Objecting the concept of a Deity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2012, 11:33 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(22-12-2012 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 04:46 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  What I want is for my last three posts to be proven wrong, and i doubt you can. And when you cannot, I wish for an apology. Which I probably won't receive, as a forum of "big babies" are too childish to do. So really, the only way anyone can PROVE me wrong on anything I've said on here, then it would be the post of an apology. Wink Otherwise I probably have nothing to gain from this forum as I may have once thought.
No, you have been shown to be wrong in your primary thesis.

You stated:
Quote:My theory is this; those who harbor such a strong objection to the existence of God are those whom have had certain events unfold in their lives.

I responded that the reason many atheists object to belief is that there is no evidence; there were no 'events' that unfolded. You never responded to this.
One of my problems with the whole lack of evidence is proof of non existence schtik, aside from the proving a negative thing, in relation to the christian deity is that if god does in fact exist not finding evidence for him is exactly what you should expect given his "mission statement" and what data there is of his nature.

A) Values faith above all
B) Contends that proof denies faith
C) Is omnipotent
D) Is thus motivated to confound and capable of confounding any attempt at gathering evidence into his existence.

Doesn't really work as a proof that God exists because we have no evidence, but makes your assertion that a lack of evidence proves he doesn't far less satisfactory. Ive brought this up a few times, so far no ones touched it, maybe this thread is as a good a place for it as any.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
23-12-2012, 02:50 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2012 09:51 AM by Vera.)
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(22-12-2012 04:46 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  What I want is for... it would be the post of an apology.
And I wish for my own private island. Fat chance either of us is getting what we asked for.

Did you even read your own whining, child-stomping-his-foot-on-the-ground, posts? And you have the gall to call folks here childish? This has got to be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen. Only, the kettle wasn't really black.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
23-12-2012, 03:05 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(22-12-2012 11:33 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you have been shown to be wrong in your primary thesis.

You stated:

I responded that the reason many atheists object to belief is that there is no evidence; there were no 'events' that unfolded. You never responded to this.
One of my problems with the whole lack of evidence is proof of non existence schtik, aside from the proving a negative thing, in relation to the christian deity is that if god does in fact exist not finding evidence for him is exactly what you should expect given his "mission statement" and what data there is of his nature.

A) Values faith above all
B) Contends that proof denies faith
C) Is omnipotent
D) Is thus motivated to confound and capable of confounding any attempt at gathering evidence into his existence.

Doesn't really work as a proof that God exists because we have no evidence, but makes your assertion that a lack of evidence proves he doesn't far less satisfactory. Ive brought this up a few times, so far no ones touched it, maybe this thread is as a good a place for it as any.
I completely agree with what you're saying here. The whole Christian argument that you presented is so flawed as to be laughable. Take it to its inevitable conclusion:

E) We cannot ever prove god's existence
F) There are thousands of paths to "salvation" if you count the multitude of flavors of Christianity, but many are so wildly different that there is no way they all lead to salvation, so in fact, most of them, perhaps nearly all of them, are false paths.
G) In addition to the multitude of false paths to salvation, there are mountains of evidence against biblical teachings
H) The bible itself is so flawed, clearly wrong on many points, self-contradicting countless times, with parts that are obviously mistranslated and/or simply added by self-serving humans
I) with all of that, we simple mortals must find the One True Path to "salvation", winding our way through the maze of false paths and contradictory evidence, all the while using the incredibly flawed bible as our only guide.
J) If we don't find salvation, we burn in hell for eternity.

Omniscient God knows how ridiculous this is. Omnipotent God could easily make it work differently.

He doesn't.

So most of us burn. Billions and billions of souls burning in Hell.

And God does nothing.

But he loves us.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
23-12-2012, 03:45 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2012 03:48 AM by Humakt.)
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 03:05 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 11:33 PM)Humakt Wrote:  One of my problems with the whole lack of evidence is proof of non existence schtik, aside from the proving a negative thing, in relation to the christian deity is that if god does in fact exist not finding evidence for him is exactly what you should expect given his "mission statement" and what data there is of his nature.

