The Passion...

[BathTub]

 I latched on to it because there needs to be a logical component of it for it to technically exist. You're asking me to prove a concept. I'm asking you to prove a concept. I was breaking it down (perhaps poorly. Work is a horrible place to debate this type of thing). Since the physical world is pretty much what aetheists believe in (IE: anything that can actually be studied/observed), then there has to be something in it that proves there's nothing of a spiritual nature that exists. I'm asking for a poof positive on that. Not just evidence, but something that's 100%. You can't give it to me. Anymore than I can give you 100% proof positive there's a spirit world/diety.

Ok, so you want to stick with the concept thing.

My concept is "Your concept lacks evidence". My Proof, you have provided no Proof.

 Actually, this was not the best I could come up with. But my best will never be good enough because 1) I'm not training in apologetics and I'm not about to pretend I know more than I do, and 2) I stand about as good a chance of changing anyone's mind as they have changing mine.

 And I realize what your point is. The entire point of my rant/challenge here is that -absolute non-belief- is illogical because nothing can be absolutely proven either way. To go with one of the 20 arguments for God, better to believe and have everything to gain than to not believe and have everything to lose. It's unfortunate that if aetheists are right, there's no way for us to know it because all we'll be is bio-waste and some non-sentient errant energy floating around.

Richard Dawkins has a scale going from 1 to 7. 7 being absolute non belief in a deity, 1 being absolute belief. Even the Great Satan Dawkins considers himself a 6.8, he considers belief in god to be on par with believing in fairies. When we say we don't believe in a god, it doesn't mean we know 100% it means that since we haven't seen any proof for god that would lead us to believe, therefore we don't believe.  Perhaps it's news to you that being an athiest doesn't mean we deny the possibility of god, many people would love for there to be a god, but without any evidence our minds fall to the side of unbelief.

I still think unbelievers need to go first. If nothing else, indulge us. If anyone can prove that God doesn't exist 100%, then the rest of us have to shut up about it forever. Think of the peace and quiet. There's your incentive.  

You say you understand, but you want to play the game anyway.

There is God or Gods. My Proof, you have no provded no proof.

Prove me wrong.

There, I have gone first, does that fit with your game?

[Tyrant]

 I latched on to it because there needs to be a logical component of it for it to technically exist. You're asking me to prove a concept. I'm asking you to prove a concept. I was breaking it down (perhaps poorly. Work is a horrible place to debate this type of thing). Since the physical world is pretty much what aetheists believe in (IE: anything that can actually be studied/observed), then there has to be something in it that proves there's nothing of a spiritual nature that exists. I'm asking for a poof positive on that. Not just evidence, but something that's 100%. You can't give it to me. Anymore than I can give you 100% proof positive there's a spirit world/diety.

Ok, so you want to stick with the concept thing.

My concept is "Your concept lacks evidence". My Proof, you have provided no Proof.

 Actually, this was not the best I could come up with. But my best will never be good enough because 1) I'm not training in apologetics and I'm not about to pretend I know more than I do, and 2) I stand about as good a chance of changing anyone's mind as they have changing mine.

 And I realize what your point is. The entire point of my rant/challenge here is that -absolute non-belief- is illogical because nothing can be absolutely proven either way. To go with one of the 20 arguments for God, better to believe and have everything to gain than to not believe and have everything to lose. It's unfortunate that if aetheists are right, there's no way for us to know it because all we'll be is bio-waste and some non-sentient errant energy floating around.

Richard Dawkins has a scale going from 1 to 7. 7 being absolute non belief in a deity, 1 being absolute belief. Even the Great Satan Dawkins considers himself a 6.8, he considers belief in god to be on par with believing in fairies. When we say we don't believe in a god, it doesn't mean we know 100% it means that since we haven't seen any proof for god that would lead us to believe, therefore we don't believe.  Perhaps it's news to you that being an athiest doesn't mean we deny the possibility of god, many people would love for there to be a god, but without any evidence our minds fall to the side of unbelief.

