Faith & reason are not polar opposites

[Pete Crowther]

I've just been reading through the discussion forums on this website and I find it interesting that people believe faith and reason are polar opposites.

Here are my thoughts.

When it comes to spiritual matters (matters not of the physical realm, that go beyond the sphere of science and cannot be tested empirically), I personally believe that in the majority of circumstances 'proof' for the existence of something is hard to come by. However, when it comes to matters of the physical realm, I don't believe that 'proof' alone dictates my actions in every circumstance either. There are plenty of circumstances in a given day when I 'act in faith' because there is substantial 'evidence' to suggest that placing my faith in such a thing is not unreasonable or illogical.

Take the simple task of sitting on a chair for example. When I go to sit on a chair (that I have not sat on before), I examine the chair and determine that there is substantial evidence for the chair holding me up and not breaking if I was to sit on it. However, I do not have proof of this until I first 'act in faith', based on the evidence, and sit on the chair. It is only after trusting in the evidence that the chair appears safe to be sat on, and sitting on it, that I get 'proof' that the chair was up for the task of supporting my weight.

You see, faith / trust is not far from any one of us. In fact we all demonstrate faith on a daily basis in the simple things when we act on the evidence available and choose to either trust it (or if the evidence is poor, distrust it).

I have come to the conclusion in life that when it comes to the important things in life, there aren't many things we have concrete proof for at all. In fact, for the majority of things we need to examine the evidence and after having done that, chose to trust it or reject it.

What I am getting at is this. Every world view, including atheism, is based on a 'faith assumption'. Atheists can't proof that God doesn't exist. They might have evidence for it, but the proof for it doesn't exist. Therefore, even atheists are people who are full of faith, trusting that their world view is the correct one, but at the end of the day never being able to state it as fact.

I have a question for the atheists and it is based on one assumption. The assumption is that we all agree that none of us are God and therefore none of us know absolutely everything there is to know about everything. This assumption is true whether you agree with it or not (by the way it also proves that absolute truth exists and that truth is not a relative concept as well, but that's another topic). With this in mind the question is this. If you acknowledge that you don't know everything, then let's just assume for a second that you know 50% of everything there is to know (and that's being generous). If this is the case, then how can you be sure that God doesn't exist in the 50% you don't know about? You can't. In fact, to adopt an atheistic position is to arrogantly assume you know all there is to know. By the way, this is God's problem with humanity. It is called pride and until someone is able to humble themselves and get to the point where they acknowledge that they they don't know everything, and that they fall short in some many ways, then the existence of God and additionally the joy of knowing his love and forgiveness will always allude them.

Are you certain of the truth? Or are you adopting your own so called truth because in rejecting the possibility that God might exist you can continue to be the Lord of your own life and answer to no one but yourself? This is a great question that every person needs to ask of themselves. It is my hope that this blog might challenge someone to do that very thing and consider the existence of God. I can vouch for Him. He's an amazing and good God to know. His name is Jesus Christ and he has stamped himself smack bang in the middle of history where his life, death, resurrection and teachings have all been publicly laid before us to scrutinize. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was God Himself and it is based on this historical and scientific evidence that I have placed my faith in Him.

The wonderful thing is that faith and reason do go together and that faith in Jesus Christ is the most logical and rational step, and actually requires the least faith of all world views. Having taken a step of faith myself, based on the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ, I can confidently say that I now have even more evidence that God exists, because I'm in a personal relationship with him and know him to be true. He is a wonderful God and it is to Him that I owe my life.

[GenericBox]

Argh. Its like a parasitic invasion... I think this forum has termites! They're all coming out of the woodwork now...

Where do you even begin.... I swear to god it is the exact same questions every single one of them reiterate. I'll try and start off.

Do the religious even think before speaking?

I mean, ghahrhh hf. I just get so angry...

FAITH and REASON are POLAR OPPOSITES....

Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

Reason is "a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense " -- Merriam Webster.

ONE REQUIRES EVIDENCE, THE OTHER DOES NOT.


When it comes to spiritual matters (matters not of the physical realm, that go beyond the sphere of science and cannot be tested empirically)


Then how do you know they exist?

I don't believe that 'proof' alone dictates my actions in every circumstance either.

Which is why you are probably a theist, deist or at least agnostic.

There are plenty of circumstances in a given day when I 'act in faith' because there is substantial 'evidence' to suggest that placing my faith in such a thing is not unreasonable or illogical.

LOL! Again have a look at the dictionary once and a while.... It is NOT 'acting in faith' if there is EVIDENCE.


Take the simple task of sitting on a chair for example. When I go to sit on a chair (that I have not sat on before), I examine the chair and determine that there is substantial evidence for the chair holding me up and not breaking if I was to sit on it. However, I do not have proof of this until I first 'act in faith', based on the evidence, and sit on the chair. It is only after trusting in the evidence that the chair appears safe to be sat on, and sitting on it, that I get 'proof' that the chair was up for the task of supporting my weight.

YOU ARE NOT ACTING IN FAITH SITTING ON IT!!!! >.< GRRRRRRR. YOU ARE USING REASON TO MAKE AN EDUCATED GUESS, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

No, you can not be CERTAIN that it won't break. But the very fact that the chair is there is evidence.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF FAITH ----- Take the simple task of sitting on a chair for example. When I go to sit on a chair. I stop, remove the chair, and know that if I go to sit on the same spot, without the chair - I will not fall down.

Very crappy example I know... But thats the point. Faith is thinking something will happen without any proof.


You see, faith / trust is not far from any one of us. In fact we all demonstrate faith on a daily basis in the simple things when we act on the evidence available and choose to either trust it (or if the evidence is poor, distrust it).


THAT IS NOT FAITH!!!! IF THERE IS EVIDENCE, AT THE VERY LEAST IT IS AN EDUCATED GUESS.

FURTHERMORE ---- TRUST and FAITH ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!!!


I have come to the conclusion in life that when it comes to the important things in life, there aren't many things we have concrete proof for at all. In fact, for the majority of things we need to examine the evidence and after having done that, chose to trust it or reject it.


Yes true... BUT if the EVIDENCE points to something you cannot choose to reject it just cuase. YOU may not LIKE it.... And believe me, I do not like many of the things that are true, you CANNOT simply 'choose' to reject it.. If the evidence points to it, unfornately if you don't agree with it, it might just be the case...... Your opinion means zilch.

What I am getting at is this. Every world view, including atheism, is based on a 'faith assumption'. Atheists can't proof that God doesn't exist. They might have evidence for it, but the proof for it doesn't exist. Therefore, even atheists are people who are full of faith, trusting that their world view is the correct one, but at the end of the day never being able to state it as fact.

FIRST... ATHEISM IS NOT A WORLDVIEW... It is NOT believing in Gods. Expanded by many organisations to include Supernaturalism. It is NOT a stance, or a viewpoint.... To use an old example --- Its like calling BALD a hair colour.... It is NOTHING, it is NEUTRAL, it is absence.