A) Values faith above all
B) Contends that proof denies faith
C) Is omnipotent
D) Is thus motivated to confound and capable of confounding any attempt at gathering evidence into his existence.

Doesn't really work as a proof that God exists because we have no evidence, but makes your assertion that a lack of evidence proves he doesn't far less satisfactory. Ive brought this up a few times, so far no ones touched it, maybe this thread is as a good a place for it as any.
I completely agree with what you're saying here. The whole Christian argument that you presented is so flawed as to be laughable. Take it to its inevitable conclusion:

E) We cannot ever prove god's existence
F) There are thousands of paths to "salvation" if you count the multitude of flavors of Christianity, but many are so wildly different that there is no way they all lead to salvation, so in fact, most of them, perhaps nearly all of them, are false paths.
G) In addition to the multitude of false paths to salvation, there are mountains of evidence against biblical teachings
H) The bible itself is so flawed, clearly wrong on many points, self-contradicting countless times, with parts that are obviously mistranslated and/or simply added by self-serving humans
I) with all of that, we simple mortals must find the One True Path to "salvation", winding our way through the maze of false paths and contradictory evidence, all the while using the incredibly flawed bible as our only guide.
J) If we don't find salvation, we burn in hell for eternity.

Omniscient God knows how ridiculous this is. Omnipotent God could easily make it work differently.

He doesn't.

So most of us burn. Billions and billions of souls burning in Hell.

And God does nothing.

But he loves us.
Your points are good, its why where Ive mentioned this idea before, Ive subtitled it the "Gods a dick" rule. However, if there is one thing that is self evident and there is a mountain of evidence for, its that the bible is the work of man and mans work with the bible has mostly been a giant cluster fuck. I'm prepared to give god the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I think "meh", the bible however I just think, "bitch please".

I saw a piccy of a church billboard saying, Evolutions a lie, to which someone had a attached a note saying "If you have evidence, write it up, submit it for peer review and wait for your Nobel prize." A fine sentiment, but that cuts both ways. If you've proof for the non existence of God, "Write it up, submit it for peer review and wait for your Nobel prize."

I don't really see that I'm presenting a "christian" argument, I'm just saying that in the broadest sense the characteristics of the deity in question, make it probable if he did exist that evidence of him, is never going to be found, because that being can bend, break, obviate, finesse, ignore the rules to milk us for the faith he values in us. Or we'll never find evidence, because he does not exist. Either way, science can get on with curing disease, making better bridges, etc and the quest for understanding God, can be left to the men in funny hats.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Humakt's post
23-12-2012, 03:58 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 02:50 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 04:46 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  What I want is for... it would be the post of an apology.
And I wish for my own private island. Fat chance either of us is getting what we asked for.

Did you even read your own whining, child-stomping-his-foot-on-the-ground, posts? And you have the gall to call folks here childish? This has got to be the best example of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seeen. Only, the kettle wasn't really black.
Can I have a part of your island?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 04:04 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 03:58 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Can I have a part of your island?
Sure. The one that's underwater Cool

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 04:21 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 04:04 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(23-12-2012 03:58 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Can I have a part of your island?
Sure. The one that's underwater Cool
Well you gotta let me on board 'cos I'm bringing the booze Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2012, 04:55 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 04:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well you gotta let me on board 'cos I'm bringing the booze Big Grin
Well, I guess you can stay... at least until we finish the booze. You may even get to stay after it's been drunk - I'm sure you'll be pretty good for running some errands and just to have around, instead of a puppy.

[Image: cute-puppy-licking-smiley-emoticon.gif]
(Bone comments not allowed.)

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
23-12-2012, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2012 05:07 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(22-12-2012 11:33 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 05:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you have been shown to be wrong in your primary thesis.

You stated:

I responded that the reason many atheists object to belief is that there is no evidence; there were no 'events' that unfolded. You never responded to this.
One of my problems with the whole lack of evidence is proof of non existence schtik, aside from the proving a negative thing, in relation to the christian deity is that if god does in fact exist not finding evidence for him is exactly what you should expect given his "mission statement" and what data there is of his nature.

A) Values faith above all
B) Contends that proof denies faith
C) Is omnipotent
D) Is thus motivated to confound and capable of confounding any attempt at gathering evidence into his existence.

