TaeOH said:Seems to me that most atheist's on this forum are making a claim, and that claim is that there is nothing other than the natural. And that proof is only available through natural science. Not science mind you, as atheists have redefined what that actually means. Science does not stand in opposition to religion or the super natural, only naturalists have been.
The burden of proof lies solely with the one making the claim. I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists. It is the atheist/naturalist who makes the claim that God does not exist because God cannot be tested by natural science.
To 1, I can't. To 2, there can. Pretty simple for me.Kurdel said:I have a few questions I would like the theists here.
1. How can you be sure you are on the good team? There have been thousands of religions the dawn of civilization, how can you be sure yor belief system is the right one? What tells you that the only right religion didn't dissapear thousands of years ago? Religion was very competitive in the middle east, and the story has been picked up by so many religions since the last ice age. Floods, Original sin, and many other concepts appear in sumerian religions that predate judaism and christianity.
2. If you concede that the idea of omnipotent superbeing exists, why can't there be many?
GTP_Daverytimes said:You'r standpoint is perfectly OK, one thing i don't do is insult others beliefs. I will argue why i belief what i do but i would not insult another persons beliefs. The problem i see is that most atheist has no regard for religion and that's something i always hate. If a person prides themselves that they believe in nothing then that's all good and dandy but most atheist will go the extra mile by insulting the religion (This goes for both ways to some degree).
Kurdel said:I have a few questions I would like the theists here.
1. How can you be sure you are on the good team? There have been thousands of religions the dawn of civilization, how can you be sure yor belief system is the right one? What tells you that the only right religion didn't dissapear thousands of years ago? Religion was very competitive in the middle east, and the story has been picked up by so many religions since the last ice age. Floods, Original sin, and many other concepts appear in sumerian religions that predate judaism and christianity.
TaeOH said:I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists.
Sharp said:We all do this to some extent. I doubt most of those on this forum have the necessary scientific expertise to be able to replicate experiments that, e.g., prove the speed of light to be constant, nor even for much simpler Newtonian statements about how gravity works between celestial objects. In order for society to advance, we must take certain things at face value. That said, I'd much rather rely on things that have been independently verified hundreds or thousands of times by scientists following a method I understand and documenting their results than on a book written thousands of years ago by a number of different writers who do not appear to have had formal training of any sort.
I think this is what causes a lot of people to see atheists as mean or hateful, when really that's not the intent for most of us. I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion. It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner. As someone who doesn't believe the claims of any religion that I've been presented with, I find no reason to respect the claims themselves more than I would if someone said they were abducted by aliens or saw sasquatch. Religious people want to be treated special in this regard, probably because religion is so pervasive in our culture, but to atheists it's all the same.GTP_Daverytimes said:You'r standpoint is perfectly OK, one thing i don't do is insult others beliefs. I will argue why i belief what i do but i would not insult another persons beliefs. The problem i see is that most atheist has no regard for religion and that's something i always hate. If a person prides themselves that they believe in nothing then that's all good and dandy but most atheist will go the extra mile by insulting the religion (This goes for both ways to some degree).
Of course, which is why religion is unfalsifiable. But that doesn't make it demonstrably false. Just not part of science.Pixel Pete said:Unfortunately for your argument, that's exactly what you are claiming when you believe in something.
What you aren't doing is making a claim as to the quantity and veracity of your evidence.
But the point is, we CAN verify these things, that it's possible to do so.
Relix said:Religion: The root of all fucked in the world
Furret said:Completely and utterly wrong.
Atheism makes no claims whatsoever, it is the absence of belief not belief in something contrary to religion.
Until there is proof, or even data to examine, there is no more reason to believe in God than in Russell's teapot or the Spaghetti Monster.
You, personally, may not be making a claim, but other theists are, so the burden is on them.TaeOH said:The burden of proof lies solely with the one making the claim. I believe in God, though I do not make the claim that God exists. It is the atheist/naturalist who makes the claim that God does not exist because God cannot be tested by natural science.
Gaborn said:I'm an agnostic leaning atheist
Knox said:I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion.
Knox said:It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner.
Knox said:Religious people want to be treated special in this regard, probably because religion is so pervasive in our culture, but to atheists it's all the same.
Sharp said:Of course, which is why religion is unfalsifiable. But that doesn't make it demonstrably false. Just not part of science.
TaeOH said:The absence of belief is the absence of thought. We all believe in something.
I have a 2000 year old book saying so and also I was indoctrinated to believe in it since birth after by the stroke of fate having been born on this side of the planet.Sutton Dagger said:I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?
