Atheist Faith

Yet athiests assume so quickly there is no god?

your statement: What takes faith is to assume that what we don't know is attributed to some god.

can be changed to:What takes faith is to assume that what we don't know is NOT attributed to some god.

The position takes faith because (without any substantial proof) athiests make a claim that is there is NO GOD. This is much different from being agnostic and suspending your judgement on the matter.

athiests have unfounded 'beliefs', thus it takes faith to say there is no god without certainty of whether there is/was a creator god or not.

Athiests get it wrong when they always feel the burden of proof is always on the religious person, and never on them. But to rule out that there was never any lfie source, or beginning, a creator (which could be called god) Takes faith. Ofcourse, then this discussion spans out into metaphysical arguments of what god is or could be.

 

No.

No.

You are dumb.

 

How do you know that conclusion is reached quickly.

If a god or god(s) don't exist, then, by definition, there can be no evidence for its/their non-existence.

A complete and utter lack of evidence for an existential claim is a solid foundation to disbelieve it. Everyone who is not insane believes this until it is inconvenient, and then an exception is created.

If an individual makes a positive existential claim, then the burden of proof is upon the positive claiment. If an individual makes a negative existential claim, then the burden of proof falls upon any individual who wishes to refute it.

If I assert that you do not have a left hand, then all you need to do is hold up your left arm and display that there is, in fact, an hand connected to the end of it.

If I assert that you have an invisible 6th finger on your right hand that resists any type of observation, then the burden of proof would fall upon me to prove this assertion true.

 

Iconoclast

Incorrect... You have no basis to claim an utter lack of evidence
in this mater. For you have not explored the evidence
You are but a small thing on a small planet at the edge of a non-descript gallaxy.
You have no abillity to claim any knowledge of what exists outside that sphere. And as you dont.. You have no claim to knowledgfe of the 99.9999% of everything beyond humanities perceptual grasp.
And in that HUGE arena of human ignorance..a god/gods could indeed be.

And you know it.

What u are saying is like a foolish old man in ohio 1936 on his porch who was told a huge thing in the sky floated past.
"What,, a load of crap.. Theres no such thing.. garbage.Never seen such a thing.. they dont exist."
An hour latter. the hindenburg docked in SanFrancisco.

Occam

 

Its too bad you just accept rumours you hear and assume they are facts.
Then proceed to draw conclusion based on that misinformation.
Too bad.

If you had even spent five minutes investigating your 'bacteria evolution' rumour, you would find out the bacteria are NOT evolving.
Sure as fuck not in the way any evolutionist wants to see or know about.
The better term is:
DEvolving.
Specialising yes... but definately NOT becoming more complex and in fact DROPPING complex information choices.

Oh oh.. I guess you got caught out.
Thats ok,
I bought into the evolutionist pseudoscience and rumours for a while too... then I started investigating.

Sorry to disappoint you.
Not really.

 

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not.
(Proverbs 3:5 NAB)

Occam

 

The only way you can bluff your way through this is to use the talkorigins 'word game' to say 'evolving' means anything changing.
'Evolution in the sense of any and all 'changes'
My car tires 'evolve' over the summer.
Actually, they become more suited to the road when summer comes near and they are smoother (better traction).
So there.
I just 'proved' that 'evolution' happens.
Uhhh
the problem is that evofundies really mean to suggest that my tires are INCREASING in complexity, tread and design.
At least the must have in some other time and place but never mind and just accept it because I said so.

No,
You are really just way out wrong about the bacteria but what you did was repeat a rumour that you are convinced 'must be' true.
Evoteachers love using that 'Bacteria' line on people like... You.
Because it works.
And you never did bother to question it either.

But hang on...
Where did you get that 'slow incremental change' thing from anyways?
Are there still Evolutionists alive that are clinging to that?
The last time that was even acceptable among hardcore Evolutionists was what.. 60 years ago?
See, the reason Evo Priests like Stephen J Gould and the 'Neo Darwinists' of today do NOT AGREE with your theory is because of something called the Fossil Record.

But again, you just think you heard somewhere that Evolutionism professes 'slow gradual incremental changes' and you posted it like it was something current.
In fact, you would get laughed out of a Pro-Evolutionism convention on that one.
At least Creationists would feel a bit sorry for you rather than laugh dont you think?

 

Occam---After TRUE BELIEVERS find "THE ANSWER" ,information flows only out from them---never in.Self induced ignorance is never very becoming in humans.

