Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LegoLord]

I think I may not be being very clear either.  Basically, I'm with Andrea; you can't prove either side, and when you try to it's just annoying and disrespectful - which is essentially what I've been saying (or trying to say at the very least) since my first post on this thread.  If my arguments seem biased towards faith, it's because the people who complained about what I first said were being arrogant about their atheism and I was trying to point out that, while they might be right, they could also be wrong.  Just like how I could be wrong about my belief that there is a God.

[Andir]

Sure, God could pop up next to you and do some magic and prove he exists (assuming he does), but would you believe in him?  Probably not.

If "God" wanted to prove that it exists, and it created us, it would know exactly how to prove it.

An idea (making sure that you don't mistake it as a single idea behind it) behind God is that you believe, not that you know.

That you believe means that you ignore explanation.

Now let's look at this hypothetical situation.  You are driving down the road.  A man is standing in the road up ahead, and so you stop.  He runs up to you, you roll down your windshield and you ask what's wrong.  He says that he had been lost in the woods during a hiking trip, had either lost or used up all his supplies and belongings, and had only just now found the road and was in desperate need of help.  He says he is very wealthy and will reward you when you get back to the city.

Why does wealth matter?  If he needs help there are multiple solutions:
1.  Let him in your car.  Take him to town.
2.  Tell him to wait here, you'll get help (or call for help if you have a phone on you...)
3.  Drive right on by in the first place.

I'd likely call.  If I didn't have a phone, I'd ask him to wait while I got help.  If it was a female or an elder, I'd likely give them a ride.  You weigh every situation different.  Saying that an Atheist or a religious person would do something specific is stereotyping.

You have no evidence either denying this or supporting this.  Sure, you have his story, and his clothes are ragged, as though he had been lost for quite sometime, but he could have roughed himself up just to get you to let your guard down, you may think.  Others may not; they may accept his story and help him out.  Now, see, the ones who, lacking any evidence and deny his story, completely rejecting any possibility that he may be telling the truth, those are the atheists that try too hard to prove religious people wrong.  Those who don't think for a second that he may be lying, those are religious people trying too hard to convert others to their religion.  People who would carefully consider his story and try to come up with a solution that would have little possibility of anyone dying or getting ripped off, those are the people in between, who can either be atheist or religious, and they are the good people.  They are the people who accept the fact that, since they have no solid evidence, they may be wrong.

An Atheist (in your situation) could find a solution to help the person without believing in them.  I think you are trying to hard to make Atheists out to be evil people.  You don't have to believe in someone or something to be a good person.  You could say that any truly nutty religious person would be more apt to leave him by the road because he's a heathen and is being punished.

Then someone blindfolds you and puts you in a random spot.  They tell you that if you step forward, you will go to paradise (which you don't really know), or you could step back and remain in the hellish world.  You don't know that stepping forward would actually be better.  Believing in religion is hoping that it might, which some people find comforting, and which you shouldn't say they are wrong for, whether or not they actually end up being right in the end.  Because you don't know, and you can't know.

For one thing... that wouldn't really happen seeing that there is no evidence of teleports, wormholes, or whatever transport mechanism is being used to make you take a step into paradise.  Most likely I'd see what was in front of me and behind me before I was blindfolded.  You say I was moved then?  Did I get moved into position from behind or was I pushed back into place?  This stuff matters if you want me to answer what I would do.  Trust and faith are different things.  Personally, I'd test both waters.  I'd probably put a foot forward and see what happened.  Maybe reach out to see if it "felt" like paradise.  If I felt nothing, I'd reach back and see if it "felt" like a bad place.  Just because I'm blindfolded doesn't mean I don't have other senses.  I wouldn't immediately jump forward trusting some stranger and I wouldn't jump back just to spite.  I'd probably drop to the floor and feel around.  I'd find a way to prove that one way was better without sight.  I'm very much a realist.  I require proof that something exists.  I do not assume that something does because someone tells me it does.

This is the point of the pink unicorn.  A religious person will believe what a person tells them, even more so if multiple people tell them.

