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.
I do not speak for atheists. If an atheist claims something that you want evidenced, then ask him for the evidence. If you want evidence for something I have claimed then simply ask me for the evidence.
All I am claiming HERE is that the idea there is a god is an idea that is brought to be entirely devoid of any substantiation and I therefore dismiss it and resist it's use in our halls of power. I am not sure what claim there requires evidence for you but feel free to ask.
It is only unsubstantiated if there is no God(s). However, you have the right to believe what you want. Just don't force it down other peoples throats. Like say with a religious or worldview movement.
Quote:
If you are aware of any evidence, argument, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god then by all means present it. Until you or someone does however I make no apologies for pointing out that no one is.
All you are saying here is there is no evidence and you believe there is no evidence....
Quote:
If someone makes up a claim however, based on nothing, then the onus is on them to substantiate the claim. Those who simply say "Your claim is unsubstantiated" have no onus of anything, much less to be casting doubts. An unsubstantiated claim is no different from fantasy. As Hitchens said "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
To say, "God does not exist." even if you actually mean you aren't 100% sure god does not exist. Is making up a claim based on nothing. So the onus is on you to substantiate the claim. So without evidence you claim can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't get how most atheists don't see this. First you say atheists are saying," there is no god" when they actually mean they aren't' 100 percent sure there is or is not any gods. So essentially they are hanging on the fence, yet they claim not to be on the fence as they claim there is not evidence for any god to exists, but claim that lack of evidence is evidence enough to show there is no god. So basically, they are saying with 100% assurance that there is no god.
Do you believe in god? Yes, no, or Not sure. No explanation.
Quote:
No. That are not. Except to the pedant. The fact is we use language in this way all the time. We express things in the same language as certainty when in fact we are expressing our choice of the most likely by far position. If I say "The bus will not crash, youre safe" I do not know 100% the bus will not crash, you do not know the dog will not bite, but saying essentially "The statistical likelihood of a bus crash occurring is so small as to be insignificant".
So, when the bus crashes you shouldn't be surprised right? You essentially knew it might crash. This is where I have a problem with your logic. If I say "The bus will not crash, you're safe." I really do not think the bus will crash, so I am positive the bus will not crash.
So when a theist says, "God exists." They are actually saying they're not 100% sure god exists?" Or when it applies in the positive, does it not mean the same thing?
Let me ask you, Do you think all atheists when they say,"there is no god." that they ALL mean they are not 100% sure there is no god? Or is it reasonable to assume that some might actually be 100% sure there is no god. And that when some theists say," there is a god." they actually mean they believe 100% there is a god.
BTW, do you know what a pedant is? You have made it clear on several occasions of your views on accuracy. You demand precise answers, yet give none. You make a show for your educational and extracurricular activities with every post. I love how most atheists make a show for their thesaurus skills, at every possible moment they can, they will make it very clear of their educational level and background. As if every theist or theists supporter wont know what they are saying.
Quote:
And when pressed to clarify they actually do. Read this forum. Read all the pointless arguments when theists get into the "Prove there is no god then" arguments. You will find atheists lining up to clarify what they actually mean is what I am saying here they mean.
The fact is however we use grammar in this fashion and for the most part we do not get pedants picking up on it. When I say the bus will not crash people realise what I mean and do not say "prove to me 100% it wont!!!!". So people are used to using language in this way and so I make no apology for it being used that way in relation to god either. People just expect their language to be taken the same way there as every where else. The pedants and those theists who want to play the canard want it otherwise however.
How about we stop with the word games, and say word for word just what we mean. To be honest, the statement "The bus wont crash." and "God doesn't exist." aren't even close. Why? Because we know what a bus is, we basically know the odds of it crashing. In "The God debate" If you say "God exists" we expect to understand that you really do believe god exists. If you say "God does not exist." We expect to understand that you really do not believe God exists.
Please prove this claim with 100% absolute certainty. It's ironic you insist on 100% airtight proof from atheists and then resort to "trust me" as the evidence for your view.
