Another thing I just realized - these possibilities of “proof” of a god or gods smacks of the same logic they’ve been using as far as the torture issue goes. "What if there were a bomb? “What if there were a NUKE?” “What if there was a dirty bomb full of anthrax? WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!”
A new and bigger “what if?” doesn’t make torture any more right, and it doesn’t make a god or gods any more real.
You’re the believer, what do you think good evidence for a god is? What would be good evidence for the pony ghost in my house?
No evolutionary trail leading to simpler organisms would be a start. The Sun popping into existence every day and disappearing at night would imply something is happening through supernatural means. God coming down ala George Burns would work. I could thing of different evidences for a god all day, but what’s the point? You believe- you supply the evidence, just as I would if I wanted anyone to believe my claim there is a ghost pony.
The problem is the theist has an excuse every time the atheist tests something equivalent to testing to see if the pyramids sharpen razor blades. The theist says God created humans- we provide evidence that humans didn’t pop into existence and have evolved slowly from earlier organisms and one theist says our evidence are lies and another theist will claim that God created us but used evolution to do it and the holy book isn’t to be taken literally. Which is why I asked you how you would disprove my ghost pony. It isn’t up to you or I to disprove either; it’s up to the one making the claim to provide evidence. You tell us what constitutes acceptable evidence.
Most atheists won’t try to prove your belief false. Absence of evidence is a reason to not have a belief in an incredible claim.
It doesn’t matter how important the existence of a ghost pony is, but I think if you could prove that ghosts live you might not have to have these arguments with atheists any more. But how about answering my question?:
If I tell you there is the ghost of a pony in my house, wouldn’t your lack of belief in my claim be considered evidence based?
Well, we’re getting scope creep now, turbopower - from my challenging one or two rationalists hereabouts to examine the intellectual honesty of their claims to hold beliefs that are purely evidence-based, to being required to prove the existence of God. I’m not going there. But:
There are some, possibly a majority, of atheists who do not make a hobby of continually going on about how believers in God are teh retardz. Those atheists are not the subject of this thread. Reading The OP 101.
I read the OP. Most atheist won’t try to believe your belief false (if your belief is the deist type who set the universe in motion and everything else happens naturally) because it’s impossible to do. If your belief includes a world-wide flood with two of every animal on an ark, then most will.
But don’t think because I’m an atheist that wouldn’t try to prove the first example of a deity doesn’t exist means I don’t think you’re a tard. I do. Fantastical beliefs without evidence is retarded.
How about actually responding to my last post?
I’m sorry, but I don’t recall asking for hypothetical evidence. I asked you(and other believers) to present what evidence you have that your god exists, and to let the populace decide whether or not I am fair in evaluating it. You come back with arguments and hypotheticals-I’ve heard them all, and that’s not what I asked for.
Do you have any evidence to evaluate or not?
Hay everyone look how smart I am agreeing with the well-documented obvious lack of fucking evidence! I’m right on the cusp of the intellectual frontier! Watch me bring out the Flying Spaghetti Monster next, hoo hoo. Parry, riposte…go, you sly devil. Next up I’ll bring in a pre-schooler and debate the existence of the Tooth Fairy!
11 pages and over 540 posts about how atheists aren’t zealous. The irony of strong atheism, it burns, it burns us precious.
Lots of mockery about atheists arguing for 11 pages, but no realization that it takes two sides to argue.
If this is your proof that we are atheist zealots, then you must believe that those arguing against us are religious zealots. That’s a doubled-sided mirror you’re holding up, bucky.
Is it still your position that there are no atheist zealots because the religious zealots outnumber the atheist zealots?
How would you define “zealot”, Lord Ashtar?
Are you sure you read the OP?
Oh brother. Yes, I’m sure. The OP gave lots of examples. I’m asking specifically how you’re defining “zealot”.
If you agree with the OP, then an atheist that thinks people have been brainwashed into believing in religion or that religion is the opiate of the masses is a zealot? Really?
So I’m a zealot because you’re too soft-headed to question your beliefs?
Why is it an act of zealotry to point out that someone who believes in something utterly silly without evidence isn’t thinking very hard?
You believe in something more silly than zombies, vampires or the tooth fairy. You believe in it for no reason you can articulate. That makes you gullible.
You might otherwise be a very smart person. But why should I respect your intelligence? Do you respect the intelligence of people who are proponents of past life regression?
You say this like it’s axiomatic, but I’d contend, for any God that’s worth the name (by this I mean a non-Deist interventionist God like Jehova or Allah), that it’s not true. This argument only works for Deist God, which is, let’s face it, the same as !God.
Just checking in.
Has anybody presented that evidence yet that we atheist zealots supposedly reject out of hand?
Yes, I forgot that the same inevitable self-reinforcing atheist circle jerk with the usual few holdouts qualifies as argument in these parts. Do you hope to convince them of the error of their ways? If yes, then you should know better. If no, then why do you bother?
I’ll accept that metaphor, let’s look into the mirror together. I count seven posts from me in this thread. Mockery, as you say, though well-deserved I think. But from you, I count approximately fifty-eig…make that fifty-nine. What did Churchill say, about a man that won’t change his mind and can’t change the subject? I don’t think I quite qualify, whereas you…well.
Or maybe you can change the subject. Let’s find out.
But he’s following the subject of the THREAD.
Why are you asking for a definition when one is defined by the OP? Nevertheless, let’s look at a dictionary definition as provided by Dictionary.com:
The OP started this thread just to say that he found atheist zealots annoying. I happen to agree with him. Czarcasm used a weird inverse argumentum ad numerum to state that I shouldn’t be annoyed because there are more religious zealots than there are atheist zealots. I don’t see how that has anything to do with it. I’m allowed to be annoyed by fanatics who continue to rattle off the same shit every single time a subject comes up, be it in real life (like my brother who wants a communist society) or here on the SDMB (read up on Der Trihs’ and badchad’s posts for some examples).
Everybody, including atheists, can think anything they want. If they end up being fanatical about it, other people are allowed to find them annoying.
He can stop following the thread.
Or can he?
Nah. We mean old atheists would just reject his evidence anyhow, so Malacandra is showing us by not presenting any. BTW, I can fly, but you guys wouldn’t believe it anyhow, so I won’t demonstrate my power.
If you’re going to ask why we don’t believe in god, you’re going to have to define a god for us to decide to believe in or not. If you are going to talk about evidence, you’re going to have to either define it or actually show some. Enough of the bobbing and weaving to disguise your lack of evidence.
As for evidence of absence, I think the fact that holy books with statements about the physical world that are wrong count. Yeah, now after science has proved them wrong, you say the writers of the Bible were just having fun, but would you have thought that 1,000 years ago?