There have been people who go into crime solely because they don't believe there will be any retribution by an omnipotent power after they die.

There are religious people who go into crime thinking they can be absolved of all crime by begging forgiveness.  What's your point?

[Andir]

Ever heard of the Zodiac?  No, not the thing made out of stars in the sky.  The serial killer.  Atheist.  Believed that he would become the master of all those he killed when he died.  If I'm not mistaken, he never got more detailed about it than that.

Not much of an Atheist if he believed that.

And no, I don't buy that Atheism is limited solely to non-belief in "God" per say.  I consider it a non-belief in intangibles or a person who holds to evidential facts.

[MrWiggles]

Ever heard of the Zodiac?  No, not the thing made out of stars in the sky.  The serial killer.  Atheist.  Believed that he would become the master of all those he killed when he died.  If I'm not mistaken, he never got more detailed about it than that.

lolfail. If your statement is correct, then he thought himself god. And that a belief in god. Also he was a sociopath. His brian defencicies was more likely the cause then any ideology or lack there of.

[LegoLord]

What the fuck Andir.  I just said that there were two extremes, which are the stereotypes, and then there are better people in between (who AREN'T the stereotypes), that could be either atheist or religious.  How the hell does that say they are evil?  You're doing worse stereotyping by saying all atheists would weigh a situation carefully before acting.  That's not what makes a person atheist.

What is suggesting that you would be teleported to the paradise?  It could just be a tunnel, or a gate in a wall, or something more mundane.  How would it matter whether you were pushed from behind or pulled?  Either method of guiding you could be done gently or harshly.  Frankly, the degree is no way to judge, because they could be doing that to trick you.  And I'm not telling you that God exists.  I'm trying to tell you not to tell other people that they shouldn't believe in him, because they have every right to and not everyone wants the realist explanation because that is based solely on the limits of our ability to detect what is around us and how it works.  Which is very, very, limited.

And it's called a metaphor.  They are not necessarily realistic, just things that are used to explain a concept to a stupid or stubborn person.  People who take them as you have . . . need air.  Lots of fresh air.

An atheist, as many have stated, just doesn't believe in gods.  That's what it is for a lot of people, for example, those that believe in magicians but not gods.

You, Andir, are a realist-Atheist, which is a specific kind that denies everything non-science.

The point about atheist-criminals is that atheism does not make a person any better than a religious person.  There are cruel, stupid, and downright gullible people on either side.

You trying to convince me that my God does not exist is just as bad as a missionary from my church coming up to you and trying to convert you.  It's annoying and disrespectful.  So just shut  up already, and try to make a constructive discussion.

[MrWiggles]

I think I may not be being very clear either.  Basically, I'm with Andrea; you can't prove either side, and when you try to it's just annoying and disrespectful - which is essentially what I've been saying (or trying to say at the very least) since my first post on this thread.  ...

Um. Atheist have nothing to prove. Furthermore since you cant prove a negative, it impossible.  It the theist burden to show god. There the one with the claim and all.

And as I proposed the question to Andrea, I'll propose them to you.

Is there a method to prove a belief correct without challenge?

Should one hold false beliefs?

Are false belief positive to hold?

And belief can be wrong.

Should one hold as few false/wrong belief as possible? 

[Idiom]

And what were the doctrines ripped from? The problem with many contemporary religions is they take things too literally, or not literally enough.

As far as I can tell, a lot of them have been simply made up. But then again so had been the holy books, so it doesn't really matter.

Hidden as in you don't know and can't find, no falsifiable hypothesis in what I was implying.

Cameras are physical objects, of course you can find them if you look hard enough. As an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis they totally fail.

Like right now, you sitting at the computer, without being able to get up or look around or even look away from the monitor, is there a something watching you?

I am able to get up and look around whenever I please.

Alternatively: Is someone actively monitoring your internet activities (presuming you don't do anything that should deserve such attention)?

Are spy satellites looking at you right now?

Are we being monitored from space?

Even more abstract: Are we being monitored beyond our current abilities to detect?

