As a skeptic, I find this to be a problem with how everyone seems to point out how God must not exist because there is no 'proof.' Well I challenge you to 'prove' anything. Just because you can see or experience something doesn't mean it actually exists. Just because you can't see or experience something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Decartes' proposed that if you can doubt something, then there is no way to prove it is absolutely true. He simply didn't go far enough in his meditations to prove that we may not exist. But getting back to the point, How can all of you who claim that God doesn't not exist because there is no proof, when you don't really have proof of anything at all.

I challenge you to disprove God is real then. Time and time again I hear athiests asking me or another believer to prove God is real, how about disproving God.

In the end Athiests and thiests alike rely on faith. Athiests generally use the common contradictory statement on God, but again, if the beings complexity is infinite, understanding it fully is impossible, thus it can still do anything, and everything, and be everything at anytime.

Just becuz you can't understand something, doesn't mean it makes it false, as the human mind in itself is a limit. God logically can exist, but it's characteristics are seemingly illogical to the human mind.

Athiests use the contradictory statement of God not being able to create itself, thiests use the contradictory statement that the laws of the Universe cannot create themselves, and that chance is an eventuality that never exists, only natural law.

In the end athiests and thiests alike are left to faith.

I am generally a believer, but I base it off of things that seem utterly super natural. Things that cannot be explained scientifically.

I can't disprove God is real.

I believe in nothing Lebowski

not true. you can't prove a negative. its been said a thouand times here. disprove the existence of invisible fern shaped aliens. disprove the pink flying unicorn. disprove the existence of a black hole shaped like a raccoon. you can't. it is a nearly universal tenet that if you claim something exists, you have to prove it, or people are not inclined to take your word as authoritative. you do not say "hey i have a million dollars", and then when someone doesn't believe you, say "prove that i don't". no, the proof is that you can't buy anything worth $ 1 million, and the proof that god doesn't exist is that there is nothing that has ever happened in the world that is attributable to his direct action. there is, in fact, a total lack of evidence that a god exists.

Indeed that is true, but again you can't say it simply doesn't exist. Lack of evidence it does exist indeed, but you can't simply say, "well you have no proof, so it must not exist".

This being is like the wind, you can't see it, but you can't exactly say it doesn't exist. "It hasn't show itself to me, therefor it doesn't exist", is not conclusive data. By evidential definition it doesn't exist, but theoretically it still can.

I admit, I can't prove the supernatural experiences that I have witnessed, I admit, I can't prove anything, but I have put logic into them, I'm not just some blind sheep of God. Trust me, I put reason into things.

Indeed that is true, but again you can't say it simply doesn't exist. Lack of evidence it does exist indeed, but you can't simply say, "well you have no proof, so it must not exist".

i didn't say that. i said that you can't prove a negative and that there is no proof for a god, and therefore, no reason to believe that there is one. i didn't make a claim that god doesn't exist, just that there is obviously not one, because there is no evidence of any kind for one, nor any unexplained phenomena that must necessarily be seen as having been caused by god as opposed to any other reason.

This being is like the wind, you can't see it, but you can't exactly say it doesn't exist. "It hasn't show itself to me, therefor it doesn't exist", is not conclusive data. By evidential definition it doesn't exist, but theoretically it still can.

that's ridiculous. you can't see the wind, but you can measure its velocity, you can measure the pressure it exerts on other physical objects, you can see the effect it has on the things around it, and you can map air currents using infrared and radar technology. there's no getting that kind of evidence for god. come on, try harder than that.

I admit, I can't prove the supernatural experiences that I have witnessed, I admit, I can't prove anything, but I have put logic into them, I'm not just some blind sheep of God. Trust me, I put reason into things.

i don't trust you. you didn't even think there was evidence for the existence of wind.

How can all of you who claim that God doesn't not exist because there is no proof, when you don't really have proof of anything at all.

I don't think 'God' doesn't exist. I don't believe God exists. However, I am 100% sure that all man-made religious notions about God are completely false. You only have to look at each religion to see they are incompatable - therefor the odds of one of them being right are zero. Moderates will say 'well they are still describing the same God depending on cultural tastes'... Well maybe, but even so - I think the man-made notion of intelligent creation simply demonstrates our inability to think outside of the box and say that is impossible for there to be a "blind watchmaker".

If someone believes in God without following forced indoctrination, emotional wishful thinking or superstitious reasons, then I could allow that. However, I can not stomach the arrogance and mind numbing stupidity for people to dogmatically follow an organised religion that is obviously false from the get-go.