 

I have investigated all claims and evidence I have come across. That is all I am capable of doing. All claims I have seen made are baseless. All evidence is either negative or points to nothing particular. This is a solid basis to assume something does not exist. To assert otherwise is irrational.

Anything outside of my ability to perceive may be as long as it's not logically impossible. However, my actions tell me what I believe. I do not amend my actions for some god, gods, or possible gods since I have never seen any evidence of its/their existence or, if at least one did exist, how they want me to amend my actions. The possibility of a god's existence is as relevant as the possible existence of refrigerator gnomes, tea cups in orbit around the sun, or anything else outside of my perception and not logically impossible. To simply believe in something only because it is not logically impossible is irrational.

That is a inapplicable analogy.

 

Iconoclast

False
God may exist anywhere in reality.. If you cant observes such.. you have no validation to disprove.

You as much admit you dont believe it.. because you dont want to believe it..
No?
Emotion and desire has destroyed your impartial perspective.

Occam

 

I never said that I could disprove. I am simply stating that I have never been presented with any compelling evidence. No compelling evidence, no compulsion to believe.

No perspective is impartial with memory.

I can't choose my beliefs, I can only realize them.

 

Actually the logical position is that "god exists" has no more meaning than the sentence "god does not exist" - for the sentence to have meaning the statement "god exists" must be in accord with at least one condition - and that is that god actually exists. If there is no god then then it makes no sense to talk of god -since you will not be talking about anything that is evidentially true. it would be the same as saying "bruxu3nxo4co9n exists". To say "god does not exist" is logically impossible since if god does not exist then you are saying "the thing that does not exist, does not exist" It is just evidentially true that "god does not exist", since it is true that there is no evidence that would contradict that statement !

The statement "god exists" is only true iff (which is shorthand for "if and only if") god actually exists. If there is no god then the word "god" has no more meaning than the word bruxu3nxo4co9n, and so merely renders the statement fundamentally illogical. So "god exists" iff there is a god that exists but as there is no proof that god exists - the statement is invalid
and meaningless

 

Why did science look for black holes?
Because logic said they were a likely result of a supernova of greater than 3 solar masses.
Why is 'a' god no different?
Because logic says any reasoning species that survives say 20 thousand years
of technological progress.. IS to us.. 'a' god.

Occam

 

I understand what you are saying and the whole silly challenge issued by some to prove that “nothing” doesn’t exist. Aside from all that, I’d have somewhat of a problem suggesting both sides are equal in logical measure. If you were to put both arguments on a logic scale, one side would have far more weight than the other, so much so that the scale might tip over. What this comes down to is fantasy vs. reason, emotion vs. rationale, accusation vs. defense...

They are not proportional arguments, they are inversely proportional.

 

Can you explain the last sentence to me? God may be a non-denoting name, but we can not know for sure so why is it meaningless to talk about it? Russell would disagree with you about the logical impossiblity of talking about things that don't exist. Indeed, that is what his theory of descriptions was suppose to show. IF there is no God then it is false to attribute anything to It, but that doesn't mean it is meaningless to talk about.

I don't believe even if we could ever be 100% sure that God didn't exist "God" would have the same meaning as bruxu3nxo4co9n. The latter is jibberish, it surely is meaningless, the former is a description of something that is not instantiated, exactly like King Lear, Batman, etc.

 

I understand where you are going with this, but...the fact of the matter is that "bruxu3nxo4co9n" does exist. Because it is what it is. Is that meaningless? I don't think any form of existence is meaningless. God definitely exists in the same way, and it serves a purpose: to clarify the question. God does exist, but is God anything more than a word?

That's the real question, and the only way to get an answer is to investigate it -- to try and make contact with God. And you're obviously not giving it your best effort if you refuse to even believe God exists in the first place, so what tangible proof do you expect?

Not that it isn't also perfectly rational to disbelieve in God, if that's how you prefer to live. Obviously it's reasonable to live however makes you happiest.

 

i don't claim to be able to prove anything. i just want to hug my big invisible teddy bear.
not because of what i want to immagine it might be able to do, or is likely to, but
just because i love the idea that we can all hugg a big invisible teddy bear.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Dont ever speak of batman again.
He is holy

Occam

 

Ill use an example from a previous topic.

If I have the opinion that black is the best color... does THAT require faith?
No.

 

Occam, I love you.