You didn't say any of those, you said cameras in the apartment. These aren't falsifiable, cameras are.

Religion to me has always been like waving or smiling at the security cameras you pass: "I don't care if you're an ass, a good guy, or what I've heard you claim. Hi there. I'm willing to be cooperative. Don't blackmail me for stealing that pen if anyone there saw that."

It comes down to: What is in the dark (just outside of our perception)? Either you just walk straight through because you've yet to encounter anything, or you dance a your little jig as you go just in case. Dancing a jig is ridiculous from a perspective just as is asking to be caught flat-footed.

Look, you can see what I was getting at?

Sounds like a variation on Pascal's wager to me.

Or boiled even further down:

Problem: THERE'S NO FUCKING ABSOLUTE ANSWER!

A) DO SOMETHING!
B) DON'T DO ANYTHING!

Both A and B are stupid.

C) Keep looking.

You know exactly what I mean with the hidden cameras Sordid. Now I am going to call you out on mocking. You are intentionally playing stupid. No, the others things are not tangible or falsifiable. That's why I said "without getting up and looking around" for the cameras. Even with the cameras: if you look and don't find any, does that mean there are still none?

Please take a statistics class if you are still in school. Nothing is truly falsifiable. Accepting that, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing right now. If you'd actually allow the effort, you could probably allow yourself to come to that same conclusion from your own wanderings but I'm doubting that with your narrow objectives.

There is no "option C" and you know that. You are doomed to leave this world, and your options of preparation in terms of spiritual whatnot are A or B. Once you trump death and transcend you can pick option C.

"lolfail" "fail" and the extreme walls of text with one or two liner responses to every sentence or segment of a response. Grow up. Please. I'm just glad ¿ doesn't have the computer right now. I'd have my own dammed wall of text but I'm restraining.

[LegoLord]

I think I may not be being very clear either.  Basically, I'm with Andrea; you can't prove either side, and when you try to it's just annoying and disrespectful - which is essentially what I've been saying (or trying to say at the very least) since my first post on this thread.  ...

Um. Atheist have nothing to prove. Furthermore since you cant prove a negative, it impossible.  It the theist burden to show god. There the one with the claim and all.

And as I proposed the question to Andrea, I'll propose them to you.

Is there a method to prove a belief correct without challenge?

Should one hold false beliefs?

Are false belief positive to hold?

And belief can be wrong.

Should one hold as few false/wrong belief as possible? 

Should it turn out that there is a god, would that not mean that your beliefs are just as wrong as any other religious person who believes in the wrong god?

Here's the thing.  Einstein didn't like quantum physics, yet he could not disprove it.  So he had no choice but to accept it.  You, as being unable to prove yourself right, by proving there is no god, and no one being able to prove god does exist, should do similar to what Eistien did, and claim self-skepticism - that is, since you are an atheist, just leave people to their religion.  It's none of your business and you can neither prove nor disprove.  Don't try to say that the burden to prove lies on those who believe; the same test that could prove something could wind up disproving it.  If you don't like religion, go try to prove it.  When you fail to prove religion, let us know.  Then try to prove atheism.  When you fail, let us know.

[Sordid]

You know exactly what I mean with the hidden cameras Sordid.

Now that you have corrected yourself, yes. Initially, however, I had no way of knowing if you simply misspoke or if you really had no concept of unfalsifiability, so I pointed it out.

Now I am going to call you out on mocking. You are intentionally playing stupid. No, the others things are not tangible or falsifiable. That's why I said "without getting up and looking around" for the cameras.

No, you said if I couldn't get up and look. That'd imply I'd been restrained in some way, and surveilance would be quite plausible in such a situation.

Even with the cameras: if you look and don't find any, does that mean there are still none?

If I looked thoroughly enough, yes.

Please take a statistics class if you are still in school. Nothing is truly falsifiable. Accepting that, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing right now.

Just because we can't prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt doesn't render our knowledge and methods of inquiry worthless.

If you'd actually allow the effort, you could probably allow yourself to come to that same conclusion from your own wanderings but I'm doubting that with your narrow objectives.

