

With enough resources (dedicated either now or sometime in the future), the human race could definitively prove/disprove the physical existence of Bigfoot, but this is not so with “God”, by a simple matter of definition.

 

 

 

However, I realise that it would be unfair to ask for such evidence, since I already know that there is none to be found. Perhaps if I wished to discredit the person anyway, I would go ahead and ask such an impossible and loaded question, but that would be unfair of me and good debate etiquette would have me refrain from doing so. I hope you get my point.

I get your point, but think you're wrong. The mere definition theists give God, makes it impossible to prove he exists. And here lies the problem.

What if I told you an unbelieveable story, not necessarily about the supernatural, and claim that I could never prove it to be true, wouldn't my credibilty fall down the drain?

Credibility? Certainly, if a single person told me some fantasic story, I would seriously doubt them. However, if more and more people continued to tell me a similar story afterward, I would then take it into deeper consideration. This isn’t to say that I would necessarily profess belief in the story myself, but I would definitely accept the possibility that it may be true if enough people had become convinced of it.

 

I’ve said it before, but I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe that “God” exists, but seeing as how billions of people have sworn to the existence of some form of deity for thousands of years, I’m willing to leave myself open to the possibility (however slight)

 

 

 

And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself. You come across as very elitist and somewhat closed-minded through your posts when you make these implications, and far fewer people will take you seriously in a debate as a result. A bit of respect, even if you feel otherwise, goes a long way.

What can I say? I find it absurd that so many adults wholeheartly believe in something that cannot and will not be proven.

You find theists absurd for their beliefs, and I can assure you that many of them would think the same of you. Even if you feel that way, it’s important to remain civil and not blatantly insult others in your posts; it’s unprofessional and fewer people will be willing to seriously debate with you as a result. Feel free to expect the same respect from your opponents, and call them out on any infringements that they make, in turn.

 

 

 

Again and again, I state that there is no proof to support either side. Why do you continue to ask for such, regardless?

Again, because the fact that there's no proof for a positive statement (such as "There is a God") is enough to dismiss it IMO. I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument.

So, you do ask a loaded question in order to discredit the other side? I’m disappointed, but I suppose there’s nothing to be done with someone who won’t debate honourably. :mellow:

 

To be perfectly honest, you’re in no better of a position, loaded question or no; there is no proof that the supernatural does not exist. “There is no God” is every bit of a positive assertion as “there is a God”.

 

 

 

The debate concerning "God's existence" is one founded on personal beliefs and thoughts - not on facts. You can believe what you want, but don't demand to be shown phyical evidence by one side when you know perfectly well that you have none to support your beliefs either.

Just as I explained up this post, it's quite usually impossible to prove a negative statemet.

When someone states 2 statements, one claiming that "There is a God" (a positive statement) and that "I can't prove God exists", he fills his argument with pointless "air". He presents a positive statement, something which should be proveable, and supports it with a negative one. "Mr. Green is God", "I can't prove that", together mean nothing.

So to you, a “positive” assertion is a truth that is ‘true‘, and a “negative” assertion is a truth that is ‘false‘? I must admit, I’ve never head of those expressions being used in that manner, heh.

 

I’ve always understood an assertion to be a statement that a person holds to be true. In this way, “there is a God” and “there is no God” are statements on equal footing (each being “absolute”, with no doubt expressed). Since they can each be asserted with no degree of doubt (even if doing so is erroneous), they are both “positive” assertions (i.e. held to be infallible by those making the statements). As I said in one of the above replies, I don’t know how “negative” assertions can exist unless you’re using some other definition.

 

 

 

Also, please lay off the negative connontations you've been applying to religion. Religion does not "enslave" anyone, and I'm sure theists in general would appreciate the gesture if you'd stop trying to insinuate otherwise. This is supposed to be a reasoned debate, but here I find you attempting to subtly demonise the opposing side. 'Poor form.

I probably should have clarfied myself better here. When I say "enslave", I mean "strictly follow". What I meant by that quote is, that I'd never be fully religous, unless I see concrete proof. To further explain myself here, I'll give you an example. If someone believes that some amulet they're carrying will bring them luck- there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I may be skeptic about that amulet, but the one carrying it (probably) wouldn't worship that amulet or risk their life in it's favor.

Ahh, alright, my mistake.