SECONDALY!!!!! ARRGERHIS DHS HSFHF WEHUHEUI FFS HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO GO OVER THIS!!!!! NO ONE, EVER, EVER, EVER, FOREVER AND EVER NEEDS TO PROVE SOMETHING DOES NOT EXIST!!!! HFUD SHFUAHE RUSDN NK

God you make me so mad. I am at the end of my string dealing with this kind of crap... I really am at the end of my patience.. I have NO MORE for people like you.

'ATHEISTS' DONT trust that our "worldview" is correct. Again with the worldview --- But if evidence ever proved otherwise, most atheists would be more than happy to change their minds.... Unlike religion, we will gladly say 'WE ARE WRONG'. Theres nothing wrong with that.... BUT THERE IS NO PROOF OF EXISTENCE... Therefore YOU CANNOT SAY GOD/GODS ARE REAL....


Are you certain of the truth? Or are you adopting your own so called truth because in rejecting the possibility that God might exist you can continue to be the Lord of your own life and answer to no one but yourself? This is a great question that every person needs to ask of themselves. It is my hope that this blog might challenge someone to do that very thing and consider the existence of God. I can vouch for Him. He's an amazing and good God to know. His name is Jesus Christ and he has stamped himself smack bang in the middle of history where his life, death, resurrection and teachings have all been publicly laid before us to scrutinize. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was God Himself and it is based on this historical and scientific evidence that I have placed my faith in Him.


AND HERE COMES THE VERY STEREOTYPICAL ARROGANCE OF RELIGIOUSLY MINDED FOLK. ARE YOU CERTAIN OF THE TRUTH? WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG.... AND THE MUSLIMS GOT IT RIGHT????? OR THE JEWS???? OR HINDUS?????



There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was God Himself and it is based on this historical and scientific evidence that I have placed my faith in Him.


WHERE? WHAT EVIDENCE???? PERSONAL OPINION AGAIN MEANS CRAP ALL.... We have asked another fellow like yourself to provide this "evidence" and all you all provide is heresay... Its ridiculous and well quite frankly embarrasing for you.

AND AGAIN... IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE!!! YOU DID NOT PUT FAITH INTO IT.


Grrrrrrrrruo hfsd hfdsbf ;jegflb s;fb; abf

[Kid]

"When it comes to spiritual matters (matters not of the physical realm, that go beyond the sphere of science and cannot be tested empirically), I personally believe that in the majority of circumstances 'proof' for the existence of something is hard to come by. However, when it comes to matters of the physical realm, I don't believe that 'proof' alone dictates my actions in every circumstance either. There are plenty of circumstances in a given day when I 'act in faith' because there is substantial 'evidence' to suggest that placing my faith in such a thing is not unreasonable or illogical.

Take the simple task of sitting on a chair for example. When I go to sit on a chair (that I have not sat on before), I examine the chair and determine that there is substantial evidence for the chair holding me up and not breaking if I was to sit on it. However, I do not have proof of this until I first 'act in faith', based on the evidence, and sit on the chair. It is only after trusting in the evidence that the chair appears safe to be sat on, and sitting on it, that I get 'proof' that the chair was up for the task of supporting my weight."

First of all I will confess that I didn't read your full post, cos I'm bored with it all, but I did read the above part.
You have confused 'trust' with 'faith'. You don't act in faith, you act in trust based upon passed experiences, which are concrete and based in reality. There is nothing 'spiritual' about it; it is a fact of reality based on empirical evidence. Chairs are made to support people; that's what there are for. Some old chairs might break, but you can check them out before sitting down. This is life experiences, and again, has nothing to do with the 'spiritual' or with 'faith'.
Faith in the religious sense is without evidence and not based on past empirical experience; not based on reason, which is. Faith is based on human emotion, feelings, sensations. All of which by the way can be reproduced with science. That sense of the 'other' or that sense of 'something out there' can be reproduced by simulating the corresponding parts of the brain.
There is no 'spiritual' realm. There is human imagination. Human psychology, and human wishes and desires.
Most atheists I know, myself included, do not spend all of our lives basing what we do on evidence, that comes naturally, again based on past experience, but we don't go around thinking, 'can I do such and such today? There's no evidence for it, so I won't do it.'
That's just the assumptions of the believer. Gut feelings, past experience, innate sense of right and wrong, human decency and human morals all play a part in moving through life; for all of us.
The reason why proof is hard to come by for the 'spiritual' is because it is not there. It exists only within your own mind, your psychological make up, your indoctrinations, and so on. For myself, I can tell the difference between myth and reality, between fact and fiction, between what is real and what is a human constructed myth. I have no problem whatsoever in enjoying myths and fiction for what they really are. I only reject these things when they are forced on us as facts of reality, which they are not. Or when they are forced on to children, who at a young age, cannot distinguish between what is myth and what is real. Nothing 'spiritual' here, and it requires no religious faith, only trust.

[GenericBox]

Sorry for my post btw..

But I have officially "snapped".

I'm over it all.

[davo]

What I am getting at is this. Every world view, including atheism, is based on a 'faith assumption'. Atheists can't proof that God doesn't exist. They might have evidence for it, but the proof for it doesn't exist. Therefore, even atheists are people who are full of faith, trusting that their world view is the correct one, but at the end of the day never being able to state it as fact.

Pete, there is a massive difference between having faith in something like friends or caar brakes or a chair, due to there being evidence, and faith in something with no evidence whatsoever.

You can't prove that the flying pink unicorn exists, doesn't automatically make it viable, nor does it mean you instantly have 'faith' it doesn't exist. If you are making a claim something exists, the onus is on you to provide evidence, not on everyone else to disprove your claims.

We are not trusting our world view is the correct one, we just see no evidence for gods. You could say the same thing about christians or any religion, they are all trusting that their version of a god is the correct one, indeed, they are totally focussing their life on that.


I have a question for the atheists and it is based on one assumption. The assumption is that we all agree that none of us are God and therefore none of us know absolutely everything there is to know about everything. This assumption is true whether you agree with it or not (by the way it also proves that absolute truth exists and that truth is not a relative concept as well, but that's another topic). With this in mind the question is this. If you acknowledge that you don't know everything, then let's just assume for a second that you know 50% of everything there is to know (and that's being generous). If this is the case, then how can you be sure that God doesn't exist in the 50% you don't know about? You can't. In fact, to adopt an atheistic position is to arrogantly assume you know all there is to know. By the way, this is God's problem with humanity. It is called pride and until someone is able to humble themselves and get to the point where they acknowledge that they they don't know everything, and that they fall short in some many ways, then the existence of God and additionally the joy of knowing his love and forgiveness will always allude them.


You can't prove the flying pink unicorn doesn't exist, or Thor, or osiris etc etc, or that Star wars isn't based on fact and George Lucas is an alien historian secretly giving us the message about it.

Doesn't instantly make them viable. This is just word play Pete. If you are making a claim, give some evidence, rather than just making claims. You are not being logical. Your initial assumption is based on something with no evidence, that could be replaced with ANYTHING, and thus make your illogic follow the same path. This is not logic.



