Do all atheists believe that the Abrahmic God be disproven beyond a"reasonable doubt"

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mr. Hamtastic, May 2, 2012.

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    But you're not rejecting irrational claims. You're rejecting perfectly rational ones, and doing so on the basis of your faith. This is why you keep moving the goalposts from "reasonable doubt" to "proof" whenever the point reaches home.

    You're clearly uncomfortable with the idea that your god can be shown to be a fabrication, so again I have to wonder why you want to have this discussion. Of course, even as I ask that, the answer becomes clear: You simply want to dismiss these points. This is a self-affirming exercise for you.

    Well, congratulations on not being a fundamentalist, I guess? I don't know why you want applause for being a relatively peaceable closed-minded theist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I agree, but for all practical purposes the opposite is true. The existence of God is accepted by default, at least in the sense that mainstream religion is granted preferred status without ever being asked to prove their claims.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    Why is it that theists making the claim provide proof? Hasn't theism been around for a very long time? Generally accepted, inflicted, enforced, what have you. Freedom to not be theist comes along and Atheists demand proof, now? I don't get how that's justified. Isn't it the atheist position to accuse theism in general of lying for millenia? I thought burden of proof was on the prosecution in courts of law. How is this different?

    I personally think both sides should put up their arguments on a nice big list. Both sides be given an opportunity to defend their position from the other. Equally. Then burden of proof is on both sides, and millenia from now scholars can get together and either hammer the final nails into the coffin of religion, or the theists can continue to discuss things with atheists. Theists can only win if their God actually shows up in some undeniable way for all to behold. Atheists really only need strong doubt of, well, everyone, and then religion goes away.

    It all goes back to why I think the argument between the two tends to be ridiculous, as more often than not it's a philosophical argument with no really stronger side.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    From the looks of it, that study worked with a very specific notion of compassion, namely, something that is sometimes called "idiot compassion" - that sentimental emotion that feels and looks like compassion, but is in fact intended first and foremost to make oneself feel better, not the other person; ie. when one helps others primarily so that one wouldn't have to suffer looking at them.

    Characteristically, religion does teach about compassion, and also how to distinguish between actual compassion and idiot compassion.
    At least some religions discourage sentimentality.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    One explanation is that God has many aspects, one of them being that God is like a human.
    So talking about God in such person-terms isn't necessarily an anthropomorphic fallacy.
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I realize that there are plenty of subjective experiences of God and prayer. I can't deny them, but I don't have to accept them either, since people often fool themselves. Their beliefs influence their perceptions and how they interpret them. The scientific method was specifically designed to avoid these pitfalls, and be sure that our knowledge is reliable. There are many people for whom reliable evidence is not required or actually rejected as counter to their belief system or culture. They may indeed live full and happy lives, and more power to them. But I'm mostly concerned with the truth. I wouldn't want to live in delusion however happy it made me.

    I do acknowledge that there is a placebo effect as well as simply the effect of concentrating the mind on a specific problem, but since this is universal and not limited to the Abrahamic faiths, I don't see it as evidence for the Abrahamic God.

    You admit that there is no evidence either way, but it's those who insist there is a God who must show the evidence. It's their burden of proof. If I can show that what they call evidence is subjective and subject to delusion, then they have failed in their task. For me, knowing that all lives are temporary gives it a rare and valuable quality. What is more sublime, a bronze rose that exists for millenia, or an actual rose that lives for a day?
     
  10. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    JDawg is my hero!(sorry, left everything in quote and didn't want to go back and unquote it and figure it out. You make me fly higher than an eagle, though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  11. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    The OP was opened with the question of the Abrahamic God, which is very specific, and uses the Christian Bible as proof of existence. But that same book can be used against, due to the inaccuracies and inconsistencies found within. I don't think I need to begin a list, certainly that's been hashed out. But that was the question, and what you seem to be relying on is more deistic than a literal interpretation of that particular god. As one strays from the literal Biblical god into a more personal and unknowable god presence, it becomes more impossible for either side to present anything worth arguing about.

    So the God of the Bible as written, certainly that is disproven beyond a fact. The Bible is one of the key components, indeed the only one that can be used, as it's the only Christian proof as well.
     
  12. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    I didn't want to imply any sweeping generalizations, I just found it an interesting point that I was reminded of seeing. I will say that I've meet both kinds of religious people, those who do nice things for others and then attribute it to their Christian love, and then some that do things only because religion dictates it, but then are hypocrites to their faith in other circumstances. So, YMMV, as usual.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's an excellent point. One would think if there was a God responsible for the Biblical stories, he would be more consistent, perhaps showing us something people could not have known at the time. Perhaps being available to all the other cultures of the world, not just the Jews.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    15,901
    as an athiest its much more complicated than simply stating to disprove a god of Abraham

    first Abraham was made in UR , of Mesopotamia

    and there is proof of a deity

    but how far back in Ancient History are you willing to go ?

    are you after the truth , or what you want to hear ?
     