 

 

 

Really? Then why do you continue to ask for physical proof if you already know that there is none to be had? Are you not trying to discredit theists by asking the impossible (please correct me if I've misunderstood)? And yes, considering how long this debate has been raging throughout time, I doubt either side has any "new" argument to offer, and yet the opposing sides are still deadlocked over what ultimately comes down to a difference in personal beliefs.

" I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument."

You don’t find that to be wrong in the slightest? As I said somewhere above, it’s asking a loaded question, since no evidence exists to support either side of the debate. Another ‘loaded’ question would be, for example: “So, have you told anyone about how you beat your wife, yet?”. It would be underhanded to ask this of someone, no? There’s really not much of a difference between the two; you’re trying to unfairly trap someone in asking such a question.

[/hide]

[hide=Reply to Romy (Pt. 2)]

Certainly Apollo is a supernatural deity, and so fits the description. Because of this, I accept the possibility that such a supernatural being called "Apollo" exists, although I doubt that he truly does.

You don't seriously mean that, eh? If you do, you should think the same about anything that couldn't be proven not to exist, including fairies, leprechauns, demons, ghosts, monsters, Bigfoot, FSM, the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and another infinite number of possibilities.

If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, then yes, all of these creatures could exist somewhere out in one or more of the infinite number of universes. Who knows, when quite literally anything could be possible?

 

 

 

This is why I am an agnostic atheist (or otherwise known as a "weak" atheist). And as I explained in my last post, the "burden of proof", which would normally fall on both theists and strong atheists for their absolute beliefs,

Except I don't "believe there's no God", I "disbelieve in God".

And again, I dont see the difference. See the relevant reply somewhere above.

 

 

 

cannot reasonably be applied to this debate. Both sides know the other has no evidence. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's a debate revolving soley around personal beliefs presented as persuasive arguments.

Again, I don't think it's atheists' job to prove there's no God. I guess you already understand my point here though, after reading it twice in this post.

Nobody is responsible for definitively proving/disproving Gods existence, since it cant be done in the first place. Both strong theists and atheists would equally share the responsibility if it could be done, since they both make absolute, positive assertions concerning it. However, the point is moot to begin with, considering the impossibility.

 

 

 

Surely there lies the possibility that FSM is real despite it being the fruit of Henderson's imagination, you must admit. FSM can be perfectly compared to God on the basis that neither own evidence of existence.

Sure, it could possibly exist despite all that. I still dont like how its been warped from an inventive, valid protest against intelligent design into the crude, religion-bashing cudgel its become to today, though. :P

 

 

 

Concerning that, I agree that (IMO) theists who believe in a specific "God" through a defined religion are at fault, although no more so than the strong atheists who declare that no form of "God" exists.

"Pics or it never happend". As I've said quite a few times on this topic, someone who's completely unaware of any form of religion or God, is very likely not to believe in any specific God, not to mention not believe any God at all. When someone as described reaches 30, any religion presented to him would certainly be seen as a fairy tale and nothing more.

Atheists do not present a story, it's theists that do. Atheists just doubt that story.

Heh, Pics or GTFO is such a tired phrase. :P

 

Anyway, if people who are never exposed to religion will supposedly never cultivate a belief in the supernatural, then why does religion/superstition exist in the first place? It must have some origin.

 

I think I said something similar in one of my past posts, but I believe, if a supernatural diety does exist, that it is not one that we currently know of. It is my impression that all of the dieties worshipped on Earth are merely inventions of man; I doubt the real thing would have any interest in us or present itself.

 

 

 

Both make absolute, positive assertions which would normally require substantial proof, however, there is none to be had to support either assertion.

"God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think?

Not at all. Its a positive assertion from what I can see, in all honesty.

 

 

 

It is not possible to definitively prove either argument, so I'm curious as to why you would try to force one side to do so and not the other, or why you're making such an attempt in the first place.

Except, as I said, defining God as unproveable, fills theists' argument with pointless "air". Sure, it means their statements could never be disproven, but that does not mean there's any truth in them.

The same could be said of atheists arguments. There are no facts to be had, so of course the debate is rife with fluff/air on both sides. Were debating our personal opinions; would you seriously expect anything else as a result?

 

 

 

Wow, I feel like I'm repeating the same things again and again...

Because if I presented the "Mr.Green-as-a-God" concept, it would be my job to prove it correct, yet if I stated here that Mr.Green isn't a God, no one would expect me or want me to prove my statement, even though the opposing statement couldn't be disproven.

