We could spend a thousand years naming things that can’t be disproven-seems a silly way to waste a thousand years, though.
Certainly. I would put the idea that Jesus’ body rose into the heavens and that the world was created 6,000 years ago into that category. There are others as well, but you get the idea.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. If you will look again at what I said to Der Trihs above, what I am actually saying is that atheists, despite their annoyingly superior claims to the contrary, have no greater evidence for the nonexistence of God than believers have of his existence. In other words, in terms of purely objective evidentiary proof, one side is no more certain than the other.
This is the best you’ve got? Sure you don’t want support from Dopers who know a bit more about how to argue their religious beliefs, or do you want this to stand on it’s own?
Given that I’m more or less devoid of “religious” beliefs, and that what I said is a pretty fair representation of my own point of view, I’m quite content to let my comments stand on their own and to allow you to continue to try to delude yourself that yours is the intellectual high ground.
If you want to stand with, “Prove it isn’t!”, so be it. Bear in mind that this leaves you open to all sorts of weird beliefs. Last Tuesdayism, for example.
Sorry. I’ve got quite a bit going on right now and I misread your question. The question I thought you were asking is in regard to the “stories” I allegedly believe that run contrary to laws of physics. That is what I was referring to in regard to my comment above and that is what I thought I was answering in my post to you. I never said or meant to imply that life itself was in conflict with laws of physics.
Wait, who doesn’t believe what, now?
Well you see, I’m not so much prosyletizing for my own point of view, as you seem to believe, as trying to put across the idea that neither side has evidentiary proof as to whether or not God exists. You claim that it’s pointless to claim what can’t be proven, whereas I claim it’s pointless to look at what can’t be proven and deny the possibility of its existence. In other words, I’m not saying “Prove it”, I’m simply saying you have no more evidence to support your belief than I have to support mine. For all I care it’s pretty much a live and let live situation, until conclusive evidence proves one side right and the other wrong. I don’t come onto this board assailing non-believers for being stupid, superstitious trolls, yet I see these types of insults constantly around here on the part of atheists in regard to believers. I’m simply saying that neither side has proven their belief and that neither side can as it stands now. In other words, you are no more right than I am as it stands now, and I am no more right than you. We simply don’t know…and it’s this fact that sets me apart from those such as you and Der Trihs: I know what I don’t know, and you don’t.
Capish?
That hoary old “Atheism is a belief system” argument? Give me a break. Atheists don’t have a belief, and they don’t have a side to prove.
What is your belief system when it comes to Last Tuesdayism, by the way? Do you have any evidence at all against it? Are you agnostic or atheistic?
They most certainly do. That’s my entire point. Unless you can prove there is no God, you cannot ascribe anything but belief to your assertion that he does not exist. To truly have no belief, IMO, would be to have no opinion one way or the other. To proactively state to a believer that he is full of shit for his beliefs, it is incumbent on you to prove that this is so. You cannot claim that he is full of shit–lacking as you do conclusive proof that you are correct–without it being simply a matter of belief on your part.
It seems I have forgotten that to try to discuss things with you in good faith is an exercise in futility. Thanks for the reminder.
(Disclaimer: I’m not trying to tell you that your beliefs are wrong or inferior or that you personally should not hold them.)
I think you’re setting up a false equivalency. I agree that there is no evidence that God exists. Nor is there evidence that God does NOT exist. (Although even those two statements are not really equal… it’s easy to imagine evidence that God exists… a miracle, for instance. But what evidence could there be that God does NOT exist?) But those are not two equal and opposite sides of a coin. Or at least, the fact that both of those are true doesn’t mean that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. There are plenty of things that we have no actual evidence for or against the existence of; but which reasonable people agree probably does not exist. If there is no evidence that God exists and no evidence he does NOT exist, I think the burden of proof is on the side making the extraordinary claim. Now, granted, you might claim “the idea that life in all its nigh-infinite complexity could exist without a guiding force” is an extraordinary claim. And, in fact, it is generally recognized as such, which is why a LOT of people have put a lot of effort into explaining and studying and analyzing how that could have happened. If you find those explanations inadequate, by all means, explain why.