Doesn't really work as a proof that God exists because we have no evidence, but makes your assertion that a lack of evidence proves he doesn't far less satisfactory. Ive brought this up a few times, so far no ones touched it, maybe this thread is as a good a place for it as any.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and no atheist on here will tell you so. Lack of evidence equates to an improbability of existence, and that is how a skeptic should operate. Skeptics maintain truths grounded on probabilities, since nothing can be proven one hundred percent (keep in mind Skepticism is not synonymous with atheism). You wouldn't say there is an equal amount of probability for the planet Nimburu to exist or not, just like with any other myth or legend. Therefore, it is safe to assume that, based on probabilities, it is more likely that Nimburu does not exist.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Logica Humano's post
23-12-2012, 07:28 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(23-12-2012 05:01 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-12-2012 11:33 PM)Humakt Wrote:  One of my problems with the whole lack of evidence is proof of non existence schtik, aside from the proving a negative thing, in relation to the christian deity is that if god does in fact exist not finding evidence for him is exactly what you should expect given his "mission statement" and what data there is of his nature.

A) Values faith above all
B) Contends that proof denies faith
C) Is omnipotent
D) Is thus motivated to confound and capable of confounding any attempt at gathering evidence into his existence.

Doesn't really work as a proof that God exists because we have no evidence, but makes your assertion that a lack of evidence proves he doesn't far less satisfactory. Ive brought this up a few times, so far no ones touched it, maybe this thread is as a good a place for it as any.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and no atheist on here will tell you so. Lack of evidence equates to an improbability of existence, and that is how a skeptic should operate. Skeptics maintain truths grounded on probabilities, since nothing can be proven one hundred percent (keep in mind Skepticism is not synonymous with atheism). You wouldn't say there is an equal amount of probability for the planet Nimburu to exist or not, just like with any other myth or legend. Therefore, it is safe to assume that, based on probabilities, it is more likely that Nimburu does not exist.
Yeah, I think I covered that with meh. But yeah, nothing is 100%, thats why I'm skeptical all round the houses. Nimburu, I keep vaguely hearing about this ? planet ? I must admit if Ive heard any specifics they havent stuck, so I would not even say meh to that but, huh? huh in a completely non interested listening to von danken telling me stuff kinda way. In actuality though, theres a line between the skepticism I'll happily extend to everything including my own existence, and the practical matter of fact way I deal with that existence. Intellectually, I have little problem, that I may not exist or that gravity is just a misunderstanding of a giant invisible hand pushing on my head say, sure not likely, but I can entertain the concept, however when I'm forced to interact with the reality that persists on presenting itself to me I take the pragmatic view that physics doesn't give a shit and taking liberties with it hurt. On atheism and all of that, I dont feel any pressing need for God, in either mode, I don't dismiss it either. In the realm of conjecture, its an impossability in the realm of my everyday life an irrelevance.

If there are things I believe in with certainty, its not gravity although I believe I wont float away, its things like free speech, the wrongness of capital punishment. Even theoretically I'm for free speech and think capital punishment is wrong with total conviction, whilst equally being totally opposed to the concept of absolute morality. Kinda like how the bible is self contradicting, how its evidently false and the absolute truth at the same time. Happily at least for me I can reconcile this contradiction without batting an eye lid, I suppose it because I see these absolutes as absolutely mine, and have no problem seeing that other peoples absolutes can be completely different or even the exact opposite, even if I think they're wrong and would and in fact do label those who condone capital punishment as savages I have no doubt they can be as convinced and with equal justification as I am, fortunately for me I live in the UK so capital punishment is an academic issue for me, however it informs my choices of where I would visit, I would no more set foot in America than I would take a jogging holiday in the Congo.

But, all in all, yes totally agree, except maybe not with no atheist here, one or two might and the statement that evidence should exist and doesnt so ta dah, is little close for taste, but no ones used the exact phrase you site, to me at least, although there are proponents of the ta dah, shazam argument around.

Well I think that wall o gibberish is as good a reason as I need to go to bed, so in conclusion, yeah and meh.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: