Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheism and theism are both meaningless, why? Because the term "god" has no concrete meaning. Its gibberish. Without knowing what god refers to there is nothing to talk about. Atheism and theism are equally meaningless, asserting that gibberish exists, does not exists, or that you lack belief in gibberish is all gibberish.
Okay, everyone can now enjoy their lives and stop talking about "god".
When I'm discussing with Christians, I'm assuming we're talking of the Christian God concept. More generally, Dawkins' "God hypothesis" comes in handy:
"There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
I think that you cannot be atheist or theist without faith, both proclaim something they cannot totally prove.
It's to much easy for an atheist to ask evidence about God without giving evidence that there is no God.
Because there is no evidence that there is no God (often atheist make mistake to forget that maybe God is not as they suppose him "not" to be)
Lack of atheism's proof is not a proof of theism, as well as lack of theism's proof is not a proof of atheism !
But... (there is always a "but") ...you said that the term "god" have no concrete meaning ?!?!?!
How can you make such a mistake yourself? Only because God is not supposed to be material? That's what you mean when you say "concrete"? In fact you think "material"?
Because it's clear that atheist as theist know wich characteristics are those of the God they are talking about.
For instance : Eternity, Infinity, Unity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Creator of all thing (matter, space and time themselves) ...
Uncertainty about reality of such a God does not make meaningless beliefs and positionings related to him, not at all.
Entire civilisations, cultures, values and social frames can be so opposite just because our beliefs are differents !
I think that you cannot be atheist or theist without faith, both proclaim something they cannot totally prove.
I disagree that faith, in this context, means simply believing something that can not be totally proven. Faith is to believe in something you want to believe in, despite the evidence. It does not mean believing something simply because there is clear and convincing evidence that it is true. That's just logic. You don't distinguish between a belief based on a desire for it to be true, versus a belief based on an evaluation of the evidence.
I also disagree that the non-existence of God can't be totally proven - so long as you only mean to a reasonable standard of certainty. God can be proven not to exist, so long as you use the same common sense standard that you would normally apply to such a proposition. See below as an example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follower777
It's to much easy for an atheist to ask evidence about God without giving evidence that there is no God.
Because there is no evidence that there is no God (often atheist make mistake to forget that maybe God is not as they suppose him "not" to be)
Lack of atheism's proof is not a proof of theism, as well as lack of theism's proof is not a proof of atheism !
So long as you don't require a special standard of proof for the non-existence of God, it can be proven that he does not exist. If you apply the same burden of proof that you apply to every other question of existence in your life, you will prove to yourself there is no God.
I will name 4 putative creatures. You tell me which ones you believe do exist, and which ones you deny the existence of:
1. Elves
2. Hobbits
3. Cows
4. Eskimos
Now, you have some process that you go through that tells you which of those is true, and which is not true. Which are real, and which are not real. I doubt you simply have faith that elves and hobbits don't exist. Nor do you need faith to provet that cows and eskimos do exist.
So think of a logically consistent rational for why you don't believe in the first two creatures, but you do believe in the second two creatures.
Now, apply that rational to the Hindu God Shiva. Does Shiva go with the elves and hobbits, or does Shiva go with the Cows and eskimos.
Finally, apply that same standard to a Christian God. The same scientific and rational principles that you've applied to the above 5 creatures, apply to God to see whether he is real or not real.
There is only one difference between God of Christianinty, and Shiva, elves, and hobbits. That is ones religious beleifs.
But I'm not a Christian. I can disprove the existance of God to the same extend I can disprove the existance of elves, hobbits, and Shiva. It is easy for me to see that God goes into the catagory of elves and hobbits, not cows or eskimos.
And while this talks specifically about a Christian God, it could apply to any supernatural God. For if a God is supernatural, it violates the laws of nature. And a God that isn't supernatural by definition isn't a God.
I think that you cannot be atheist or theist without faith, both proclaim something they cannot totally prove.
It's to much easy for an atheist to ask evidence about God without giving evidence that there is no God.
Because there is no evidence that there is no God (often atheist make mistake to forget that maybe God is not as they suppose him "not" to be)
Lack of atheism's proof is not a proof of theism, as well as lack of theism's proof is not a proof of atheism !
But... (there is always a "but") ...you said that the term "god" have no concrete meaning ?!?!?!
How can you make such a mistake yourself? Only because God is not supposed to be material? That's what you mean when you say "concrete"? In fact you think "material"?
Because it's clear that atheist as theist know wich characteristics are those of the God they are talking about.
For instance : Eternity, Infinity, Unity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Creator of all thing (matter, space and time themselves) ...
Uncertainty about reality of such a God does not make meaningless beliefs and positionings related to him, not at all.
Entire civilisations, cultures, values and social frames can be so opposite just because our beliefs are differents !
