Atheist zealots annoy me to no end.

The BBQ Pit
401

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]

About that whole physical-laws thing - since physical laws are deduced by observation of phenomena within the natural world, how in the world could they possibly have anything to say about an entity which existed outside the scope of physical laws?

Your POV is still unfalsifiable, on your own say-so. Not merely hard to falsify; I could hardly complain about that.

I know you’re using the word “evidence” and not the word “proof”, but can you please explain what you putatively regard as evidence?

How odd. I sorta suspect you’d be thoroughly approving of a believer who sounded off about religious bigotry, and wouldn’t accuse him of being confused about what he believes. :dubious:

Perhaps m’learned friend brackets the word “angry” with “atheists” because that subset of atheists who aren’t angry do not vex him in the slightest?

402

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I know you’re using the word “evidence” and not the word “proof”, but can you please explain what you putatively regard as evidence?
[/quote]
At the very minimum, the same kind of evidence it would take to convince you that Bigfoot, flying saucers or fairies exist-these premises are less fantastic then the premise of a “god”, and we’ve supposedly got fuzzy photos of those.
Fair enough for you?

And perhaps he is an “atheist” the same way Lieberman was a “Democrat”. Zealot does not equal Angry-it is rather obvious what he is trying to do here.

403

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
About that whole physical-laws thing - since physical laws are deduced by observation of phenomena within the natural world, how in the world could they possibly have anything to say about an entity which existed outside the scope of physical laws?
[/QUOTE]
Because said entity supposedly interacts with this universe and it’s laws.

404

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
At the very minimum, the same kind of evidence it would take to convince you that Bigfoot, flying saucers or fairies exist-these premises are less fantastic then the premise of a “god”, and we’ve supposedly got fuzzy photos of those.
Fair enough for you?
[/quote]

Why would you suppose that a “flying saucer” was a less fantastic premise than a god (what the hey, I’ll use whatever scare quotes I like, if you can)? Barring science fiction, we have no evidence whatever that interstellar travel is even theoretically feasible - you know, what with wormhole travel, even if possible, calling for more energy than exists in the whole universe - and no evidence whatever that intelligent life capable of such technology exists, or can exist, anywhere in the universe. I put it to you that “flying saucers” seem less fantastic to you only because they are closer to your human condition and your conception of the familiar than God is, and they therefore disturb you less; there, you think, with but the grace of a few centuries of technology, go I.

'dever. Reminds me of how catsix regales us with yarns of being called a man by women who don’t want to listen to what she’s saying. Still, no doubt your viewpoint on this is evidence-based.

On, we suppose, whatever terms it chooses to dictate. As well might inhabitants of the Matrix deduce the existence or otherwise of the programmer according to how it must interact with the operating system. But programmers have a remarkable facility for altering the software how they like, in a manner not necessarily predictable from observing the laws of program function from within the computer.

405

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Why would you suppose that a “flying saucer” was a less fantastic premise than a god (what the hey, I’ll use whatever scare quotes I like, if you can)? Barring science fiction, we have no evidence whatever that interstellar travel is even theoretically feasible - you know, what with wormhole travel, even if possible, calling for more energy than exists in the whole universe - and no evidence whatever that intelligent life capable of such technology exists, or can exist, anywhere in the universe. I put it to you that “flying saucers” seem less fantastic to you only because they are closer to your human condition and your conception of the familiar than God is, and they therefore disturb you less; there, you think, with but the grace of a few centuries of technology, go I.
[/QUOTE]
My “human condition” involves science, logic and rules of evidence. Our world and our way of life has advanced because of it, thank you very much. We have flying machines, and the possibility that life might exist elsewhere is a distinct possibility. This is extremely weak evidence that we could be visited from places other than Earth, but evidence none the less, which is more than you’ve got for God.
I noticed you skipped the other two examples-why? Do you have blind faith that fairies or Bigfoot exist? Has enough evidence been brought forth to convince you to give them serious consideration? A reasonable person, when presented with the claim that the Seattle Space Needle exists, would accept that claim based of evidence previously presented. If confronted with the claim that a particular person visited the Space Needle, she/he would probably accept as evidence a photo of that person standing next to it. If confronted with the claim that, while visiting the Space Needle it was hit by a biplane, it might take a photo combined with news reports of the event happening.
Do you see a pattern emerging here? The more fantastic the claim, the better the evidence needed. Consideration of a claim should be balanced by the amount and type of evidence presented.