You're joking right? Read a grammar book, there is your evidence. Also, I am yet to receive any evidence at all from any atheist.
Quote:
It's a given that people have accurate knowledge of their beliefs. Atheists can therefore be assured that they have accurate knowledge of their beliefs when they state that it is true that they lack belief in gods.
Did you have another atheist claim in mind?
Does God exist?
Yes, No, IDK? What is your answer? No explanation, just pick one.
You literally don't know what you're talking about.
When an atheist says, "I do not believe god exists" what we typically mean is that there has never been presented any evidence in support of any supposed god that would lead us, or any rational person, to believe that the proffered god exists."
If you said, "I do not believe god exists." I would understand that. You are saying what you mean.
Quote:
When an atheist says, "There is no god," what we typically mean is that there is virtually no set of circumstances, consistent with what we actually know about the universe, that would be consistent with the existence of any god, or at least any god that has been claimed to exist so far.
And you expect someone to understand that with the phrase, "There is no god."
Quote:
It's similar to the concept of unicorns, which many people bridle at, but it's perfectly logical. If I say, "I do not believe in unicorns," or "There are no unicorns," in each case I am saying that there is no evidence that would lead me to believe that unicorns do, or ever did, exist. Even though there are lots of pictures and stories about unicorns. If things were to change, and evidence emerged to conclude that there is some unknown valley where unicorns prance and canter around, or if someone were to find a cache of fossils that could only be explained as unicorn fossils, I would change my belief, but I certainly won't do it without evidence.
"I do not believe in unicorns." and "There are no unicorns." is not the same same thing. One is a statement of certainty, the other is a statement of belief. The statement of belief I can understand.
Quote:
Could we be wrong? Certainly, but we could also be wrong about the existence of gravity, the speed of light, the chemical composition of water, or any number of things. One key difference between an atheist and a theist is that we will admit the possibility that we are wrong.
Never said you wouldn't. However, not all atheists will admit this, and not all theists are so locked into their opinion as you think. I was a theist who can no be considered an atheist. I understand why you believe there is no God. I share this beliefs. However, I will not make a statement like, "There is no God." If I am not 100% sure. I will always say, "I do not believe a god exists."
It is only unsubstantiated if there is no God(s). However, you have the right to believe what you want. Just don't force it down other peoples throats. Like say with a religious or worldview movement.
All you are saying here is there is no evidence and you believe there is no evidence....
To say, "God does not exist." even if you actually mean you aren't 100% sure god does not exist. Is making up a claim based on nothing. So the onus is on you to substantiate the claim. So without evidence you claim can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't get how most atheists don't see this. First you say atheists are saying," there is no god" when they actually mean they aren't' 100 percent sure there is or is not any gods. So essentially they are hanging on the fence, yet they claim not to be on the fence as they claim there is not evidence for any god to exists, but claim that lack of evidence is evidence enough to show there is no god. So basically, they are saying with 100% assurance that there is no god.
Do you believe in god? Yes, no, or Not sure. No explanation.
So, when the bus crashes you shouldn't be surprised right? You essentially knew it might crash. This is where I have a problem with your logic. If I say "The bus will not crash, you're safe." I really do not think the bus will crash, so I am positive the bus will not crash.
So when a theist says, "God exists." They are actually saying they're not 100% sure god exists?" Or when it applies in the positive, does it not mean the same thing?
Let me ask you, Do you think all atheists when they say,"there is no god." that they ALL mean they are not 100% sure there is no god? Or is it reasonable to assume that some might actually be 100% sure there is no god. And that when some theists say," there is a god." they actually mean they believe 100% there is a god.
You are casting pearls, fractured . . . it is as fruitless as tilting at windmills.
Quote:
BTW, do you know what a pedant is? You have made it clear on several occasions of your views on accuracy. You demand precise answers, yet give none. You make a show for your educational and extracurricular activities with every post. I love how most atheists make a show for their thesaurus skills, at every possible moment they can, they will make it very clear of their educational level and background. As if every theist or theists supporter wont know what they are saying.
Pedants seldom see themselves in such clear descriptions of their posts, fractured.