How can you prove God's existence if God has no direct connection to any of the senses, is boundless, infinite in nature, beyond material conception, material cause and effect, etc...? Perhaps you can try to prove it mathematically some how if God really exists but thats about it no laboratory experiments will work

If god has no existence discernable to the senses, is beyond cause and effect and material conception (? = checking his existence by other means? :confused: ) then IF he existed it would be not only unprovable but he would also be unable to do anything to "reality" as we know it and therefore might as well have no existence. If he can't affect anything and can't be detected then what's the difference between that and non-existence?
All of the above apply to the FSM, pink unicorn and invisible fern-shaped aliens. (Apart from infinite in nature, whatever that is, and I might as well claim it for the FSM as well :D ).

If god has no existence discernable to the senses, is beyond cause and effect and material conception (? = checking his existence by other means? :confused: ) then IF he existed it would be not only unprovable but he would also be unable to do anything to "reality" as we know it and therefore might as well have no existence. If he can't affect anything and can't be detected then what's the difference between that and non-existence?
All of the above apply to the FSM, pink unicorn and invisible fern-shaped aliens. (Apart from infinite in nature, whatever that is, and I might as well claim it for the FSM as well :D ).

Actually, not neccessarily. Things like zero-point energy have no direct connection the senses and exist. As well as many other things like dark matter and dark energy that have been proven to exist mathematically. There are many things not directly connected to the senses, beyond material conception that have been proven at least mathematically to exist. Also as for cause, the source of things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc... have yet to be discovered. Scriptures say he effects everything, but nothing is effected by him, he is said to be "smaller than the smallest" physically, the absolute one.

I think you guys are missing my point a little. I don't think anything is really provable, being that proof of something is a verification that it is absolutely true. So whether it is the notion of God, or the notion of the chair your sitting in, there's no way to prove that it exists beyond a reasonable doubt. So why is it that all of these people can logically accept that the chair exists, but not God?

So why is it that all of these people can logically accept that the chair exists, but not God?
Because the chair has characteristics that are agreed upon by all observers - it has four legs, is made of wood etc. It has measurable properties that remain the same no matter who is doing the measuring or when - length, width, mass etc. If you leave the room and I move it, then I leave the room and tell you where it is you will find it there; or even if I don't tell you, you will see where it is and and your observation would exactly match my memory - its "existence" does not depend upon any particular viewpoint. The chair can directly interact with us and other real objects - we can't place it exactly in the middle of the dining room because the table (another real object) is there. Etc, etc.
How many of those apply to god?

DJ - you appear to be stuck on the outdated notion that the primary atheist position is a belief that gods do not exist. You will find it difficult here, and with so many atheists, to find anyone proffering that suggstion.

I don't know of anyone who claims that a god does not exist because there is no proof.

Things like zero-point energy have no direct connection the senses and exist. As well as many other things like dark matter and dark energy that have been proven to exist mathematically. There are many things not directly connected to the senses, beyond material conception that have been proven at least mathematically to exist. Also as for cause, the source of things like gravity, electromagnetism, etc... have yet to be discovered.
Zero-point energy can be measured or at least experiments set up to do so. Direct-sensing is not the sole criterion - radar exists even though it cannot be directly sensed, but we can build devices that can sense it.
Dark matter, dark energy have not been PROVEN to exist mathematically or otherwise, they are speculative inferences/ terms to make equations come out right based on what is currently known and because of OBSERVED effects. I.e. we know that something is having an effect but can't tell what it is, hence dark matter until we do find the answer.
I didn't know we were talking about cause (as in ultimate) but cause and effect. We have things falling to the ground - an effect. The cause is called gravity.
We have the universe expanding at a particular rate - an effect. The cause is called dark matter. (The matter itself is not AFAIK required by the maths, it's just that the name used as a catch-all term to explain the effect)
What effect is there that requires god as a cause? What experiments are there that can detect god?

i didn't say that. i said that you can't prove a negative and that there is no proof for a god, and therefore, no reason to believe that there is one. i didn't make a claim that god doesn't exist, just that there is obviously not one, because there is no evidence of any kind for one, nor any unexplained phenomena that must necessarily be seen as having been caused by god as opposed to any other reason.



that's ridiculous. you can't see the wind, but you can measure its velocity, you can measure the pressure it exerts on other physical objects, you can see the effect it has on the things around it, and you can map air currents using infrared and radar technology. there's no getting that kind of evidence for god. come on, try harder than that.



i don't trust you. you didn't even think there was evidence for the existence of wind.
Ugh, -_-

what I mean is, the effects are around us, but we just don't see it. It's like a metaphor.

But then again, that is a flawed metaphor. Your right on that.

And no, you can't exactly say there is obviously no God because it doesn't show itself. Reasons for not showing itself are obvious.

