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.
Whenever theists and atheists having debates on religious beliefs, there is always a disconnect: theists believe atheists had made presumptions that God did not exist; atheists believe theists need evidences to support theist's God. As theists often put it "it's your faith against my faith, therefore we are equal."
Let's clarify it by pointing out some of the commonly acceptable (both theists and atheists can accept) rules of logic (If you disagree with below, point it out):
Quote:
Any claims that are specific need evidence to support them. In absence of any evidence-supports, the opposite of those claims are the default truths.
You may verify the above on your own, but let me show some examples on how it works:
Example 1:
[A] "the world will come to an end in the year 2012."
[A-Bar] "the world will not come to an end in year 2012."
[A] is specific; [A-Bar] is non-specific. [A] needs evidence to support it because it is specific. In absence of any evidence, [A-Bar] is the default truth.
Example 2:
[A] "there is a God as described in the Bible."
[A-Bar] "there is no God as described in the Bible."
[A] is specific; [A-Bar] is non-specific. [A] needs evidence supports (not using Bible to prove God -- that's circular logic), because Bible said many things specific about this God. In absence of any evidence, [A-Bar] is automatically true by default without the any need of any proof whatsoever.
Theists seem to often forget that they're the ones that need to provide evidence to substantiate their claim since they're making a positive assertion. The atheist is simply saying the evidence isn't credible to merit belief.
That is the disconnect as you say. Theists begin with an a priori assumption of a god and a very specific god, moreover, which they see as an accepted fact which has to be disproved. That whole assumption is illogical to begin with. It is the 'leap of faith' we talk about.
However, they attempt to reverse this or apply it the other way by arguing that an a priori assumption that God didn't make the universe is also a 'Leap of faith' on the part of atheists. In fact, it isn't. The fact is that we don't know whether or how the universe started and we can only make a few suggestions about what the evidence in our local area indicates. Again, it is the assumption that a god and a very specific god, too, dunnit, and that is another (or perhaps the same) 'leap of faith' on the part of the theists.
But then the theists again attempt to reverse this or apply it the other way by arguing that an a priori assumption that a complex universe didn't come from a complex being that could only ever have been there always (as that is the only way to answer' "Where did that being come from, then?") as a logical a priori assumption.
That is where the assumption is most persuasive and the argument that no -one actually knows (though logically correct) is weakest. This is why I say that argument from First Cause is the strongest that theists have.
But then the question 'which god' crops up. And here we again get the disconnect. The theists assume that this god is of course the personal god they believe in. That is the One, they argue, whose existence the First Cause argument logically asserts as a valid a priori which atheists then need to disprove (1).
Here again it is a Leap of Faith as there is no good reason to suppose that a postulated First Cause is like any one of the personal gods on offer. That is why, althought agnostic theism is perhaps not strictly logical, it doesn't make the same leap of faith as the believers in a particular personal god.
(1) and. as we know, we can never prove anything to someone who believes that logic is human fallacy, evidence is mere opinion and science is irrelevent compared to Faith.
On the contrary, the existence of God can be proved. You just don't want to make the effort to discover this for yourselves.
The proof comes into our souls when we pray for God's Divine Love. It's as simple as that.
If you would care to take up the challenge to allow your soul to long for it, then you'll know what I'm talking about. In the meantime, there will be discussions such as this ad infinitum.
Any claims that are specific need evidence to support them. In absence of any evidence-supports, the opposite of those claims are the default truths.
That is Empiricism, just one philosophical school of thought amongst many. There is also Existentialism, Idealism, etc. I am not an Empiricist and, therefore, do not need any evidence other than that which I feel within, i.e., intuitive evidence. I do not need anything in a petri dish or an equation.
Also, I have said this to you about a dozen times on one thread but you choose to ignore it, I do have proof that GOD, or at least one of the many definitions of it, does exist, and here it is:
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."-Joseph Campbell
Quote:
[SIZE=4]met⋅a⋅phor[/SIZE] /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show IPA
–noun 1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.†Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).2.something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
So, unless there is some huge theist conspiracy that placed the word "metaphor" in the dictionary, God, in one sense of the word at least, can indeed be proven.
