Comments
21 - 40 of 3,443 Comments Last updated Aug 19, 2013

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 26, 2013
 
If you wish to make the claim that "god is possible", the burden of proof is upon you to establish this claim.

So far nobody in the entire history of the world has managed to. And here you are still attempting to talk about a god when the possibility isn't even proven yet.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Nuggin, please state as succintly as possible, the irrational claim you "think" I'm making.

God is not real is a fact, just like evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

a. If you have any counter evidence for this you are welcome to present it.

b. If you believe a god "is" possible, the burden of proof is upon you.

It's a perfectly rational and sound argument.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
....Atheists are NOT trusted with political office in the US.
Which demonstrates ignorance and prejudice amongst a significant (and superstitious) portion of the electorate, to the detriment and embarrassment of the USA

Prejudice had to be overcome against blacks, then women, then gays.. It is not about 'how low can you go' but 'how enlightened one can be'.
Cujo

Regina, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Carchar king wrote:
I heard many atheists say, the Bible is a fairy tale, it's a 2000year old fairy designed by some man who wanted to free his imagination, and write stories.
But is the Bible really a fairy tale. A fairy tale is a book written for small children, so why is it banned in 53countries of the world. Who bans a fairy tale story.
Well, you need to have the gullible mind of a child to believe it. Those other 53 countries, they already have their own book of fairy tales, most likely the Koran.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't made any claims. God isn't real isn't a claim it is a fact based on current evidence, both proof positive and negative.
First of all, something can't be "a fact based on current evidence". It's either a fact or it isn't. Facts don't change with evidence. CONCLUSIONS change with evidence.

Second, there is no such thing as negative proof. Negative proof is a contradiction.

Third, you ARE making a claim. You are making several unsupported claims about facts and proof.
As both you and The dude and uneducated in the rules of a discussion, here is a reminded of what they are:
http://godlesspaladin.files.wordpress.com/201...
You will find both of you have broke all the rules and are no different from a theist in your logical and reasoning capacity.
I could give a crap about the runs on some wordpress blog. I'm talking about science.

You are making scientific claims, you need to adhere to the rules of science.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
Nuggin, please state as succintly as possible, the irrational claim you "think" I'm making.
God is not real is a fact, just like evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.
a. If you have any counter evidence for this you are welcome to present it.
b. If you believe a god "is" possible, the burden of proof is upon you.
It's a perfectly rational and sound argument.
No, "God is not real" is a conclusion. I happen to believe it is a _correct_ conclusion, but that does not make it a fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory and a conclusion, not a "fact". Once again, I happen to believe that it is an accurate working theory and that it is a correct conclusion. That does not make it a fact.

Gravity is a defined natural force. As such, claiming that it exists is really just a tautology. We see a force, we call it gravity. Any force that appears to do the same thing we also call gravity. It's possible that some grand unifying theory could come along which better explains all the known forces + dark energy and dark matter. And at that time, gravity could be re-defined as a subset of some other force. Who knows. That's what makes science great.

Meanwhile, you still don't understand the burden of proof. If someone claims "god is possible", they don't need to provide proof for that claim. "Possible" is not the same thing as "Certain". And the characteristics of "God" are so broad and supernatural as to make any attempt to prove or disprove existence worthless.

Asking for proof or trying to provide proof is beyond the point. Proof is for mathematics not religion. Evidence is for science, not religion.

whether or not god exists is a _philosophical_ question, well outside the realm of science.

Claiming to be able to prove it or disprove it indicates that you are not well versed in either philosophy or science.

It makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, something can't be "a fact based on current evidence". It's either a fact or it isn't. Facts don't change with evidence. CONCLUSIONS change with evidence.
On the contrary, I think facts can often be said to change like conclusions. The distinction isn't necessarily important. For instance, the Earth being flat was an obvious fact once. The conclusions of Newtonian physics were challenged (or proved not to apply at the quantum level) by quantum physics just as the 'fact' that the shortest distance between two points is challenged by non-Euclidian geometries.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Second, there is no such thing as negative proof. Negative proof is a contradiction.
Third, you ARE making a claim. You are making several unsupported claims about facts and proof.
<quoted text>
I could give a crap about the runs on some wordpress blog. I'm talking about science.
You are making scientific claims, you need to adhere to the rules of science.
At the risk of drawing fire from both sides, may I suggest that there are two separate points here?(You and Skeptic aren't married, I assume?:-)

One is that 'facts' can change with time and the other is that, while a nebulous and undefined creator cannot be disproved (Russell's Teapot), Abrahamic god(s) as normally understood are clearly as mythical as Santa Claus. I would hesitate to say that Santa or Abrahamic god(s) were difficult to discredit, or even disprove using scientific evidence such as that for evolution or biology. Nobody is going to use rigorous scientific analysis and written 'peer reviewed papers' disproving god(s). That doesn't mean that they aren't disproved by what has been revealed to humanity through scientific discoveries in general. In fact,(if you pardon the use of 'fact :-), the whole motivation for ID/Creationism seems to be the threat scientific evidence poses to believers in god(s).

