Why Is There An Athiest Board?

kelly1

Wreck wrote: »

Can you please give me one reason to believe in god?

I can't give any concrete reason for belief because God has never revealed Himself directly to me. I just believe in the depths of my soul that there is a God there who cares about me and only wants my happiness ultimately. Anecdotally I've spoken with people who have witnessed miracles and I find the lives of the saints very convincing (and sane).

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I know! Comparing God with the FSM and saying that evolution is random is annoying for both sides of the debate.

Well its only annoying for you because you have some how convinced yourself that your particular supernatural imaginary being is more likely to exist than any other supernatural imaginary being.

kelly1 wrote: »

For someone who mentions proof so frequently, I'm suprised to hear you say that God *doesn't* exist.

For someone who claims to read my posts so frequently I'm surprised you have never actually read one of the posts that mentions "proof" ... if you did you would understand that I don't believe proof exists for anything.

That doesn't stop me from declaring something isn't true. If I drop my self out a window there is no proof I will fall to the earth. But I can declare I will fall to the earth if I throw myself out a window.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it more honest to say that you *don't know*?

No, it is honest to say he doesn't. He no more exists than the tooth fairy exists and I think you can pretty confidently say that too.

You can refuse to accept that, but then people believe the Earth is flat and refuse to except otherwise. People will believe the strangest things.

Obni

kelly1,
I wish I could make you believe that the following is meant with the greatest respect, and it genuinely is, but there is a fundamental problem that arises when theists and atheists debate...

kelly1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that we all know the tooth fairy etc are fabrications designed to amuse and delight children.

Absolutely. I would never suggest that a religious belief was of the same nature or scale. To those that adhere to a faith, it is central to their lives.
To others, different faiths are held as central to their lives. When you enter into a debate with them, you may be arguing from very different standpoints, but you are both basing your stances around a common core in belief in a faith, and you have in common a language and form of debate. You may draw on personal experience, or quote from sacred texts or articles of faith. You may not admit the validity of a particular teaching from someone else's holy book, but you might admit in general the validity of using such forms of argument.

When you enter into the benighted world of an atheist, you are indeed a pilgrim in an unholy land. What may pass as valid forms of argument or rebuttal in other realms, carry no weight here. If your arguments don't stand on their own then they don't stand at all.

Claims based on faith or personal conviction or anecdotal evidence or references to sacred texts or religious histories or theological arguments can be of interest, or can be thought provoking, but they have no authority when debating an atheist.

When you claim that something is so because god ordained it, or brought it forth, or said it, or caused it to be known, then such claims are granted as much authority as if you said that the tooth fairy ordained it, or brought it forth, or said it, or caused it to be known. The name or very concept of god carries no weight here.

Yet, I'm not pointing at you and saying "Ha! Ha! You believe in the tooth fairy!" I am an atheist, but I do not equate the role of god and the tooth fairy in other peoples lives.

Zulu

pH wrote: »

There are many good reasons to believe in the tooth fairy - "free money" for one, and anecdotal evidence that she exists - don't you agree?

...well one could argue that we can prove the tooth fairy does not exist, but we can't prove that god doesn't exist.

Personally I think it's a little disrespectful and ignorant to suggest that god and tooth fairy are one and the same - you know they aren't. While you might believe either are works of pure fiction, the concepts are different, and the only reason you are treating them the same is to bait kelly1 and other theists. (It's worth noting that this is called something else by the way...)
That said, kelly1 unfortunately dismissed all the other religions is about 2 lines, so perhaps he deserves no more... :rolleyes:
I dunno, it's just another thread descending into the usual.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist?

please, do so.

Zulu

1) I preformed an experment, where I placed a tooth under the pillow, and did not inform my parents.
2) I waited a week and the tooth remained.
3) I kept the tooth
4) The next tooth that fell out, I repeated the experment.
5) After 2 nights, I informed my parents
6) Monies arrived and tooth was removed, so I placed the origional tooth but said nothing
7) waited a week - nothing happened
8) approached my parents and they confessed.

Is that evidence enough?
I understand you can dismiss this evidence, and suggest the tooth fairy was just busy and my parents were liars, and I can't disprove you, or offer any other proof.
Fair enough, but my point still stands: god and the toothfairy are two different things. To suggest otherwise is...
...well to be honest, I find it hard to find any dirrerence between that and trolling kelly1 or the theists? What is the difference?? Is it just because it's the "Atheism & Agnosticism" board???