You presume too much.

There is no "option C" and you know that. You are doomed to leave this world, and your options of preparation in terms of spiritual whatnot are A or B. Once you trump death and transcend you can pick option C.

Actually no, I don't know that. And I don't see why the limiting factor on the number of options available should be the fact of my mortality - it is entirely possible that a definitive answer will be found before I die, either by God revealing himself or by physicists finally unraveling the very fabric of the universe.
Alternately, I would also question the idea that I'm doomed to leave this world. For the first time in the history of our species we have science advanced enough that we can glimpse immortality. There is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later science will give us a way to live forever. The body is after all a machine, only instead of steel it's made of carbon. As one Bart Kosko put it, death is an engineering problem. My hope is that this is accomplished within my lifetime, and judging by the speed with which our knowledge advances I'd say my chances aren't half bad.

"lolfail" "fail" and the extreme walls of text with one or two liner responses to every sentence or segment of a response. Grow up. Please.

I respond to every point that is made with an appropriate counterpoint, and since there are many I try not to be overly verbose. It's not my fault your people keep throwing shit out there like crazy. This debating technique is called the Gish Gallop, you basically make tons of claims and assertions without bothering to back any of them up. This works amazingly well in time-constrained TV discussions, where the opponent will then simply not have enough time to appropriately respond to each point, since the refutation generally takes longer than just throwing the claim out there, and the galloper will seem to come up on top. Needless to say, this is considerably less effective in a more tightly controlled setting or - and this is our case here - a completely unconstrained format where the other party can take the time to answer all the points.

Should it turn out that there is a god, would that not mean that your beliefs are just as wrong as any other religious person who believes in the wrong god?

There's a difference between true and warranted. As has been pointed out several times, we don't really have a way to really, truly know anything. All we can do is make our best estimation based ont he evidence available. It's not absolutely solid, 100% proof, and can never be in principle, but it's the best we've got. So yeah, if it turns out there is a god, then atheists are wrong (and the intellectually honest ones will amend their beliefs). But that doesn't mean their uneblief was unwarranted in the absence of evidence.

Then try to prove atheism.  When you fail, let us know.

There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
There.

[LegoLord]

To prove atheism correct you must prove religion wrong.  You just don't get the point, do you?  You're even throwing out things I've said as though I didn't say them.  As if it backs up the idea that religious people are wrong, when it doesn't.

The whole point of everything I've said is not to convince you one way or the other; it has been to get you to shut the fuck up, Sordid, and let people believe what they want.

[MrWiggles]

Um. Atheist have nothing to prove. Furthermore since you cant prove a negative, it impossible.  It the theist burden to show god. There the one with the claim and all.

And as I proposed the question to Andrea, I'll propose them to you.

Is there a method to prove a belief correct without challenge?

Should one hold false beliefs?

Are false belief positive to hold?

And belief can be wrong.

Should one hold as few false/wrong belief as possible? 

Should it turn out that there is a god, would that not mean that your beliefs are just as wrong as any other religious person who believes in the wrong god?

Neat. Pascal wager. Eventually an argument will emerge that not a century or a few older. Once again, maybe it was a god that wanted you to have sex with stuff animals, and therefore you must spend entirety in jello pudding. In the mean, I'll live my life as best I can with taking in account the feeling of other to limit my harm to them. Any somewhat decent person or god, should accept that. 'You weren't a shit. And a fairly okay guy who messed up, but did his best. ' Now the qualifier 'But you didn't believe in me. So your still going to be punished, (severity varies. COME ON CATHOLIC LIMBO!) makes that person an asshole which no reasoning, or being able to judge on a case by case basis. Our justice system though flawed is at least able to take into account circumstances.

Here's the thing.  Einstein didn't like quantum physics, yet he could not disprove it.  So he had no choice but to accept it.  You, as being unable to prove yourself right, by proving there is no god, and no one being able to prove god does exist, should do similar to what Eistien did, and claim self-skepticism - that is, since you are an atheist, just leave people to their religion.