Now watch, the above will either be 1) ignored 2) the content ignored and I will still be called a "fundy" no better than Jerry Falwell (yes, my belief that all religions, including a lack of religion, are perfectly acceptable and that God couldn't care less what religion one is makes me a Christian fundamentalist ) and insist that I am a hard core, evolution denying bible thumping fundamentalist, 3) insist that I do not believe in God and that an opinion that God is a possibility and that it is practice and understanding that matter and not faith is something I made up on my own as a cop-out (which would imply that I have the ability to time travel, since Gnostics have been of that opinion since before Christ and I would have had to go back to 1,000 BC to "make that up") or 4) insist that I do not know what I am talking about and that, despite being a non-believer, the person in question knows more about what God is and is not than I, a believer, and that God has to be a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days" and that any definition of God other than a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days" is besides the point and in order to be a theist one must believe in a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days", while completely ignoring the many, MANY religions/religious philosophies (Taoism, Wicca, Unitarianism, Deism, Pandeism, Gnosticism) that do not consider God to be a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days"
That is how overwhelming majority of arguments with hardcore anti-theist go...I do not mean Atheism, because, again, Atheism is not necessarily anti-theism. I have no problem with Atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in God or religion, and I can understand that, it is simply the mindless, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-theistic Dawkin's Witnesses that I take issue with.
If a religion is not hurting you, and does not threaten education and does not want to insert it's self into politics, than why go on a crusade to attack it? If it's not for you than it's not for you. I hate fundamentalism just as much as many Atheist, but I at least understand that there is a big difference between someone practicing their religion and not bothering anyone and fundamentalism. As long as it isn't imposed on you, why have a problem with religion?
Theists seem to often forget that they're the ones that need to provide evidence to substantiate their claim since they're making a positive assertion. The atheist is simply saying the evidence isn't credible to merit belief.
Yup!!! that fairly well describes my feelings on this subject. Until given verifiable claims, I will consider jesus to be a myth. He and the grinch have a lot in common, except the grinch has never fostered any holidays, a shame too, I like the sound of "Universal Grinch Day"!! makes more sense than christmas or easter.
Insulting only if one determines to take it that way.
If atheism is so sound and rational, why do so many seem to have this apparent need to hide in semantics and quibble over that which constitutes a positive assertion?
Judging from various atheist assertions made in this forum, you can't even get any two atheists to agree on what the term 'atheist' means.
Keep in mind that this is not Atheism in and of it's self, but rather Anti-theism. Atheism is just a disbelief in divinity and religion, while anti-theism is a hatred of religion, even when it poses no threat to anyone and is not imposed on anyone.
As a believer, I am fine with Atheism. It's the people who say something along the lines of "ALL RELIGION IS STUPID AND THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE MADE FUN OF AND WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE INTOLERANT" that drives me crazy.
Whenever theists and atheists having debates on religious beliefs, there is always a disconnect: theists believe atheists had made presumptions that God did not exist; atheists believe theists need evidences to support theist's God. As theists often put it "it's your faith against my faith, therefore we are equal."
Let's clarify it by pointing out some of the commonly acceptable (both theists and atheists can accept) rules of logic (If you disagree with below, point it out):
You may verify the above on your own, but let me show some examples on how it works:
Example 1:
[A] "the world will come to an end in the year 2012."
[A-Bar] "the world will not come to an end in year 2012."
[A] is specific; [A-Bar] is non-specific. [A] needs evidence to support it because it is specific. In absence of any evidence, [A-Bar] is the default truth.
Example 2:
[A] "there is a God as described in the Bible."
[A-Bar] "there is no God as described in the Bible."
[A] is specific; [A-Bar] is non-specific. [A] needs evidence supports (not using Bible to prove God -- that's circular logic), because Bible said many things specific about this God. In absence of any evidence, [A-Bar] is automatically true by default without the any need of any proof whatsoever.