Are any of us hitting the nails on the head or in substantive disagreement?

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Nothing creates... Nothing

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you need to have the gullible mind of a child to believe it. Those other 53 countries, they already have their own book of fairy tales, most likely the Koran.
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books. There is no logic in atheism. How did the world start, did a explosion happen without any of the ingredients for a explosion. Why would dust create itself, scientists can't prove how the earth was made, because God made it. Answer that question, and if you don't, there's you're answer, God's real unless you disprove it.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books....
'Everyone' once thought the world was flat; a woman's place was in the home; and if you had told most people in 1930 that a man would land on the moon within 40 years they would have laughed out loud.

My guess is that religion is the last bastion of superstition and it is dying. Abrahamic god(s) are obviously fallacious.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

The Bible is The Big Book Of Multiple Choice.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

" Who needs fairy tales when there are so many holy books just lying around?"

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE (Jonathan Hurley & Whitney Avalon)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>On the contrary, I think facts can often be said to change like conclusions. The distinction isn't necessarily important. For instance, the Earth being flat was an obvious fact once. The conclusions of Newtonian physics were challenged (or proved not to apply at the quantum level) by quantum physics just as the 'fact' that the shortest distance between two points is challenged by non-Euclidian geometries.
Except that the Earth was never, in fact, flat. People looked at the area around them and concluded that the Earth was flat based on their incomplete access to all of the facts.

And yes, the conclusions of Newtonian physics changed as we gained more access to more facts about the quantum world.
One is that 'facts' can change with time
They really can't. Facts remain steady. Our access to them might change, or out conclusions based on them might change.

For example, 2,000 years ago bacteria was in fact the cause of infection. Humans didn't know this and therefore had all sorts of theories about evil spirits and whatnot. We didn't discover bacteria until the development of the microscope.

All the symptoms and evidence remained the same, our conclusions about what was causing illness changed as we gained more access to more facts.
Nobody is going to use rigorous scientific analysis and written 'peer reviewed papers' disproving god(s). That doesn't mean that they aren't disproved by what has been revealed to humanity through scientific discoveries in general. In fact,(if you pardon the use of 'fact :-), the whole motivation for ID/Creationism seems to be the threat scientific evidence poses to believers in god(s).
Are any of us hitting the nails on the head or in substantive disagreement?
Here's what you don't know. Skippy has been involved in this argument on no less than 4 different threads which have gone on for more than a year.

His claim, repeatedly, is that he can "prove scientifically that God does not exist".

The response from those of us familiar with science is: "You can not prove scientifically that something (anything) doesn't exist" and "you REALLY can't prove that something as amorphous and supernatural as God doesn't exist because of the nature of the character".

It's not a question of agreement or religiosity. Everyone in the debate so far as I can tell is an atheist. It's about making claims about the nature of science that exceed the bounds of science, which undercuts the position of those supporting science the same way the religious fundamentalists undercut their position by making similar claims.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books. There is no logic in atheism. How did the world start, did a explosion happen without any of the ingredients for a explosion. Why would dust create itself, scientists can't prove how the earth was made, because God made it. Answer that question, and if you don't, there's you're answer, God's real unless you disprove it.
A number of problems with your statement above.

First, we absolutely can demonstrate how the Earth was made. Fusion + gravity + time.

Second, this "why would dust create itself" comment is non-sensical.

Third, you are applying unbalanced criteria. If you demand a source for the matter in the Universe, then you must likewise demand a source for "God". Did "God" make himself?

Fourth, "God is real unless you disprove it". Okay, let's do this.

If "can't disprove it" is evidence that something is real, then I point out that Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Coyote, Mithra, etc. All these gods are likewise real because they can not be disproved.

However, since the Hebrew God claims to be the only god, this puts it in direct conflict with any other god. Since all other gods have not be disproved, this means that they exist. Therefore the Hebrew God is "wrong" about being the only god.

Therefore, the only conclusion which is not a paradox is that polytheistic religions which don't exclude gods from other religions are all true and that Hebrew/Christian/Muslim monotheistic religion is wrong.
Cujo

Regina, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Apr 26, 2013
 
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books. There is no logic in atheism. How did the world start, did a explosion happen without any of the ingredients for a explosion. Why would dust create itself, scientists can't prove how the earth was made, because God made it. Answer that question, and if you don't, there's you're answer, God's real unless you disprove it.
No, 6 billion people do not believe in those books. A large portion of Christians, do not take the bible literally. They take it as stories, to teach lessons. And I will tell you what, if you believe the bible word for word, than you worship some sick sum of a bitch.
Cujo