  15. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    The one making a claim holds the burden of proof. Interestingly, your argument of history or popularity, while incorrect as valid constructs, can be accepted and still have issues. Let's say that the assumption of what the Bible says is true without justification. Any claim against it must demonstrate its worth. Science has through time done just that, from cosmology to geology to paleontology to genetics. What we've learned about the world around us counters what's in the Bible, so even though the burden should be on the theists, even if you shift it the Bible falls short.

    So if such things that can be shown to be false are, why should more abstract things can cannot possibly be shown to not exists be held as assumed true? There's your nails in the coffin.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    15,901
    true


    Ancient History

    which is certainly NOT popular or common knowledge

    based on what constructs ?


    the bible is a condensing of Ancient History


    and what knowledge does science have of Ancient History ?



    true

    but the point is , my point is , is that , the bible is about Ancient time



    there is nothing in the Ancient past , which is what the bible is based on , shown to be false
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,451
    Except that I provided several reasons for my incredulity.

    It's true that expressions of belief or incredulity about something don't constitute formal proofs of the existence or nonexistence of whatever it is.

    But I wasn't trying to formally disprove the "Abrahamic God's" existence, Goat. I was just providing some reasons why the existence of such a God seems highly unlikely to me. (Not necessarily impossible, just highly unlikely.)
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Some people are making this proposition more confusing than it needs to be, Ham. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, regardless of what that claim is. The person claiming there is no god is just as responsible for supporting their claim as the person claiming there in fact is a god.

    Of course, knowing what we now know, having outgrown Biblical concepts of the universe, the claim that Yahweh exists has become an extraordinary one, and thus requires extraordinary evidence (for example, it is no longer sufficient to spread one's arms wide and say "How else did all of this get here?"), and can be dismissed in the absence of such extraordinary evidence.

    On the same note, the claim that such a god doesn't exist becomes almost mundane. One can point to the fallibility of the texts, or the entirely political manner in which various translations were accepted and compiled. I recently watched a lecture by Dan Dennett in which he, while describing the rigorous and genuine--and often faith-crushing--Biblical scholarship undertaken by seminary students, quoted a priest who was also a closeted atheist, and it was something to the effect of "It is impossible to graduate from the seminary as anything other than an atheist."

    I could also discuss the laughable "explanations" for the natural world provided by any of the texts, the barbaric morals codified within that speak to the supposed deity's paradoxically parochial nature, the parallels between the New Testament and the Old (and the Koran and the OT, for that matter) which hints at forgery or perhaps a retelling of old Judaic parables that have been mistaken as something else. We could of course get into the striking similarities between the Judaic myths and earlier Sumerian stories, or between Jesus and countless other gods and goddesses of the region, but this particular tack is almost too easy, and as such, Christians often simply ignore the charges.

    Point is, it isn't just a matter of there not being evidence for the existence of God, there is plenty of compelling evidence against it. If you can see all of this and still say you can believe in this particular iteration of a creator, then you must admit you're doing so on faith, not reason.

    As I said above, the burden is on any side that makes a claim. However, I do not think the final decision is millenia away. To borrow from religion, I think the day of judgment is already upon us. What more evidence do you need? Remember, all one has to show is that a god does not exist, not that one is not possible.

    It troubles me that you say this, because you are currently in the midst of a discussion in which mounds of evidence are being presented to you.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    15,901
    JDawg

    actually your wrong



    I'm not only doing this on reason , but on knowledge

    and I am an atheist
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    As I said, it's self-explanatory. Just look at your arguments against my claim: you relied on the existence of tri-pigs and exoplanetary Playmates (former Playmates, at that; not even fresh stock). In other words, to argue for the existence of your god, you are reduced to general arguments of possibility, rather than specific arguments for Yahweh.

    Saying that the evidence against your god satisfies all reasonable doubt simply means that it stands up against any argument for it, short of invoking the "Anything's Possible" trope. How far do you need to stretch in order to maintain your faith, in other words. How far away from the point do you need to travel to keep the argument alive?

    Don't do that. I already have. Whether you agree with it or not, my argument has been made.

    All of them. You've classified all arguments against the existence of God as irrational. Should I quote you, or can I trust that your memory lapse is temporary?

    "I know you are but what am I" is hardly an effective technique in any debate braving the lofty heights above the second grade schoolyard. If you can show me in which way I am closed-minded, I'd be happy to see it. I've already admitted that a creator may be possible (remember, saying that one is possible is as incorrect as saying one isn't; opt for "may be" in all cases), and I'm not simply saying "I don't think Yahweh exists," I'm actually giving a reasoned argument and providing evidence. My opinion is based on these arguments and evidences, so how could I possibly be closed-minded? If some new evidence comes along, I'll be happy to change my mind.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    ...is that all? Or did you want to elaborate?





    Hate to break it to you, River, but if you believe in God, you're not an atheist.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    River,
    The Bible may have been one culture's perception of what History was, but they had very different ideas about the subject. While some of the stories found in the Bible have some basis in fact, that doesn't mean that the whole thing is true. I've read fiction about werewolves that happened to feature historical events like the 9/11 attacks, and in ancient times, the distinction between fact and a good story was often blurred.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    15,901
     

Share This Page