Atheists what is your proof?

Face it people, everything is particles. There is no God, no sin, no heaven, no hell, nothing to be guilty of just for being a living being. Get over it and live in the modern world, it's great. We can have stem cells rebuilding all our parts, we can have computer chips in our brains,we can live forever. Through science, we can create everything that religions promise but can't deliver.
Everything else can be achieved through the natural science of mediation as practiced in Buddhism. This includes awareness of self, well-being, happiness, mental health, and a positive outlook on life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you're simply designating anything that works in a manner beyond (your) direct perception as unreliable

If you can't see how all that you mention are merely extensions of the senses (and hence just as inherently fallible as them) you certainly are crazy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we don't understand how it works, we don't understand how it works. Yet. But you are saying you do know how the unknown works. Why is that?

I did not mean to imply that. I just mean that the observable includes that which is observable through indirect means. The fallibility of the observation is reduced by requiring the observation to be repeatable and observer-independent. There is no such check on fallibility in religion, and so it's not a reliable explanation for that which is observed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

given the mammoth slice of our experiences that also evade our ability to reduce down to particles, its easy to see how such a narrow world view lets one entertain that there's not much of anything

you mean to say we can watch star trek and let our imaginations run away?

It can't even stop your molars rotting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You will have to define the word god before I can answer this.

What other kind of proof is there?

True, I can't prove that Santa doesn't exist either.

Ask those who were working in the World Trade Center on Sept 11, 2001.

Nope, they were/are Methodists

ASS/U/MING that you are talking about the Biblical god, then I'd have to say it was Bible study that opened my eyes to the absurdity of the idea.

Do I? The theory of evolution is only a small part of the evidence of Genesis being a myth. (Actually, it was when I was around 6 and I "created" a rainbow in my back yard with a water hose that made me realize that there was something screwy in the Noah story.)

Fascinating - yawn. By the way, how do you reconcile that with Genesis? (ASS/U/MING we are discussing the Biblical god.)

 

Yeah, sounds like a faulty design to me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

actually I am simply saying that you relegate anything beyond (your) direct perception as myth or something subject to (unrealistic levels of) doubt.

Never mind esoteric issues of divinity, t makes me wonder how if you didn't witness your own conception nor carry out genetic tests on the persons who claim to be your parents, how you could function in a social setting

so tell us exactly how a telescope or thermometer or whatever is observer independent

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

why?

 

I can't think of anything that isn't produced through the interaction of particles.

I guess you missed when I said:

Not sure what you are getting at. The people I consider my parents are that because of my experiences with them.

A wide variety and number of people can see the same image. The image can be printed out and measured. It's image is no more controversial than the fact that drivers can see the same stop sign.

 

Rotting teeth might be expected if teeth just evolved. You know, as long as you live long enough to reproduce and see that your offspring survive then that's all Mother Nature needs you for. You can starve to death after that.

But, just for fun, let's say some omnipotent, omnisicient being designed humans... You would think that he (or she) would've had the foresight to make teeth that don't decay.

 

Actually it can. We know what causes that now. If you brush your teeth after every meal, don't use sugar, and go to the dentist often, you will probably not get cavities. I didn't even get one until I was 18. And even if you do, it can be fixed or replaced.

 

that's because you have a pathological drive behind your reductionist outlook that allows you to entertain alot with your fertile imagination (while simultaneously pretending it is also evidenced)

telescopes et al are not indirect means

Maybe dawkins could pen a book "the parent delusion" to set you straight on the facts

huh?
You trying to tell me that a stop sign holds the same signification in all times, places or circumstances?

 

Religious people very rarely change their interpretation. Different people have different interpretations. That is not the same thing.

Most Christians recognize the presence of God in the natural world, and as part of it, so technically the acts of God should be indistinguishable from "science". IOW, God created the science, and exerts His Will through it.

It is overly insulting to say someone has the "flawed mindset of a theist". Can't we discuss ideas around here without resorting to insults. In fact, isn't there some kind of famous quote regarding the weak argument being the one that DOES resort to insults?