Regina, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Apr 26, 2013
 
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books. There is no logic in atheism. How did the world start, did a explosion happen without any of the ingredients for a explosion. Why would dust create itself, scientists can't prove how the earth was made, because God made it. Answer that question, and if you don't, there's you're answer, God's real unless you disprove it.
You need to learn to use reason and logic. If you did, you would realize that the "goddidit" arguement, is an arguement from ignorance. If you do not know the answer to something, it means just that, you don't know. You don't just get to insert your answer of choice.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Apr 26, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh...
<quoted text>
The proof comes from proof positive + proof negative + logic. Its already been proven. The fact is that god isn't real.
If you make a claim that "god is possible" it is up to you to prove it. Until then, there's officially no such thing as god.
<quoted text>
Entirely wrong. The cool thing about deities is that they were invented by human beings.
So they CAN be tested. We can see if a person is lying by the claims he attaches to his deity - the main claim is that he thinks god is real.
We can test this claim because physics and logic already provide the framework for measuring physical reality.
Great. In which case you should have no problem in describing in detail the scientific experiment that you performed that undoubtedly falsified the existence of an intelligent entity responsible for creating the universe.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Don't believe the Dude, he doesn't fully understand atheism and does not speak for it.
What does atheism have to do with anything? I have not been promoting atheism. I don't care about atheism. All I do is point out the scientific aspect. Science is OPEN to the possibility of Gods, aliens, fairies, ogres, orcs, ghosts - you name it. All it requires is that one provides objectively verifiable evidence along with a testable hypothesis. Without which a concept is simply not scientific.

You on the other hand claim the God concept IS scientific, and further, that you have falsified it. I would like to know how.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Apr 26, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't made any claims. God isn't real isn't a claim it is a fact based on current evidence, both proof positive and negative.
Nope, it's a claim based on ZERO evidence. God has ZERO evidence. Therefore there is no reason to presume it exists. You on the other hand have NO evidence AGAINST it. You claim to have FALSIFIED it. So you should have no problem describing the experiment you performed that did that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Apr 26, 2013
 
EdSed wrote:
One is that 'facts' can change with time and the other is that, while a nebulous and undefined creator cannot be disproved (Russell's Teapot), Abrahamic god(s) as normally understood are clearly as mythical as Santa Claus. I would hesitate to say that Santa or Abrahamic god(s) were difficult to discredit, or even disprove using scientific evidence such as that for evolution or biology. Nobody is going to use rigorous scientific analysis and written 'peer reviewed papers' disproving god(s). That doesn't mean that they aren't disproved by what has been revealed to humanity through scientific discoveries in general. In fact,(if you pardon the use of 'fact :-), the whole motivation for ID/Creationism seems to be the threat scientific evidence poses to believers in god(s).
Are any of us hitting the nails on the head or in substantive disagreement?
That actually sounds fine. Problem is that Skippy is saying Russel's Teapot is DEFINITELY 200% false, without having actually performed a scientific experiment or getting inside a spaceship and going there. Science's position is that the teapot is unlikely and can point to various obstacles and barriers to such a possibility, while apologists can claim Goddidit with magic or alien UFO's came along or whatever. At which point science has very little to say on such matters except point out that while MAYBE that's possible, but there is zero evidence. Most people would be happy with that.

Skippy on the other hand is misusing science to claim that it somehow "proves" atheism. When the fact is that simply is not the case.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Apr 26, 2013
 
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fairy tales are true, you can't have a gullible mind if 6billion believe these religious books. There is no logic in atheism. How did the world start, did a explosion happen without any of the ingredients for a explosion. Why would dust create itself, scientists can't prove how the earth was made, because God made it. Answer that question, and if you don't, there's you're answer, God's real unless you disprove it.
No, the Cosmic Sheep from Dimension Zog is real unless you can disprove it.

Why should you answer be the default answer and not mine?

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Nothing creates... Nothing

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A number of problems with your statement above.
First, we absolutely can demonstrate how the Earth was made. Fusion + gravity + time.
Second, this "why would dust create itself" comment is non-sensical.
Third, you are applying unbalanced criteria. If you demand a source for the matter in the Universe, then you must likewise demand a source for "God". Did "God" make himself?
Fourth, "God is real unless you disprove it". Okay, let's do this.
If "can't disprove it" is evidence that something is real, then I point out that Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Coyote, Mithra, etc. All these gods are likewise real because they can not be disproved.
However, since the Hebrew God claims to be the only god, this puts it in direct conflict with any other god. Since all other gods have not be disproved, this means that they exist. Therefore the Hebrew God is "wrong" about being the only god.
Therefore, the only conclusion which is not a paradox is that polytheistic religions which don't exclude gods from other religions are all true and that Hebrew/Christian/Muslim monotheistic religion is wrong.
Correct, so if you can't disprove any of these Gods, then that means that's only one is real, but that disproves atheism, doesn't it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 min ChristineM 224,614
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 44 min ChristineM 843
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 4 hr CunningLinguist 29
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr NightSerf 258
Atheists, give up your lost religion and seek t... (Nov '13) 6 hr CunningLinguist 229
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 7 hr CunningLinguist 70,963
Introducing The Universal Religion 13 hr Patrick 737
•••
•••