Sutton Dagger said:Why is it that the religious beliefs most espoused on GAF are essentially 'I just have faith', or 'I believe because the bible said so' (there are of course exceptions)? Can we have some actual theistic debates, how about using more sophisticated arguments that can actually be argued?
I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?
Well said.Knox said:I respect people that are religious, but I DON'T respect religion. It's kinda like hating the sin but not the sinner.
Sutton Dagger said:I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?
omnomis said:
What is a god in the first place? We sort of need to answer that question before we can talk about whether or not such a thing exists.Sutton Dagger said:I have a question for Athiest GAF, what do you think is the strongest theistic based argument for God's existence and why?
Orayn said:What is a god in the first place?
The original causeless cause is what I go by.Orayn said:What is a god in the first place? We sort of need to answer that question before we can talk about whether or not such a thing exists.
NullPointer said:The original causeless cause is what I go by.
If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?
Juicy Bob said:I just want to say that I don't believe in God, but while I shake my head at the terrible things some people do in the name of their religion I also can't fucking stand the way "Atheists" act when it comes to this debate, either.
That's kind of a major thing to toss to the side there don't you think? Isn't it the very basic assumption of science?Pixel Pete said:trust in cause and effect aside, I still follow Occam's Razor. Why can't the universe be causeless? (this is not a rhetorical question)
Interestingly enough, we can toss around answers to that question without involving anything that even remotely resembles a god, as long as you're cool with quantum physics and the inflationary model.NullPointer said:The original causeless cause is what I go by.
If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?
NullPointer said:That's kind of a major thing to toss to the side there don't you think? Isn't it the very basic assumption of science?
Well, for my part I strip away the dogmas and just consider the concept of God to be one of causeless cause with consciousness and agency. And no, I'm not really up on my inflationary theory, but have heard something about quantum fluctuations.Orayn said:Interestingly enough, we can toss around answers to that question without involving anything that even remotely resembles a god, as long as you're cool with quantum physics and the inflationary model.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Gods, the kind that act and think like superpowered humans, are a non-answer to a non-question. There's no scientific field of study that would be perfectly explained by the jumbled, incoherent notion of what many people quite literally think of as an omnipotent man with a white beard, or similar concepts through the ages. You can still ask deep and weighty questions like, "How did time start?" and "What establishes our universe's physical constants?" but putting all those answers under a big tent and calling that tent "god" doesn't really accomplish much, since the idea of a god is so unclear to begin with.
I honestly don't know how one idea is any sillier than the other.Pixel Pete said:When the alternative is a causeless cause?
NullPointer said:The original causeless cause is what I go by.
If the universe had a beginning, then what was the initial cause? If it has always been, how can we trust in cause and effect?
NullPointer said:Well, for my part I strip away the dogmas and just consider the concept of God to be one of causeless cause with consciousness and agency.
NullPointer said:I honestly don't know how one idea is any sillier than the other.
Does "first cause" sound better? Its the same thing.Trent Strong said:How could there be something like a "causeless cause"? This idea seems illogical and impossible to me.
We could, but then we'd have to accept that it could happen at any time wouldn't we? So there is no necessary connection between a cause and its effect, since the universe can just cause itself into being.Pixel Pete said:The main problem I have with that stance is that is excessively redundant. Why not save a step and simply posit that the universe caused itself?
FleckSplat said:Sounds good, SD.
Most atheists don't make the claim that there is absolutely no way that there is a god. People that do are called "Strong Atheist" and are very rare. Atheism is just not believing the positive claim that there is a god. So in this scenario, nothing would change. People claiming that there is absolutely no god are still trying to falsify something unfalsifiable.Superimposer said:I'm a Christian but know that I'm not trying to be clever or show anyone up when I ask this. In fact I'm sure that I am more likely to be shown up for the naivety of my question. I've just always wanted to know what the answer for this is, genuinely and out of curiosity.
This is directed at atheists: suppose a god made the Earth and the universe, but for whatever reason decided that he didn't want his creations to know of his existence. Therefore, in his omnipotence and omniscience, he decided to erase any indication that he exists, and add background radiation, fossils, whatever he likes so that we get into the situation whereby people feel they have enough scientific evidence to doubt his existence. He created the scientific laws that we observe in this scenario, so he could 'manipulate' those as it were to lead us to come to this conclusion.
Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god? If God is God, then he/she/it has the ability to direct our reason into thinking he/she/it does not exist.
There is no basis to say it isn't possible, in that situation or otherwise. Everything is possible.Superimposer said:Obviously I acknowledge that this isn't what happened, but on a hypothetical level, what basis is there to now claim that there is no way there could possibly be a god?