Are you certain of the truth? Or are you adopting your own so called truth because in rejecting the possibility that God might exist you can continue to be the Lord of your own life and answer to no one but yourself? This is a great question that every person needs to ask of themselves. It is my hope that this blog might challenge someone to do that very thing and consider the existence of God. I can vouch for Him. He's an amazing and good God to know. His name is Jesus Christ and he has stamped himself smack bang in the middle of history where his life, death, resurrection and teachings have all been publicly laid before us to scrutinize. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was God Himself and it is based on this historical and scientific evidence that I have placed my faith in Him.


Explain why a god must exist, and why that god, is yours.

I am not rejecting the possibility of a god, I am saying there is no evidence whatsoever that a god exists, so I do not have a belief in one. Same as you don't believe in thor. I just take it one god further, there's no evidence for any gods, yours included.


The wonderful thing is that faith and reason do go together and that faith in Jesus Christ is the most logical and rational step, and actually requires the least faith of all world views. Having taken a step of faith myself, based on the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ, I can confidently say that I now have even more evidence that God exists, because I'm in a personal relationship with him and know him to be true. He is a wonderful God and it is to Him that I owe my life.

Show us the logic then Pete. Your just making claims, without explaining the logic you claim exists.

Explain why a god must exist, and why that god, is yours. Show us the logic and reasoned argument.

[davo]

Sorry for my post btw..

But I have officially "snapped".

I'm over it all.

Hi GenericBox ;) Personally I am starting to find it interesting, and maybe I will get bored of it at some stage.

I know it's painful to get thru all their high and mighty kerfuffle and get them to explain the logic, rationality and reason that leads to their belief in a god, but maybe if we concentrate on getting them to actually explain themselves rather than trying to define atheism as a belief, or evolution as impossible etc we might get somewhere. with the basics

Glad there is a forum section to pwn christians on tho.

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false than true (since there are more false ideas then true ones, being that their is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction. Call it Evolution of the species.

When someone says faith and 'reason' are not polar opposites, I just have to point to the The Darwin Awards (http://www.darwinawards.com) to show people using their 'reason' to end up killing themselves. Big woop, this doesn't prove anything about faith at all, except it leading to peoples destruction.

Edit: I suppose people of Faith, define reason differently.

[davo]

Here I go defining myself better again, as I see now, that Pete is trying to define reason as the process of thought to a conclusion, ie: ANY process, as reasoning.

This is just wordplay Pete, and doesn't approach the existence of gods, but I will cover it.

This is just plain wrong.

What Pete is trying to do here, is give justification of faith, based on using terms. ignoring the logical part of these terms, that do NOT make them associated. eg:

- logic is a PART of reason, yet faith contains no logic by definition.
- reason is a PROCESS, where faith is a leap with no evidence.

Reason shares much of it's attributes with rationality, and includes logic, they overlap.

Reason (particularly scientific reason) is an activity that consists in the explanation, prediction, and control of empirical phenomena in a rational manner. By 'Reason' we refer to the principles of reasoning relevant to the pursuit of deductive activity in the best possible process. This includes principles governing experimental design, hypothesis testing, and the interpretation of data, and of course, all based on evidence. We need to make use of good reasoning to explain, predict, and control the events around us. When we use reason, we use evidence to reach a conclusion.

Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. Faith and reason are no where near the same thing. Whereas religious folk define 'reason' as being ANY process to come to a conclusion, their form of 'reason' is illogical reasoning, which is not only irrational, it is actually 'faith', not 'reason'.

[Kid]

GB - I'm getting close to popping my lid too, so please don't apologise. Never apologise for these bloody boring repetitious assumptions by believers, who just don't seem to understand the use of language and the meaning of words. They use very weak rhetoric to try and prove something that wouldn't need language to prove if it was real. Like using rhetoric to prove the existence of the Sun. They don't understand science, reason or logic or how to apply these things to argument; they don't understand that words alone do not prove the existence of a 'god'.

They all sound the same; they all ask the same mind blowingly ignorant questions that've been bashed to death a thousand times every day all over the world in atheist/theist debates. They just don't get it. They cannot grasp the concept of 'no god/no faith'. They don't understand the meaning of the word 'atheist'. They can only see the world and know it through their own definitions that they apply to themselves. They can't grasp that some people live quiet happily WITHOUT 'god' or 'faith' or 'belief'. they assume everything and prove nothing. They assume their god is the one true god and totally ignore the gods of other believers. It is a huge irritating boil that really needs lancing, but I'm getting bored to death with these people to the point of out and out rage.

Davo, I admire your tenacity and endurance and patience. But you're a youngster and you've got the energy to crash again and again against the rocks of the immovable and very dumb object of religious belief. You know you're dealing with robotic people, who're programmed to think only in terms of 'off' and 'on'. 0 and 1s. They're programmed to see us as they see themselves, and have no programming to see it any other way.
Good luck buddy!

[davo]

wow first time someones called me a youngster full of energy ;)

Yea, I know, robotic, but call it a hobby, I work with logical processes (as a lot do here) and it's of interest to me .. kinda keeps my mind on it's feet, thinking out loud.

[davo]

yea except these ones run and hide when you talk about logically presenting their case for a supreme being, as there is no logic to it, nor evidence, and indeed, haven't met one that can explain their reasoning behind it, without them finding that they actually haven't thought much about the concept at all.

they have just come up with a conclusion, then try and fill all the gaps between with anything they can.

[MikeM]

Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

You firmly believe there is no God, god or gods, true? Do you have proof? If No then you have faith.

But nothing wrong with having faith.

[MikeM]

Perhaps the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong or was misquoted by the OP??

[MikeM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=11324#post11324)
Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

1) Do you have proof there is no supernatural?

2) Do believe there is no suparnatural.

[youngmoigle]

Faith and reason ARE polar opposites.

If I tell you about something without providing reasonable evidence, then you can accept my claim as an article of faith (if you wish).

As soon as I provide reasonable evidence though, the need for faith goes out the window. Faith is required, only for as long as there is no evidence and after that it serves no purpose.

Theists have no reasonable evidence for god's existence so they posit "faith" as a source of knowledge.

But that's still not enough, so they take one more step and declare that mere reason remains in the realm of human fallibility while faith is, by definition, much more powerful - because it can lead to knowledge that mere reason cannot provide and never will provide.

But it gets worse, not satisfied with demoting reason to a lower level, the theist actually declares that knowledge gained through reason is untrustworthy and even dangerous. As Martin Luther said, and every 21st century fundie agrees, "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

And that's why Pete Crowther and Co are so desperate to cast doubts on reason. Their idiotic faith is useless against it, so they deride it - and the mugs in the pews fall for it hook line and sinker. Such is the stuff of religion.

[Chasly]

But nothing wrong with having faith.

Yes there is. In order for society to run smoothly humans need to act and make decisions based on facts and evidence.
A fundamentalist muslim will typically carry out a suicide bombing based on his faith in allah and the promise of going to heaven. I thought you said there was nothing wrong with faith :rolleyes:

If important decisions in society are not based on facts and evidence, there would be absolute mayhem. Faith has no place in the 'real' world.

[MikeM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=11324#post11324)
Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

1) Do you have proof there is no supernatural? I assume this is No for atheists.