Dont worry, I feel to same way. :-w

 

There is no evidence, no proof on either side. Nothing can be done about that; there is simply no way to prove anything in this debate. And so, because of this, how is it anyones responsibility to do so anyway? Both strong theists and strong atheists make positive, absolute assertions regarding Gods existence, so they would both be liable if anything could be done in the first place. Since its impossible to support either of these statements with facts, however, neither side can reasonably be expected to provide anything substantial.

 

 

 

My point here is that you simply wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any form of supernatural being, but to do so is hypocritical and unreasonable. Again, neither atheists nor theists have any physical evidence which can validate/invalidate "God's existence", so the possibility for either belief to be true is still open.

You probably already know what my answer is here :).

And Im sure you know mine as well.

 

 

 

Religion/belief in God has had a significant impact on the human race, so it is already "real" to an extent (which is what I was getting at in the paragraph you quoted). Therefore, is it truly too great a stretch to allow for the possibility that one or more of these "Gods" (if not some other) actually exist behind the scenes?

I don't understand your reasoning here. Sure, I agree that you could call God "real" in the name of the concept's influence, regardless of whether or not it really is real, but what does that have to do with whether or not God really is real, or even the possibility of that? That "therefore" you put there seems quite pointless...

This became something of a tangent. My point was that religion/belief in some form of deity already has real effects on mankind and the Earth, and so it doesnt take a terribly large leap-of-faith to consider the possibility that one or more of the deities worshipped here actually does exist and is making itself/themselves known subtly. I believe the odds of this being accurate is minuscule, but I wouldnt outright deny the possibility of it being true, seeing as how Gods hand can already be sensed in many of our earthly affairs to begin with (after a fashion).

 

 

 

All I ask is for the possibility to be taken into consideration, rather than blindly dismissed for "lack of evidence".

But I did take that possibility into consideration. As I had already mentioned, I was a great believer in God, and ended up dismissing the idea. I really don't see why you'd call someone "Close-minded" for disbelieving in something without proof.

The part where you eventually dismissed the possibility is what I see as closed-minded. By dismissing the possibility, no matter how small you may deem it to be, you are not remaining open to the question at large.

 

Always leave yourself open to some small doubt; very little (if anything at all) is guaranteed or absolutely certain in this world.

[/hide]

 

Heh, this 20-quote limit will be forcing us to triple-post soon. :unsure:

[hide=Reply to Rien_Adelric (Pt. 1)]

There is always a need to question. So long as the possibility remains open, then, in order to increase our understanding of the world, we are obligated to pursue the issue until we find closure.

 

Now, in the case of the existence of God and the supernatural, we cannot experiment or find evidence through our limited means. This does not mean, however, that we should simply dismiss the possibility; that would be a grave mistake, no matter how slim the chances of the supernatural existing seem to be. Well simply have to continue to keep it in mind in the meanwhile, and hope that the future will broaden our means to seek the answer.

The possibility remains open even for FSM? Why/why not?

When something is illogical, I believe it is safe to dismiss the idea without proof, especially since those who claim it to be true, also give it the definition, and by definition, it cannot be proven to exist.

 

The future will never be able to prove God doesn't exist, because by definition, God's existence/inexistence is not proveable.

 

Even if we somehow manage to find out how it all started, I'm certain not everyone will dismiss the idea, and find a way around in making that discovery something that wouldn't necessarily disprove God.

 

 

Assuming that you're a strong atheist (as I suspect), would it be fair to question your belief that "there is no God"?

Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God.

Please explain to me the difference then, as Im certainly not seeing any, heh.

 

Qeltar explained it well enough IMO-

A distinction must be made between "not believing that gods exist" and "believing that gods do not exist". They are not the same.

 

The latter is a statement of belief, comparable to and counterpositioned to the belief that gods do exist. There is no possible way to show definitively that gods don't exist, and so anyone holding this position must (honestly) admit that it cannot be proven.

 

The former, however, is a simple logical position based on lack of evidence. I don't believe gods exist because nobody has shown that they do. I have no more reason to try to prove that they don't exist than I have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. If someone wants to convince me that gods or invisible pink unicorns exist, they must profer the necessary evidence (which, by the way, doesn't mean near-prehistoric, self-contradictory, violent scratchings in a silly book).

 

Dieties don't explain anything unexplained. Answering a question with the supposition that a deity did something does not increase knowledge or understanding. Quite the opposite in fact -- it's a copout that allows the uninquisitive to shut down their minds.