Dear Bud235,
Let me provide some friendly neighborhood feedback. First, you used the "always" word again to describe atheist-theist interactions. I'm just saying.
Second, I applaud your attempt at finding a "common ground" of "rules" in the discussion. But what you provide are (most definitely) not rules of logic, as you claim they are. They are epistemological suggestions (at best), that is, suggestions for what beliefs we ought to accept with respect to evidence. Please see my recent thread for more questions on this (alas! I am the only one to have contributed to my thread!). Suffice to say, there is a lot of debate over such "rules."
Lastly, you say something you cannot possibly mean: "In the absence of any evidence, the proposition 'there is no God as described in the Bible' is automatically true by default without the need for any proof...." I implore you, from the bottom of my heart, to really think about this, about the meaning of your claim here. It's true without evidence?
Here are a few things to think about, which you seem to be confusing. There's a difference between truth and justification. One can perhaps be justified in believing that "there is no God" if there is no evidence to support the negation of this proposition (that "there is a God"). But truth doesn't automatically follow from justification--justification is only concerned with when a person is "justified" in believing a particular proposition (whether it is within his or her "rights" to believe something). It is a much larger (and far, far more difficult) claim to say that the proposition is "automatically true," as you say.
That is the disconnect as you say. Theists begin with an a priori assumption of a god and a very specific god, moreover, which they see as an accepted fact which has to be disproved. That whole assumption is illogical to begin with. It is the 'leap of faith' we talk about.
However, they attempt to reverse this or apply it the other way by arguing that an a priori assumption that God didn't make the universe is also a 'Leap of faith' on the part of atheists. In fact, it isn't. The fact is that we don't know whether or how the universe started and we can only make a few suggestions about what the evidence in our local area indicates. Again, it is the assumption that a god and a very specific god, too, dunnit, and that is another (or perhaps the same) 'leap of faith' on the part of the theists.
But then the theists again attempt to reverse this or apply it the other way by arguing that an a priori assumption that a complex universe didn't come from a complex being that could only ever have been there always (as that is the only way to answer' "Where did that being come from, then?") as a logical a priori assumption.
That is where the assumption is most persuasive and the argument that no -one actually knows (though logically correct) is weakest. This is why I say that argument from First Cause is the strongest that theists have.
But then the question 'which god' crops up. And here we again get the disconnect. The theists assume that this god is of course the personal god they believe in. That is the One, they argue, whose existence the First Cause argument logically asserts as a valid a priori which atheists then need to disprove (1).
Here again it is a Leap of Faith as there is no good reason to suppose that a postulated First Cause is like any one of the personal gods on offer. That is why, althought agnostic theism is perhaps not strictly logical, it doesn't make the same leap of faith as the believers in a particular personal god.
(1) and. as we know, we can never prove anything to someone who believes that logic is human fallacy, evidence is mere opinion and science is irrelevent compared to Faith.
whenever evidence doesn't give us absolute certainty there are "leaps." Reason is limited, so we are afloat in a sea of uncertainties. But we must live our lives. I don't see anything inherently problematic about "leaps."
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.
əˌfɔr, -fər/ 
) and insist that I am a hard core, evolution denying bible thumping fundamentalist, 3) insist that I do not believe in God and that an opinion that God is a possibility and that it is practice and understanding that matter and not faith is something I made up on my own as a cop-out (which would imply that I have the ability to time travel, since Gnostics have been of that opinion since before Christ and I would have had to go back to 1,000 BC to "make that up") or 4) insist that I do not know what I am talking about and that, despite being a non-believer, the person in question knows more about what God is and is not than I, a believer, and that God has to be a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days" and that any definition of God other than a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days" is besides the point and in order to be a theist one must believe in a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days", while completely ignoring the many, MANY religions/religious philosophies (Taoism, Wicca, Unitarianism, Deism, Pandeism, Gnosticism) that do not consider God to be a "literal big bearded white guy who lives in the sky and literally created the world in six days"
that drives me crazy.
