Deny God and win a free DVD

[BoberFett]

My point and has always been is that it doesn't matter what the message is if it's going to be preached as though it were a religion. Spreading atheism for some rabid "strong atheists" is as a much a religion as spreading the gospel. Just because there is no god involved in their religion doesn't mean they don't push their beliefs on others as hard as the people who do believe in god(s).

As I said before, I have had a "strong atheist" tell me I'm an idiot because I am a "weak atheist". (The terms strong and weak weren't used, but it was roughly what the discussion was about, and he did actually use the word "idiot") Atheism should be based on logic and fact, not appeals to emotion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Kev
You can't prove a negative. How are you supposed to find evidence that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?

Don't look at me, you're the one who made the hypothesis that "There is no god."

You fail at science.

You fail at science and common sense and totally missed Kev's point. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, but on the theist. Atheist's don't believe a god exists because there is no evidence one does. If I claimed the moon is not made out of cheese and presented no evidence you would probably still agree with my statement. Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest that the moon IS made out of cheese.

There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief. Believe or don't believe, nobody gives a sh!t either way except the radicals and extremists trying to force their own personal beliefs on others.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Kev
You can't prove a negative. How are you supposed to find evidence that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?

Don't look at me, you're the one who made the hypothesis that "There is no god."

You fail at science.

You fail at science and common sense and totally missed Kev's point. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, but on the theist. Atheist's don't believe a god exists because there is no evidence one does. If I claimed the moon is not made out of cheese and presented no evidence you would probably still agree with my statement. Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest that the moon IS made out of cheese.

Utterly irrelevant and as usual missing the point completely. The burden of proof rests on whomever is trying to the convince the other of their viewpoint.

If a Christian tells me to reject my hedonistic ways and follow him or burn in hell, it's up to him to convince me that god exists.

Likewise, if an atheist tells me to reject god and religion or be branded an idiot, it's up to him to convince me that god doesn't exist.

I don't see what's hard to understand. Considering atheists are supposed to be logical, it's depressing to see so many are utter fools.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kinev

Hmmmm. Not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, atheism is a belief system.

Just like baldness is a color of hair, right?

I'm not clear on why it isn't. I just put some definitions on there. If you don't agree with how atheism is defined, sorry. It's not my definition.

I didn't say it was your definition, but I am saying that it is an unuseful definition because it ignores the relevant details.

What are the real intricacies of atheism vis a vis (pretentious test = +) theism? What exactly is atheism proper?

Theism requires a belief: "A god or gods exist." Atheism does not require a belief: "I do not believe a god or gods exist." "I do not believe..." does not a belief system make. That is the minimally necessary and sufficient condition for atheism. Certainly, a subset of atheists can take it further and positively assert a belief that God does not exist, but that is only a subset of atheists.

Okay, that makes sense in theory. It sounds like semantics to me, though. All of the people who I have ever met that profess to be atheists do so with the same zeal as theists. They are SURE that there is no God. My experience coincides with the definition of atheists; that is someone who believes in the doctrine that there is no God.

"I do not believe..." does not a belief system make is too simplistic. If you're referring to "I do not believe because there is no proof" then that's agnosticism not atheism. The atheist believes (knows) that there is no God.

a - without + theos - god. Atheist = no God.
a - without + gnosis - knowledge. Agnostic = no knowledge about God

You may not agree with the definitions and you may not think that atheists have a belief system, but they do. The belief system of atheists is "I believe that there is no God".

Fact is, there is no scientific, conclusive, or any evidence to prove that God does or does not exist. It can't be proven scientifically, because the existence of God is outside the realm of science. So, without any evidence for or against, it is a matter of faith on both sides of the issue. Then, there's the agnostic in the middle who says "I don't know".

 

[KillyKillall]

<--- in before hell freezes over!

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Logic is a thin reed, my friend. Logic dictates that because the sun has always risen on a precise regular schedule in the past, it will do so tomorrow. It sounds good, and it's probably right, but you can't prove it until it happens.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Vic
When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Its depressing that many view this as the goal of atheists. Its also depressing that some atheists choose to advocate this point of view because it grossly misrepresents the vast majority of atheists.

