With respect, it is going to take more than your say so to convince me that before religion even existed some humans were talking other humans into killing themselves so that some other humans would lose a battle. SisterCoyote’s exact words are “religion doesn’t cause zealotry.” To assert that suicide bombers are not zealots, merely guided by zealots, is ridiculous. How about the guiding zealots? Are they not led by others, therfore negating their zealotry? This is quibbling, and not very good quibbling at that. Just because something can happen without religious influence does not mean that religious influence does not exist. Suicide bombers are guided by their ideas of religion. Religion can cause zealotry.
There are so many different formulations of what God is, many of them contradictory. Which version of God are we talking about? What are His specific properties?
You seem to be defining God as intrinsicly unknowable by empirical means. However many theists, perhaps most, would argue that God has a direct daily impact on the physical world. That certainly suggests that an experiment could be constructed to detect the traces that He leaves on reality, much as we can detect the traces that subatomic particles leave in a cloud chamber.
What reason do you have for believing in an empirically unknowable God rather than the garden-variety miracle worker that most people believe in?
Huh. I’d call it a metaphor, but whatever.
And I will respond, with complete honesty, that I do not believe your protestations. Either you are lying, or you don’t remember what you typed. If you’re really curious, go look at the parts I quoted just a few posts up. As I already told you.
I’m not sure if I should be surprised or not.
You assume whatever you want. Your posts don’t vanish after you post them. I already quoted you upthread anyways. Assume at will.
Go back and read my post again. Absolute proof is not attainable.
Experiments in faith designed to show the existence of God have been conducted. Do a literature search and you will find a study purporting to show that hospitalized patients who are prayed for (without their knowledge) do better than those who are not prayed for. Phenomena claimed as evidence of divine existence have been reported. These sorts of claims have been debunked or found unconvincing. People who conclude from these observations that a deity(ies) do not exist are not acting on faith. .
And maybe we will be able to build a God-O-Nometer someday. :dubious:
“Untestable” and “valid” are not synonyms.
You exhibit that behavior when you characterize the thought processes of atheists as “faith”, which it manifestly is not. If being in the company of those “certain theists” makes you uncomfortable, find an alternate mode of expression.
Aha! There’s where I miscommunicated/misspoke/what have you.
Although religion can be a source zealotry, it is not the sole potential source of zealotry. Someone who is (currently) a religious zealot, in the absence of religion might have found something else (country, ethnicity, the Mets, a Mac) about which to become zealous, and (in the case of country or ethnicity at least), found reasons why all others are wrong and should be destroyed.
I never meant to say that there wasn’t a causative relationship between religion and zealotry, simply that there are other potential causative relationships as well.
Bingo. Of course getting that right still doesn’t excuse the previous streams of bullshit that I responded to.
FinnAgain. So, you got nothing. Got it. Now why don’t you shut the fuck up? I’m beginning to believe that you are an asshole.
So, a study set up to prove the existance of God failed to do so, and from this you conclude that the opposite must be true? Do you have any idea of how science works?? And while I have no beef with the statement “People who conclude from these observations that a deity(ies) do not exist are not acting on faith” as a statement of one’s personal beliefs, taking it a step further and concluding that the absence of proof of god equals proof that “There is no God” requires…drumroll…a leap of faith.
I’m not sure what behavior you’re exhibiting by denying this, self delusion maybe. Faith is " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."* Stating that there is no God without a shread of evidence one way or the other is the very definition of faith. Sorry if that breaks your heart.
*From Dictionary.com. Other defintions of faith are:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters. - often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
What I posted earlier is entirely consistant with what you just quoted.
Weirdave has many orificies, and in this case, Finn, he’s using one that spews the truth.
If an atheist wants to claim that there is no God, then they are going to have to come up with something other than lack of proof to establish it and avoid the critique that they are making irrational, unsupported assertions: i.e., faith.
Nope: heap of bullshit, as I explained. Sorry. Atheists don’t have a “nitch” that they fill with not believing in God.
But atheism is subject to empirical falsification, while theism is not. Were there empirical evidence of the existence of a deity I would change my beliefs accordingly. I think virtually all atheists would agree with me on this. Thus our relative positions are not symmetrical.
Having yet another brainless day, eh Davey? Let me put it in small words so you can understand, ok?
I. Already. Quoted. You.
If you are wondering what I’m talking about, go look at what I quoted. Or are you trying for the New Iskander crown of faux stupidity?
Mmmm hmmm. This from the guy who was cooing over the fact that he’d found a good topic to troll, if he chose to.
Which one would that be… exactly? 
I don’t agree. The null hypothesis is that there are no magic invisible sky fairies who run the world. The burden of proof is on those who claim that there are.
As others have pointed out, we don’t extend this standard of ‘proof’ to leprechauns, elves, or Thor. But we do for God. And while one cannot state with certainty that something definitely does not exist, the null hypothesis is a perfectly valid base to start from. Maybe that’ll be called ‘agnostic a-theism’, or what have you.