2) Do believe there is no suparnatural. I assume this is Yes for atheists and is a firm belief. A weak or shaky belief would be agnostic.




http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

[eclectic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=11324#post11324)
Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

1) Do you have proof there is no supernatural?

2) Do believe there is no suparnatural.

faith = firm belief in SOMETHING - not a lack of some-thing. As stated over and over and over... there is no evidence for god, therefore the burden of proof is on those who state that there is a god, not on others to disprove it.

It's a very basic tenement of logic. If I tell you that there are fairies in my garden, and that only I can see them and they are invisible to everyone else, and that you cannot touch them because they run away from anyone who tries to touch them and they make no sound or smell... you do not have to prove that this is NOT so for me to be wrong - the 'burden of proof' is on me to prove that it IS so.

god is no different to these fairies - you start from a point of no evidence, and then claim something is there without evidence.

'supernatural' just means things in nature that you don't understand. People used to have gods that explained how the sun moved across the sky each day... now science, empiricism, has shown how the whole thing works (including of course that the sun does not move across the sky at all) and we no longer need a 'supernatural' explanation. Any things in nature that are still unexplained, science is working on understanding, and getting closer each day. All things work within nature, within physics, we just don't yet have a full understanding of how. Even if there is a god, it would be part of nature by definition.

[MikeM]

Yes there is. In order for society to run smoothly humans need to act and make decisions based on facts and evidence.
A fundamentalist muslim will typically carry out a suicide bombing based on his faith in allah and the promise of going to heaven. I thought you said there was nothing wrong with faith :rolleyes:

If important decisions in society are not based on facts and evidence, there would be absolute mayhem. Faith has no place in the 'real' world.

Faith is extremely important in our world. In fact it is a major part of marketing and especially for the very large brand names or institutions. Faith is also a big one for the paper money.

Actually, I think what you are referring to is "blind faith".

[MikeM]

faith = firm belief in SOMETHING - not a lack of some-thing. As stated over and over and over... there is no evidence for god, therefore the burden of proof is on those who state that there is a god, not on others to disprove it.

The burdon of proof rests with who is doing the selling.

For example, the theme of many threads on this site concerns itself with such things as tax breaks for churches, religion taught in schools and so on and atheists want that changed. Now if you can prove God does not exist then you are over the line.

The God/church stuff is the estabished entity and you want it changed thus the burdon of proof is on you. Now on the other hand if you only want to post backwards and forwards to the converted on the forum then simply stay with the idea of the burdon of proof does not rest with atheists. But if you want changes then it becomes a different game.

[Chasly]

I think people like Peter should be embraced by the atheists on this forum.
I actually think (well I'm hoping anyway :)) that theists like Peter that go lurking on an atheist forum and then have the guts to explain their beliefs have, subconsciously, a bee in their bonnet about their whole belief structure. To explain it another way, its like they are prodding the 'other side' to show them why they are misguided.
Don't forget alot of the members here were once believers. Its only when they ventured outside their little make-believe world that they finally saw the folly of their ways. Maybe Peter is at the very beginning of the very same path that many here have trodden.
The theists that don't bother to question or articulate their deluded thought patterns are the ones that we never have a hope of converting.
Us atheists know that a believer will never be able to prove their claims. Our job is not to lambast them, but rather explain. Just keep explaining, in simple terms, and hopefully one day they will get it.
If they don't get it, they simply wont last long on this forum and will seek out another forum that aligns with their fantasies about god, heaven, jesus, etc

[Chasly]

I think what you are referring to is "blind faith".

People who have faith in god are blind.....blind to reality.

[davo]

For example, the theme of many threads on this site concerns itself with such things as tax breaks for churches, religion taught in schools and so on and atheists want that changed. Now if you can prove God does not exist then you are over the line.

The God/church stuff is the estabished entity and you want it changed thus the burdon of proof is on you. Now on the other hand if you only want to post backwards and forwards to the converted on the forum then simply stay with the idea of the burdon of proof does not rest with atheists. But if you want changes then it becomes a different game.

No the burden of proof is not on those not making the claim MikeM. We are not making the claim god exists, so we are not the ones having to prove it doesn't. The Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity you are using to justify your argument fails all logic.

You cannot prove the flying pink unicorn does not exist.

sigh, same old same old circular illogical arguments from you. You just refuse to follow logic. You are continually trying the Burden of Proof fallacy, and it is frustrating that everyone that uses logic is facepalming over you continuing to use it as your major argument

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

[eclectic]

The burdon of proof rests with who is doing the selling.

For example, the theme of many threads on this site concerns itself with such things as tax breaks for churches, religion taught in schools and so on and atheists want that changed. Now if you can prove God does not exist then you are over the line.

The God/church stuff is the estabished entity and you want it changed thus the burdon of proof is on you. Now on the other hand if you only want to post backwards and forwards to the converted on the forum then simply stay with the idea of the burdon of proof does not rest with atheists. But if you want changes then it becomes a different game.

But this is the very problem. You make an interesting point re society, but this societal/governmental attitude is exactly what we are trying to change. In the god/no god debate, the burden of proof does lie with those postulating the existence of the magic-sky-father (or different cultural equivalents), even though history has made the pro-god stance the status quo.

In any case, atheist organisations such as this one DO make solid claims against god, but they are unheard because believers in god follow faith over reason anyway. This brings us back to the point that only reason should be allowed to make the laws etc that affect everyone's lives, not individual beliefs in supernatural powers. Many people on this forum I think would agree that it is okay for people to believe in god, as long as it is a free decision, made on a personal level, and not in any way pushed onto others. So we don't need to prove that god does NOT exist, we just need to show that his/her/its existence is irrelevant to society and should be kept out of the public sphere.

[davo]

They don't call it 'Appeal to ignorance' for nothing. Only ignorant people fall for your illogical statements

actually MikeM you are also using the Argument from ignorance
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[davo]

wow, actually it's like ignorance appealing to ignorance, and not understanding why it's not getting thru here on this board

[eclectic]

They don't call it 'Appeal to ignorance' for nothing. Only ignorant people fall for your illogical statements

actually MikeM you are also using the Argument from ignorance
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

nice one davo. I really need to gather a nice, clear list of logical fallacies.. we couldn't find a full enough one in our philosophical dictionary.

[youngmoigle]

Perhaps the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong or was misquoted by the OP??

An atheist is NOT a person who "believes" there is no god, so, in this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong.

Macquarie says,
Atheist: noun one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God (or gods)

youngmoigle says,
An atheist is a person without belief in a god or gods
And atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief

As long as you stick with Merriam Webster you can kid youself you've got it right, but almost every other dictionary agrees with Macquarie (and me).

[MikeM]

But this is the very problem. You make an interesting point re society, but this societal/governmental attitude is exactly what we are trying to change. In the god/no god debate, the burden of proof does lie with those postulating the existence of the magic-sky-father (or different cultural equivalents), even though history has made the pro-god stance the status quo.

What you are saying can be right if both "salesmen" start off equally but in this case you are the saleman who is trying to replace an existing product.

Gov't attitude etc. might be all wrong but they are obstacles you face on the way to a sale.

Now if the situation was reversed and society had an atheist foundation and the churches wanted to change all that, then they become the salesman try to replace an existing product AND then the burdon of proof falls on them.