You aren't familiar with logic are you? [I'm no expert, and please point out my fallacious I make.] You cant prove a negative. Saying I cant prove it doesn't exist is both redundant and on the verge of moronic. And it not up to me to prove god. I'll get to that just a bit.

... Don't try to say that the burden to prove lies on those who believe; the same test that could prove something could wind up disproving it.  If you don't like religion, go try to prove it.  When you fail to prove religion, let us know.  Then try to prove atheism.  When you fail, let us know.

Burden of Proof, is and must rely on the claimant. To demonstrate this, let take a peek at justice system. The cop claim that X did the crime. It up the cops to prove that X did the crime.

Now what your asking is for X to prove X didn't do the crime. We've seen this play out. It doesn't work.

You say God exist. It up to you to prove it/he does. The default position is no, neutrality with slant toward, no it doesn't.

[MrWiggles]

To prove atheism correct you must prove religion wrong.  You just don't get the point, do you?  You're even throwing out things I've said as though I didn't say them.  As if it backs up the idea that religious people are wrong, when it doesn't.

The whole point of everything I've said is not to convince you one way or the other; it has been to get you to shut the fuck up, Sordid, and let people believe what they want.

Should one hold false beliefs?

Are false beliefs good to hold?

[LegoLord]

1) you are claiming god does not exist because he cannot.  That is not a negative.  Prove he can't exist, and then you can start trying to convert people to atheism.  Until you can know that you are right, don't say they are wrong.  And the fact that you cannot prove atheism right is part of the point; unless you can prove it, by disproving the other possibilities, you cannot claim that others are wrong.

2) As a side note to #1, I think missionaries should be put in jail for trying to make people believe what they believe.

2) Most Christianity, at any rate, doesn't say anything about punishing non-believers.  I asked a teacher at my Sunday school about it once, and she just said that as long as you are a good person, you will go to heaven (this was her opinion and does not reflect mine, which pretty much says that if God exists, then good people will go to heaven regardless).  So that argument is moot.

4)  Stop trying to convert people to atheism.

5) Stop repeating yourselves.  You already pulled that "false beliefs" card, and it doesn't work unless you can prove that one belief is right over all others.

[Virex]

You aren't familiar with logic are you? [I'm no expert, and please point out my fallacious I make.] You cant prove a negative. Saying I cant prove it doesn't exist is both redundant and on the verge of moronic. And it not up to me to prove god. I'll get to that just a bit.

You can actualy disprove some things. For example, if a theory states that there should be a compound that should be created through a certain reaction under given circumstances, and you can't make the compound, even though the way you're working is right according to the theory, then the theory is false.
Another example would be proving that there is no purple horse in your apartment. You just need to make sure that you can observe your apartment in such a way that there is no spot were an purple horse could be without you seeing it. If you don't see a purple horse, then it can't be in your apartment.

[Sordid]

The whole point of everything I've said is not to convince you one way or the other; it has been to get you to shut the fuck up, Sordid, and let people believe what they want.

I'm not stopping anyone from believing anything, and I keep my rabid atheism confined to the thread that was specifically made for it. You don't, like, have to be here, you know. Don't like to be told your God does not exist? Don't read threads on atheism, then. I really don't see the problem here.

I think missionaries should be put in jail for trying to make people believe what they believe.

So on the one hand right to free belief is sacred but trying to excercise free expression should be punishable by jail time? Interesting ethic you have there.

2) Most Christianity, at any rate, doesn't say anything about punishing non-believers.  I asked a teacher at my Sunday school about it once, and she just said that as long as you are a good person, you will go to heaven (this was her opinion and does not reflect mine, which pretty much says that if God exists, then good people will go to heaven regardless).  So that argument is moot.

Again, this is a question of what exactly you consider authoritative, and last time I checked the word of a Sunday school teacher does not trump the word of God himself.

Stop trying to convert people to atheism.

How about... no?

Stop repeating yourselves.

Then stop ignoring what we're trying to tell you. It really can't be made any clearer, so repetition is a last resort, in the vain hope that perhaps it'll get through eventually.