 

 

From what I understand, people can either be classified as a strong theist (e.g. There is a God, and his name is Yahweh), a weak theist (e.g. I believe there is a God, but Im not sure who he/she/it is), an agnostic (e.g. I dont know if there is a God/I dont care if there is a God), a weak atheist (e.g. I dont know if a God exists, but I dont believe so anyway), or a strong atheist (e.g. There is no God).

 

There is a difference of doubt between strong and weak atheists; strong atheists are certain that there is no God, while weak atheists dont believe God exists, but still acknowledge the possibility that they may be mistaken. So, to get back to my point, which are you?

It's not about certaincy. I'm well aware that the possibility of a God exists, I just find it pointless, and quite frankly rediculous, to believe in him, until proven. I think your labels are a bit too simplistic, but if I must pick one, then 'Strong' atheist seems like the best option.

 

 

Hmm? Ive never heard of a negative assertion, to be honest.

 

An assertion is any statement a person puts forward as fact. Both there is a God and there is no God are absolute (i.e. positive) statements which would normally require concrete evidence to prove (however, there is none in this case, as weve gone over). The adjective positive is used more or less to highlight the strength of the assertion, so Im not sure how a negative assertion would work or could even exist. :mellow:

 

The closest example I can think of to explain my meaning is heat. There is no such thing, technically-speaking, as cold; there is only a varying amount of heat energy in an object or environment. Similarly, there are varying degrees of strength/truth in an assertion, but there is no opposite which can be used to describe a statement intentionally put forward as fact (i.e. an assertion).

By positive/negative, I don't mean strong or weak, I mean exactly that- positive/negative. "I am hungry" is a positive statement. "I am not huntry" is a negative one.

 

The reason this makes a difference, is the ability to prove the statements. "I own a dog" is something I can easily prove if I really do own a dog. "I do not own a dog", on the other hand, is something that I cannot really 'prove', the other side will have to rely on my answer and and trust it, as a clear proof cannot be given. Even if I brought the other side all the way to my house and showed them there's no dog, it's not enough to prove that beyond doubt.

 

"God exists" (a positive statement) is something that shouldn't be impossible to prove. However, the definition of God openly means that his existence cannot be proven. Just like "Mr.Green is the only true God" and "I can't prove that" together don't mean anything, because you can only rely on the other side, and never see proof.

 

 

Bigfoot =/= God

I could just as easily take FSM or the invisible pink unicorn as examples. Technically, both are Gods, neither can be proven/disproven to exist, yet no person with the right mind would really believe they exist, or even be agnostic towards their existence.

 

Bigfoot, if he exists, would certainly be a living organism - one which we could possibly obtain physical evidence for in order to prove/disprove his existence.

Really? So if today the whole world does anything it possibly could to find Bigfoot, for 100 years, and Bigfoot will not be found- Does that prove, beyond the slightest doubt, that Bigfoot does not exist?

 

God, on the other hand, would be a supernatural being if he exists in the first place. [broken record] We cannot even attempt to find physical evidence of a being which transcends nature itself, so the burden of proof cannot reasonably be applied in this situation. [/broken record]

[broken record] Same could be said for FSM, yet no one would really think FSM exists.[/broken record]

 

 

Credibility? Certainly, if a single person told me some fantasic story, I would seriously doubt them. However, if more and more people continued to tell me a similar story afterward, I would then take it into deeper consideration. This isnt to say that I would necessarily profess belief in the story myself, but I would definitely accept the possibility that it may be true if enough people had become convinced of it.

 

What if you found out that the people telling you this, were told by their parents that story? And that their parents' parents' parents have had similar experiences?

 

The fact that most of the world, even 100% of the world, believes in something, does not make it any more true than if only one person believed in it.

Currently, most of the world (as in, over 50%), are on the scale of either homophobic-gay-hater to thinking-gays-are-doing-something-wrong. Does that mean that you should even consider that "truth"?

 

 

You find theists absurd for their beliefs, and I can assure you that many of them would think the same of you. Even if you feel that way, its important to remain civil and not blatantly insult others in your posts; its unprofessional and fewer people will be willing to seriously debate with you as a result. Feel free to expect the same respect from your opponents, and call them out on any infringements that they make, in turn.

Let them think what they want to think. Most of them also think that an imaginary creature turned water into wine, or sea into blood.