As part of trhe rules of formal debate, only the assertion side needs to prove anything. One can not prove a negative. ergo, the christers, or other religiosos have the burden of proof that what they asserts is alive and functional, does in fact exist. To doubt what some may call an absurd belief does not bear the burden of proof.
As part of trhe rules of formal debate, only the assertion side needs to prove anything. One can not prove a negative. ergo, the christers, or other religiosos have the burden of proof that what they asserts is alive and functional, does in fact exist. To doubt what some may call an absurd belief does not bear the burden of proof.
I agree with you that the burden is on the theist to prove there is a God.
However, I disagree with the statement that "one can not prove a negative". I know that is a popular statement, but it is none-the-less false. At least in a real-word, non-metaphysical sense of the word "prove." I also think it can be proven that there is no God, again, in the common meaning of the word "prove".
Attorney's prove negatives all the time. The defendant didn't have a driver's license. The woman didn't give consent. The tax payer didn't list all of his income. ect.
By the normal rules that govern life, (or a courtroom) I think I could make a case to a neutral jury that there was no supernatural God, and in that sense, I think I could prove there was no God.
It's only when people change standards and start demanding an unrealistically high level of proof that they reserve just for God, can you say that it would be impossible to prove a God doesn't exist.
I think that you cannot be atheist or theist without faith, both proclaim something they cannot totally prove.
It's to much easy for an atheist to ask evidence about God without giving evidence that there is no God.
Because there is no evidence that there is no God (often atheist make mistake to forget that maybe God is not as they suppose him "not" to be)
Lack of atheism's proof is not a proof of theism, as well as lack of theism's proof is not a proof of atheism !
But... (there is always a "but") ...you said that the term "god" have no concrete meaning ?!?!?!
How can you make such a mistake yourself? Only because God is not supposed to be material? That's what you mean when you say "concrete"? In fact you think "material"?
Because it's clear that atheist as theist know wich characteristics are those of the God they are talking about.
For instance : Eternity, Infinity, Unity, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Creator of all thing (matter, space and time themselves) ...
Uncertainty about reality of such a God does not make meaningless beliefs and positionings related to him, not at all.
Entire civilisations, cultures, values and social frames can be so opposite just because our beliefs are differents !
So are you agnostic about the existence of fairies as well?
I disagree that faith, in this context, means simply believing something that can not be totally proven. Faith is to believe in something you want to believe in, despite the evidence. It does not mean believing something simply because there is clear and convincing evidence that it is true. That's just logic. You don't distinguish between a belief based on a desire for it to be true, versus a belief based on an evaluation of the evidence.
I also disagree that the non-existence of God can't be totally proven - so long as you only mean to a reasonable standard of certainty. God can be proven not to exist, so long as you use the same common sense standard that you would normally apply to such a proposition. See below as an example:
So long as you don't require a special standard of proof for the non-existence of God, it can be proven that he does not exist. If you apply the same burden of proof that you apply to every other question of existence in your life, you will prove to yourself there is no God.
I will name 4 putative creatures. You tell me which ones you believe do exist, and which ones you deny the existence of:
1. Elves
2. Hobbits
3. Cows
4. Eskimos
Now, you have some process that you go through that tells you which of those is true, and which is not true. Which are real, and which are not real. I doubt you simply have faith that elves and hobbits don't exist. Nor do you need faith to provet that cows and eskimos do exist.
So think of a logically consistent rational for why you don't believe in the first two creatures, but you do believe in the second two creatures.
Now, apply that rational to the Hindu God Shiva. Does Shiva go with the elves and hobbits, or does Shiva go with the Cows and eskimos.
Finally, apply that same standard to a Christian God. The same scientific and rational principles that you've applied to the above 5 creatures, apply to God to see whether he is real or not real.
There is only one difference between God of Christianinty, and Shiva, elves, and hobbits. That is ones religious beleifs.
But I'm not a Christian. I can disprove the existance of God to the same extend I can disprove the existance of elves, hobbits, and Shiva. It is easy for me to see that God goes into the catagory of elves and hobbits, not cows or eskimos.
And while this talks specifically about a Christian God, it could apply to any supernatural God. For if a God is supernatural, it violates the laws of nature. And a God that isn't supernatural by definition isn't a God.
Good post. I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist. Nor can I prove that it does exist. I can only believe that one does or doesn't exist. The only thing I can do, when it comes to a specific religion (Christianity in particular), is counter their arguments with historical facts and what I have discovered in my comparative religions research (this I do on my own rather than in school). The whole Christianity/Judaism link is of particular interest to me and a big focus of my personal research. That link is so much weaker than the average Christian realizes....from the faith side anyway. It is for all of this that I am content to remain an agnostic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