In any case, atheist organisations such as this one DO make solid claims against god, but they are unheard because believers in god follow faith over reason anyway.

I can try and change someone's income replacement/disability insurance and will face the same thing and I have to overcome the problem.

As a salesmenn I believe the atheists don't listen to why people believe in a supernatural. To make a sale the salesman needs empatyh with his prospect and understand and listed to his objections.

This brings us back to the point that only reason should be allowed to make the laws etc that affect everyone's lives, not individual beliefs in supernatural powers. Many people on this forum I think would agree that it is okay for people to believe in god, as long as it is a free decision, made on a personal level, and not in any way pushed onto others. So we don't need to prove that god does NOT exist, we just need to show that his/her/its existence is irrelevant to society and should be kept out of the public sphere.

I agree with that. However, you are in a real world and your position is the one of the salesman trying to replace an existing product. I have watched quite a bit of richard Dawkins and I think he has taken on the role as a salesman.

In my opinion the main mistake made by atheists as salesmen is working on the basis that the supernatural beleiver has no evidence. He does have evidence. You may think it is not evidence but it is evidence to him. Simply saying he has no evidence and producing cartoons only achieves a loss of interest from "your prospect". As a salesman you need to be finely tuned into what "your prospect" considers as evidence, ackniowlede he is using evidence and then undermine the evidence.

However, a very difficult part of selling atheism is that it is very hard to meet the normal sales requirement, that is, establish a need or a problem then provide a solution.

[MikeM]

An atheist is NOT a person who "believes" there is no god, so, in this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong.


As long as you stick with Merriam Webster you can kid youself you've got it right, but almost every other dictionary agrees with Macquarie (and me).

I did not select Merrian Webster another member did.

An atheist is NOT a person who "believes" there is no god, so, in this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong. So an atheist believes there is God

[youngmoigle]

nice one davo. I really need to gather a nice, clear list of logical fallacies.. we couldn't find a full enough one in our philosophical dictionary.

Try this site, 42 of them and plenty of info on each.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[youngmoigle]

Quotes from MikeM

I did not select Merrian Webster another member did.
OK. You didn't select the Merriam Webster, but you seem to be expressing agreement with its definition of atheist.




An atheist is NOT a person who "believes" there is no god, so, in this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong. So an atheist believes there is God


That last sentence (quoted above). I trust you are not trying to attribute those words to me. No, of course not. Wonder what made me think that perhaps you were?

[eclectic]

Try this site, 42 of them and plenty of info on each.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

oo, briliant. thanks for that! will provide some lovely sunday morning chatter with my beloved. :)

[davo]

However, a very difficult part of selling atheism is that it is very hard to meet the normal sales requirement, that is, establish a need or a problem then provide a solution.

Seriously MikeM, don't try to speak for atheists, you don't even understand the position of them, and here you are dictating how we should put ourselves forward, by basically stating we are something we are not.

It's like telling someone who is gay, that they should say it is a disease as then they will be accepted more readily.

Explain how a god can possibly exist, using logic, reason and evidence, and stop telling others how they should think, to be 'accepted'.

I am so sick of your 'salesman' speech. This is not producing a product for sale, it is about others accepting us, for who we are, and that religion should not have more rights than us.

get it into your head.

[Kid]

An atheist is NOT a person who "believes" there is no god, so, in this case, the Merriam Webster Dictionary is wrong.

Macquarie says,
Atheist: noun one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God (or gods)

youngmoigle says,
An atheist is a person without belief in a god or gods
And atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief

yes, this is the correct definition. WITHOUT. without god, without belief.
Atheists are WITHOUT belief, without god, without faith.
This is the crux of the matter that deists/theists just cannot grasp. I do not believe there is no god. I am without belief. As I am without belief in vampires, werewolves, mermaids, centaurs, cyclopses, and so on. No evidence for the existence of any of these other mythological beings. god is just another mythological being.

[GenericBox]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenericBox http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=11324#post11324)
Faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)" -- Merriam Webster Dictionary

1) Do you have proof there is no supernatural? I assume this is No for atheists.

2) Do believe there is no suparnatural. I assume this is Yes for atheists and is a firm belief. A weak or shaky belief would be agnostic.



Sorry I was watching a movie. For the record it had magic and blasphemy and all sorts of evil.

And again, sorry for what I am about to say if it may break the rules.. TBH I don't really care if you have to delete it ;)

Before I begin, I haven't had much contact with your posts before.. I pretty much just left that thread alone... But I am going to start by saying:

You are an idiot. EDIT: After calming down I though it appropriate to remove the swear words here.

That's all I can really think of.

How do you think? Do you enjoy being willfully retarded? (no disrespect meant to those without a choice)

I thought my vocabulary was bad. I at least understand the words I use...

There is NO EVIDENCE for a supernatural... You have to have belief in its existence.

Atheists do not believe there is no god... There is no evidence for gods/supernatural... That does not require belief in non-existence...

It's just absurd.

Theres not much I can say in regards to that.. I'd just be repeating my first sentence..

Don't you get embarrased by your willingness to be stupid??

[davo]

typically theists think they score points if they can define atheism as a 'belief'.

The onus is on the one making the claim, hence, you get the likes of MikeM, continually trying to redefine it as a 'belief' as it's the only weapon he has, he can't stand up for his own leap of faith any other way. It's a total straw man. ie: focus the argument somewhere else.

Boring MikeM, as I said to you in PM ages ago, if it was my choice, you would be visiting Disney permanently. Sick to death of your ignorance. Your mouth is open but your ears are closed. You just try and grab a line out of something someone is saying to try and reinstate your redefinition of meanings. You take over threads and just waste a lot of time, with people just explaining the same thing over and over and over.

[eclectic]

GenericBox, leaving the actual burden of proof etc aside, what about the idea of 'selling' our product to society? This is your area not mine. :)

[Pete Crowther]

Whether you agree or not, you are making a claim and that is that God doesn’t exist, or to a lesser degree, that there is no evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural. Have you been living in a bomb shelter? No evidence is a very strong assertion. There is copious amounts of evidence, but before we get there, let me deal with the following first.

It seems there is some confusion amongst you atheists as to what you actually are. I’ve taken the liberty of providing you with an explanation of the world view you claim to hold to (even though some of you don’t like the use of the term world view).

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no,’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists.

Some atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God.

- "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
- "An atheist lacks belief in a god."
- "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
- "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
- "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.

Agnostic Atheists, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God, but they say they are open to further evidence for God's existence. This leads me to ask another question. Are you open to further evidence for God’s existence or are you simply going to fight for your lack of belief at all costs, because you know finding out that you are wrong will require a lifestyle change?

Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; it isn't an issue. He doesn't believe it or not believe it.

Finally, there is a group of atheists called militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be held with them.

Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where the athiest believes that the idea of God's existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one position says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that God exists, and the other position says the evidence is contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate. But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God's existence.

Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. I've tried to list some of them below. Please note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets. The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

- There is no God or devil.
- There is no supernatural realm.
- Miracles cannot occur.
- There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
- Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
- Man is material.
- Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
- Ethics and morals are relative

Finally, it should be noted that the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers.