 

Bottom line is, I think that anyone who'd strictly follow something that cannot and will not be proven, is a fool. If that hurts my credibility, then so be it. If anyone is offended, they should probably try to figure out why I said what I said.

 

 

So, you do ask a loaded question in order to discredit the other side? Im disappointed, but I suppose theres nothing to be done with someone who wont debate honourably. :mellow:

 

To be perfectly honest, youre in no better of a position, loaded question or no; there is no proof that the supernatural does not exist. There is no God is every bit of a positive assertion as there is a God.

Don't put words in my mouth, the purpose of that quote is not to discredit the other side, but rather make it examine it's argument.

 

"The is no God" is a negative statement. "There is a God", is a positive one. I already explained the difference up the post.

 

So to you, a positive assertion is a truth that is true, and a negative assertion is a truth that is false? I must admit, Ive never head of those expressions being used in that manner, heh.

 

Ive always understood an assertion to be a statement that a person holds to be true. In this way, there is a God and there is no God are statements on equal footing (each being absolute, with no doubt expressed). Since they can each be asserted with no degree of doubt (even if doing so is erroneous), they are both positive assertions (i.e. held to be infallible by those making the statements). As I said in one of the above replies, I dont know how negative assertions can exist unless youre using some other definition.

 

Umm... what?

A positive assertion is said about something in a positive manner ("I own a dog"), and a negative one is said about something in a negative manner ("I do not own a dog"). The type of statement (positive/negative) doesn't directly say anything about it's truthfulness. However, [broken record]a positive one is supposed to be easier to prove (unless filled with something that opposes that, such as the definition of God), and a negative one is supposed to be harder to prove.[/broken record]

 

 

 

Really? Then why do you continue to ask for physical proof if you already know that there is none to be had? Are you not trying to discredit theists by asking the impossible (please correct me if I've misunderstood)? And yes, considering how long this debate has been raging throughout time, I doubt either side has any "new" argument to offer, and yet the opposing sides are still deadlocked over what ultimately comes down to a difference in personal beliefs.

" I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument."

You dont find that to be wrong in the slightest? As I said somewhere above, its asking a loaded question, since no evidence exists to support either side of the debate. Another loaded question would be, for example: So, have you told anyone about how you beat your wife, yet?. It would be underhanded to ask this of someone, no? Theres really not much of a difference between the two; youre trying to unfairly trap someone in asking such a question.

 

I don't see how your example is relevant here. Who cares whether or not it's a loaded question?

 

We're discussing truth, not nice manners. If you were going to discuss truth with that guy that beat his wife, without letting any 'nice manners' get in your way, you'd ask him that question.

[/hide]

 

Meh, and to think I'm only halfway to answering your posts....

[hide=Reply to Rien_Adelric (Pt. 2)]

Certainly Apollo is a supernatural deity, and so fits the description. Because of this, I accept the possibility that such a supernatural being called "Apollo" exists, although I doubt that he truly does.

You don't seriously mean that, eh? If you do, you should think the same about anything that couldn't be proven not to exist, including fairies, leprechauns, demons, ghosts, monsters, Bigfoot, FSM, the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and another infinite number of possibilities.

If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, then yes, all of these creatures could exist somewhere out in one or more of the infinite number of universes. Who knows, when quite literally anything could be possible?

I hope you don't take it as offensive, but having doubts towards the existence of leprechauns is pointless. No one, NO ONE, in their right mind, would think, or even doubt whether or not Russel's Teapot exists, even though, technically, it's possible.

 

Quite frankly (again, no offence), your judgement seriously lacks if you question any of the above example's inexistence.

 

 

 

Nobody is responsible for definitively proving/disproving “God’s existence”, since it can’t be done in the first place. Both ’strong’ theists and atheists would equally share the responsibility if it could be done, since they both make absolute, positive assertions concerning it. However, the point is moot to begin with, considering the impossibility.

[a record so broken that you can't see the pieces]Saying that atheists are responsible to prove God doesn't exist, is like saying that the entire world is responsible to prove leprechauns don't exist. Atheists don't tell a story, they doubt many. Also, atheists don't make a positive assertion, but rather a negative one. Read my previous post for a better explanation.[/a record so broken that you can't see the pieces]

 

 

Surely there lies the possibility that FSM is real despite it being the fruit of Henderson's imagination, you must admit. FSM can be perfectly compared to God on the basis that neither own evidence of existence.