406

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
My “human condition” involves science, logic and rules of evidence. Our world and our way of life has advanced because of it, thank you very much. We have flying machines, and the possibility that life might exist elsewhere is a distinct possibility. This is extremely weak evidence that we could be visited from places other than Earth, but evidence none the less, which is more than you’ve got for God.
[/quote]

Evidence my foot. Flying machines and interstellar spacecraft are, quite literally, lightyears apart, and you have no evidence for extraterrestrial life other than to mumble that the possibility of it is a distinct possibility. You certainly can’t ascribe any probabilities to that, because to do anything of the sort you would need some numbers as to planets, some numbers as to habitability, and some instances of life on those habitable worlds. You have none of the last - not a shred - and until you have such, any assertion of “possibility” is mere handwavery. You spike all Biblical accounts of God out of hand, and expect me to call this “evidence”.

I was in no hurry to get to them until we’d addressed your prejudices concerning the relative plausibility of UFOs and God.

You still haven’t told me what evidence of God’s existence you’d accept, instead of arguing for a “more plausible” explanation.

407

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I was in no hurry to get to them until we’d addressed your prejudices concerning the relative plausibility of UFOs and God.
[/QUOTE]
God breaks observed natural laws with nearly everything he does. He supposedly exists everywhere at once, yet is unobservable. He supposedly knows everything, which is impossible by heisenburg uncertainty (among other problems). Every “miracle” he does is impossble, by definition. It boggles the mind that you can think of anything as being more improbable that God.

408

To posit UFOs and space aliens only requires us to posit different versions of things that we’re already familiar with - organisms (or robots) and technology. We are also familiar with technological advancement making seemingly-impossible feats possible.

God, on the other hand, is a being which, as defined, has no precedent in the physical world whatsoever and is so different from anything we have ever encountered that he isn’t even restricted by the physical laws of the universe as we understand them.

The former is infinitely more plausible than the latter. I agree with begbert2, in fact; I can’t think of anything that would be as or more implausible than God.

409

Saying that God exists outside of space and time posits that there is and “outside of space and time” in the first place. Using one unevidenced theory to explain another unevidenced theory isn’t a good explanation-it’s a poor excuse.

410

[QUOTE=shy guy]
I agree with begbert2, in fact; I can’t think of anything that would be as or more implausible than God.
[/QUOTE]

Too fucking true. God is the answer of absolute last resort. It’s more likely that we’re living in the matrix or are the result of alien genetic engineering than a god exists. Yet people choose it as the first answer.

411

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Religious zealots: Fly airplanes into buildings, blow up abortion clinics, attempt to “cure” gay people, believe that everyone else is going to hell, want various parts of science to not be taught in public classrooms, (etc etc etc etc), are measured in double digit percentages in the US population.

Atheist zealots: Are rude and condescending, want to remove “under God” and “In God We Trust” from the pledge and coins, are barely measurable in the US population. Save me from them!
[/QUOTE]

I missed the part where the OP said religious zealots are okay. :rolleyes:

412

What would I accept as evidence of a god?
How about all water, and only water, running uphill for a period of 24 hours?
How about the stars arranged to spell out “PAX” or “PEACE”?
How about the sun rising in the west and setting in the east just once, with no resultant ill effects?

Or in other words, something only a god-like being could pull off, something unambiguous observed by a great number of people, and recordable using modern equipment. Something that shouldn’t be a problem to a being that supposedly created the universe, but damn near impossible for any species that didn’t have god-like abilities.

413

I actually used to hold a similar position, Czarcasm, but changed my mind after reading a recent GD thread (“What would make you believe in God?” or something like that).

Several poters in that thread argued, convincingly enough for me, that there are any number of beings who would fall short of anything we would call “God” but who would be able to cause either events on par with those you mention, or illusions of them that we could not discern from reality. Matrix-esque robots or space aliens with highly advanced technology, for instance.