[davo]

Whether you agree or not, you are making a claim and that is that God doesn’t exist, or to a lesser degree, that there is no evidence for the existence of God or the supernatural. Have you been living in a bomb shelter? No evidence is a very strong assertion. There is copious amounts of evidence, but before we get there, let me deal with the following first.

We are not making a claim god doesn't exist, we are stating we do not have a belief in god as there is no evidence. SHow us the evidence, and I will change my mind on the spot.

You are redefining what atheism means. I am not asserting there is no evidence, there just has BEEN NONE. show us it then. Your the one claiming something exists, not me claiming it doesn't. I am open to it, I don't have a faith in a god.

Do you get it? You don't understand what atheism IS. you are trying to define it as a belief!


It seems there is some confusion amongst you atheists as to what you actually are. I’ve taken the liberty of providing you with an explanation of the world view you claim to hold to (even though some of you don’t like the use of the term world view).

What world view? What we are? You don't believe in thor, does that mean you have a world view defined by your non belief in thor?


The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no,’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists.

No, you are wrong.

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος) meant "godless". It is a full adjective, and the a means without, not no.

an means no. An-archy. No rulers.

You are wrong. And the word THEIST came about FROM atheist, not the other way around. Atheist came first. look it up.


Some atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God.

I am not denying something, I have no faith in something. your just cherrypicking. I know what I am, I know what an atheist is, your there as a theist, trying to explain to me, what I think.

I find it ironic.

<Snip! a whole lot of cut and paste>

You know why? because you cut and paste all your material from this apologetics site :

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/what-atheism

Can you think for yourself? You just got yourself in deep, and showing you don't even understand what you are posting. Just regurgitating apologetics material.

Use your own brain Pete.


Finally, it should be noted that the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers.

Well provide the answers Pete, all the above is bullshit christian definitions. You know why they call them apologists? Because they are trying to justify something, apologising basically, they are pseudo-philosophy. You god is the god of the gaps.

Now, show me how a god could possibly exist, then show me how that god, is the one you say it is and not others.

[Kid]

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no,’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’

No it does not. It is not a negative. The 'a' is a Greek prefix which means ....wait for it....
WITHOUT: 'atheos'... without god. The negative form is 'anti' meaning 'against'. The other 'anti' in case you'd like to know, is 'ante' and means 'before' Thus the 'a' in 'atheist' is not a negative and it DOES NOT MEAN 'no'. It does not mean 'against'; it means, I say again for the dummies, 'without'. 'atheos' 'theos' 'god' or gods. Please do not come here and attempt to lie to people who are more knowledgeable than you are.

Now that I've sorted out this lie, let's start gettting down to the main point, that is you proving to me god lives in the sky as an invisible nothing, and let's drop the definitions that you seek to smudge. Telling me about myself, which is wrong, does not PROVE YOUR CASE. I am willing to see your evidence. I am not closed to seeing this evidence. My door to Jesus is wide open; come on down, mighty saviour! I'm here, show yourself to me. Oh, and please do it without, that is, aPetecrowther. For dear Jesus, why do you leave yourself invisible? Leaving us poor lost souls to learn all about you from half wits and liars with obfuscatory words in their woolly mouths? Why oh dear lord, do you not show yourself to me without the battalions of mind numbingly boring individuals you call your sheep? Why dear sweet and everlasting lord who is so great and merciful, do you bombard us with non-sense and silliness in thy name? Where are you sweet Lord? Oh, there you are, up Peter's self righteous backside...
Show me your proof...yawn...

[GenericBox]

LOL! I am pretty sure we all predicted that....

What was it someone called it on another thread? Problem shifting?

Theres also something about a straw-man I remember too...

Thanks for making me laugh. And proving that there is no hope in a debate with you people and I should stop worrying ;)

[davo]

Basically Pete, your christian apologetics site tries to put christianity as the victim.

Try listening to what atheists actually have to say, rather than just using your mouse to try and wage war, and not your brain.

[Kid]

But sheep can't think for themselves; they have to have a shepherd to show them down the nearest hole, or to the edge of the nearest cliff.
insert: jump here...
cannot think for self...d'oh! d'oh! d'oh! all the way down...

[Pete Crowther]

Thanks for that one boys. I find your comments very generous.

GB, so are you admitting that you WERE worried? Interesting...

As for you Davo, I've got nothing to hide about carm mate. The old cut and paste was not an explanation of my opinions, but rather a definition for atheism which you guys were quite happy to cut and paste from other sources.

Good chats

[GenericBox]

And you just gotta lol at the arrogance of it

[davo]

Thanks for making me laugh. And proving that there is no hope in a debate with you people and I should stop worrying ;)

The problem is they don't debate GenericBox, their 'facts' are not even facts, and all they do is try and redefine what atheism means. As if it somehow justifies that there is a fairy in the sky that can read minds and created everything.

No logic these christians, worst of all, as mentioned, religion basically teaches them all their answers come from someone else. They can't think for themselves.

pathetic really.

[davo]

Thanks for that one boys. I find your comments very generous.

GB, so are you admitting that you WERE worried? Interesting...

As for you Davo, I've got nothing to hide about carm mate. The old cut and paste was not an explanation of my opinions, but rather a definition for atheism which you guys were quite happy to cut and paste from other sources.

Good chats

so whats the point of telling atheists what they are Pete?

Your avoiding any discussion on the topic. Your just posting stuff telling us what we think.

So, what do YOU think?

Show us why a god exists, and that the god is the one you say it is.

[Kid]

yeah, arrogance...
and peter, I didn't cut and paste anything.
I just learned it off the back of a packet of cornflakes.
Flake...

We're all still waiting for this bloody evidence of 'god'...sheesh...how long do we have to wait? Another 2000 years? Like Jesus said, "Lo! I come quickly!"

crickets for 2000 years.

Like most things, the Xian definition of 'coming quickly' is right out there with the big questions of life, the universe and everything; that is, misdefined.

Q: What does 'come quickly' mean to a Xian?
A:................................................ .........

Q: WHat does 'evidence' mean to a Xian?
A:................................................ ..........

who cares what 'atheist' means. Just SHOW US THE MONEY!
:D

[davo]

Ironic, someone comes on an atheist board, cuts and pastes what theists think atheism is about as some type of 'argument'.

Of course we cut and paste the reply, coz its so DARN REPETITIVE explaining the same thing over and over.

It's like going to the collingwood football clubs manager, to get information on what the geelong captain thinks, derrr.

[Seamus]

Whether you agree or not, you are making a claim and that is that God doesn’t exist
No, I am not.

there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt No,there are not.

Finally, it should be noted that the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers. Well,yes they are actually

Liking or disliking an assertion has no bearing on its veracity.Neither has attempting to change word meanings to suit your own agenda.

As a group,atheists have one and only one thing in common: a disbelief in gods. NOTHING else is implied (suggested) or may be inferred (concluded)

Atheism makes no positive claims of any kind.Specifically atheism makes no claim that god does not exist. Atheism is not a philosophy,a religion,an ideology,a political stance,a moral code or way of life.It is simply the absence of a belief. It is YOU who claim god(s) [other than your own] do not exist, not me. I assert only that I do not believe. I may be mistaken.

