Atheists...

[midas77]

Originally Posted by andykelly

Surely an athiest also has a burden of proof? As an athiest is stating they have a belief system - the choice to totally refute God's existance.
.....

In fact the whole thing is an over simplification.
.....
Do I have a faith - yes to some degree, am I totally convinced? hell no

I stand by my statement re arrogance - interpret that how you will, all I was trying to say was who the hell is anyone to claim that God doesn't exist - surely it's sensible to take an agnostic stance - as we all are pretty much in a state of ignorance - so much to learn as theres so much we don't know.

In an infinite universe are we (mankind) in a postition to say we know it all? I'm a fan of science - I've read a lot of dawkins and applaud his brain but disagree with him on some fundamental levels - can we reduce everything to the propagation of the selfish gene?

To shift the burden of proof by stating a "mere arrogance" claim is totally unfair and prejudicial. And what atheistic belief system are you implying? It is as if atheism is an organized school of thought compared to organize religion. There was a time that the concept of God was used as an scape-goat to the mysteries of reality but more and more it is becoming apparent that God is simply irrelevant.

[boagie]

andykelly,

Surely an athiest also has a burden of proof? As an athiest is stating they have a belief system the choice to totally refute God's existance.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, the athiest simply doesn't buy into your over active imagination, and/or pretensions. Your the one who believes in fairies not the athiest!!

[Justin]

Have not all religions done enough of dividing mankind? Whether it be Muslim, Christian or other? All religions are creations of man so which man shall we follow? Man wrote the books, man created the doctrines and now we have blind men leading the blind.

How much longer are we all going to be led to another man's truth rather than discovering it ourselves?

Based on all the Religions I've seen and observed, there isn't a one that is fully truth. It's all man's doctrine manipulating man.

As far as atheist not having a heart,... that's your preachers perception of it. Ask another preacher and he'll give you another answer. Keep asking and you'll keep getting different answers even though it's the same question.

I feel that religion is the furthest most point one can get from truth... Religion is a divide with one blind man leading a multitude of others.

Disclaimer - This is my opinion and only my opinion. Take the meat off the bone and leave the rest behind!

[Zetetic11235]

By the dictionary definition:
a·the·ist (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

If one denies the existnce of a diety they are in the same hole, by choice, that a theist is in. If they understand that proof of either point is of the same metaphysical unverifiable nature, then they are Agnostics(probably of the strong type).

However, if one wants to remain a true skeptic, in realizing that a totally dismissal of any possibility is ignorant, they will likely become agnostics of the weak type.

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

By the dictionary definition:
a·the·ist (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

If one denies the existnce of a diety they are in the same hole, by choice, that a theist is in. If they understand that proof of either point is of the same metaphysical unverifiable nature, then they are Agnostics(probably of the strong type).

However, if one wants to remain a true skeptic, in realizing that a totally dismissal of any possibility is ignorant, they will likely become agnostics of the weak type.

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

\

Zetetic,

You do realize the good Christian also disbelieves in almost as many gods as I, save but one. If there is not anything that can be presented to my senses or otherwise shown to be detectable by instruments, that can even suggest the possiablity of the supernatural why should I take the word of some fool who has no greater means of understanding in this area than I. People should if they are bothered by the religious cease giving them the unwarranted respect they have enjoyed in the past. Their delusions are humorous, let us laugh, perhaps at least it will improve the digestion.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

If you want to avoid burden of proof, you must be a weak agnostic, the only view which is not trapped by arrogant assertion of absolutes. I still lean more towards strong agnosticism, and would like there to be a disproof of the provability of a metaphysical being, but that may never come, it may be impossible.

The atheist ask the bartender, " fill my cup full for it's empty." The bartender said, "sir, but the cup is full I just refilled it." The atheist said, "it's empty, can't you see its empty". The bartender said, "Proove to me its empty." Can the atheist proove the negative? All he can do is point out that the cup is empty.
The atheist said there is no buried treasure chest, and we ask him to unturned all stones to proove his point. Unfair and prejudicial.

[Zetetic11235]

Don't you see that by asserting that there is no god goes beyond choosing not to believe? If I assert that there is X and you assert that there is not X, or if a third person asserts that there is no way to verify whether or not there is an X, they all have assertions which must be proven. However, if I tell you that I do not know if there is an X or that there ever has been an X or ever will be an X, I have no burden of proof.

I cannot deny the possibility, to do so is arrogant and foolish. I do not accept the definite assertion, for it is not verifiable. I cannot say that neither can be proven or disproven, for I must prove the existence of that proof, which I cannot do. So I admit that I do not know, but maybe I could, however, maybe I can never know.

I was simply defining terms that you, my fellow posters, have been twisting away from their dictionary definitoins, and promoting confusion in doing so.

Why should we not force the denier to unturn all stones such that we subscribe to his assertion? Furthermore, why is it more reasonable to deny or affirm an unknown than to realize that it is an unknown.

[boagie]

Zetetic,

Does not the believer set up this none falsifiable situtation by making a claim which does not even pretend to supply evidence to the senses, a means of detecting the unicorn as an actuality. Its a bloody fantasy, one cannot disprove any fastasy that someone claims as truth, because there is nothing there. Any thing my imagination can come up with will be unfalsifiable as long as I keep it grounded in the imagination and utterly enstranged from the real world. So how is Christian mythology any different than any other fantasy. Do I have a responsibility to the authors and believers of all fanstasys, no I do not think so, it is a matter of non-participation. Did you know the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, a cosmic turtle of course, how could you disprove that to anyone two hundred years ago. Let us all hold hands and skip through the madhouse together, its all for best, the brothers and sisters they are coming for you now!! We shall gather by the river------the beautiful the beautiful river--------- I am going back to my room now! Fuhjng sjeocy jeyudt!!- x0*%!!O!!

[Zetetic11235]

God is not even universally definable, it has no truth value. The Giant turtle is quite verifiable, you simply needed to step away from the perspective that was accessable at the time. The terms were set and not ambiguous. Giant, turtle, Earth, on, back, of. Nothing ambiguous. God, however, is metaphysical, and not universally definable. God is not a verifiable concept within any physical parameters by definition.

Your arguement is not really applicable to tihs case. To say that there are no undetectable unicorns is as silly as saying that there are undetectable unicorns, both are non-verifiable and both sides take upon themselfs the burden of proof in verification. If you were to say a false statement that is verifiable, you would still have to prove it just as much as I would have to prove its falsity if I so desired to assert the opposite.

To simply say that it is somthing which we cannot know by definition, is also an assertion, but to say that I do not know if I can or cannot know is only self verifiable, though it is an assertion its truth only affects the one making the assertion so it is not of consequence outside of the person asserting it.

[boagie]

Zetetic,

This then applies to all the present gods as well as all historical gods, I could not really deny any of them, is that not right?