I see no proof of alternate Universes and yet I have seen scientific theory that makes me believe they are likely. I still cannot grasp the “There is no God” is not a belief argument. I don’t think there is a God as described by the World’s religions that I know. I don’t know that there is not a God. To my way of thinking I am not an atheist, I am sure I am not an atheist like you or Der Trihs. If I leave open the possibility that there is a God(s) or Creator or Dreamer or some such I am not an Atheist or a believer.
I believe organized religion is a continued study in ignorance and a way of basing your life on fairy tales. As an outside observer, it is hard to see the difference between a person of faith or someone that believes in UFOs landing and probing. So in the long run, I might as well be lumped in with the Atheists.
Jim
Y’know, I get tired of saying this: All things being equal, all things aren’t. If you make an extraordinary claim, and you really can’t get more extraordinary than an all-knowing omnipotent god, you better have something a bit better than “Prove me wrong!” if you want anyone to take you seriously. I have no need of a belief system to oppose this notion-I just have to decide not to waste my time entertaining such silliness until something approaching evidence is presented. I could come up with a thousand fantastic notions that you wouldn’t bother entertaining as possible(let alone probable), and yet you want me to be open-minded about the most fantastic notion of all with no evidence whatsoever? Sorry, bucky, but I’ve got a plateful of reality to deal with, and only one lifetime to do it in.
Would you believe “I’ve been given no evidence and no reason to believe that there is a god, and my life is too short to worry about it until someone comes up with either or both.” is not a belief system?
You make a good point, Max, and I’m inclined to agree that there is something of an imbalance in the God/atheism debate. But I think that the water gets muddied up by the various ramifications of religion. I think it’s a mistake to adopt the attitude that because some religions think that Jesus’ physical body rose to the heavens, or that God hates homosexuals, or that infidels must be murdered, that the believer has a greater burden of proof than the non-believer. I think that the question of God’s existence versus his nonexistence is pretty much an equal opportunity question. I may look around at the wonder of life and the existence of the universe, and lacking probative evidence of just how it all came about, it appears to me the only logical explanation is that it was created by God, in whatever form he truly exists (and as I said, I don’t think anyone on earth has an even remotely accurate idea as to his actual nature and/or state of being). Still, it is all I can believe without just throwing up my hands and saying “Who knows?”
However, I’m not aggressive with non-believers in this regard. It is the non-believers who aggressively state that anyone who believes in God is a moron when they themselves have no probative answer to the question of how life came to exist in the complex way we know it, and they have no evidence to support their contention that he does not exist. To me, the evidence of God is all around; to atheists there are other explanations for these things but they can’t say what they are. So to me, to cling to the position that there are other explanations even though one has no idea what they are, is just as much a belief–and requires just as much in the way of evidence–as does the opposite. If you (not you personally) are going to claim that that there is no way something can exist, it seems incumbent to me that you should be prepared to back it up with some kind of evidence.
Or as I alluded to above, it seems to me that the only person with no obligation to provide proof would be the person who has no opinion one way or the other. To argue either for or against the existence of God, IMO, requires that evidence be presented to back up one’s point of view.
And now, as I’ve said, I’ve got quite a bit going on tonight and I’m going to have to bow out of here. I’ve stated my POV pretty clearly I think, and I’m content to let people make of it what they will.
One last comment, then I’m out of here. I’m not saying a remark such as this demands proof. What you’re actually saying here is that you don’t know. This is exactly the type of mindset that I’m saying doesn’t legitimately require proof. But if you (not you personally) are going to call people names, denigrate them for their beliefs, and consider them idiots because they do believe, IMO it is incumbent upon you to present evidence for this (get ready for it) belief–because that’s exactly what it is as shown by your own statement above: i.e., “no reason to worry about it until someone comes up with [the answer].” It’s one thing to say you don’t know and that you aren’t going to worry about it; it’s another entirely to say that anyone who does believe is an idiot.
I didn’t call anyone an idiot. What I am saying is that I am willing to say “I don’t know, but I want to find out.”-what I am not willing to say is “Since I don’t know, I’ll call it God.”
No, but plenty around here do (remember I said I wasn’t talking about you, personally?).
Fine, no problem.
See, now your bigotry and sense of superiority is showing. This is a shallow, inaccurate and foolish depiction of the believer’s mindset and I’m sure you know it.
And now I’m out of here.
I mean it.
Bye.
(Grrrr) :smack:
If not calling the unknown “God” is bigotry, then so be it.
FYI, I also won’t call the wind Mariah.
Well, no wonder not even God can find you.