I am often gobsmacked by the stunning ignorance, impertinence and hubris of theists who come to atheist forums and attempt to define what we as individuals and collectively think and believe.

Please don't think I'm arguing with you. I'm just making a token effort at correcting some of the factual errors contained in your rambling drivel. I don't waste my time arguing with presuppositional apologists. Your assertions are based on faith,not evidence yet you manage the intellectual sleight of hand of rejecting the possibility of error.

I assert " I do not believe in god(s)". I do not assert "there are no god(s)". My disbelief is not a choice,it was arrived at through an often painful journey of over twenty years. The reason is simple,I have never,ever seen any proof of existence of god, or of supernatural, or paranormal events any kind..THAT is the essence of my atheism. I make no claims.

I hope you can therefore understand my contempt for apologists who come here with the tired, fatuous sophistry I discounted over thirty years ago.

That is all I have to say to you on this matter.

[Kid]

OK, I'll be serious a moment.

Peter; do this:
stop trying to define words, and badly at that. Stop telling us what we already know. Stop messing around with words and language and lies.
We are all sitting here perfectly willing to see this evidence of god. We are not closed to this evidence. We are fully open to it, in eager anticipation of it. And man, you keep letting me down. Stop doing that, and do this:
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Now, you wonder why I'm shouting. I shout cos it's not getting through to you. No more long, long tracts about words and who said what and what it does or doesn't mean.
We just want you to cut to the chase, get down to the nitty gritty, the bare bones, the FACTS.
so next time when you reply, no more fooling around with words, ok?
Just put the evidence out on the table and show us where to find it and how to examine it for validity.

and please, not a word about 'the bible said this and the bible said that', cos all that exists too in other religions 'holy' books, and words in old books do not constitute evidence.
do you get me now?

[MikeM]

Quotes from MikeM


OK. You didn't select the Merriam Webster, but you seem to be expressing agreement with its definition of atheist.

I am happy to go with any dictionary. I just used the one used by one your fellow atheists.


So you believe that you have a lack of belief in God:D:D:D

But on the other hand you need to consult another dictionary to establish what you believe about what you don't believe.

[MikeM]

No the burden of proof is not on those not making the claim MikeM. We are not making the claim god exists, so we are not the ones having to prove it doesn't. The Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity you are using to justify your argument fails all logic.



The churches will be happy with what you said. No opposition.

[davo]

I am happy to go with any dictionary. I just used the one used by one your fellow atheists.

atheism is so varied MikeM, it means without belief in a god. It does not mean that all atheists are correct in their opinions, nor define themselves properly. Atheists can be wrong, and are not a defined group. You can't define it as an ideology as you are trying too.


So you believe that you have a lack of belief in God:D:D:D


No, I do not have a belief in god, I don't believe I have a lack of belief in god, I know I don't.

Can you get to grips with this? or are you just going to harp on about others thoughts, and not the people you are speaking with?


But on the other hand you need to consult another dictionary to establish what you believe about what you don't believe.

derr ..

[davo]

The churches will be happy with what you said. No opposition.

your not making sense. The churches aren't happy with me full stop. The concepts I present, those like you with faith in a supernatural being, can't deal with.

The only thing you have, is to sit on a forum, trying to define people by your assumptions, you don't listen to them, you go over and over and over trying to define them to fit into something you can attack

I am not defining you MikeM, other than you have no basis in logic, reason or evidence for your beliefs. REGARDLESS, of what you consider atheism as being, you are just avoiding the fact, that your whole world view is not based on logic, reason or evidence. You can't deal with that up front.

You are just trying to shift the issues with your belief, onto us. It's ironic, as you are using the very holes in your own claims, to try and make a case against something else.

can you say IRONY? ;)

[MikeM]

Seriously MikeM, don't try to speak for atheists, you don't even understand the position of them, and here you are dictating how we should put ourselves forward, by basically stating we are something we are not.

It does not matter whether I understand athesists. What matters if you want changes that you understand believers.


I am so sick of your 'salesman' speech. This is not producing a product for sale, it is about others accepting us, for who we are, and that religion should not have more rights than us.

get it into your head.

But you you just want it to happen. You post to each other, talk to each other, get other disenfranchised groups in and then all say together....it is about others accepting us, for who we are, and that religion should not have more rights than us.

Personally, I don't think you really want all the equality you speak of. Just an excuse.

All good salesmen have one thing in common, they are driven by a passion/belief in what they are selling. In fact very strong passions/beliefs is what generates the salesman. He is driven to tell the world.

But obviously your belief in equality etc is only at an academic discussion level etc and etc. and ...it is about others accepting us, for who we are, and that religion should not have more rights than us. and we expect that right. We don't want to sell it. etc and etc.

[davo]

All good salesmen have one thing in common, they are driven by a passion/belief in what they are selling. In fact very strong passions/beliefs is what generates the salesman. He is driven to tell the world.

I am not selling atheism, I am asking for equality. I should not have to redefine myself for that, as you are asking.

I want equality for what atheism is. Not for half way, nor do I want it accepted as a belief, as it is not. This means that we have won nothing for atheism at all.

You don't get that.


But obviously your belief in equality etc is only at an academic discussion level etc and etc. and ...it is about others accepting us, for who we are, and that religion should not have more rights than us. and we expect that right. We don't want to sell it. etc and etc.

MikeM, you don't know me, you don't know anything about me, your claims have no basis, and I don't have to prove anything to you. You have sat trying to get us to sell YOUR version of atheism, and I have said NO, your version is not atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god (defined for the billionth time to you)

Religion is suffering, your beliefs are suffering, and here you are, trying to tell us that we need to sell out the concept, to get it accepted. Well your wrong. All we would be doing is getting your version accepted, not ours.

sheesh.

Now show us your evidence, logic or reason as to their being a supernatural being, and stop wasting everyones time trying to be a theist, trying to tell atheists what they think.

[MikeM]

I am not selling atheism, I am asking for equality. I should not have to redefine myself for that, as you are asking.


Good luck.

But if all the other atheists are like you THEN, nothing will change.

[davo]

Good luck.

But if all the other atheists are like you THEN, nothing will change.

ROTFLMAO :)

[MikeM]

You take over threads and just waste a lot of time, with people just explaining the same thing over and over and over.

Could you explain to me the mechanics of taking over a thread?

I have no administration or moderator rights on this forum. In fact I have far less as I have been assigned to the Fantasy Island forum.....and you say I take over threads.

I think you need rest. And it must be frustrating waiting for equality to arrive.

[davo]

Could you explain to me the mechanics of taking over a thread?

I have no administration or moderator rights on this forum. In fact I have far less as I have been assigned to the Fantasy Island forum.....and you say I take over threads.

I think you need rest. And it must be frustrating waiting for equality to arrive.

the mechanics of taking over a thread is you make the same assertion over and over and over and over and over again, regardless of what people say. it's tedious.