This seems like perhaps the most common "defense" of atheism. "We don't have to prove anything because we aren't making a 'positive' claim." Frankly, given the historical precedence of faith in one or more gods, I would think it just as fair to say the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He is the one making the relatively new claim (that there is no god). For my part, I think it is an equal requirement. If either side wants to convince the other, then they need to provide proof.

This is a just plain silly statement. I haven't read anything in this thread to suggest that Christians think they have a monopoly on the word "god". If anything, Christians are in a habit of distinguishing their God from other gods through the use of capitalization. The reason for this is because other gods - those that are part of a pantheon - are commonly known by a proper name. Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh is commonly known simply by the word God. No one thinks they own the word; it's just a matter of language and semantics.

Since you are NOT a monotheist, I don't see how you are in any position to make claims about anything making monotheists uncomfortable.

Statements like that have enough testable parameters that they can be proven. Most Christians define God in such a way that testable parameters can be established, but they are all regarding the change in a person that Christians credit God with. Since this is a subjective thing, few atheists are willing to accept it. Instead, they insist on testable parameters that no one has credited God with, and so of course nothing can provide evidence. It's like the "no true Scotsman" argument. If you are going to only allow a God that follows the parameters you accept, and any that fail said parameters will be rejected, then you are simply creating your own definition of God that frankly doesn't mesh with the definition most Christians provide. In this way, atheists try to frame arguments in such a fashion that they are impossible to "disprove", and that is a logical fallacy. Shame on those who would claim such faith in logic and proof to resort to such fallacies just so they can "be right".

The same reason scientists try to fit THEIR findings into their hypotheses. 'Cause that's just what an intelligent person does.

Ha! That is SO not true. If you are so inclined, a thirst for knowledge and understanding is going to push you to discover and understand more regardless of whether you believe in a/God or not.

Since Christianity as a religion promises things that are not of this world (or even universe), modern science most definitely CANNOT deliver. It's like living underwater, and claiming that hydrodynamics can get you up a mountain. They are two separate things, with no overlap. Travel on land requires one kind of knowledge; travel in the water another. Physical knowledge will get you anywhere in the universe; Spiritual knowledge will get you through a Spiritual realm (assuming it exists - Obviously, if it doesn't exist, it is a wasted effort - but it doesn't infringe upon the Natural world either way).

 

just see
you didn't even make it as a teenager cavity free, what to speak of old age

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Or you can pray not to get a cavity, and use the excuse that God is mysterious when it doesn't work.

 

If it's not of this world, how do you know about it?

 

Well that's kinda the whole point to every religion, isn't it? People from any religion believe that a god or gods has revealed these spiritual truths to them.

What this all boils down to is that atheists believe knowledge derived from logic is the only valid knowledge; religious people don't.

 

So it is of this world after all?

I never said that knowledge derived from logic is the only valid knowledge. I did suggest that such spiritual practices as meditation constitute a valid method for achieving self-knowledge and exploring the mind. However, one cannot take this kind of knowledge on faith from another person, it's essentially personal.

 

SolusCado

They do. How are you going to prove I have an INVISIBLE elf.

I can just keep saying it's there but you're not seeing it. And on and on.

You can't test for it. You can only say there is no evidence for it.

Sure, I don't.

Yes shame on us. Are you suggesting that we just take it on faith. What's the point.

Say I was in charge, the supreme ruler of the earth and I said that if you have to accept Lord Kazamatron as your savior. Yet you had no evidence of Lord Kazamatron and when you ask for any they say we can not know Lord Kazamatron we only know he is there.

Your telling me that you wouldn't have a few more questions for me. Or would you just accept it on faith.

Exactly and there are a lot of intelligent theists, thank god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The key for both is to not force that which does not fit into it.

You misunderstood. That is what I am saying as well. If he thinks that we are just going to say god did it and walk away he doesn't know us very well.

We are curious and we want explanations, so we will keep pushing for new knowledge forever.

Doesn't matter whether you believe or not, you're still human.

 

Really? Then why do almost all discussions about "god" (in quotation marks) wind up being about God (captial G -aka Jehovah)?

I don't believe in Jehovah, however I do equate the word "god" with the Universe (aka - Pantheism). Am I an atheist?