Atheists unite

[krooton]

I think a couple of you have really missed the point on this Santa example.

Santa himself is, I think I can fairly say, a magical figure that would exist within our reality. A god on the other hand can exist outside the boundaries of known reality, can transcend space and time,

Santa would need to transcend space and time, or be able to exist outside the boundaries of out reality, to be able to do all his deliveries in a single night.

purportedly the creator of all existence, and the existence before existence, existing itself outside of the everything and the nothing.

Bolded the important bit here. People claim many things.

I don't think the Santa analogy is all that bad. He is an all-seeing father figure, who will reward you if you are good, and punish you (albeit in a much lighter way) if you are bad. He also has mystical lackies. He accepts offerings in his name (milk & cookies), and only a handful of people ever claim to have been in direct contact with him. He also doesn't seem to do much for those in this world that lead an impoverished life.

Then you look at the cultural differences in the Santa myth, and it seems pretty similar to all the varying religions you get. Sometimes you get a single head honcho type, sometimes you get Yulemen, a sort of pantheon-esque version like Olympian gods.

I'll say one thing, human beings in general have a pretty cool imagination sometimes.

Fixed your bold text - Gilly

 

[koolpc]

I completely agree. And as such, until proof can be found to support the claim of a god of any religion, I do not accept these claims. Hence, I am an agnostic atheist.

Thats the wonderful thing of 'Faith'. Undying love and belief in God. No need for proofs. No need for scientific proofs. No need to worry about what others say. Just undying love in God.

Atheists have their beliefs, which is fine. If they dont want to believe because they need proof then so be it. For me, i know that i love God with all my heart and soul and it is such a wonderful feeling. Some can have a go at me because of my strong faith but it is built on love, a strong belief in God.

(Waits for the stones to be thrown!)

 

[Castiel]

This comment seems a little unfair on the Asatru community, dismissing their faith whilst leaving the Abrahamic God un-assailed. My Odinist friends will not be happy.

It was an example, not a judgement on the truth value of the example. You could easily substitute Odin for any other specific manifestation of God(s).

 

[elmarko]

This is also true of claims of existence, for the reasons you propose. (Personally I wouldn't use the definitive 'doesn't exist', rather 'has yet to be demonstrated/discovered")

To all intents and purposes would you agree therefore that the question "Does God exist?" is meaningless?

Of course because in a vast majority of cases what's being proposed resides outside of what physically 'exists'.

My specific reply to the question - "Does god exist?" is - "I don't know, as what's being proposed in most cases isn't something which can be proven to exist or not either way".

Not to mention a vast majority of people can't even give a coherent answer as to what exactly I'm supposed to say I believe in or not to begin with.

Usually the question is - "Do you believe in god?" - to which my reply is "No, I do not share your belief". (assuming by god they mean a generic higher being which watches over humanity & created the universe). But my simply not sharing in their belief I'm under no pressure to formulate a counter belief of my own (which is the point I was stressing earlier about the fact you can be an atheist agnostic without asserting that a god doesn't exist) - assuming of course the common meaning of 'lack belief in a god/gods is accepted).

 

[Adsta]

The problem with religions (imo) is they are formed by belief's. People will die, go to war, kill for a belief. There is nothing wrong with preaching , but at the same time preaching should not be conducted in such a way that it preys upon people to instil a belief into them. Religion should have been based on ideas, ideas can change evolve into something more beautiful and no one gets hurt.

I wouldn't classify myself as religious, I've read into quite a few as I am quite fascinated by it and the history behind them. I do not believe, but I have a good idea

 

[arc@css]

Castiel, do you play counterstrike?

 

[Castiel]

Of course because in a vast majority of cases what's being proposed resides outside of what physically 'exists'.

My specific reply to the question - "Does god exist?" is - "I don't know, as what's being proposed in most cases isn't something which can be proven to exist or not either way".

