People have no problem saying that Santa is not real, that leprechauns aren't real, that star wars never happened, but when I say god does not exsist all hell breaks loose, is it fair for me to say he does not exsist...?
Like all the myths i stated above, there is no evidence of, and noone goes around saying "can you prove to me santa DOES NOT exsist".. But for god they do?
So i have 2 questions..
1) Is it fair for me to say god does not exsist, after all the burden of proof relies on the group making the claim..
2) Is there even a possible way to dissprove something such as a god?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"1) Is it fair for me to say god does not exsist, after all the burden of proof relies on the group making the claim.."
You are the one making the claim:"god does not exsist" so the burden of proof is on you now.
If you said instead that you see no compelling reason to accept the claim that god exist, you would be fine.
Since the burden of proof is on them to show that there is a compelling reason for their claim.
"2) Is there even a possible way to disprove something such as a god?"
Not really since god could mean anything to different people.
My god is chocolate and it exists.
If on the other hand you mean a theistic type of god, it has been proven by logic that it cannot exist in any logical universe since a theistic god attributes(omniscient,omnipotent,loving) are contradictory concepts.
I see, thanks for the reply!
The obvious question, then, is what does these terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent mean? Compare that to the scientific term omnivores. Secondly, where in the Bible are these terms suggested, either directly or theologically, especially keeping in mind the scientific term and it's practical applications.
The answer is these terms are not practical and are not taught in the Bible but are a theological doctrine.
Not only that, but the claim that their God must exist because of morality has already been disproven.
See here:
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics
Not something you asked but i feel it's nessasary to include. My apologies if I am mistaken.
Random, I think morality is an interesting point, but I disagree with the mainstream Christian argument on morality, for the following reasons.
1. I have observed no major difference in the morality of unbelievers and believers.
2. Morality is subjective, dictated by the society in which one resides, whether Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc.
3. God created us in his own image, male and female, which means with his sense of morality. We all know killing is wrong, or bad, we all know stealing, lying, cheating is bad.
"2. Morality is subjective,..."
I would probably have also used "relative" to add antiquity to the embrace of this statement.
I like the idea that people divest themselves of their finest attributes and call them god. This says positive things about people insomuch as to value them enough to bestow such a treatment. That said, I'd probably leave that part of their inner weakness intact and use it to question their deeds: "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition".
Welcome back :)
One cannot prove a negative....realistically. I know, I know, that there is a math equation that actually proves a negative, but it is really turning the negative into a positive, proving it and restating it as a negative.
The burden of proof is on the positive. First they must prove a god NOT require you to prove that there isn't one.
mykckob, That would depend upon the common usage of a god, a mistranslation or at least a misunderstanding of the basic concept of a god. For example, I can prove with varying degrees of acceptance, at least the possible existence of 5 gods that existed, 1 of them still existing.
Atheism by basic definition, denies the existence of a god or gods, but the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and English definition of a god is anything or anyone that is considered mighty or is venerated. So there are actually billions of gods. The definition of a God by an atheist is that any supernatural Gods don't exist and a "metaphorical" God (which is nonsensical in application other than to distinguish from the supernatural to the natural for the sole intent of establishing atheism as a logical position) can exist.
Moses, the Judges of Israel, Jesus and the Sumerian King Tammuz are all people who existed and were called God, or gods by the Bible.
Hopscotching on Jeff and myk, be prepared to answer a few very silly questions the minute you let them know that they're responsible for proving the existence of a god. Just so that you're prepared, the answer to "Doesn't the beauty and majesty of everything around you prove there's a loving God?" is 'no'.
A definite, absolute, non compromising "no" at that.
I asgree with Tzeentch and the Random one that "The Beauty and majesty of everything around you" doesn't "prove there is a loving God" unless you are already a believer.
Quote JVL (post 2), "..god could mean anything to different people. My god is chocolate and it exists.
If on the other hand you mean a theistic type of god,.."
So, I suggest the place to start is to ask the religionist to define their god. That usually involves (in my experience) the religionist either claiming supernatural abilities for the god or babling incoherently about it. It often leads to a conversation that illustrates just how preposterous a specifically Abrahamic god is.
Yea it leads nowhere as usual.
Well I don't recommend asking a believer to define their god. I wouldn't want to wait through an hour+ long proselytizing session. Most theist are completely unable to articulate a reasonable description of their god. They either regurgitate something that has been pounded into their brains, or babble on a stream of consciousness that utterly makes no sense whatsoever.
All the while they think they are speaking the absolute truth. Narrow-minded, ignorant bigots most of them.