If God were to show itself to us then it would basically take away our freedom to actually think if such a being exists. We ourselves wouldn't be allowed to contemplate or think for ourselves on this matter. We were put here to learn for ourselves, if God were to show itself, there would be no learning.

Think about it, answers in life don't just come to you, and God can't just swoop down and say, I HAVE THE ANSWER FOR YOU. I am sure it can be apart of learning to figure it out yourself.

If God were to show itself to you, then it might as well give you all of the answers up front, because it already gave you one right there.

And no, you can't exactly say there is obviously no God because it doesn't show itself. Reasons for not showing itself are obvious.
If God were to show itself to us then it would basically take away our freedom to actually think if such a being exists.

But isn't that part of the "problem"? Theists claim that evidence is all around us, that god is in everything and that atheists fail to see it.
And atheists say that theists have given up thinking and looking for answers and chosen faith instead.

It's the same thing with athiests.

They claim the Universe and everything eventuated from chance, when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist.

Not even something as bullet proof as infinite causality can justify everythings eventuality, because that in itself cannot just BE, on the eventuality of chance. Thus that in itself is a paradoxal view on everythings eventuality.

This is why I say that athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.

We're both saying it can be this way because it is IS this way. In the end, all we can do is wait for death to get the answers. Unless there is no afterlife, then we will never find out.

The only way I account my belief on this other then intelligent design, is the experiences I witness. Other than that I have nothing.

In the end, both thiests and athiests rely on a certain level of faith.

I think you guys are missing my point a little. I don't think anything is really provable, being that proof of something is a verification that it is absolutely true. So whether it is the notion of God, or the notion of the chair your sitting in, there's no way to prove that it exists beyond a reasonable doubt. So why is it that all of these people can logically accept that the chair exists, but not God?
This is fucking rediculous. The chair I'm sitting on exists by the very definition of "existence". It has repeatable, demonstrable persistence throughout spacetime. It can be examined by anyone who cares to, and will be verified universally to have physical existence. How do you define existence? Damn I hate the fucking word games of the jello minded.

It's the same thing with athiests.

They claim the Universe and everything eventuated from chance, when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist.
Not even something as bullet proof as infinite causality can justify everythings eventuality, because that in itself cannot just BE, on the eventuality of chance. Thus that in itself is a paradoxal view on everythings eventuality.

This is why I say that athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.

We're both saying it can be this way because it is IS this way. In the end, all we can do is wait for death to get the answers. Unless there is no afterlife, then we will never find out.

The only way I account my belief on this other then intelligent design, is the experiences I witness. Other than that I have nothing.

In the end, both thiests and athiests rely on a certain level of faith.
This is fucking rediculous also. So now atheism is a faith based religion. Who are these idiots? Get a dictionary. Do some research. Learn a bit before opening your pie hole.

Calm down.... you seem to be getting very worked up..

I know this frusterates you but there is no need to get upset.

Handle others rebuttles lightly.

If you can't, then there's no reason to have an intellient conversation.

"ATHIESTS ARE NOT IDIOTS!!! BLAAAAAAAH!!!"

Do you even realize how you sound? I can see why you have that avatar of yours.

Calm down.... you seem to be getting very worked up..

I know this frusterates you but there is no need to get upset.

Handle others rebuttles lightly.

If you can't, then there's no reason to have an intellient conversation.

"ATHIESTS ARE NOT IDIOTS!!! BLAAAAAAAH!!!"

Do you even realize how you sound? I can see why you have that avatar of yours.
Of course that's why I have that avatar. I find that responding to blatant idiocy such as those last two posts I responded to can open up a more productive discussion.

No it can't, because it just makes you blantely idiotic to respond in that manner.

I will not debate this on you. First of all I don't give a damn what the definition on athiests is, if you can't come up with a logical explanation of how the Universe came to be by chance, then your relying on faith. Becuz even if the idea of God seems contradictable the idea of a Universe creating itself is just as contradictable.

Thus your relying on nothing but the faith when saying you KNOW there is no God, without a reason other than these blatent questions like "How can he do anything?".

Stop beating around the bush! And offer a logical explanation.

Stop calling everyone else idiots when you make yourself look like one with no rebuttle. I'm sick of people beating around the bush. "well you can't evidentaly say there's God, there's no evidence!" I NEVER DID. "Athiests don't rely on faith" WHY? "SHUT UP YOU IDIOT!"

Stop beating around the bush! otherwise i have no reason to even debate this subject with you.

