Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Page 14 of 16 [ 242 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

04 May 2009, 3:20 pm

I was about to say no, and ask you if you had anything new to say about your lack of belief in other gods such as Odin and Zeus, when I realized that that was in fact something new for me to say.

So yes, here's my new question: since you believe in only one god, and feel it's an atheist's duty to disprove its existence, shouldn't you, in turn, disprove the existence of all other gods?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 May 2009, 3:33 pm

Haliphron wrote:
I'll go with 1). So this is the bottom line: The existence of an *omnipotent* God(subject to the principles of Logic) is possible but does "he" actually exist? if it cannot be proven theoretically and/or demostrated objectively or even subjectively(through direct contact from a Higher Power) then how does that debunk/invalidate the atheist position???

Theists still can go with 2 or 3(and are more likely to do so than go with 1), and atheists are probably better off going with 3 rather than going with 1. After all, if a transcendent object exists in a materialist world, then why does it exist, and how do our evolved minds access this transcendent? It creates all the more problems within a naturalist conception to go with 1.

In any case, all I cared to do was to criticize a poor counter-apologetic. Let others wring out whether a deity does exist.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

04 May 2009, 3:33 pm

Obres wrote:
I was about to say no, and ask you if you had anything new to say about your lack of belief in other gods such as Odin and Zeus, when I realized that that was in fact something new for me to say.

So yes, here's my new question: since you believe in only one god, and feel it's an atheist's duty to disprove its existence, shouldn't you, in turn, disprove the existence of all other gods?


That is an Excellent point. If a monotheist states "I believe in God, and I have faith that he is real", well if you make a statement of faith, especially blind faith, then you're not obligated to prove it. Slowmutant, who is catholic once acknowledge that believing in God is about faith, in his words "either you have it or you dont". But if you believe in God and state it as fact that you Do bear the burden of proof!



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

04 May 2009, 5:35 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
I'll go with 1). So this is the bottom line: The existence of an *omnipotent* God(subject to the principles of Logic) is possible but does "he" actually exist? if it cannot be proven theoretically and/or demostrated objectively or even subjectively(through direct contact from a Higher Power) then how does that debunk/invalidate the atheist position???


Theists still can go with 2 or 3(and are more likely to do so than go with 1), and atheists are probably better off going with 3 rather than going with 1. After all, if a transcendent object exists in a materialist world, then why does it exist, and how do our evolved minds access this transcendent? It creates all the more problems within a naturalist conception to go with 1.

In any case, all I cared to do was to criticize a poor counter-apologetic. Let others wring out whether a deity does exist.


The OP obviously belives that a transcendent, supreme being(God) exists and his questioning of atheists as to whether they have anything new to say presumes that God exists a priori and those who dont belive this bear the burden of proof.
But what Im insisting is that those who make a claim that God exists( or the counter-claim that God definitely Doesnt exist), are the ones obligated to prove to the rest of us that their claims are true! Im actually more of an agnostic than a devout atheist but if something cannot be proven using logic and/or physical/subjective evidence then that makes it non-fasifiable and a matter of FAITH. That being said, unless believers have something New to SHOW me, I have nothing New to SAY. :wink:



Last edited by Haliphron on 04 May 2009, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

04 May 2009, 10:36 pm

One of the outstanding differences between believers and non-believers is that believers feel there is some huge lack in understanding the universe through observation and integration of those observations into a coherent consistent picture. Observationists are satisfied that the universe offers tangible solutions to the questions of how things function and where they originated and how they will progress. They can accept that there is still a great deal yet to be accounted for and are willing to leave these things as yet to be fully explored. People of faith seem to rely on outdated assumptions, some of which have been proved totally inadequate and some which provide no current means of validation nor seem likely to ever yield to observational techniques. They are extremely uncomfortable with accepting temporary ignorance and continually manufacture proposed solutions which are unprovable and, to a very large extent, inconsistent with either previous suppositions or observable scientific laws. They intellectually wander through tangles of inconsistencies never being able to resolve their differences and this historically leads to violent and totally unnecessary conflicts causing all sorts of misery and confusion.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 May 2009, 11:47 pm

Haliphron wrote:
The OP obviously belives that a transcendent, supreme being(God) exists and his questioning of atheists as to whether they have anything new to say presumes that God exists a priori and those who dont belive this bear the burden of proof.
But what Im insisting is that those who make a claim that God exists( or the counter-claim that God definitely Doesnt exist), are the ones obligated to prove to the rest of us that their claims are true! Im actually more of an agnostic than a devout atheist but if something cannot be proven using logic and/or physical/subjective evidence then that makes it non-fasifiable and a matter of FAITH. That being said, unless believers have something New to SHOW me, I have nothing New to SAY. :wink:

The OP does believe in God.

The OP wants something new, I don't see why this forces a burden of proof onto him. It suggests nothing of the sort.