Originally posted by: Vic
Logic is a thin reed, my friend. Logic dictates that because the sun has always risen on a precise regular schedule in the past, it will do so tomorrow. It sounds good, and it's probably right, but you can't prove it until it happens.

You can't prove it, but its clearly not a coin flip either. Nobody knows that the sun will rise tomorrow, but almost everybody knows enough as to not be indeterminate about it.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

QFT. Everyone jumps all over religious extremists, but never all over atheist extremists.

Atheist "extremists?" WTF are you talking about. Your ignorance is astounding.

Are you denying that there are atheists who attempt to spread atheism as though it were a religion? What the hell do you think people like Richard Dawkins are? They're preachers for their religion of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. This little tactic is used way too often by people who are against atheism. It shows a total lack of understanding about what atheism is. Atheism by definition is the skepticism of religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are almost universally based on the faith of something that is unproven, unprovable and unfalsifiable. Yet despite evidence the the contrary of the truthfulness of said faith, the religious will continue to hold onto that faith.

The vast majority of atheists, on the other hand, are people of science. That means we don't hold a faith in a preset array of beliefs, but are willing the change our beliefs when the evidence points in new directions. If I were to be presented with good evidence of the existence of God, I would be a believer.

No, what you just described is an "agnostic".

Aeitheist's are simply the exact opposite of theist's. They don't believe in god, period.

Agnostics are the people with no preset belief either way - there might be a god, there might not be.

Really there are two types of Agnostics too, one who is seeking out evidence that god does or does not exist, and the other who simply doesn't care. If there is a god, or there isn't - we will one day find out, or we won't - who cares.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Logic is a thin reed, my friend. Logic dictates that because the sun has always risen on a precise regular schedule in the past, it will do so tomorrow. It sounds good, and it's probably right, but you can't prove it until it happens.

So are you trying to say that a scientifically proven event/process is only believed because of faith?

It's like saying "In the history of jumping off skyscrapers, everyone has fallen and died. So if I jump off a building, I will probably fall and die." But you can't prove it till it happens, right?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Its depressing that many view this as the goal of atheists. Its also depressing that some atheists choose to advocate this point of view because it grossly misrepresents the vast majority of atheists.

It is the extremists on both sides who grossly misrepresent the views of the vast majority on both sides. IMO people just need to lighten up. Feeling threatened by someone else's personal beliefs is just ridiculous.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Logic is a thin reed, my friend. Logic dictates that because the sun has always risen on a precise regular schedule in the past, it will do so tomorrow. It sounds good, and it's probably right, but you can't prove it until it happens.

So are you trying to say that a scientifically proven event/process is only believed because of faith?

It's like saying "In the history of jumping off skyscrapers, everyone has fallen and died. So if I jump off a building, I will probably fall and die." But you can't prove it till it happens, right?

In the future, I suggest you spend a moment to consider what you're posting before clicking reply.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

Logic != Interpretation. A TRUE logical conclusion can only be obtained in light of all possible evidence. You, even Richard Dawkins, does not "Know" everything about our natural world and universe. In fact, human beings can only grasp but a tiny smidgen of how everything works; so to conclude your answer "that there can be no God" is only an interpretation of the small amount of information your brain, and mine, can grasp. The only 'Logical" conclusion, insofar as we can define logical, to the question of God, is agnosticism.

"Logic" applied to anything outside of mathematics is but a human construct and wholly arbitrary. Humans are NOT logical beings, that is we do not, you included, always make sense in actions and beliefs. You cant apply your holy grail of "Logic" to human existence and experience, however tempting it may be to do so. If you want a being that can be entirely explained by logic, look no further than the machine on which you will undoubtedly be furiously typing your response to me.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Except, maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong.

They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

What if somebody murdered millions of people IN YOUR name?

I guess that would make you the evilist of all, eh?

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My point and has always been is that it doesn't matter what the message is if it's going to be preached as though it were a religion.

You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this.

Atheists communicate their message, passionately at times, but that is as far as the similarity goes to religious sermonizing. The key difference is that atheists (including Dawkins, Harris, etc.) always appeal to evidence, reason and doubt. You seem to refuse to see this important distinction.

