Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist

[swplan76]

Every day is an opportunity, I’ll make the most out of this tiny little spark of life I’ve been lucky enough to recieve, and I do my best to let others enjoy it as well. The quote changes nothing about the fact that religions are at the very most likely not true.

About your friend, they just seem like bad parents.

Wow! I’ve said very little about my friends - its amazing that you would jump to that conclusion. My friend doesn’t hardly sleep and is burnt out. Does his son know how worn out he is? No. Clearly you make some conclusions without having adequate evidence. Maybe this is the case for God as well.

Religion… You said: “The quote changes nothing about the fact that religions are at the very most likely not true…” Unless you come face to face with God and learn that beyond a shadow of a doubt, He is indeed there. Unless you desire to have that experience, you more than likely won’t have it. If you’ve made your mind up, then you will likely explain away anything anyone says as ridiculous.

Atheism, “The stark acceptance that man is an animal, chained to his impulses, that he is born of accidental copulation and dies unloved is a truly awful vista. I find it difficult to comprehend why proselytising for such a miserable view of life excites so many irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the disharmony that results from this perspective.”

 

[mrhenrik]

Wow! I’ve said very little about my friends - its amazing that you would jump to that conclusion. My friend doesn’t hardly sleep and is burnt out. Does his son know how worn out he is? No. Clearly you make some conclusions without having adequate evidence. Maybe this is the case for God as well.

Religion… You said: “The quote changes nothing about the fact that religions are at the very most likely not true…” Unless you come face to face with God and learn that beyond a shadow of a doubt, He is indeed there. Unless you desire to have that experience, you more than likely won’t have it. If you’ve made your mind up, then you will likely explain away anything anyone says as ridiculous.

Atheism, “The stark acceptance that man is an animal, chained to his impulses, that he is born of accidental copulation and dies unloved is a truly awful vista. I find it difficult to comprehend why proselytising for such a miserable view of life excites so many irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the disharmony that results from this perspective.”

Based on the information I got, I would say there is some errors in his parenting. I have numerous friends raised in atheist families as atheists, and they’re great people. Religion has no effect.

I was a christian for 18 years and I never came face to face with god. I doubt I ever will. If I do, however, I’m a christian that same moment.

 

[swplan76]

Based on the information I got, I would say there is some errors in his parenting. I have numerous friends raised in atheist families as atheists, and they’re great people. Religion has no effect.

I was a christian for 18 years and I never came face to face with god. I doubt I ever will. If I do, however, I’m a christian that same moment.

Maybe you were looking in the wrong direction… or you weren’t hungry enough.

Pascal’s wager puts it on the table…
You have to be willing to lose everything
You really have nothing to lose if you put everything on the table and you find that there was nothing there to lose your “everything” to.
…but you won’t know what its like until you do.

 

[1holycatholic]

I believe the following applies to this post.

“When an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn’t exist (e.g., prove God doesn’t exist; prove UFO’s haven’t visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1. Skepticism of unsupported claims
2. Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
3. Attempts to repeat experimental results.
4. Requires testability
5. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6. Uses descriptive language
7. Performs controlled experiments
8. Self-correcting
9. Relies on evidence and reason
10. Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
11. Produces useful knowledge

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

1. Has a negative attitude to skepticism
2. Does not require critical thinking
3. Does not require experimental repeatability
4. Does not require tests
5. Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
6. Uses vague language
7. Relies on anecdotal evidence
8. No self-correction
9. Relies on belief and faith
10. Makes absolute claims
11. Produces no useful knowledge

How about a citation for your plagiarized cut and paste?

 

[StrawberryJam]

How about a citation for your plagiarized cut and paste?

More importantly, which parts do you object to in it?

You are not going to have as easy a time as you do with different christian denominations in this case.

Knowing the source of information of another theist would matter about positive statements about a god or gods.

Knowing the source of information of a non theist will do what for you?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Maybe you were looking in the wrong direction… or you weren’t hungry enough.

I call foul. You are in no position to judge his “hunger”. And it is presumptuous for you to do it.

Pascal’s wager puts it on the table…
You have to be willing to lose everything
You really have nothing to lose if you put everything on the table and you find that there was nothing there to lose your “everything” to.
…but you won’t know what its like until you do.

I personally hate Pascal’s wager. It is based on fear and guilt. The Christian God is supposed to be about love (but never is portrayed that way). I wonder why I’m no longer a Christian?

 

[aileron]

I think, that atheists like to provide reasons for their denial of God’s existence. There is a restriction on such reasons being provided. Being in denial of God’s existence, might well be an emotional matter.

You are making an assumption that all atheists deny the existence of God. This is a common misconception. While many atheists deny that any god exists, many atheists just don’t believe in gods and leave it at that. Some people distinguish between the two as strong and weak atheists. Strong atheists are easy to explain: they think there’s reasonable proof against any gods’ existence. Weak atheists instead say it’s not been reasonably proven and we’re not about to live as though it’s been proven.

 

[1holycatholic]

More importantly, which parts do you object to in it?

You are not going to have as easy a time as you do with different christian denominations in this case.

Knowing the source of information of another theist would matter about positive statements about a god or gods.

Knowing the source of information of a non theist will do what for you?

Is the intellectual dishonesty (the lying and theft) of plagiarism acceptable behavior?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Is the intellectual dishonesty (the lying and theft) of plagiarism acceptable behavior?

I have no idea if it is lying and theft going on, or plagiarism either.

So, I can not say anything about it.

 

[swplan76]

I call foul. You are in no position to judge his “hunger”. And it is presumptuous for you to do it.

I personally hate Pascal’s wager. It is based on fear and guilt. The Christian God is supposed to be about love (but never is portrayed that way). I wonder why I’m no longer a Christian?

I’m not judging his hunger. I said “maybe.” Maybe leaves room for error. I don’t know everything and don’t claim to - no one has a gun to anyone’s head - relax.

Notice that I didn’t cite all of Pascal’s wager, just part of it. What about the part I did cite? It seems that MAYBE you are looking for excuses to keep from thinking about ideas you don’t like. Thats something a lot of people do - instead of looking at the issue in front of them, they flip the topic to something they know the answer to already.

“…**never **is portrayed that way…”
- that is pretty dramatic don’t you think? There are loads of Christians who live a lifestyle of love. Mother Theresa, Henri Nouwen (just 2 obvious Catholic examples). I think you are allowing your limited experience to inform you on all of Christianity.

 

[swplan76]

Based on the information I got, I would say there is some errors in his parenting. I have numerous friends raised in atheist families as atheists, and they’re great people. Religion has no effect.

One thing you’ll never know is what they would have been like if they were raised in a Christian home. They may be “great people” now, without having a connection with God, but who would they have become if they did know Him?

CS Lewis says that connection with God expands our humanity. It makes us more fully ourselves. It leads us into reaching our potential. Just as Jesus says, “The only way to the father is through me.” The only way to see our true identity and potential is through Him (again, just my experience and some words from Lewis).

You know your friends as they were developed without being dedicated to God. He was and is dedicated to them already, so they became the “great people” they became despite their rejection of Him. Who would they have become if they had cooperated with God as He shaped them.

You may never know.

 

[swplan76]

Plagiarism

off topic - start a new thread!

 

[cheese_sdc]

Notice that I didn’t cite all of Pascal’s wager, just part of it. What about the part I did cite?

Looks like you hit the major part of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

You can’t post just part of a philosophical argument without qualification and then cry “foul” when someone understands the whole.

It seems that MAYBE you are looking for excuses to keep from thinking about ideas you don’t like.

Actually, of all my sins, that is not one them.

“…**never **is portrayed that way…”

• that is pretty dramatic don’t you think? There are loads of Christians who live a lifestyle of love. Mother Theresa, Henri Nouwen (just 2 obvious Catholic examples). I think you are allowing your limited experience to inform you on all of Christianity.

Not sure you are in a position to judge my experience. My view of Christianity IS shaped by my experience of it, such as it is.

Also, please to be laying off the ad hominen fallacy.

We may now return to the topic at hand. The inability to prove either God’s existence or nonexistence.

 

[djeter]

If you haven’t read the essay concerning Does God Exist by Alan Mittleman, it really deserves some of your time. It’s called “Asking The Wrong Question.”

Selection: "The God of Israel is not one about whom existence claims can be made in any straightforward fashion. This is both a theological assertion and, leaning on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, a logical one. Martin Buber, on the eve of the First World War, was asked by a visitor, an English clergyman who worried about Buber’s soul, whether he believed in God. As Buber waited with him for the train and the indefinite parting to which the war would condemn them, Buber answered, reluctantly, yes. The pastor was satisfied.

Later Buber ruminated on what he had said. He felt that he had erred. The God he encountered in prayer, awe, wonder, and the small graces of the everyday was not a being about whom one could speak in the third person. God was not the sort of thing about which one could say, yes, it exists or no, it does not exist. To speak in this way was already to be estranged.

God, Buber felt, could not be discussed but only addressed—and that in the second person as “you.” To speak of God as if one were speaking of a thing, however recondite and mysterious, or of a distant person, was to speak of nothing more than a fictive character. For Buber, it seems, the word God named nothing real. Rather, the use of the word God, in the context of address, absorbs one in a way of life that touches on the real. All that we can really say of God is what we can say to God.

Faith, in this view, is never a set of belief claims. It is a way of life marked by trust, by affirmation of the goodness of being, by the repudiation of despair, and by an infinite openness to others and their needs. Buber contrasted religion, invidiously, to faith. Faith needs no tall tales. Religion cannot exist without them."

You’ll find it (more) on my site under the Catholicism For Atheists category (or search). The Science and Religion category features several essays based on Steven M Barr’s “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” which is a great book from a few years back.

DJ

 

[swplan76]

Looks like you hit the major part of it.

You can’t post just part of a philosophical argument without qualification and then cry “foul” when someone understands the whole.

I don’t need to accept all of pascal’s wager. I am not concerned with the ideas that surround it - I am only interested in the portion I presented… and I can in fact post just part of the argument. In life, we need to learn to take the good and leave the bad. People are flawed, so with human ideas, we take the good and leave the bad. Sometimes people will present a portion of truth amidst a massive amount of irrelevance. In order to get at the truth, we need to learn how to filter through the information. The portion of Pascal’s wager I’ve presented can stand on its own.

Looks like you hit the major part of it.
Not sure you are in a position to judge my experience. My view of Christianity IS shaped by my experience of it, such as it is.

No one is judging you. Please consider that I have used the word ‘maybe.’ ‘Maybe’ simply suggests possibility; it does not make definite conclusions/judgments.

 

[aileron]

Pascal’s wager puts it on the table…

Pascal’s Wager is nonsense. Force yourself to believe in Santa – it’s mathematically in your best interest. What do you mean you can’t make yourself believe in Santa?

 

[Bill_Pick]

No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:

God dosen’t exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen’t exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen’t exist because believers can’t prove God exists.
God dosen’t exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen’t exist because my prayers aren’t answered.
God dosen’t exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen’t exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen’t exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen’t exist because Jesus is not God.

Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.

you are free to answer any way you wish. OK I say it is all hogwash,have a great day.

 

[swplan76]

Pascal’s Wager is nonsense. Force yourself to believe in Santa – it’s mathematically in your best interest. What do you mean you can’t make yourself believe in Santa?

I’m simply saying, If you put everything on the table and find that God isn’t there, then you haven’t lost anything… but you have gained the knowledge that God is or isn’t there.

 

[aileron]

I’m simply saying, If you put everything on the table and find that God isn’t there, then you haven’t lost anything… but you have gained the knowledge that God is or isn’t there.

That’s fair enough, but that’s not what Pascal’s Wager is suggesting.

 

[swplan76]

That’s fair enough, but that’s not what Pascal’s Wager is suggesting.

… Oh.