Not only that, but I don't see why holding a belief requires a proof of it. After all, beliefs can be a result of information that cannot truly be conveyed. Take the problem of evil to a Holocaust survivor, the intensity of such a problem became severe afterwards, either warping the nature of God or leading to atheism within that group of people, and this is due to the phenomenal perception of this, a perception that is difficult to convey but is still valid. I don't see why other beliefs can't have this sort of phenomenal perceptual basis to some extent.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

05 May 2009, 5:00 am

Sand wrote:
One of the outstanding differences between believers and non-believers is that believers feel there is some huge lack in understanding the universe through observation and integration of those observations into a coherent consistent picture. Observationists are satisfied that the universe offers tangible solutions to the questions of how things function and where they originated and how they will progress. They can accept that there is still a great deal yet to be accounted for and are willing to leave these things as yet to be fully explored. People of faith seem to rely on outdated assumptions, some of which have been proved totally inadequate and some which provide no current means of validation nor seem likely to ever yield to observational techniques. They are extremely uncomfortable with accepting temporary ignorance and continually manufacture proposed solutions which are unprovable and, to a very large extent, inconsistent with either previous suppositions or observable scientific laws. They intellectually wander through tangles of inconsistencies never being able to resolve their differences and this historically leads to violent and totally unnecessary conflicts causing all sorts of misery and confusion.


You raise an interesting point that they are unwilling to accept temporary ignorance, but cling to permanent ignorance: "there are things that man cannot know", or "There are things that man should not know"(represented by the tree of knowledge).


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

05 May 2009, 6:07 am

Fuzzy wrote:
You raise an interesting point that they are unwilling to accept temporary ignorance, but cling to permanent ignorance: "there are things that man cannot know", or "There are things that man should not know"(represented by the tree of knowledge).

Many atheists come up with possible explainations of things and cling to them too strongly as well, to avoid temporary ignorance. That's human nature.

Many agnostics assert permanent ignorance about the existence of God.

What you're pointing out is something that humans do normally, not something unique to theists.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 May 2009, 7:27 am

Ancalagon wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
You raise an interesting point that they are unwilling to accept temporary ignorance, but cling to permanent ignorance: "there are things that man cannot know", or "There are things that man should not know"(represented by the tree of knowledge).

Many atheists come up with possible explainations of things and cling to them too strongly as well, to avoid temporary ignorance. That's human nature.

Many agnostics assert permanent ignorance about the existence of God.

What you're pointing out is something that humans do normally, not something unique to theists.


Please rest easy as I am not attempting insult. My method of gaining knowledge through observation and validation involves a method that excludes any indication of the existence of a God or the necessity for one. No matter how many people insist on this existence without the validation I consider imperative I can only conclude the believers are subject to an unfortunate delusion.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

05 May 2009, 7:57 am

Ancalagon wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
You raise an interesting point that they are unwilling to accept temporary ignorance, but cling to permanent ignorance: "there are things that man cannot know", or "There are things that man should not know"(represented by the tree of knowledge).

Many atheists come up with possible explainations of things and cling to them too strongly as well, to avoid temporary ignorance. That's human nature.

Many agnostics assert permanent ignorance about the existence of God.

What you're pointing out is something that humans do normally, not something unique to theists.


Point taken. I was blind to that.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

05 May 2009, 8:26 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.

Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."


my view of the internet is this:


he that falsely prospers due to the dance of his fingers that spell with gravity and anonymity to the unknowing world, who he wishes truly to be , will, with eventuality, find that his finger's lies will nary point to that habitat in which he has always wanted to be.

i can not really answer this thread because i do not understand it, and i have ony 4 other posts on my "most recent post" screen to choose from.



Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

05 May 2009, 10:39 am

Ancalagon wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
You raise an interesting point that they are unwilling to accept temporary ignorance, but cling to permanent ignorance: "there are things that man cannot know", or "There are things that man should not know"(represented by the tree of knowledge).


Many atheists come up with possible explainations of things and cling to them too strongly as well, to avoid temporary ignorance. That's human nature.

Many agnostics assert permanent ignorance about the existence of God.

What you're pointing out is something that humans do normally, not something unique to theists.



Not I(in bold). But I admit that Im not overly flexible in terms of what I consider admissible/sufficiently strong evidence required to convince me that God in fact, does exist.



MattShizzle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 777

07 May 2009, 1:35 pm

The answer is of course that the rules of logic demand that the burden of proof is always on the person who claims something exists.



LostInEmulation
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,047
Location: Ireland, dreaming of Germany

07 May 2009, 2:14 pm

MattShizzle wrote:
The answer is of course that the rules of logic demand that the burden of proof is always on the person who claims something exists.


Indeed. A point which the FSM beautifully illustrates :)


_________________
I am not a native speaker. Please contact me if I made grammatical mistakes in the posting above.

Penguins cannot fly because what cannot fly cannot crash!


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

07 May 2009, 4:15 pm

these threads are enjoyable and laughable to read. proof in this and proof in that. much which is said by one group will be completely dismissed by the other. biases and prejudices enfetters many of the people here. im pretty sure many of you partake into these silly discussions mainly because you like arguing or feeling superior to another. very little of mutuality.

as i sit on my high horse, i cannot but think:

the people they argue over nothing. ill be glad once im dead, that way i dont have to bother with any of this.

HYAW! GIT!!


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 May 2009, 6:37 pm

oscuria wrote:

the people they argue over nothing. ill be glad once im dead, that way i dont have to bother with any of this.

HYAW! GIT!!


You won't be anything once you are dead.

ruveyn