[MikeM]

the mechanics of taking over a thread is you make the same assertion over and over and over and over and over again, regardless of what people say. it's tedious.

Ok, so I make the post and the thread stops???

[GenericBox]

ZOMG guys give it a rest. At least keep it confined to one thread...

[MikeM]

ZOMG guys give it a rest. At least keep it confined to one thread...

Well, at least it can't stray out of the forum:D

[kencooke]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said
Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” “The
question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that's all.”
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, in The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll 196
(1939).

[davo]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”


oh no .. don't give us nicknames to use! ;)

[Jaar-Gilon]

When it comes to spiritual matters (matters not of the physical realm, that go beyond the sphere of science and cannot be tested empirically)

This is such a massive problem with you people! How can anything exist that is not physical? It can't! That's how!

[MikeM]

This is such a massive problem with you people! How can anything exist that is not physical? It can't! That's how!

Ideas, thoughts

[davo]

Ideas, thoughts

chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

[Jaar-Gilon]

Ideas, thoughts

MikeM, take a vaccuum, any vaccuum, which by definition has no thing in it and see if you can put a thought or an idea into it to stop it from being a vaccuum. If you can't then thoughts and ideas do not exist as a physical thing and hence are no thing.

[MikeM]

chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

But that is the cause not the result?

Does a vacuum exist? Is it physical?

[MikeM]

MikeM, take a vaccuum, any vaccuum, which by definition has no thing in it and see if you can put a thought or an idea into it to stop it from being a vaccuum. If you can't then thoughts and ideas do not exist as a physical thing and hence are no thing.

So ideas and thoughts don't exist?

If you have a vacuum and send a ray of light through it, does that mean it is no longer a vacuum?

[davo]

But that is the cause not the result?


wtf, here we go with the basics. BLOODY LOOK IT UP MATE THIS STUFF IS KIDS STUFF.

your thoughts ARE chemical and electrical reactions in the brain, there is no woo-woo too it.

take away that, and your BRAIN DEAD.


Does a vacuum exist? Is it physical?

Its quantifiable, testable, and proven, thus physical in nature. Use the scientific meaning MikeM, not your woo woo one.

[davo]

So ideas and thoughts don't exist?

If you have a vacuum and send a ray of light through it, does that mean it is no longer a vacuum?

MikeM seriously your wasting everyones time here, what is your point.

If your after people to just explain stuff over and over .. go to SCHOOL

[MikeM]

Well you and Jaar-Gilon seem to be saying two different things.

[Jaar-Gilon]

So ideas and thoughts don't exist?

If you have a vacuum and send a ray of light through it, does that mean it is no longer a vacuum?


Nup not in the sense that they are physical extensions of anything in the reality of a physical universe, the point being that they cannot have any impact on the physical.

Technically no, whilst photons are in the vaccuum it is no longer a vaccuum, actually a good question MikeM (Do I sound surprised? Been follwing the posts in fantasy land since it was up) Although light has no rest mass try m=e/c2

[two dogs]

So ideas and thoughts don't exist?

If you have a vacuum and send a ray of light through it, does that mean it is no longer a vacuum?

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

That reeks of post-modernist bullshit to me.

[Jaar-Gilon]

Well you and Jaar-Gilon seem to be saying two different things.
How's that then?

[MikeM]

Go back to ideas and thoughts posts

[Jaar-Gilon]

Go back to ideas and thoughts posts
Crumbs you are a tool aren't you?
Thoughts and ideas are non physical extensions of a physical brain!!

[MikeM]

Crumbs you are a tool aren't you?
Thoughts and ideas are non physical extensions of a physical brain!!

That is what I said. They exist but are not physical.

[davo]

depends what definition you use for physical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

[Jaar-Gilon]

That is what I said. They exist but are not physical.
Nope, nothing non physical exists. I apologise, seeing as you have clearly not done any formal philosophy, "non physical extensions" was a poor choice of phrase.
In the material universe, this universe (which I believe by definition is all there is) everything and the only things that exist are material, something is material if and only if it is spatial, extended in space. Therefore nothing nonspatial exists. What I meant was that thoughts and ideas do not exist independantly from the chemicals, that are extended in space, the electricity, extended in space, and the brain, extended in space. And are therefore physical not immaterial. We are not dual in nature.

[davo]

well put!

[Jaar-Gilon]

Danke.

[TÐöer]

<Reduced> Sitting on a chair example.
I take it that you are refering to the bible as Evidence that the chair seems safe. Attempting to sit in the chair being Faith and the chair withstanding your weight as Proof of God?

Wait a minute, isn't Evidence the same as proof? :confused:

Faith & reason are NOT equivalent. you need to reason before you have faith in something, not the other way around. You can have reason without faith, but you can't have faith without reason.

Talking about evidence, we have to consider how believable the evidence is. We need to consider whether the chair came from Ikia, or is it just a make shift bamboo chair (passed our understanding check). Then we need to properly test it, checking out the structure of the chair to see if it looks stable (Sight check). perhaps by puting partial weight on the chair (touch check), etc. After sound reasoning, then only you may test your assumption of sitting on it.

You do not sit on it, just because there is a note on it, saying "Safe to sit" (Bible check). That is not sound reasoning at all. If anything, that note would make us even more suspicious.

Also, when you are about to sit on it. You know that it is purely based on faith, to your own sound reasoning. Do you go around asking people to sit in the chair before you have sat on it yourself?

That is just what is happening now. It's pure faith, but yet christians are treating it as fact. Laws are passed. Non believers being nagged to join or go to hell (what an ill thought to have for your fellow man). People being killed.


If you acknowledge that you don't know everything, then let's just assume for a second that you know 50% of everything there is to know (and that's being generous). If this is the case, then how can you be sure that God doesn't exist in the 50% you don't know about? You can't. In fact, to adopt an atheistic position is to arrogantly assume you know all there is to know.

Heheh, yep I believe in absolute truth as well. Great. 1 thing in common.

We humans reason, based on what we know, and not what we don't know. If the 50% tells us there is no God, then how do we make an assumption that there is a god, in the next 50%? and what about other infinite possibilities of things that we don't believe in , like UFO's, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, Hindu Gods, Allah, etc.


By the way, this is God's problem with humanity. It is called pride and until someone is able to humble themselves and get to the point where they acknowledge that they they don't know everything, and that they fall short in some many ways, then the existence of God and additionally the joy of knowing his love and forgiveness will always allude them.


How does a lack of understanding called "Arrogance/Pride"? Does god want us to believe every con man that comes up to us? Are we called arrogant for turning down people who don't bring us proof?

The word might be "Ignorance", But that is what the Buddha says not Jesus.


His name is Jesus Christ and he has stamped himself smack bang in the middle of history where his life, death, resurrection and teachings have all been publicly laid before us to scrutinize. I encourage you to examine the evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that he was God Himself and it is based on this historical and scientific evidence that I have placed my faith in Him.


This is a question on the existence of your version of God. And I have already mention it to Steve. Why doesn't Jesus Christ appear now when his claims can be properly observed and documented? If god wants to help us, why is he so vague? How does he expect his more questioning creations to believe in him, and not any 1 of the other Religions whom claim they have evidence too?