Wreck

Zulu wrote: »

1) I preformed an experment, where I placed a tooth under the pillow, and did not inform my parents.
2) I waited a week and the tooth remained.
3) I kept the tooth
4) The next tooth that fell out, I repeated the experment.
5) After 2 nights, I informed my parents
6) Monies arrived and tooth was removed, so I placed the origional tooth but said nothing
7) waited a week - nothing happened
8) approached my parents and they confessed.

That proves nothing in relation to the the existence of the tooth fairy.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

clearly you have offended the fairy in some way, and your parents were just lying to you to protect you from that horrendous fact.

accept the fairy into your heart and know ye peace.

pH

Zulu wrote: »

...well one could argue that we can prove the tooth fairy does not exist, but we can't prove that god doesn't exist.

Absolutely not. The statement "we can't prove god doesn't exist" is true for exactly the same reasons that the statement "we can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist". I agree with Mordeth, if you feel you can provide a proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist then I'd love to see it.

Personally I think it's a little disrespectful and ignorant to suggest that god and tooth fairy are one and the same - you know they aren't. While you might believe either are works of pure fiction, the concepts are different, and the only reason you are treating them the same is to bait kelly1 and other theists. (It's worth noting that this is called something else by the way...)

OK this is the A&A forum, the position to be respectful of *here* is the that God doesn't exist. What you've said is equivalent to me whining that any post in the Christianity forum that doesn't respect my atheist position is ignorant and trolling the atheists who post there.

That said, kelly1 unfortunately dismissed all the other religions is about 2 lines, so perhaps he deserves no more... :rolleyes:
I dunno, it's just another thread descending into the usual.

No not unfortunately - that was the post that started this, he was then asked why his God is any more real that Zeus or the FSM, when he can reject out of hand billions of peoples' Gods as fabrications.

This is part of the delusion of theists, on the one hand they argue with atheists that it's all about faith (i.e. belief without proof) but it's self evident that by that reasoning all faiths are equally valid, indeed all beliefs held without a shred of evidence are equal. This obviously presents a problem vis a vis the claims of other religions, and as we see they have to scramble back and find some proofs - evidence for a historical Christ, evidence against evolution and direct creation, tortured philosophical 'proofs' of his existence, weeping statues, healing and other direct interventions on this planet by God etc.

I think this thread has arrived here as a protest to this duality in Christian thought - either it's about faith and you're *exactly* the same as *any* belief held on faith (there may be some comfort in numbers but that's about it) or it's about proof, logic and evidence. Pick one, cos either way, as a Christian you're buggered.

pH

Zulu wrote: »

Is that evidence enough?

No - unless you accept the corollary that "I prayed for a car and didn't get one - then my parents told me they really weren't sure about this God thing and they were only bringing me to mass so I could get into the local school" as an argument that disproves the existence of God.

I understand you can dismiss this evidence, and suggest the tooth fairy was just busy and my parents were liars, and I can't disprove you, or offer any other proof.
Fair enough, but my point still stands: god and the toothfairy are two different things. To suggest otherwise is...

What? You've just admitted they're the same thing - what difference do you now see?

...well to be honest, I find it hard to find any dirrerence between that and trolling kelly1 or the theists? What is the difference?? Is it just because it's the "Atheism & Agnosticism" board???

Well obviously. See my post above.

kelly1

Obni wrote: »

kelly1,
I wish I could make you believe that the following is meant with the greatest respect, and it genuinely is, but there is a fundamental problem that arises when theists and atheists debate...



Absolutely. I would never suggest that a religious belief was of the same nature or scale. To those that adhere to a faith, it is central to their lives.
To others, different faiths are held as central to their lives. When you enter into a debate with them, you may be arguing from very different standpoints, but you are both basing your stances around a common core in belief in a faith, and you have in common a language and form of debate. You may draw on personal experience, or quote from sacred texts or articles of faith. You may not admit the validity of a particular teaching from someone else's holy book, but you might admit in general the validity of using such forms of argument.

When you enter into the benighted world of an atheist, you are indeed a pilgrim in an unholy land. What may pass as valid forms of argument or rebuttal in other realms, carry no weight here. If your arguments don't stand on their own then they don't stand at all.