414

[QUOTE=shy guy]
I actually used to hold a similar position, Czarcasm, but changed my mind after reading a recent GD thread (“What would make you believe in God?” or something like that).

Several poters in that thread argued, convincingly enough for me, that there are any number of beings who would fall short of anything we would call “God” but who would be able to cause either events on par with those you mention, or illusions of them that we could not discern from reality. Matrix-esque robots or space aliens with highly advanced technology, for instance.
[/QUOTE]
Well, after a certain point you’re just arguing over whether you’re dealing with the specific right god that you were calling “God” earlier - a somewhat irrelevent question once one realizes that there’s almost nothing about God which everyone who believes in it can agree upon, which means that the name is for most people just floating around, waiting for some entity with the approximate qualifications to swing by and claim it.

415

[QUOTE=shy guy]
I actually used to hold a similar position, Czarcasm, but changed my mind after reading a recent GD thread (“What would make you believe in God?” or something like that).

Several posters in that thread argued, convincingly enough for me, that there are any number of beings who would fall short of anything we would call “God” but who would be able to cause either events on par with those you mention, or illusions of them that we could not discern from reality. Matrix-esque robots or space aliens with highly advanced technology, for instance.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh, but I didn’t say that these events would prove that God existed. I am saying that they would be acceptable evidence that God might exist.

416

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Ahh, but I didn’t say that these events would prove that God existed. I am saying that they would be acceptable evidence that God might exist.
[/QUOTE]

Good point, my mistake.

417

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, god would be the last choice, after every other possibility in the universe was ruled out. But you see, there isn’t any evidence for him at all and he contradicts all the evidence we do have. Believing in him is a testament to gullibility. Choosing a happy lie that makes you feel better.

418

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Ahh, but I didn’t say that these events would prove that God existed. I am saying that they would be acceptable evidence that God might exist.
[/QUOTE]

But which you could still hand-wave away, saying (along with Lobohan) that any other explanation that could be dreamt up must necessarily be likelier. Well, no need to produce the evidence, then. We’re at that point already.

So then this:

would be kinda horseshit, then?

419

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
But which you could still hand-wave away, saying (along with Lobohan) that any other explanation that could be dreamt up must necessarily be likelier. Well, no need to produce the evidence, then. We’re at that point already.

So then this:

would be kinda horseshit, then?
[/QUOTE]

Are you actually reading what we are writing? Are you having trouble differentiating between “evidence” and “proof”? When asked what I would consider as evidence of a god, I gave an honest answer. You could play the “Yeah, but if that actually happened you’d only wave it off!” game all day, but in the end, I will have answered truthfully, and you’re out there playing games with yourself. The fact that your standards of evidence for the utterly fantastic and unscientific is so damn low is your problem, but it certainly does nothing for your position.

420

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
No, actually, if you sneer at religious people for believing in god because you know there is no God, you’re making the same leap of faith they are. You can’t prove there isn’t a God anymore than they can prove there is one, and all of the logic tricks and justifications that militant atheists like to use to “prove” there is no God are meaningless because, by definition, God exists outside our frame of reference (the Universe) and isn’t subject to the same laws that we are subject to. You can say “i don’t believe there is a God”, that’s cool, no problem, but when you say to the theist “You fool, there is no God” then you’re the exact same type of fool.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, seriously total 100% complete and utter Bullshit.

see heres the thing, you proved your own argument wrong in your own argument.

there is not now, nor has there ever even once been the tiniest littlest shred of evidence, anywhere at anytime for the existence of a creator. the proof simply doesnt exist. if there is no evidence for it then anyone who believes is self deluded. If I tell you my penis cures cancer and you believe it without a shred of evidence then yeah you are a moron. If I told you that eating a kosher hot dog smothered in dog vomit and baked in a kiln at exactly 3:45 am while doing the jitter bug would make it snow in the Sahara and you believed that then yeah you would be a moron.

guess what, everyone who believes in a major religion falls into exactly those categories. the only difference is that instead of me telling you and you believing you heard it from someone who heard it from someone over and over and over. that and you have the sheer volume of people raised to believe this crap.

again there is no proof of any kind what so ever, in the absence of evidence belief is a form of delusion.