Debate between theists and atheists is futile

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by coolsoldier, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    Whether or not one believes in god is an article of faith either way. There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there is no god. There are no facts to back up either argument. Why does every religion thread degenerate into this debate?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jade Squirrel Impassioned Atheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    Perhaps so, but I am sure the debate shall continue for a long time to come.

    While theism requires faith (firm belief without proof), atheism does not. There are facts that back up explicit belief that God does not exist (strong atheism), specifically that there is nothing to indicate that he does exist and many descriptions of God that have been offered are not logical and are even contradictory. While this is not irrefutable proof, it is sufficient to exclude the necessity of faith. As for weak atheism, this is mere absence of belief, which excludes faith completely.

    I guess because humans love to argue.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    I have trouble grasping the concept that an absence of proof that God exists is proof that God does not exist. There is no proof that we will wake up tomorrow either -- that doesn't mean we won't

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Edit: I'll add that the reverse is true too -- An absence of proof that there is no god doesn't prove that there is one.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jade Squirrel Impassioned Atheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    I agree it is not definitive proof. But it is convincing enough to not require faith.

    Exactly. We have no reason to believe that we won't, so it doesn't require faith. But if we did have reason to believe that we wouldn't wake up tomorrow (for example, we knew there was an asteroid on a collision course for Earth that is due to strike overnight), then it would require faith to believe that we would wake up the next day.

    Also agreed.
     
  8. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    coolsoldier, are you equally ambivalent when it comes to Unicorns and the Daoine Sidhe?
     
  9. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    No proof of presence is not proof of absense - even in the case of unicorns.
     
  10. dan6989 Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    coolsoldier,

    Here is the closest think I know of proof of a God. http://www.woodstockanddeadseascrolls.net/ As science learns how to juggle parts of the atom, and other parts within those, I believe proof of God and the spirit world will be there. Until, then lets all try to get along.
     
  11. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    You already tried to raise this silliness in its own thread without success. Efforts to inject it artificially into some other conversation are rather pitiful.
     
  12. AKA Heathen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    30
    Quote from coolsoldier;


    “I have trouble grasping the concept that an absence of proof that God exists is proof that God does not exist.”


    This is a variant of that old saw “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In this particular case, I’d have to say yes, it is. Five thousand years of general theist claims and not a shred of evidence. Two thousand years of specific mono-theistic claims and not a shred of evidence. All the while, evidence of a natural universe which works fine without anything supernatural has amounted to a “preponderance of evidence” that the universe has no need of the supernatural. Self important, shaved apes may think they need the supernatural, but the universe quite clearly does not.


    Every minute of every day humans make important and binding decisions with far less than 100% certainty. In most instances, true or false beyond reasonable doubt is more than enough. Here’s how I see the situation;


    Proposal; “Supernatural things are real” False beyond reasonable doubt.


    Observation; “Supernatural things are not real.” True beyond reasonable doubt.


    Notice that the first is a claim while the second is not. No one has an obligation to prove a negative while everyone has an obligation to prove a positive claim. A supernatural being is the very epitome of “extraordinary claims”. And you know what that means. The burden of proof has gone unanswered for millennia and I got tired of waiting long ago. Should any actual evidence come along Ill give it serious consideration.



    Regarding the concept “debate”…….well, there isn’t any debate, nor can there be. There are only the persistent and unreasonable attacks by believers against any who disagree with them. They attempt to invent their own rules for logic, reason and acceptable evidence which the various disciplines of science cannot indulge or agree with. If theists would stop trying to insinuate their peculiar beliefs into the secular world, I, for one, would be content.
     
  13. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    You can not scientifically make this claim because supernatural things are, by definition, unobservable. You can't say that anything regarding the supernatural is beyond reasonable doubt, because doubt is inherent in the very concept of the supernatural.
     
  14. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Coolsoldier,

    If something is unobservable and undetectable then you have no basis to claim it exists or is real.

    The claims for anything supernatural are therefore imaginative fictions. I.e. they are not real.

    Doubt for the supernatural has become inherent because it has never been observed. The significant (many millennia) continuing lack of observation combined with new discoveries by science that explains much that was once claimed as supernatural places the status of the supernatural well into a fallacy beyond any reasonable doubt.
     
  15. python_kiss Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    You need proof? How about this:
    e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0
     
  16. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    No matter what you pick for i, e^(pi*i)+1 >= 1.
     
  17. LaoTzu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    160
    not at all proof of God, by the way

    "i" is an imaginary number in this case. i = sqrt(-1)

    e^(pi*i) = -1
     
  18. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    Re: not at all proof of God, by the way

    Duh! How could I forget the key word "imaginary" in this case.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. dan6989 Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    What is most pitiful is people who dismiss argument too hastily without even reading it thoroughly. What is your reason for calling it silly. One thing that has been used as proof of God, is supernatural abilities and occurences. Those with real wisdom do not need these signs to lead a righteous and humble life. However, there are those who love themselves a bit too much and need to be humbled. If that ancient scroll writer saw into the future, words for the things he saw may not have existed. Words for conveying thoughts are like a painter using his backside to paint, as it is. Then add 2,000 years and language changes too. Maybe one day, what we commonly call God or the spiritual realm will be given a scientific term. That will not matter to me. Human nature as it is, needs a foundation in law and rule, which has been given to us in the form of the Ten Commandments(ten great ideas). Law and order would cease to exist, and thanks to such things as nuclear bombs, man would cease to exist also.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2003
  20. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Who made up that rule. You? By what special revelation did you come to understand the attributes of the supernatural.

    You don't seem to doubt that the supernatural is unobservable.

    Think more. Chatter less.
     
  21. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    From American Heritage Dictionary:

    Because the senses we use for observation are limited to the natural world, we can only observe things that exist within it. Anything that exists outside of this natural world therefore cannot be observed by us. Consequently, we cannot observe the supernatural simply because of the meaning of the word.

    Saying you can't observe the supernatural is like saying you can't see the invisible.

    As for inherent doubt, there is doubt inherent in anything that cannot be observed. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Coolsoldier,

    OK.

    OK. But “observation” here must also mean any form of material detection and experience, right?

    OK but also perhaps because it doesn’t exist

    Or that the claimed invisible thing doesn’t exist.

    OK but –

    If we can’t observe or detect the supernatural then we have no way of knowing whether it exists or not. But this also seems to mean that if nothing material can connect to the supernatural then it seems irrelevant to us whether the supernatural exists or not, it may as well not exist.

    Now you might argue that humans have a supernatural component (soul/spirit, etc) but then how can something outside of nature connect to nature? Also if the supernatural can connect to the natural then it must be natural, in which case the term supernatural is redundant, i.e. the supernatural doesn't exist.
     
  23. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    That is not the meaning of the word. There is no there in your therefore.
     

Share This Page