Claims based on faith or personal conviction or anecdotal evidence or references to sacred texts or religious histories or theological arguments can be of interest, or can be thought provoking, but they have no authority when debating an atheist.

When you claim that something is so because god ordained it, or brought it forth, or said it, or caused it to be known, then such claims are granted as much authority as if you said that the tooth fairy ordained it, or brought it forth, or said it, or caused it to be known. The name or very concept of god carries no weight here.

Yet, I'm not pointing at you and saying "Ha! Ha! You believe in the tooth fairy!" I am an atheist, but I do not equate the role of god and the tooth fairy in other peoples lives.

Good post. From my side of the fence, what I see is people refusing to take the leap of faith which is a *prerequisite* for finding God. Once this leap is taken, grace comes into effect and faith follows.
All I hear are arguments saying that there's no scientific eveidence that God exists and I keep saying that the supernatural is outside the competence and scope of science and so an impasse results. You can lead a horse to water...

Zombrex

Zulu wrote: »

1) I preformed an experment, where I placed a tooth under the pillow, and did not inform my parents.
2) I waited a week and the tooth remained.
3) I kept the tooth
4) The next tooth that fell out, I repeated the experment.
5) After 2 nights, I informed my parents
6) Monies arrived and tooth was removed, so I placed the origional tooth but said nothing
7) waited a week - nothing happened
8) approached my parents and they confessed.

Is that evidence enough?

That doesn't even demonstrate the tooth fairy doesn't exist, let alone prove it (she?) doesn't.

If it did then every fraudster preacher or evangelical who claimed to speak to God would demonstrate God doesn't exist. And I seriously doubt Kelly1 would accept that.

Zulu wrote: »

Fair enough, but my point still stands: god and the toothfairy are two different things.

Well they are certain different in their details. But they are both imaginary supernatural beings designed to explain an aspect or aspects of the world in pleasing and comforting manner. Which is why people compare them.

Some would say that God is the tooth-fairy for grown ups.

Dades

I know I'm going to regret this but the tooth fairy isn't the best comparison to a interventionist god. Obviously Santa Claus is.

They both know omnipotently whether you're naughty or nice, and you are rewarded or not according to your behavior. (And for some reason they are both old men with white beards - but that's not too important).

To an atheist, they both exist for more of less the same reason. One is to keep children in line through mild threats/bribery, and maybe spread a little wonder in their lives... and the other offers the same for adults.

The intent here isn't to be disrespectful - just to explain how they are both similar concepts in the minds of an atheist. And god is a concept to an atheist, not an actual entity that is being 'rejected'.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Good post. From my side of the fence, what I see is people refusing to take the leap of faith which is a *prerequisite* for finding God. Once this leap is taken, grace comes into effect and faith follows.

See that is the problem. If you believe this before you make your "leap of faith" then you will convince yourself that is what happened after your leap of faith (the John Travolta effect, as I call it). And if it doesn't then you simply didn't leap far enough.

1) You tell me "If I believe in God good things will happen to me"

2) I, already partial to the idea that God exists, want good things to happen so I go "What the hell" and go to church

3) I meet people at church, feel happier about myself, get the courage to apologise to my brother, make an effort to stop smoking, am nicer to my kids etc

4) This demonstrates that it worked, I accept God and good things happened to me, demonstrating that God exists

Can you see the problem with logic? It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Zulu

pH wrote: »

OK this is the A&A forum, the position to be respectful of *here* is the that God doesn't exist.

Nope, I'm agnostic, and a respectful position is one that respects regardless.

What you've said is equivalent to me whining that any post in the Christianity forum that doesn't respect my atheist position is ignorant and trolling the atheists who post there.

Well I've been over there and you'd be right. All the "burn in hell" "Only I'll be saved" crapola is ignorant and disrespectful.

Dades wrote: »

The intent here isn't to be disrespectful - just to explain how they are both similar concepts in the minds of an atheist.

Dades, perhaps you don't intend to be disrespectful, but I don't believe the same of everyone else.

Anyway, I don't expect anything else for this thread, I've voiced my opinion, and I'll bid you all adue!

An Fear Aniar

kelly1 wrote: »

Good post. From my side of the fence, what I see is people refusing to take the leap of faith which is a *prerequisite* for finding God. Once this leap is taken, grace comes into effect and faith follows.
All I hear are arguments saying that there's no scientific eveidence that God exists and I keep saying that the supernatural is outside the competence and scope of science and so an impasse results. You can lead a horse to water...