Sure, it could possibly exist despite all that. I still don’t like how it’s been warped from an inventive, valid protest against intelligent design into the crude, religion-bashing cudgel it’s become to today, though. :P

Easily, because FSM, and any other God, cannot be proven not to exist.

 

Proof FSM exists-

FSM is perfect.

Perfection requires existence.

Therefore, FSM exists.

 

And that concludes the satirical part of my post :D.

 

Anyway, if people who are never exposed to religion will supposedly never cultivate a belief in the supernatural, then why does religion/superstition exist in the first place? It must have some origin.

 

I think I said something similar in one of my past posts, but I believe, if a supernatural diety does exist, that it is not one that we currently “know” of. It is my impression that all of the dieties worshipped on Earth are merely inventions of man; I doubt the “real thing” would have any interest in us or present itself.

I wasn't discussing God in general, I was discussing any specific Gods.

 

However, I believe that statement God be said about God in general. It's fairly possible that the first (ever) to come up with a religion, either knew they were wrong/inventing something, or were under illusinative drugs or w/e. I'm not saying that's definitive, I'm saying it's possible.

The reason I'm brining up that assumption, is that I can't think of anyone who'd be born (nowdays, as I only live for 18 years, tomorrow :P), and would personalize a God. I could see someone thinking God exists in a deist way perhaps, but nothing specific.

 

 

 

Both make absolute, positive assertions which would normally require substantial proof, however, there is none to be had to support either assertion.

"God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think?

Not at all. It’s a positive assertion from what I can see, in all honesty.

Yeah, I think we both know my answer is. It was just a misunderstanding regarding "positive"'s definition.

 

 

It is not possible to definitively prove either argument, so I'm curious as to why you would try to force one side to do so and not the other, or why you're making such an attempt in the first place.

Except, as I said, defining God as unproveable, fills theists' argument with pointless "air". Sure, it means their statements could never be disproven, but that does not mean there's any truth in them.

The same could be said of atheists’ arguments. There are no facts to be had, so of course the debate is rife with “fluff”/“air” on both sides. We’re debating our personal opinions; would you seriously expect anything else as a result?

 

Because atheists make negative assertions, and theists make positive assertions, and support them with a negative assertion ("God cannot be proven to exist/not exist"). Theists' negative assertion fills their argument with what I had named as "pointless air". Their argument cannot be proven, yet it doesn't hold any more truth than "Mr.Green is God" and "There's no way to prove that".

 

[broken record]Atheists don't tell stories, they doubt stories.[/broken record]

 

 

Wow, I feel like I'm repeating the same things again and again...

Because if I presented the "Mr.Green-as-a-God" concept, it would be my job to prove it correct, yet if I stated here that Mr.Green isn't a God, no one would expect me or want me to prove my statement, even though the opposing statement couldn't be disproven.

Don’t worry, I feel to same way. :-w

 

There is no evidence, no proof on either side. Nothing can be done about that; there is simply no way to “prove” anything in this debate. And so, because of this, how is it anyone’s “responsibility” to do so anyway? Both ‘strong’ theists and ‘strong’ atheists make positive, absolute assertions regarding God’s existence, so they would both be liable if anything could be done in the first place. Since it’s impossible to support either of these statements with facts, however, neither side can reasonably be expected to provide anything substantial.

Hmph...

 

First, atheists make negative assertions. Second, theists fill their argument with pointless air by defining God. Third, Qeltar's quote (from my previous post) seems relevant here. Fourth, I think anyone who thinks logically should expect proof before believing anything, not to mention strictly following and worshipping.

 

 

 

 

Religion/belief in God has had a significant impact on the human race, so it is already "real" to an extent (which is what I was getting at in the paragraph you quoted). Therefore, is it truly too great a stretch to allow for the possibility that one or more of these "Gods" (if not some other) actually exist behind the scenes?

I don't understand your reasoning here. Sure, I agree that you could call God "real" in the name of the concept's influence, regardless of whether or not it really is real, but what does that have to do with whether or not God really is real, or even the possibility of that? That "therefore" you put there seems quite pointless...

This became something of a tangent. My point was that religion/belief in some form of deity already has “real” effects on mankind and the Earth, and so it doesn’t take a terribly large leap-of-faith to consider the possibility that one or more of the deities worshipped here actually does exist and is making itself/themselves known subtly. I believe the odds of this being accurate is minuscule, but I wouldn’t outright deny the possibility of it being true, seeing as how “God’s hand” can already be sensed in many of our earthly affairs to begin with (after a fashion).