I still think unbelievers need to go first. If nothing else, indulge us. If anyone can prove that God doesn't exist 100%, then the rest of us have to shut up about it forever. Think of the peace and quiet. There's your incentive.  

You say you understand, but you want to play the game anyway.

There is God or Gods. My Proof, you have no provded no proof.

Prove me wrong.

There, I have gone first, does that fit with your game?

  Wow. I am so confused.

Okay, first of all, if you believe in the possibility of God, then you're not an aetheist. You're agnostic. People confuse these categories so many times it makes my blood boil. My point is for aetheists only. If you're agnostic, then you don't have to debate this unless you just want to. I know lots of -hardcore- aetheists and they are VERY different from agnostics. The terminology needs to be understood or lots of people get confused.

Second, I'm not sure what game you're referring to. I've gone over my past posts and I don't see that I started any game. I'm a very literal person (which is why Sarcasm confuses me sometimes. Yes, you confuse me, Sarc.  ) and submitted a logical challenge to the debate in partial hopes of proving my point to the aetheists and ending said debate.

  So, maybe I'm too dense and overworked to completely understand what you're trying to imply here, and it's glaringly obvious to the rest of the thread (if so, please enlighten me. Nothing sucks more than everyone knowing the punchline but you), or you really are trying to confuse me (not hard to do, I admit), but I humbly ask that you rephrase or something.

  My point was very simple and specific. Or so I thought.

[torgosPizza]

Okay, first of all, if you believe in the possibility of God, then you're not an aetheist. You're agnostic. People confuse these categories so many times it makes my blood boil.

He was quoting Dawkins, who is an atheist. I imagine it's just harder to understand the atheist point of view without being one. We are not confusing the terms, trust us on this.

I hate to reuse an old Dawkins talking point, but it always makes me laugh. You're an atheist, and you don't even know it. You're an atheist when it comes to Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, and all the other God myths that came before Jesus (and I'm sure there will be more after his). Atheists just go one god further.

[Nunyerbiz]

Going by the definition of the word... I thought an atheist denied the existence of all supreme being(s). I didn't think it could be selectively applied depending on the culture in question. Belief in Jesus as the son of God disqualifies you from being atheist... wtf does Zues have to do with it?

[Tyrant]

Okay, first of all, if you believe in the possibility of God, then you're not an aetheist. You're agnostic. People confuse these categories so many times it makes my blood boil.

He was quoting Dawkins, who is an atheist. I imagine it's just harder to understand the atheist point of view without being one. We are not confusing the terms, trust us on this.

I hate to reuse an old Dawkins talking point, but it always makes me laugh. You're an atheist, and you don't even know it. You're an atheist when it comes to Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Mithras, and all the other God myths that came before Jesus (and I'm sure there will be more after his). Atheists just go one god further.

  Point taken. But agnostic belief is still quite different than aetheistic belief. Agnostics keeps all the doors open. Aetheists slam them shut and tend to leave the one marked "science" open. The aetheists I know believe entirely in what they can see. Nothing more.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic  `vs`   http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Aetheism

 

[torgosPizza]

Point taken. But agnostic belief is still quite different than aetheistic belief. Agnostics keeps all the doors open. Aetheists slam them shut and tend to leave the one marked "science" open. The aetheists I know believe entirely in what they can see. Nothing more.

A lot of atheists, including Dawkins, would disagree with you (on the idea of being 100% certain).

This is an enlightening interview with him, and it's not that long. If you have the ability to listen to radio interviews, please check it out.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,914,Brian-Lehrer-interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Brian-Lehrer-Show-Richard-Dawkins

or

http://audio.wnyc.org/bl/bl042307dpod.mp3

[Tyrant]

   I'll have to check those out when I get home. I'm sure it's very interesting and probably makes a lot of sense.

  I do have some issues with his probability factors, though. I mean, he's even attacked agnostics from time to time. Didn't he write a book about that very thing? From everything I've read on his opinions, he seems to be the type of hardcore aetheist I was referring to in my earlier posts.   