I will not debate this on you. First of all I don't give a damn what the definition on athiests is, if you can't come up with a logical explanation of how the Universe came to be by chance, then your relying on faith. Becuz even if the idea of God seems contradictable the idea of a Universe creating itself is just as contradictable.

Thus your relying on nothing but the faith in your KNOWING there is no God.

Stop beating around the bush! And offer a logical explanation.

Stop calling everyone else idiots when you make yourself look like one with no rebuttle. I'm sick of people beating around the bush. "well you can't evidentaly say there's God" I NEVER DID. "Athiests don't rely on faith" WHY? "SHUT UP YOU IDIOT!"

Stop beating around the bush! otherwise i have no reason to even debate this subject with you.
Wow.

1) No scientist invokes chance when discussing the state of the universe. They do discuss the very deterministic way that it evolved from a hot, dense spacetime to what we see today.

2) No scientist says anything about the origin of the universe prior to the instant of the violent expansion known as the Big Bang.

3) The Big Bang is supported by abundant evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it.

4) Most atheists will NOT say that there is absolutely no god, unless frustrated by the ravings of ignorant theists. They will almost all say, there is no credible evidence for a god, and plenty for a purely naturalistic explanation of the cosmos, therefore belief in a god would be irrational.

5) I've been debating this with idiots for 4000+ posts now. I well know the characteristics of a feeble-minded idiot when I read one.

6) Your posts, while not completely putting you in the idiot category (yet) clearly demonstrate that you are making uninformed statements about atheists and our current understanding of the universe.

1) No scientist invokes chance when discussing the state of the universe. They do discuss the very deterministic way that it evolved from a hot, dense spacetime to what we see today.That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.

2) No scientist says anything about the origin of the universe prior to the instant of the violent expansion known as the Big Bang.Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.

3) The Big Bang is supported by abundant evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it.That still doesn't answer it's own eventuality. The Big Bang might exist, but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

4) Most atheists will NOT say that there is absolutely no god, unless frustrated by the ravings of ignorant theists. They will almost all say, there is no credible evidence for a god, and plenty for a purely naturalistic explanation of the cosmos, therefore belief in a god would be irrational.There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?

5) I've been debating this with idiots for 4000+ posts now. I well know the characteristics of a feeble-minded idiot when I read one.Ahh more slander. Your really getting your point across. I'm baffled. :rolleyes:
Your really making progress with being so crude.

6) Your posts, while not completely putting you in the idiot category (yet) clearly demonstrate that you are making uninformed statements about atheists and our current understanding of the universe.Really, you have a reasonable explanation of how chance is natural? Care to explain?

That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.

Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.

That still doesn't answer it's own eventuality. The Big Bang might exist, but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.

There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?

Ahh more slander. Your really getting your point across. I'm baffled. :rolleyes:
Your really making progress with being so crude.

Really, you have a reasonable explanation of how chance is natural? Care to explain?
Ok. I'm sorry. My bad. I will leave you alone. Have a nice time here on sciforums. :)

Sorry about the delay - my connection lost sight of this forum for some reason.
when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist.
You mean you have evidence that chance doesn't exist? What about coin tosses? What about Schroedinger's cat and subatomic decay?
Maybe so, but the big bang doesn't answer it's own question about the big bang in itself began.
Of course not, but not so many years back science wasn't even that close to an answer. The limits are being pushed back all the time.
but that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.
It's not about proving atheism true as such, so much as asking why there should be belief in god when there's no evidence for god. Atheism says "I will not believe something for which there is no evidence" it's not a true/ false thing, it's a simple statement. Why should I accept that there is god when there is nothing (apart from a very old book) that says there is?

And I am sorry for the misconception Athiesm.

I'll do the same and leave you alone. Thankyou for the welcome SuperLiminal.

You mean you have evidence that chance doesn't exist? What about coin tosses? What about Schroedinger's cat and subatomic decay?[/qupte]All a nature in itself. There's nature in everything, even if we haven't explained it yet. There's nature behind subatomic decay. Coin tosses, simple, physics.

Of course not, but not so many years back science wasn't even that close to an answer. The limits are being pushed back all the time. There will never be a definite answer. We can't go back for an infinity and just discover the origin.

It's not about proving atheism true as such, so much as asking why there should be belief in god when there's no evidence for god. Atheism says "I will not believe something for which there is no evidence" it's not a true/ false thing, it's a simple statement. Why should I accept that there is god when there is nothing (apart from a very old book) that says there is?Alright, common misconception, I apologize. Good point.

As a skeptic, I find this to be a problem with how everyone seems to point out how God must not exist because there is no 'proof.'

and WHY should we believe in gods if we dont see,feel or can detect any with our senses?