But the same standard does apply. For instance, if I say that you have the Magic Invisible Panda controlling your thoughts you’re perfectly within the bounds of reason to say “No I don’t, and prove it if it’s true.” If the person making the claim then says “Well, prove that the Magic Invisible Panda isn’t controlling your thoughts!” you are well within your rights to write his argument off as so much semantic noise.
Or, in short, the inability of humanity to achieve a perfect degree of epistemology does not mean that we can sneak a purple tap dancing elephant through the door while nobody’s looking.
I personally don’t think religious-type faith (which is what we’re discussing here, attempts to muddy the waters via alternate dictionary definitions not withstanding) is a matter for scientific proof/disproof. One might just as well conclude that God exists, but is wise enough not to let unprayed-for patients sicken and die just to give proof of his existence to pseudo-scientific believers. However, given the various debunkings and lack of supporting evidence involving this and a whole range of “miracles”, “manifestations” and such, it is eminently reasonable for an atheist to state that deity-belief is a crock.
Just as I stated to you that “untestable” and “valid” are not synonyms, “skepticism” and “faith” are not synonymous either.
Absence of evidence is just that. When applied to any fantastic claim, it does not mean “well, it could be so, if you only bothered to test it, or if it could be tested.”
Yes. And I assure you that “Prove it isn’t so” is not acceptable in the world of science.
If you would like to join my “Cult of the Enormous Greek Salad”, the dues are quite reasonable. You will also need your own bowl and fork.
Our beliefs may be untestable, but if there is no Feta-Planet, why are we hungry? 
Your repeated use of this and other pejorative expressions for God exposes you as a pedestrian fool who has no desire to have a meaningful conversation. Comparing the transencdent diety of modern monotheism to pixies, elves, and pandas is ludicruous–the ideas that scripture communicates and that theologians contemplate are in no way equivalent to fairy tales: God exists so that we can understand our existance; fairy tales exist to entertain children.
Your (and others’) instance in using those terms is a shallow attempt to impute puerile characteristics to those you disagree with. By picking the simplest and most naive conceptualizations of God to refute and disparage–and ignoring the more complex ones that theologians and non-Fundamentalist religious leaders (the majority of them) actually believe–you come off as an insecure twit who’d rather cover his own strawman with spooge from his copiously stroked ego then actually try and learn something.
You are a stupid fucking douchebag.
FinnAgain I went and reread what you quoted YOU DIDN’T QUOTE A GODDAMN CLAIM THAT I MADE REQUIRING PROOF YOU FUCKBURGER. So, either post the claim you say I made, or shove it sideways up your dripping asscrack with a rusty chainsaw. I’m sick to goddamn death of fucking lying idiots like you and Elvis making up statements and alluding to some imagined previous post while refusing to say what the hell you are babbling about and responding to honest queries for clarification with variations on “Oh, you know what you said”. If you think I made some type of claim that requires proof,
POST IT OR SHUT THE FUCK UP, CUZ I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
Davey, are you drunk? Your text seems to be getting bigger and bigger while your arguments have less and less content.
If you can’t figure out why your claims demand proof, then you’re no Doper. As I’ve said several times, I quoted you. If you can’t figure out what I quoted in the only post where I quoted you, that aint my fault.
Mmmm hmmmm. Tell you what, why should I treat “God” any differently than pixies?
Pedestrian fool indeed. Maybe that’s a compliment from a knee jerking foam flecked ranter?
Oh really? Why is that? Because you say it’s so?
So you use a fairy tail to explain your existance, and I’m supposed to take that as… gospel?
And just in case you’re curious, pixies, elves, the Norse gods, etc… have all been used to help people to ‘understand’ their existance. Why is your “God” a single iota more valid than, say, the Green Man?
Nope, your method of argumentation here does that just fine without me helping. One ad hominem after another without, ever, touching on the fundamental epistemological issues. You’ve given up logic and reason for flinging shit. Congrats.
My terms were designed to show the nature of the belief, not the people who hold it.
Pffffffffft. Do you believe that yourself? Who cares how you dress up the magic sky pixie? You’re still taking something, for which no proof exists, that is ‘magic’ and ‘beyond’ reality and talking about it. How is “God” different from a pixie? Can you answer that without foaming at the mouth?
Learn something? About your made up fairy tale that you say helps you determine what the point of your existance is? Rather stupid and arrogant of you to assume that I haven’t already learned, eh? I’ll ask again, but I think you’re too far gone: Why is your “God” different than a pixie?
Yeepers.
“Stay away from my sacred cow! The Norse gods are absurd, but mine gives my life meaning! You’re a douchebag!”
By the way, I find it very interesting that if someone questions your belief, not your character, not your honor, not your intelligence, but one single belief… and if they do so with satire, you go berserk and start foaming at the mouth. As I said before, if you can’t take having your ideas disagreed with, the Dope is not the place for you.
No, the null hypothesis is just that: null: no claims about this or that existing or not existing.
It might, but not if it includes that idea that those things definately don’t exist. That’s no longer agnostic atheism.