Yes, that's been my experience.

Grace: the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God.
The influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them.

God respects us that much that we can do whatever we like. God needs our permission before doing anything to help us.



.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

he doesn't need our permission to throw us in hell for all eternity though.
great guy.

Zombrex

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

God respects us that much that we can do whatever we like. God needs our permission before doing anything to help us.

Which, conveniently enough, limits any effect he is supposed to have to people who already believe he is some how having an effect on the world.

Which, again conveniently enough, means that non-believers and sceptics can never be demonstrated personal evidence of his this effect. So even if God does exist it still looks an awful lot like he doesn't, so I doubt he would blame people for not believing in him.

That seems a bit of a peculiar way to set things up, though it is the perfect (only way) to set things up if he in fact doesn't exist and it is all in fact in your heads.

It reminds me of the Emperors New Clothes. Believe he is wearing clothes and you will think you see them. Don't believe, and you won't.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

See that is the problem. If you believe this before you make your "leap of faith" then you will convince yourself that is what happened after your leap of faith (the John Travolta effect, as I call it). And if it doesn't then you simply didn't leap far enough.

1) You tell me "If I believe in God good things will happen to me"

2) I, already partial to the idea that God exists, want good things to happen so I go "What the hell" and go to church

3) I meet people at church, feel happier about myself, get the courage to apologise to my brother, make an effort to stop smoking, am nicer to my kids etc

4) This demonstrates that it worked, I accept God and good things happened to me, demonstrating that God exists

Can you see the problem with logic? It is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes I see exactly where you're coming from and I can understand your cynicism. You think God is a placebo. Having said that you are still standing on the atheist side of the fence and you haven't jumped across so you really don't know what I'm talking about until you've experienced it. You can make all the assumptions and theories you like but you haven't crossed the divide and until you do, you won't understand. You haven't made God Lord of your life. You think I'm a fool for believing in something I can't see but I do very definitely sense God in my life. Others have had the fortunate experience of being directly touched by God in a very profound way, I have to rely more on faith.

adamd164

kelly1 wrote: »

You haven't made God Lord of your life. You think I'm a fool for believing in something I can't see but I do very definitely sense God in my life. Others have had the fortunate experience of being directly touched by God in a very profound way, I have to rely more on faith.

You make a definition of god which is so convoluted it can neither be argued for or against. You expect us to treat seriously your vague "I've been touched" blabber in support of the notion that you -- as a member of one of an untold number of currently existing species (just 1% of all that have ever been) on a pathetic castaway speck of dust in the outer reaches of a humdrum galaxy, which is itself only one of billions -- are of prime concern to matters Universal?

You're right about one thing: it does sound like utter nonsense and self-importance of the most grotesque type, of which only the religious are capable. So, whilst you and others like you continue to drone on about how your existence is of a special significance, please excuse the rest of us whilst we laugh at and ridicule your myopic arrogance.

Dades

adamd164 wrote: »

So, whilst you and others like you continue to drone on about how your existence is of a special significance, please excuse the rest of us whilst we laugh at and ridicule your myopic arrogance.

Don't presume to include the "rest of us" while you are laughing and ridiculing.
IMO you've come out the worse from that particular exchange.

Whispered

adamd164 wrote: »

. So, whilst you and others like you continue to drone on about how your existence is of a special significance, please excuse the rest of us whilst we laugh at and ridicule your myopic arrogance.

Yes, the amount of arrogance here really is grotesque isn't it. :rolleyes:

adamd164

Dades wrote: »

Don't presume to include the "rest of us" while you are laughing and ridiculing.
IMO you've come out the worse from that particular exchange.

Sorry, my fault, I meant those of us who find it worth laughing at and ridiculing. If you're not in that category, then consider yourself rightly excluded.

I don't see why anyone would consider that I was referring to all atheists there - atheists tend to be the most diverse group of people on the planet.

adamd164

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes, the amount of arrogance here really is grotesque isn't it. :rolleyes:

Yes, and...? You don't find it arrogant to consider one's own species the very reason that the Universe is in existence? Good grief, I can scarcely think of anything more conceited and self-centered. I'm glad I don't personally know some of the people around here.