Well I challenge you to 'prove' anything. Just because you can see or experience something doesn't mean it actually exists.
how about if I whack you over the head with a rock,will that be proof enough that it exists? :D

Just because you can't see or experience something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
ok so maybe dog exists,but does it affect or interferes in our lifes in any way,or do we have a free will to live the way we want?

I challenge you to disprove God is real then. Time and time again I hear athiests asking me or another believer to prove God is real, how about disproving God.
been done millions of times already read the past treads

In the end Athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.
bulshit,atheists rely on their senses,and our knowledge we need no faith to know that a chair exists we can SEE it and FEEL it.

Athiests generally use the common contradictory statement on God,
do they???

but again, if the beings complexity is infinite, understanding it fully is impossible, thus it can still do anything, and everything, and be everything at anytime.
now who is being contradictory here???
only thing contradictory is your god and your silly book full of buffalo manure
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I am generally a believer, but I base it off of things that seem utterly super natural. Things that cannot be explained scientifically.
please do tell about some SUPERNATURAL things you have personaly SEEN??
no BS he said she said storys please.

Regulus,

Welcome to sciforums, although with some 100+ posts already I’m a bit late with the welcome.

That still doesn't explain how that hot, dense spacetime has eventuated.BB theory is currently broken and there is a strong contingent arising again in favor for alternative steady state theories.

If the BB was true then there are plenty of multi-verse and cyclic theories that overcome the apparent problem of how it began, i.e. there wasn’t a beginning.

that's no solid proof that Athiesm is true.Atheism isn’t an assertion, questions of its truth or fallacy make no sense.

There's no naturalistic explanation for chance, the as far as we know there's no evidence of it in this Universe. What's natural about chance?I strongly recommend you read some material on evolution to understand why your assertions about chance are significantly uninformed. Most seasoned debaters here understand these mistakes only too well. Some will naturally become frustrated at a beginner such as yourself.

Try www.talkorigins.org for a starter.

I'm not really a Christian, though you 2 assume me to be one. I do not deny the theory on evolution Cris, and Scorpius, I do not read the Bible.

I do not believen Adam and Eve, or the theory on Creation. Though I do sound like I am Christian, I assure you I am not. When I am talking about chance I am talking about the Big Bang happening on it's own.... incase you were both confused....

I do not deny the Big Bang, only that it can happen on it's own. Even with cyclicality, it can't, becuz the cyclicality in itself couldn't have eventuated by itself, becuz even that needs a cause on how it can be cyclical, though no beginning.

That's what I was saying. I'm not a "let there be light" bible goer.

My statements aren't Christian I swear.

But I am sick of having to repeat myself, and explain myself. We can beat around the bush all day long, but I know what I am talking about here. My arms hurt, and I tire of having to explain this time and time again.

I am not agreeing with some philosopher or biblical statement, it's something different, but I am sick of explaining it. If your misinterpreting what I am trying to explain to you, I am sorry, but I know what I am talking about here.

Because the chair has characteristics that are agreed upon by all observers - it has four legs, is made of wood etc. It has measurable properties that remain the same no matter who is doing the measuring or when - length, width, mass etc. If you leave the room and I move it, then I leave the room and tell you where it is you will find it there; or even if I don't tell you, you will see where it is and and your observation would exactly match my memory - its "existence" does not depend upon any particular viewpoint. The chair can directly interact with us and other real objects - we can't place it exactly in the middle of the dining room because the table (another real object) is there. Etc, etc.
How many of those apply to god?


So does this mean that hundreds of years ago the earth was actually flat? It had characteristics that were agreed on by all observers, they all agreed it was flat.
If everyone agrees that 2 and 2 is 5, that doesn't make them correct.


I would suggest you all read this, Plato's Allegory of the Cave (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/GREECE/ALLEGORY.HTM). It's not very long, and fairly easy to understand. It makes the idea that I'm trying to convey a little easier to grasp. Once you understand that people know nothing for certian, then you'll see why I ask people how they can doubt God, but not everything else.

Scorpius,

I'm not asking you to believe in God, I'm asking you not to believe in anything.


Superluminal,

I don't know if you will come back and check this thread again since you said you would leave, but if you do, I want to thank you for leaving. You are a dick

And as for you Scorpius, offer more words then bullshit. and the same old arguements, "we don't have faith, we feel"

Feel what, the moment before the big bang? Good arguement. Your really intelligent, do me a favor and don't preach to me the same curmudgeon bullshit from now on. You repeat the same shit with no logic behind it.

Like I said, I won't explain anymore. Take what you got from the arguement and do what you want.