Many are unknowing bigots. The problem with trying to talk to a god believer is that they all think that they are naturally superior. They think that a god with infinite wisdom and knowledge is always there to give them an answer to any question. Even though they usually resort to "I find truth in god that is the only fact I need. His word is written and the bible gives me all the knowledge I need." Ironic, given that the very first story(myth) in the bible is how their god tries hard to HIDE truth and knowledge from mankind, and then when they find "knowledge" he damns all of mankind for the sin of doing so and has to pull a huge trick to alleviate mankind from the sentence he(god) has just handed down!
Amen.....lol
The thing about thinkers such as this is that they don't believe in a textual god. They believe in a 'God of the Filter'. People such as this are people who have not read their holy texts with any kind of critical eye. Most of them have never read them full stop. They instead view their God as anything positive or good. They filter all good events in their lives as coming from the beneficence of their god. Anything negative? It's not the fault of their god, it's either the logical result of sin or it's the direct action of their counter-deity (the devil 99% of the time). Viewing things like this with this brand of cognitive bias, it's very easy to create a Filter God. I see a great bit of irony in the fact that most people who believe in the Filter God tend to have Icthys fish bumper stickers.
The best way to counteract the believers in the Filter God is to ask them about the holy texts they claim to get their knowledge of god from. As soon as they mention it, anybody who's actually read the thing can correct their false assertions about the nature of their deity. Take the treatment of apostates, shrimp, gays, those who shave, etc. If they claim no textual basis, then you can just use Hitchen's Razor.
I was raised in an atheist home, by that I mean we didn't believe in God and didn't worship. I was also never told that there was a Santa. We celebrated with tree, lights and presents, but no Santa. When I was young I had to watch myself so as not to give it away, and I remember thinking that even all the smart kids believed in Santa, simply because they had been told. Then all of a sudden, none of the kids believed anymore. But, again, it was only because they were told.
When you say there's no Santa, to me, even to this day, I still think of course there is. I see them all over. Santa is a traditional myth adopted by big corporations to spread materialism and a lot of people teach their children these lies, because its cute.
To answer your questions, no, I don't think it is fair for you to say god doesn't exist. Proof? That's subjective. Is the burden on the one making the claim? Well, to whom? To themselves, yes, but to you? No. Its quite possible you wouldn't accept it if God himself came down and told you leaving very little room for doubt. But there are other reasons as well, for example . . .
1. Maybe you have a definition of a god that isn't specifically in tune with everyone else.
2. Maybe you have no method of testing whether there is and you certainly can't prove a negative.
3. Maybe you haven't researched the question enough to say whether he exists or not.
4. Maybe you're wrong.
5. Maybe you have some other agenda.
So . . . while you are allowed your opinion, whether informed or uninformed, it isn't fair of you to make the assumption with any degree of integrity.
To answer your second question, Is there even a possible way to disprove something such as god? Not if he doesn't exist, which leaves the militant outspoken atheist in a mess.
" Is the burden on the one making the claim? Well, to whom? To themselves, yes, but to you? No. "
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim regardless if others accept the proof/evidence or not.
There are several theories which evidence have been presented for and several people still reject to this day.
Does it mean the burden of proof changed?
No, it will always be on the one making the claim.
"To answer your second question, Is there even a possible way to disprove something such as god? Not if he doesn't exist, which leaves the militant outspoken atheist in a mess."
What do you mean with the term "militant outspoken atheist"?
I can prove with logic that the theistic type of god(loving/omniscient/omnipotent) cannot possibly exist in THIS logical universe.
It does not leave me in a mess for sure.
Jeff, you say that you can prove with logic that the theistic type of god (loving / omniscient / omnipotent) "theistic" type of god can't possibly exist in THIS logical universe? I take it you mean omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent? Why not omnipresent?
I could do that myself, using the Bible, so first we would have to have that debate. Namely; is the God of the Bible any of those things?
Pathway Machine - "Namely; is the God of the Bible any of those things? "
That is what the believers tell us---if you don't agree---take it up with them.
Not much of a debater, are you Nyarlathotep - more of just a smart ass?
"I could do that myself, using the Bible, so first we would have to have that debate. Namely; is the God of the Bible any of those things?"
Mainly because without those 3 the theistic god loses any value for a theist.
If he is not loving than he is not worth of worship
If he is not omniscient than he cannot judge and know you
If he is not omnipotent than he is not a god.
There is no Muslim or Christian I know that would still be one if he did not agree with those 3 at least.
"Namely; is the God of the Bible any of those things?"
I know those 3 are in the bible because I had to look them up a long time ago for another debate.
Yes they are there, either in the old or in the new. John glorifies them.
Even if they are not, it does not matter since we are debating with a theists that believes that god has those characteristics.
Theists do not believe their book but what the priests thought them about the book.
So NO, that debate would be irrelevant to my point.
Those concepts are contradictory in nature when compared to the reality we observe in this universe.
You have yet to put forward your position on this point.