Whispered

I think for anybody to say "you are arrogant, so I will ridicule you" and assume to speak for more than themselves in that sentence, shows a complete lack of understanding for the word arrogance. Or perhaps you do understand the meaning of arrogance, just not the meaning of hypocrite or contradictory. I dont believe we are the centre of the universe, but I would prefer to believe that then to assume the right to "ridicule" people who do.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I see exactly where you're coming from and I can understand your cynicism. You think God is a placebo. Having said that you are still standing on the atheist side of the fence and you haven't jumped across so you really don't know what I'm talking about until you've experienced it.

Well I guess I can never know if I have experienced what you claim to experience, but I would say that when I was younger I experience all the emotions that I feel make up the basis of religious faith. For example walking into a church filled me (still fills me) with a sense of almost euphoria.

The difference I imagine is that I had to self-awareness to know that these emotions were not what religious tells people they are.

kelly1 wrote: »

You can make all the assumptions and theories you like but you haven't crossed the divide and until you do, you won't understand.

Yes but Kelly1 but your own definition of the "divide" to be on the other side means to believe that God exists. How could I cross the divide while still maintain the question of whether God exists?

You are saying I won't gain the experience to say that God exists till I cross over, but I can't cross over till I accept that God exists.

kelly1 wrote: »

You think I'm a fool for believing in something I can't see but I do very definitely sense God in my life.

Well I don't think you are a fool, but I do think you are engaging in wishful thinking, preferring to interpret what you feel as the Christian religion tells you should rather than rationally thinking about it.

adamd164

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think for anybody to say "you are arrogant, so I will ridicule you" and assume to speak for more than themselves in that sentence, shows a complete lack of understanding for the word arrogance. Or perhaps you do understand the meaning of arrogance, just not the meaning of hypocrite or contradictory. I dont believe we are the centre of the universe, but I would prefer to believe that then to assume the right to "ridicule" people who do.

No, I say it only because I am aware of others who feel the same about this egomaniacal worldview -- not because I made assumptions. And I'll ridicule such selfishness all I like, thanks.

Why do people persist in treating such religious idiocy with dignity and respect? For pity's sake, more people ought to stand up to it and expose it for the farce that it is. Stop being so intimidated by the prospect of offending religious opinions!

An Fear Aniar

Mordeth wrote: »

he doesn't need our permission to throw us in hell for all eternity though.
great guy.

You have made SO many assumptions with that statement.

Will you get your head out of the Bible and talk about God instead please?

If we're going to have a discussion about the existence of a Deity please refrain from constantly referring to Christianity, Bible, Hell.

One doesn't have to be a signed up member of a religion to have a spiritual life. In fact, it's probably impossible unless you're free of other people's influences.

Just try and be open-minded.


.

pH

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You have made SO many assumptions with that statement.

Will you get your head out of the Bible and talk about God instead please?

If we're going to have a discussion about the existence of a Deity please refrain from constantly referring to Christianity, Bible, Hell.

One doesn't have to be a signed up member of a religion to have a spiritual life. In fact, it's probably impossible unless you're free of other people's influences.

Just try and be open-minded.


.

I'm sorry, but if you want us to talk about a God you've just invented for yourself you're going to have to explain a little bit about him first. We're familiar enough with the Gods that Romans, Christians, Jews and Muslims have invented, but not yours. May I add that this is through no fault of ours, yours seems to have less published work - can you direct us to some?

An Fear Aniar

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if you want us to talk about a God you've just invented for yourself you're going to have to explain a little bit about him first.

Why would I know anything about God? Nobody knows anything about God.

No one.

It's like the author of the Cloud of Unknowing says:

For thou hast brought me with thy question into that same darkness, and into that same cloud of unknowing, that I would thou wert in thyself. For of all other creatures and their works, yea, and of the works of God’s self, may a man through grace have fullhead of knowing, and well he can think of them: but of God Himself can no man think.

And therefore I would leave all that thing that I can think, and choose to my love that thing that I cannot think. For why; He may well be loved, but not thought. By love may He be gotten and holden; but by thought never.

And therefore, although it be good sometime to think of the kindness and the worthiness of God in special, and although it be a light and a part of contemplation: nevertheless yet in this work it shall be cast down and covered with a cloud of forgetting.

And thou shalt step above it stalwartly, but Mistily, with a devout and a pleasing stirring of love, and try for to pierce that darkness above thee. And smite upon that thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love; and go not thence for thing that befalleth.

.