I would suggest you all read this, Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It's not very long, and fairly easy to understand. It makes the idea that I'm trying to convey a little easier to grasp. Once you understand that people know nothing for certian, then you'll see why I ask people how they can doubt God, but not everything else.

I don't doubt God's existance. I agree with you that God exists. Don't put me in that catagory.

Regulus,

I do not deny the Big Bang, only that it can happen on it's own. Even with cyclicality, it can't, becuz the cyclicality in itself couldn't have eventuated by itself, becuz even that needs a cause on how it can be cyclical, though no beginning.Why can't the universe be in an infinite cycle, that never had a beginning?

My personal perspective now is that big bangs do not and have not occured and that plasma theory seems like a more plausible explanstion for the way the universe is the way it is, i.e. it is a steady state infinite entity.

So does this mean that hundreds of years ago the earth was actually flat? It had characteristics that were agreed on by all observers, they all agreed it was flat.
If everyone agrees that 2 and 2 is 5, that doesn't make them correct.

Sure, science is progressive, and will keep on learning. Just because it hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone to believe in God.

Whoa Regulus,
I don't believe that God exists, did I say something that lead you to think that? However, I don't believe that God doesn't exist either. I know its a tricky situation, but the only thing I really believe is that people don't know anything for certian.

KennyJC,
Correct, and just because science hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone not to believe in God either

It's the same thing with athiests.

They claim the Universe and everything eventuated from chance, when chance in itself has been given no evidence to exist

that's where you misunderstand. as an atheist, i have no belief in god, or adherence to organized religion, nothing else. look up the word atheist in the dictionary, it doesn't mean someone who believes in the non-existence of god. it means someone who refuses the assertion that god exists without offering any counterassertion. some athesits undoubtedly believe that god does not exist, but that belief is seperate from atheism.

and you would be hard pressed to find any collective atheistic claims, considering that they are not an organized body or association that publishes articles or teachings or makes claims. i believe some scientists or philosophers may make the claim that the universe was created through a chance occurence, but that is a different group of people altogether from atheists.

Not even something as bullet proof as infinite causality can justify everythings eventuality, because that in itself cannot just BE, on the eventuality of chance. Thus that in itself is a paradoxal view on everythings eventuality.

This is why I say that athiests and thiests alike rely on faith.

i'm gonna go ahead and say that that statement pretty much makes no sense at all.

We're both saying it can be this way because it is IS this way. In the end, all we can do is wait for death to get the answers. Unless there is no afterlife, then we will never find out.

The only way I account my belief on this other then intelligent design, is the experiences I witness. Other than that I have nothing.

In the end, both thiests and athiests rely on a certain level of faith.

not true, you're really hung up on the idea of atheism as a religion. its not, you will have to come to terms with that eventually. science is a method developed by humans to measure and explain reality. it is what we have relied on for thousands of years of human development, and when done correctly, it has yet to fail us. i would much rather rely on that to provide me with answers about the nature of the creation of the world and the possibility of an afterlife as opposed to a set of myths that have been summarily abused for political ends,debunked and partially disproven over and over again throughout the last 2,000 years.

and in addition to that, i rely on my experiences as well. unfortunately for me, i guess i'm not "ready" to see god's plan, so it hasn't been revealed to me. in which case i would say that that makes god cruel and unfair considering that no one, myself or anybody else, knows exactly how to go about asking for or attempting to acquire an understanding of this vision. it is just randomly bestowed on you apparently.

KennyJC,
Correct, and just because science hasn't (or may never) find proof of 'God' is no reason alone not to believe in God either

So you think they are both equals? When I read what every theist and every organised religion says about this sky fairy, I can not regard a beleif in God equal to that of non-belief.

As a skeptic, I find this to be a problem with how everyone seems to point out how God must not exist because there is no 'proof.' Well I challenge you to 'prove' anything.

A chair exists. I can produce an instance of it that has a relationship with reality.


Just because you can see or experience something doesn't mean it actually exists. Just because you can't see or experience something doesn't mean it doesn't

Quite correct. This is why you test that *something* against reality.

How can all of you who claim that God doesn't not exist because there is no proof, when you don't really have proof of anything at all.

Proof exists of lots of things... that computer you are using for example. The bulk of atheists I have observed don't accept the assertion "'God' exists" as truth because no supportive evidence (let alone proof) exists. Some atheists (such as myself) take it a step further by saying that some specific 'God'(s)doesn't exist. This is the result claims running thousands+ years without supportive evidence and science continually finding contradictory evidence to those claims. In fact, I am not aware of any particular claim of 'God' that doesn't fall into this category; hence, all existing claims of 'God' would be falsified.