I'm going back to lurking now. Oh, and I deny the existence of the holy spirit.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Vic
There is no "burden of proof" on anyone. It's a personal belief.

Sure, but if someone has a theory he wants to put forward then he should atleast have some evidence to support it. People can believe what they want, but their beliefs can still be unfounded. The issue is not about whether people have a right to believe in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... but about whether their beliefs are logical.

When the discussion turns to "the world should be rid of such and such belief," as this one did within the first 10 posts, then yes, it is about the right of people to believe in what they will.

Logic is a thin reed, my friend. Logic dictates that because the sun has always risen on a precise regular schedule in the past, it will do so tomorrow. It sounds good, and it's probably right, but you can't prove it until it happens.

So are you trying to say that a scientifically proven event/process is only believed because of faith?

It's like saying "In the history of jumping off skyscrapers, everyone has fallen and died. So if I jump off a building, I will probably fall and die." But you can't prove it till it happens, right?

In the future, I suggest you spend a moment to consider what you're posting before clicking reply.

yawn. another boring back and forth with Vic... no thanks

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

Sure they do - it's called "choice" (abortion.)

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Except, maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong.

They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

What if somebody murdered millions of people IN YOUR name?

I guess that would make you the evilist of all, eh?

What kind of retarded argument is that? As if he is anyone that anyone else should be killing in the name of.

The only tangeant you can even draw from that would be cults, and cults like the "heavens gate" cult or whatever are great for society. All they are doing is killing themselves, in the name of an insane leader - these kind of cults help weed out the idiots - its called natural selection.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My point and has always been is that it doesn't matter what the message is if it's going to be preached as though it were a religion.

You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this.

Atheists communicate their message, passionately at times, but that is as far as the similarity goes to religious sermonizing. The key difference is that atheists (including Dawkins, Harris, etc.) always appeal to evidence, reason and doubt. You seem to refuse to see this important distinction.

I'm going back to lurking now. Oh, and I deny the existence of the holy spirit.

I don't need to provide evidence, I'm not the one making claims. Richard Dawkins and Billy Graham are making the claims. Neither has offered me evidence enough to agree with either of them.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Kev
yawn. another boring back and forth with Vic... no thanks

If I was being trounced in an argument by someone with superior intellect, I'd feign boredom as well. :roll:

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My point and has always been is that it doesn't matter what the message is if it's going to be preached as though it were a religion.

You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this.

Atheists communicate their message, passionately at times, but that is as far as the similarity goes to religious sermonizing. The key difference is that atheists (including Dawkins, Harris, etc.) always appeal to evidence, reason and doubt. You seem to refuse to see this important distinction.

I'm going back to lurking now. Oh, and I deny the existence of the holy spirit.

I don't need to provide evidence, I'm not the one making claims. Richard Dawkins and Billy Graham are making the claims. Neither has offered me evidence enough to agree with either of them.

LOL. Okay, you hooked me, I can't resist. As I quoted, you claimed that "[the message is] going to be preached as though it were a religion." Please back this claim up!

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My point and has always been is that it doesn't matter what the message is if it's going to be preached as though it were a religion.

You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this.

Atheists communicate their message, passionately at times, but that is as far as the similarity goes to religious sermonizing. The key difference is that atheists (including Dawkins, Harris, etc.) always appeal to evidence, reason and doubt. You seem to refuse to see this important distinction.

I'm going back to lurking now. Oh, and I deny the existence of the holy spirit.

Actually, reason is on the side of religeon and doubt is on the side of agnosticism. That makes atheists nothing more than pissy people blaming their problems on other people's faith in God.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Bah. I don't need the lure of a free DVD to deny god. I do it anyway.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Except, maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong.

They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

What if somebody murdered millions of people IN YOUR name?

I guess that would make you the evilist of all, eh?

What kind of retarded argument is that? As if he is anyone that anyone else should be killing in the name of.

Christianity isn't anything anyone else should be killing in the name of either.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Where are Christians murdering hundreds of thousands?

It's called Iraq. Oh, also history. Look it up sometime.