Why? Surely from your POV it would make far more sense to assume you had developed a brain tumour, or someone had slipped a mind-altering substance into your drink, or a mad scientist was having himself some fun with an experimental thought-mutator, or an LGM was contacting you telepathically, or… oh, well, pretty much any explanation except God.
The answer is easy : none. There is no such thing as spirit, any more than there is such a thing as God.
You have been told, over and over again. The believers are dangerous. They hurt people.
They don’t get discussed, at least by you, because you refuse to.
Well, I lump you in with the believers because I think you are one. From your rhetoric, I think that you are most likely lying about being an atheist, and are the religious version of the racists who start out their racist rhetoric with “some of my best friends are black”. I suspect you are just trying to bash atheists, and make yourself look more credible by claiming to be one.
That would be my point of view. God is such an implausible idea that I really can’t think of what would be proof that he’s real. Just about anything is more plausible than God.
So your POV is basically unfalsifiable. Just so we know.
He said “just about”. That theists have set themselves an immensely difficult task does not mean that atheists are required to assist by lowering their standard of proof.
What kind of twisted logic is this? All of the possibilities he mentioned are totally possible and can be tested for and eliminated if not true. Tumors exist. Mind-altering drugs exist. Dementia exists. The only possibility that can’t be tested for one way or another is God. Why would you not check all the other possibilities that we already have hard evidence for, first? If you saw a burning bush and it spoke to you, why would your first consideration not be that someone planted a small speaker nearby then set the bush on fire? Why would you eliminate the possibility that it’s a trick of your own mind?
Ah, “just about”. Fine, there’s nothing like leaving yourself a bit of wiggle room. But I think you’re doing Der’s wiggling for him, since he’s said he “really can’t think of anything that would be proof”. It’s no skin off my nose if he wants to set his philosophical stall out right next to the folk over at Answers In Genesis, who start out with the view that the Bible is God’s infallible written word, and any evidence appearing to show the contary must be reinterpreted in a light to show that it doesn’t.
I’m the last to want to deny him and **Lobohan ** and the rest whatever comfort they derive from maintaining that God doesn’t exist and anyone who believes otherwise is just too childish to face the truth. What harm does this do me? But just for the record, let’s not mistake this position for an evidence-based one.
I think he is weighing all the possibilities, but is doing so in order of their probabilities. If you saw a burning bush, How far up or down the list of possibilities would you put “God”? Why wouldn’t you consider all the natural possibilities first?
It’s not twisted logic at all, Czarcasm. Tumours exist - but you might have a hard time demonstrating that any given unreproducible burning-bush episode was the result of any physical abnormality in the brain. Mind-altering drugs exist - but some new mind-altering drug that is undetectable in the laboratory twenty-four hours after taking effect could not be proven one way or the other to have been the cause of the still small voice after the earthquake, wind and fire. And some alien technology or telepathic powers would be, I suppose, quite as incomprehensible to me as the integrated circuit to an orang-utan.
Who said I wouldn’t consider the possibility? I only address the question of whether, in practice, someone who considers God infinitely unlikely would be bound, no matter what evidence was offered, to consider any other explanation likelier than the zero possibility that God did it.
No, proof and evidence are not equal.
For myself , God doesn’t represent sky pixies or anything like it. Some see God as a literal being sitting in a throne ruling the universe. I agree that is a naive and primitive vision. I’d add that for many that type of imagery is allegory.
nope
THis thread isn’t about proving God its about Atheist Zealots. But nice attempt to derail the conversation into a direction that makes you more comfortable.
Religious people hurt people. So do non religious people. I’m not a fundy in disguise and that’s not the first time I’ve been accused of that. MY major is comparative religion from an academic standpoint and that seems to irritate angry atheists who are het up in frustration because mom knocked them around the house a few times and told them they were going to hell when they were bratty kids.
The question which still hasn’t been answered is why do say its about religious people “hurting people” and the "issues’ and yet spend your energy focused on the concept of FAITH? It makes no sense to debate the faith if you’re not going to believe it? If it clear cut doesn’t make sense to you, then why do you return to the topic over and over and over again?
Like I said OK we get it God doesn’t exist. Believers are delusional. GREAT. Why don’t you ever move on to the actual issues if that’s your reason for being so twisted?
Read through this thread thus far and you will see that I’ve raised issues several times and they’ve been ignored to go back to the name calling and insults.
That’s why for me I tend to actually get along better with religious people. Because they actually discuss the issues I bring up.
I’m not sure what your parameters are for religious people, but if it’s people who hold religious or spiritual beliefs I’d say the answer is false.
Fair enough
Your Fudd impersonation needs work
This is one more of the gross generalizations that you seem so certain about. IMO it’s that kind of opinionated certainty that misses important details and nuances.
I and lots of believers have not given up reason and it’s not about security.
I refrained from elaborating because the content of your posts indicated that you would just shit all over my response and resort to name calling as you’ve done in this post. You seem more interested in venting and a pissing contest than an actual discussion. If that’s your style I find it childish and boring.
case in point.