BTW, the title of the thread didn't seem relevant:

"Faith is Faith, no matter what you think is true"

Using the expanded definition of faith the statement reads:

"Unconditional trust is unconditional trust, no matter what you accept as truth"

that's where you misunderstand. as an atheist, i have no belief in god, or adherence to organized religion, nothing else. look up the word atheist in the dictionary, it doesn't mean someone who believes in the non-existence of god. it means someone who refuses the assertion that god exists without offering any counterassertion. some athesits undoubtedly believe that god does not exist, but that belief is seperate from atheism. I apologize then. Forgive me for the misinterpretation.

I did not know... and that was an ignorance on my part.

and you would be hard pressed to find any collective atheistic claims, considering that they are not an organized body or association that publishes articles or teachings or makes claims. i believe some scientists or philosophers may make the claim that the universe was created through a chance occurence, but that is a different group of people altogether from atheists.Again, my apologies.



i'm gonna go ahead and say that that statement pretty much makes no sense at all.Your right it didn't. I am sorry. But when I said thiests I didn't mean all who believen a God, only those who believen the Omnipotence. Alright, so you don't rely on faith. Though at the same time not all thiests do. I don't. I the end I can't answer the question of why God itself was never created, thus that would also be an eventuality of chance.



not true, you're really hung up on the idea of atheism as a religion. its not, you will have to come to terms with that eventually. science is a method developed by humans to measure and explain reality. it is what we have relied on for thousands of years of human development, and when done correctly, it has yet to fail us. i would much rather rely on that to provide me with answers about the nature of the creation of the world and the possibility of an afterlife as opposed to a set of myths that have been summarily abused for political ends,debunked and partially disproven over and over again throughout the last 2,000 years.But athiests have science going for them on all other "gods" out there, but the omnipotent being has yet to be something debunked, and yet it still remains a possibility.

Again, I apologize, I didn't mean to make it sound like there's no science involved when athiests debunk "gods".

[quote]and in addition to that, i rely on my experiences as well. unfortunately for me, i guess i'm not "ready" to see god's plan, so it hasn't been revealed to me. in which case i would say that that makes god cruel and unfair considering that no one, myself or anybody else, knows exactly how to go about asking for or attempting to acquire an understanding of this vision. it is just randomly bestowed on you apparently.[QUOTE]God doesn't choose these experiences, as God wouldn't interfer with the learning experience. It would be illogical for you to be here if God takes the liberty of picking and choosing.

My experiences were signs from my relatives that were dead, one being the DVD player shuffling itself, turning on by itself and opening as I come in.

I am sorry you have never had these experiences. Though mine are luke warm. And trust me, these signs may be a gift, but they eventuated after my step father, grandfather and father died all in short span between 2003 and 2006.

I'd try that in any day for no signs.

A chair exists. I can produce an instance of it that has a relationship with reality.


So you think that reality is what you can produce an instance that has a relationship with you? I may be off, but I kind of interpret this to mean that its reality because you can interact with it, touch it and whatnot, correct? Assuming that's true, then to someone who is colorblind, a red light may be grey, but to you its red. So which one is reality?

Basically what I'm getting at is that reality is not relative. And that being true, the qualify factor of what makes something real cannot be your experience with it.

Did you read the Allegory of the Cave, the link for which I posted above?

My overall point, I think, is that everyone relies on faith at all times if they want to see something as real or believable

So you think that reality is what you can produce an instance that has a relationship with you? I may be off, but I kind of interpret this to mean that its reality because you can interact with it, touch it and whatnot, correct? Assuming that's true, then to someone who is colorblind, a red light may be grey, but to you its red. So which one is reality?

Basically what I'm getting at is that reality is not relative. And that being true, the qualify factor of what makes something real cannot be your experience with it.

Did you read the Allegory of the Cave, the link for which I posted above?

you know, i think there are two types of reality. there is an individual reality and a collective reality. for the individual, their way of seeing red is the only way to see it, and the only basis for defining all other shades of red. however, the individual can agree with others that their individual conceptions of red all have similar characteristics, and thus a real shared definition of red is established. thats the way that reality works, the indivdual has a personal reality but must necessarily act in a world where collective reality is defined in a slightly different way.

My overall point, I think, is that everyone relies on faith at all times if they want to see something as real or believable

your point fails because you are not using the word faith correctly. the word "know" or "knowledge" indicates that something is certain within the framework of your established reality. this knowledge comes from observation, testing, experience, etc.

faith is a different matter. faith is trust that something is true without express knowledge of why or how or even if this trust is correctly placed. belief is predicated on an inability to obtain empirical evidence for or against a particular hypothesis.

faith, belief, knowledge, and reality are strictly human constructs, defined by the limitations and characteristics of the human mind, and as such do not exist outside of that in any fixed way. reality, although shared by people out of necessity in order to form working societies, is a subjective thing. however, humanity has established for itself a framework by which it can understand how individual or group actions will effect their environment, lives, and interrelationships. this method of fact-based analysis is a way to collectively define reality in a way that makes sense to all but a small proportion of the human race.