Not to mention a vast majority of people can't even give a coherent answer as to what exactly I'm supposed to say I believe in or not to begin with.

Indeed, hence why I identify primarily with Ignosticism.

 

[MikeTheNative]

In any Gods thus far demonstrated?



There is equal burden of proof on both sides if each side makes a definitive statement regarding the existence or non-existence of God however. That doesn't mean the truth value of each argument is equal, just that the burden on each party is equal.

Simply not accepting something is not the same as opposing something.

There is also the rather subjective nature of what the individual determines as being acceptable evidence...but it's late and that's a debate for another time.

I completely disagree with the burden of proof being equal. How can you disprove something that is apparently not part of space, time or not even living in the same universe? Quite frankly god will never be disproved as there is no way to disprove god.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, do you play counterstrike?

I don't really understand the reference.

 

[Castiel]

I completely disagree with the burden of proof being equal. How can you disprove something that is apparently not part of space, time or not even living in the same universe? Quite frankly god will never be disproved as there is no way to disprove god.

The burden is on the claimant, any claimant has the same burden of proof. That doesn't mean that the actual claim requires an equal level of evidence. There is a difference between the Claimant and the Claim.

 

[pitchfork]

"Atheists assemble like an organized religion and give money to this leader, our messiah of non belief"

No thanks, I'll go on just no believing in religious nonsense - I have nothing to prove.

 

[ubersonic]

"Atheists assemble like an organized religion and give money to this leader, our messiah of non belief"

Sounds like the USSR without guns

 

[Schlong&Stable]

If someone showed me the thumbnail from the video in the OP, I could tell just from looking at it, that the person was an atheist.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

The burden is on the claimant, any claimant has the same burden of proof. That doesn't mean that the actual claim requires an equal level of evidence. There is a difference between the Claimant and the Claim.

Burden of proof may sit with the claimant, but disproof trumps a claimant every time. It is better to defeat a falsehood with proof than entertain the stupidity.

'Oh look, a stick insect!'
'No, that's a stick...'

The burden off proof may well sit with the claimant, but I can just as easily look, poke and prove as they can. In fact, disproof is pretty much the only way to expose the fraud because the claimant is never going to be motivated to prove a claim they know to be false.

Or to make it relevant to the topic, atheists get frustrated they can't disprove god, so fall back on 'burden, blah blah' mistaking burden of proof for disproof itself.

 

[Ryan-3]

Donate to a preacher for not being a believer in being religious, because what he preaches is to deter others from following a religion?

Nonsense to me.

 

[Gilly]

I have agreed with that this whole time, god cannot be disproven. But there is not equal weight to each side as was implied (by Gilly I think).

Claim -> proof? -> no -> it's unlikely then. Is basically what I'm saying.

I certainly did not assign equal weight to both sides.

What I said was that if you have a theist that says there is a god, any burden of proof would be aligned to him/her. Likewise, if you have an atheist that says there is no god, any burden of proof would be aligned to him/her.

If what is said is actually 'I have not seen adequate evidence to state that there is a god, and I have not yet seen adequate evidence to state that there is no god' then there is no burden of proof. You can even go on from there to say that you haven't seen evidence either way, but what you believe is that there is no god, or that there is a god, and that's fine so long as you understand that this latter is a faith-based position.

 

[HAz]

wow what a freak!

 

[Gilly]

Err, thanks?

 

[arc@css]

I don't really understand the reference.

There isn't one. I saw a fellow player last night on CS:S using the same name. Wondered if it was you, that's all.

Over and out (yes, I go off at tangents).

 

[mrk]

But!

Surely it could be argued that the proof is all around us After all, if God really did love all of his children then why are countless millions killed each year through utterly horrible circumstances from abuse to torture to terrorism, starvation the list goes on? Are they simply going through this hard time in life to be blessed in heaven?

I'm on neither side but I usually follow the "question everything" brigade, if it's not logical then question it.