[torgosPizza]

Going by the definition of the word... I thought an atheist denied the existence of all supreme being(s). I didn't think it could be selectively applied depending on the culture in question. Belief in Jesus as the son of God disqualifies you from being atheist... wtf does Zues have to do with it?

Let me put it to you in other terms. Do you believe in Zeus? If not, then you are atheistic about the existence of Zeus. What else would you call it other than atheism? We may be getting into another relativity debate (look out, sarc!) but think about it.

A Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. But at the same time they don't believe that Gilgamesh exists, or Poseidon, or any of the other gods that had followers. Or they may be agnostic towards them, saying "they could have existed, but I'm not really sure." Does that makes sense?

From everything I've read on his opinions, he seems to be the type of hardcore aetheist I was referring to in my earlier posts.   

In many ways he is, but he does offer clarification on "being 6.8 out of 7 on the certainty scale." If all you've read are "on his opinions" (I'm not sure if you've only been told or read about what he thinks, rather than reading him or listening to him) - then it may be worthwhile to listen to.

[J-Proof]

I'm calling right now --

this thread will go longer than forty-five pages =)

[msmpls]

I'm calling right now --

this thread will go longer than forty-five pages =)

are you a betting man, jp?

[Tyrant]

  I would be curious to know how he (Dawkins) arrives at his probability results and how he constructed his chart. How can one really calculate something like that? Not trying to debate that, but genuinely curious. Probability doesn't exactly equate proof. Probability is just that. A probably or a maybe. Not a for sure. Yeah, there can be stronger "probablies" than others, but it's still can't be truth unless there's absolutely no other option.  

  Well, perhaps irritatingly, it could be argued that Zeus and Venus and all the other gods and goddesses of other religions are certian aspects or parts of God. Like believing in the shell of the egg but not the white or yolk. I'm sure you could hairsplit this viewpoint to death, though.

[Tarantulas]

  I would be curious to know how he (Dawkins) arrives at his probability results and how he constructed his chart. How can one really calculate something like that? Not trying to debate that, but genuinely curious. Probability doesn't exactly equate proof. Probability is just that. A probably or a maybe. Not a for sure. Yeah, there can be stronger "probablies" than others, but it's still can't be truth unless there's absolutely no other option. 

   Well, perhaps irritatingly, it could be argued that Zeus and Venus and all the other gods and goddesses of other religions are certian aspects or parts of God. Like believing in the shell of the egg but not the white or yolk. I'm sure you could hairsplit this viewpoint to death, though.

You touched on an interesting point...  could the popularity of catholicism with the peoples who's "pagan" religions included an Earth mother figure in any way be connected?  Couldn't early converts just seen the one for the other?

"Uh yeah... Jesus has a mom too...  is that selling it for you?  No?  Jerry! Get the red hot coals out of the [conversion] wagon!"

Gulp!

Tyrant you are wasting bandwidth trying to skate around and around the burden of proof you have been charged with.

It is not atheisms job to explain theism.  If you can't explain it, or justify your beliefs with anything other than anecdotal evidence, then stop responding.  Also, don't knock the scientific research of a respected intellect by nitpicking it with comments like "I just don't understand..."  He has books that you can read, check your local library.  I guarantee it will have less dust on the cover than any bibles they have.

You've made the same "g-wiz" style remarks in no less than 5 messages, add something new, or step away from the podium.

[Nunyerbiz]

Going by the definition of the word... I thought an atheist denied the existence of all supreme being(s). I didn't think it could be selectively applied depending on the culture in question. Belief in Jesus as the son of God disqualifies you from being atheist... wtf does Zues have to do with it?

Let me put it to you in other terms. Do you believe in Zeus? If not, then you are atheistic about the existence of Zeus. What else would you call it other than atheism? We may be getting into another relativity debate (look out, sarc!) but think about it.

A Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. But at the same time they don't believe that Gilgamesh exists, or Poseidon, or any of the other gods that had followers. Or they may be agnostic towards them, saying "they could have existed, but I'm not really sure." Does that makes sense?

I see what you're getting and it's a compelling point. That said, if somebody can qualify as both a practicing atheist and christian at the same time, then you're just circumventing the generally accepted definition of the word.