Again, I don't see how God's existence by your definition (that he had affected our world even if he doesn't really exist) is any relevant to his real existence. Even if 100% of the world believes in something, that doesn't make it true, and that's not what you should rely on when trying to find the truth. Oh, and it neither implies anything about the truth.

 

 

All I ask is for the possibility to be taken into consideration, rather than blindly dismissed for "lack of evidence".

But I did take that possibility into consideration. As I had already mentioned, I was a great believer in God, and ended up dismissing the idea. I really don't see why you'd call someone "Close-minded" for disbelieving in something without proof.

The part where you eventually dismissed the possibility is what I see as “closed-minded”. By dismissing the possibility, no matter how small you may deem it to be, you are not remaining “open” to the question at large.

 

Always leave yourself open to some small doubt; very little (if anything at all) is “guaranteed” or absolutely certain in this world.

 

I did not dismiss the possibility, I dimissed the probablity, and the reasoning behind worshipping that probablity. God could possibly exist, but the way I see it, the odds are as good as leprechauns' existence.

[/hide]

 

Hallelujah...

Christ, why don't you guys just edit out the quotes.

You've probably heard poorly of Catholics because 1 They & Eastern Orthodoxy were the Churches that everyone fractured from so obviously you'll have resentment against those whose mindsets you oppose, 2 Many detest our hierarchical system. By the way, the Catholic Church was not "dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology" rather Protestants protested many of the Catholic institutions.

Not sure why you are assuming I am a Protestant, but I'm not. I don't really care about Catholic doctrine; it's sillier than some belief sets, less silly than others, but that doesn't really matter.

 

I have a poor opinion of the Catholic Church because everything I have seen of its behavior suggests that it is an organization that is mainly concerned with maintaining its own power, wealth and prestige over all else. In this it is similar to most other large organizations or governments.

 

I also take a dim view of some of the church's policies. I spent the 1990s living in the Boston area and was rather disappointed at seeing how the Cardinal Law scandal was "managed".

 

Finally, the church's history is rather bleak. That said, I do think it has finally taken some steps forward to more enlightened thinking, though it has a long way to go.

 

I particularly find it funny when people have the misconception that Catholics are anti-science when it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who invented the Big Bang Theory and Pope John Paul II gave like 5 addresses on how science and faith are complimentary and not conflicting.

Yes, and don't forget Gregor Mendel. But these are a tiny handful of exceptions. Overall, when it comes to the suppression of knowledge, science and technological advancement to improve people's lives, there has been no group more responsible over the last 2,000 years than the Catholic Church. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Galileo, among *many* others.

 

And as a part of Catholic tolerance, we don't say non-believers will burn in hell like some of the absurd sects.

According to what I've read, Catholics do believe that atheists will burn in hell.

1. I am not assuming you are a Protestant. I was stating if you heard negative comments from other Christians, it would most likely be from a Protestant.

 

The whole scandals were terrible and they were dealt with and there's only so much you can do, especially after you've had to pay compensation to all these people. The priests were wrong, yes, but they were not supported and they were reprimanded and many removed for their actions so its not like they were supported by us. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not look to control anything. It may appear so, but it does not. It has many followers, yes, and so it may appear so. The Church has a set of ideologies, if a follower believes and supports these, economic, social and political decisions will be in tune with what they believe in because you cannot separate a moral that corresponds with religious morals from your secular morals, you'd have to be able to have different persons. I'll have you know, I am a person who frequents Catholic events and we form different charitable and social justice committees, last month we put on a benefit concert for Haiti, this month we're collecting toiletries for a homeless shelter, so I don't see how that has to do with the retention of wealth or power seeing as how those use funds and energy to actually conduct.

 

I don't know why people think Catholics are like what Hitler saw the Jews as. We do not secretly control everything. I was having a conversation about politics and somehow my friend and I got on the topic of JFK. I brought up a caricature I saw once of JFK in the White House on a throne and the Pope was standing next to him whispering in his ear. Really now, is that necessary? I'm pretty sure he never even met the Pope.

 

I'm not quite sure when you say the history is bleak.

 

And there may be Catholics who do bad things, sure. I don't know why people use that as an attack and I find it rather comical seeing as how everyone is flawed and in every religion, race, political party or any group there will always be bad people.