Quote:
How about we stop with the word games, and say word for word just what we mean. To be honest, the statement "The bus wont crash." and "God doesn't exist." aren't even close. Why? Because we know what a bus is, we basically know the odds of it crashing. In "The God debate" If you say "God exists" we expect to understand that you really do believe god exists. If you say "God does not exist." We expect to understand that you really do not believe God exists.
Word games are the stock in trade of those who would obfuscate. Euphemisms to hide their ignorance abound in science whenever their findings impinge on the areas that are rightly understood as God.
Word games are the stock in trade of those who would obfuscate. Euphemisms to hide their ignorance abound in science whenever their findings impinge on the areas that are rightly understood as God.
MysticPhD: Surely you jest. Those "euphemisms" all have specific biological meanings and have nothing to do with a god. If you wish to believe in one, be my guest, but this is different.
I have no idea what you mean by this. A claim is unsubstantiated if it is unsubstantiated. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with whether the claim is true or not. In fact many claims have been made, have been unsubstantiated, but have LATER turned out to be true and substantiation found.
The point is that the claim that there is a god or gods is at this time entirely unsubstantiated. No one is offering a single scrap of evidence, argument, data or reasons to support the claim. That does not mean the claim is not true, it just means that there is no reason to think it IS true. At all.
So yes I am saying there is no evidence. You state the obvious pointing that out. But I also say that claims that are entirely devoid of evidence should not be used in our halls of power and should in fact be resisted there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
To say, "God does not exist." even if you actually mean you aren't 100% sure god does not exist. Is making up a claim based on nothing. So the onus is on you to substantiate the claim.
Not me as I never made that claim. I am talking about other people who do. I wholly agree with you in fact in saying that it would be better if such people were clearer on what they are saying. I however live in the real world too and I know how people use language and people speak with language of certainty all the time about subjects where they are actually expressing a view based on massive probability. The chances of the bus crashing or the dog biting are so insignificant in their reckoning that they feel justified in using shorter lazier language to express their position. Similarly there is no reason at all on offer to think there is a god, so the chances of there being one seems remote and "There is no god" is just easier to lazily say that the phrases I use like "The idea there is a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and / or maintenance of our universe is entirely unsubstantiated and so the idea is dismissed and I proceed entirely without it".
So take it up with them if you have an issue with them. I am merely pointing out that this is how a lot of people use language and when you press them you will find that after they clarify their position it is more often than not that they are using language in much the way I have described to you in many posts now. You can be pedantic and irate about how they use language this way, but get over it as this simply is... alas.... how language is used by the masses and there is little we can do to remedy it. Theists have recognised this too which is why they delight in pretending that atheism is an expression of a faith position that is beyond their ken.
What I am saying is that people make up things all the time. Most of them have no basis or evidence or substantiation. We therefore say their claims are false and proceed without them. Some of those claims, by sheer probability and number, are going to turn out to be true but we have no way to know which ones. So we treat baseless claims AS IF false and use that kind of rhetoric towards them.
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 12-07-2011 at 01:46 AM..
Neat Graphic, Ashe. Of course I posted it. I have been saying it for years now. Some of the favorite euphemisms used to avoid references to God:
Natural
Natural Selection
Random Mutation
Self-Organizing
Self-Reproducing
Emergence
So calling things what they are is avoiding god is it? And you accuse others of playing with language.
All you do is take things and relabel them god and act as if this somehow means "god" exists. You are doing nothing but linguistic acrobatics. If I say god is teapots then that means god exists because tea pots actually do exist. Wow, go me.
All you do is consistently avoid, when asked, to define exactly what you mean by "god". You just do vague hand waving towards fuzzy words where peoples understanding is generally low, call those things "god" and then act smug as if that is "job done".
If you want to say there is a god then simply:
1) Define exactly what you mean by that word.
2) List exactly the things you think evidence the existence of that entity.
3) Explain exactly how the things listed in 2 support the claim of the existence of the thing defined in 1.
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.
I didn't aim that high, did you duck 