:rolleyes: nevermind.
I don’t think that possibility should be eliminated. I’d also say that what was called “the shared experience of millions” is part of the explanation for the continuation of a lot of doctrine. People may have some unexplained experience and the influence of others shapes how they define it. People are searching for meaning or deeply desire a change in their lives and others lead them to a certain belief system. Religion and certain beliefs are maintained in part by fear of rejection , not just by god, but by our social group surrogate family that the church has become.
The hard part is sifting the real and valuable stuff from all of that. Mankind being the persistent devil he is though I think we are headed in that direction.
I wouldn’t think “natural”-I’d think some asshole pyromaniac did it. Then I’d put it out.
I should hope anyone else would do so too.
If it was talking though, I think I’d feel kinda bad putting it out so quickly. I mean, the fire didn’t burn right? I could probably steal the bush, plant it in my backyard, and then exhibit it for a fee.
I’ve been following this thread and I think the assertion by atheists that spiritual people are solely concerned with either:
-trying to mitigate their sinful behavior
-seeking an expanation for a universe they don’t understand and therefore fear
-having the righteousness to condemn non-believers
is narrow-minded.
Sure, many beleivers are like that , but to generalize and say they are all like that is arrogant and intolerant.
I’ve just been reading some books on Native American culture, and it seems the basis for their spiritual beliefs was plain and simple gratitude. It’s not a stretch to think that adherents to other belief systems are motivated by the same feeling.
I would assign zero probability that God did it until such time that evidence comes forth supporting that particular theory. Again, we have evidence that tumors, trickery etc. exist. It might be hard to prove any particular cause, but considering the fact that it is impossible(so far) to provide any evidence that God did it, why waste any time even considering that possibility?
“Millions of people experience God, though!” - Let’s put this meme to bed once and for all. Millions of people do not experience the same “God”, otherwise there would be one religion. Millions of people experience(or think they experience-there’s still no evidence to be presented even though there are supposedly millions of cases) something they deem to be spiritual in nature, but since their descriptions of their experiences differ so greatly, it is intellectually dishonest to put them in the same group. Some experience this god, some experience that god, others experience yet another god. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again-the idea that millions hold gods responsible for anything is merely the product of societal indoctrination. Society tells people their entire life that it is all right to throw logic right out the window when it comes to religion. Blind faith(that is faith that exists without any presentable and varifiable evidence) exists on a large scale in only two sectors of our society-the religious and the insane.
We’ve done this before; there’s been a thread or two on it. There’s no way I or anyone can prove that something is God. Since God can’t be proven, atheism can’t be disproved.
However, there’s no evidence for God. There’s no evidence that God can exist. There are numerous physical laws that forbid the majority of versions of God from existing. The people who claim they “know” there is a God can’t agree on anything about what they “know”, which implies that they don’t know any such thing. Many or most version of God are logically contradictory. And so on.
All the evidence is that there is no God. And at any rate, it’s the logical obligation of people who claim something exists to provide the evidence; the logical default is always nonexistence - except in the case of religion, which is given a pass. Because, of course, if people apply the same standards to religion and other superstitions that they apply to everything else, they’d have to admit that they are fools.
Might I add that he, and I, are using the word “evidence”, NOT “proof”. You are not obligated to prove that God exists-just provide some presentable and varifiable evidence.
The thing about the debate of faith is that many cultures have had faith and many have used this faith in a more esoteric way and a more nobel way. For every crusades we do have missionaries that selflessly devote themselves in all sincerity to issues in the world. Yes there are posers or people that make you puke jamming their beliefs down your throat but at thesame time in hisotry there have been many many people who have helped others because they felt God compelled them to.
Its usually very moving. Angry atheists want to remove this from the slate and only discuss the atrocities and the screwed up stuff. And yes that does need to be brought to fthe fore, not every evangelical movement is motivated by grace, some is motivated by money.
But I still haven’t gotten an answer as to why angry atheists insist on discussing FAITH if as they sneer repeatedly its “stupid.” You dont’ continue to argue with someone who thinks they see a ghost or have been abducted by aliens. You let it go? If the pursuit is really the end of ignorance then why doesnt’ the debate step from arguing faith to trying to understand why its such a universal experience throughout human history.
The emotional reaction of the angry atheists tells me that this is a personal rebellion and ego driven issue related to worthiness. That’s why its so ferocious.
I know many religious leaders who are quite educated in their respective fields. Islamic Imams and Rabbis and Ministers and they are not angry towards other faiths or towards atheists the way some atheists are so angry towards them.
I think this is because they pursue education on the topic and have come to see it in a historical sense and a social construct sense rather than the big enemy.
In my opinion if you are getting angry about what naother person believes and focusing on that its because you have unresolved issues regarding the topic. You don’t see for example a Mexican getting twisted into knots over the situation in Israel the way you would a Palestinian. So its not about the “issues” its about the personal relationship one has to those issues.
You claim to be an atheist, but you seem to be incapable of using the term without attaching the label “angry” to it. Are you confused about what you believe, or are you a lying sack of shit?
Just askin’.