My overall point, I think, is that everyone relies on faith at all times if they want to see something as real or believable

So even though atheists will have 'faith' that the 42A bus will be on time - this equates to faith that gave us religion? Is this the same faith that allows a literal beleif that Jesus was the literal son of the creator of the universe who bodily ascended to heaven?

I'm sorry but the latter is a dangerous type of faith that see's otherwise sensible people rocked towards extreme intolerance and loathing of gays, women, people of other races, cultures and new ideas.

So you think that reality is what you can produce an instance that has a relationship with you?

Nope. I am not sure what reality is. The best generic speculation I can come up with is that its the presence of information and their relationships. I particularly like the M-Theory. What I can say with near certainty is that truth has a 1:1 correspondence with reality; hence, producing an instance of a piece of reality is proof of its existence.


I may be off, but I kind of interpret this to mean that its reality because you can interact with it, touch it and whatnot, correct? Assuming that's true, then to someone who is colorblind, a red light may be grey, but to you its red. So which one is reality?

You were off :) and I'll address the hypothetical question anyway. Reality is the same for both of the people. One person is simply able to differentiate photons in more granualarity than the other person.


Basically what I'm getting at is that reality is not relative. And that being true, the qualify factor of what makes something real cannot be your experience with it.

The qualifying factor for something being real would be it's presence. We might be able to fully detect it, we might not, and anything in between. No particular claim of 'God' that I know of can be detected; hence, we have to question the origin of the claim. My study of of this has shown it's due to human psychological needs. Wesmorris summed up a groups need in the most concise statement I have ever seen. Humans need bullshit to bind them together. For the individual, people need a deep relationship with themselves. 'God' appears to be the bullshit that binds people and the ego for self-relationship. In this context, 'God' very much exists as an idea.


Did you read the Allegory of the Cave, the link for which I posted above?

Nope

Regulus:
I am sorry you have never had these experiences.
I've "met" a "ghost", "spoken" with my dead grandmother, seen several UFOs and been RELIABLY "psychic" for significant periods of my life.
At no time did I feel the need to ascribe these "experiences" to god, a supernatural or extraterrestrial agency. Or the Illuminati. :D
The first thought that came to my mind on each and every occasion was "Wow, that's strange. I wonder what caused that".
And the only reliable explanation that fits all of those is that sometimes weird shit happens.
More study would provide definite answers but each experience is so transient or subjective that it's probably not possible.

Explain a feather appearing in a box never opened, and I will take that seriously Oli :D

Cute Oli, real cute, Illuminati. :rolleyes: Yes, I believen the Illuminati are out to get me.

Oli despite the fact that we are debating I just laugh everytime you use that statement. I am sorry, I am not making fun of you, I just find how you use these explanations humorous. It's a compliment really.

Should I get involved in this topic? I am having an internal debate as to whether or not it would be worth my time.

I can't explain the feather in the box, just as I can't explain the "ghost" I met or my "psychic" periods. What I said was that I accepted them as something strange without ascribing meaning (or motive) to them.
They were just some weird stuff that happened and I didn't decide that there was a "reason" behind them.
Life is full of things that can't (at the moment, with luck) be entirely explained, but I don't jump to supernatural explanations just because something occurred that doesn't fit with what I already know.
I am sorry, I am not making fun of you, I just find how you use these explanations humorous. It's a compliment really.
Hey, if you can't have a laugh what's the point?

I can't explain the feather in the box, just as I can't explain the "ghost" I met or my "psychic" periods. What I said was that I accepted them as something strange without ascribing meaning (or motive) to them.
They were just some weird stuff that happened and I didn't decide that there was a "reason" behind them.
Life is full of things that can't (at the moment, with luck) be entirely explained, but I don't jump to supernatural explanations just because something occurred that doesn't fit with what I already know.

Hey, if you can't have a laugh what's the point?

I can't even begin to stress how important what Oli just stated is.

My overall point, I think, is that everyone relies on faith at all times if they want to see something as real or believable

I will agree that at times many people will experience moments of 'faith', (the completely worthless kind associated with belief in gods).

As an example: for no good reason I had 'faith' that I was going to win the lottery last night.

The thing with that kind of 'faith', is that once you decide to be rational again, you realise what a complete and utter waste of time it is.