 

2. The Catholic Church in whatever they have blocked scientific advancement, as in Galileo, was wrong yes. You know about the fault but I'm pretty sure you didn't know that an issue of apology was declared by a later pope. In fact, Pope John Paul II had all the Church's mistakes compiled in a list and he read them out and apologized on behalf of who ever did what. Now I don't know what you've learned about Catholics, but no we are not like the Amish, we use technology.

 

3. And whatever you read was just wrong. period. I don't need my beliefs and the policy of the Church which I have studied extensively to be told me by someone else.

The priests were wrong, yes, but they were not supported and they were reprimanded and many removed for their actions so its not like they were supported by us.

Uh, wrong. Sorry.

 

The church was complicit in covering up and whitewashing the entire affair. The cardinal responsible for oversight of the priests at the center of the controversy was never punished. After years of stonewalling he finally gave a limp apology and resigned as archbishop, but retained his rank and then was given a plum job at the Vatican.

 

That's how the Catholic church handles things, and that's why they don't have my respect.

 

Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not look to control anything. It may appear so, but it does not. It has many followers, yes, and so it may appear so.

It appears so because it is so. We're talking about a church with countless billions of dollars of assets that continues to maintain policies specifically designed to keep the poor impoverished forever. A church with myriad rules and regulations that it invented of whole cloth simply for its own purposes, regardless of their negative impacts (celibacy for priests being one obvious example). A church that allies itself with governments based on expediency.

 

I'm not quite sure when you say the history is bleak.

Uh.. hundreds of years of senseles violence, oppression, anti-Semitism, forced conversions, suppression of science and murder.

 

2. The Catholic Church in whatever they have blocked scientific advancement, as in Galileo, was wrong yes. You know about the fault but I'm pretty sure you didn't know that an issue of apology was declared by a later pope.

Yes.. 350 years after he died! Very impressive. :)

 

The apologies are nice, but meaningless. Regardless, the point stands. And worse, the church still today stands against science and against important technological advancements. Maybe in 350 years we'll get apologies for those too?

 

3. And whatever you read was just wrong. period. I don't need my beliefs and the policy of the Church which I have studied extensively to be told me by someone else.

I have to wonder how much information you get about your religion from sources other than your instructors. Every single source I have found indicates quite clearly the Catholic belief that hell exists and that non-believers go there. They are more credible than someone who is trying to prop up the church.

A church with myriad rules and regulations that it invented of whole cloth simply for its own purposes, regardless of their negative impacts (celibacy for priests being one obvious example).

So celibacy leads to child molestation now? Better warn the thousands of priests that haven't molested kids that they may be at risk...

 

I doubt there are many people that can look at religion objectively.

Sorry to jump in without reading all the posts, or even the most recent ones, but some of those are just massive. I noticed you were saying there can be no proof either way in the God/ no God arguement.

 

When you have removed all other possibilities, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

I know for certain that the religious works, such as the Bible, the Quran, etc., are created by man. Therefore, they cannot be trusted as proof, and most of them have massive fallacies which their respective theists attempt to escape by saying, "Oh, it was just a metaphor". This means that if a God exists, he is almost definitely not the god depicted in modern religions. What logical support remains for God? We can say with almost complete certainty that God was created by man as a solution to those questions that have no answer. As we answer these questions, proof of God is disproved, until all you have left is an idea and a bunch of ridiculous traditions.

 

 

It is impossible to prove God exists. Therefore, he cannot exist. Somebody mentioned Bigfoot; can you prove he doesn't exist? Of course not, but you can disprove any quack who shows up with a home-made footprint. Should we accept him as a possible organism? Technically, sure, that .0001% of uncertainty has a right to be heard. But should he be put on the endangered species list? Or taught about in Biology classes?

 

What is the difference between Bigfoot and God?

So celibacy leads to child molestation now? Better warn the thousands of priests that haven't molested kids that they may be at risk...

That's a fallacious argument -- like saying smoking can't cause cancer because thousands of smokers don't get it.

 

Celibacy doesn't necessarily cause child molestation, but it could. What it definitely *does* is create a very attractive haven for those who already have that disposition -- it would be hard to describe a more perfect position for someone with pedophilic tendencies. And suggesting that forcing a man to sublimate his natural sexual desires could not cause those to be expressed in a warped manner is simply naive.

 

What's more, it is nearly entirely unscriptural, invented hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.