[Tarantulas]

Going by the definition of the word... I thought an atheist denied the existence of all supreme being(s). I didn't think it could be selectively applied depending on the culture in question. Belief in Jesus as the son of God disqualifies you from being atheist... wtf does Zues have to do with it?

Let me put it to you in other terms. Do you believe in Zeus? If not, then you are atheistic about the existence of Zeus. What else would you call it other than atheism? We may be getting into another relativity debate (look out, sarc!) but think about it.

A Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. But at the same time they don't believe that Gilgamesh exists, or Poseidon, or any of the other gods that had followers. Or they may be agnostic towards them, saying "they could have existed, but I'm not really sure." Does that makes sense?

I see what you're getting and it's a compelling point. That said, if somebody can qualify as both a practicing atheist and christian at the same time, then you're just circumventing the generally accepted definition of the word.

I don't do maybe believe that god does possibly not possibly may exist.... maybe...

The Dawkins scale is just like the Kinsey scale or anything else... people have a real need to classify things, to bring order to chaos... some people just want a better answer than "because god said so"

You can't be an atheist and believe in god.  You can accept that there is a chance (however infinitesimally small it may be) that god does exist.  Is it the god of Abraham?  Given all the religions in the history of mankind that have come and gone, the chances are infinitesimally smaller still.

Just because a large group of monkeys share the same mental defect doesn't mean they aren't mentally defective.

[BathTub]

  Wow. I am so confused.

Okay, first of all, if you believe in the possibility of God, then you're not an aetheist. You're agnostic. People confuse these categories so many times it makes my blood boil. My point is for aetheists only. If you're agnostic, then you don't have to debate this unless you just want to. I know lots of -hardcore- aetheists and they are VERY different from agnostics. The terminology needs to be understood or lots of people get confused.

I had already mentioned what atheism is, the disbelief in god, or gods, of course we are open to the possibility that there is, if you bring new evidence to the table, that is how science works.

Agnostics, don't know, don't think we can know, and don't take sides.

Your own links support these definitions. You're adding your own restrictions.

I don't believe the world is going to end tomorrow, it's possible, but I don't believe it.

I don't believe there are 12 gods all named Bruce, it's possible, but I don't believe it.

I don't believe anyone is going to hand me a check for 1 million dollars tomorrow, it's possible, but I don't believe it.

I don't believe there are aliens on pluto, it's possible, but I don't believe it.

I don't believe Zeus exists, it's possible, but I don't believe it.

....

Second, I'm not sure what game you're referring to. I've gone over my past posts and I don't see that I started any game. I'm a very literal person (which is why Sarcasm confuses me sometimes. Yes, you confuse me, Sarc.  ) and submitted a logical challenge to the debate in partial hopes of proving my point to the aetheists and ending said debate.

  So, maybe I'm too dense and overworked to completely understand what you're trying to imply here, and it's glaringly obvious to the rest of the thread (if so, please enlighten me. Nothing sucks more than everyone knowing the punchline but you), or you really are trying to confuse me (not hard to do, I admit), but I humbly ask that you rephrase or something.

  My point was very simple and specific. Or so I thought.

Ok, start again. as I and others have been repeatedly saying through the thread.

If you say something is a certain way, it is your responsibility to provide the evidence that what you say, is true. It is not a mattter of what you say, automatically becomes truth, until someone else disproves it.

If you say you have 1 million dollars, it is your job to show the evidence that you have a million dollars. It is not the case that we will all believe you have a million dollars until someone else disproves it.

If I say, I can speak french, it is my job to show you that it is true. It is not the case that it is automatically true, until such a time as you disprove it.

If I say the god Mars exists, it is my job to provide the evidence to prove he exists. It isn't a matter of eveyone just assumes he exists until such a time as you disprove it.

If you say a god exists, it is your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

The person who makes the claim, needs to prove their claim. The responsibility is on their shoulders to prove it. Not on another persons shoulders to disprove it.

I am really scratching my head to try and make it clearer than that.