|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10150444 - 04/12/09 01:54 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But there's no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There's just a lack of evidence that they do. This is not the same thing.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10150551 - 04/12/09 02:35 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
But in doing so you lose an important distinction. Lack of evidence from not investigating is not the same as lack of evidence after an investigation. Survey teams and bone diggers have covered most of the worlds continents and not found any sign of a horned horse - that is evidence of something. Thousands of years prior you would truly have no evidence as there wasn't any comprehensive surveys.
Similar for the old aether theory - there is evidence it doesn't exist and that's why we dont believe in it. Before the test was made, only then was there truly a lack of evidence. Consider an alien species, right now there is lack of evidence so perhaps you dont believe they exist. But certainly if a comprehensive search of the universe was made and none were found, that would be evidence of something.
So in that context, id say there certainly is evidence that unicorns dont exist.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10150561 - 04/12/09 02:43 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know unicorns have bones? Perhaps they don't fossilise? I can keep moving the goalposts, making it harder and harder for you to find evidence that they don't exist. Similarly, there's no way you could find evidence that God doesn't exist. The fact that there was no global flood, for example, is not enough.
I maintain that no evidence is required to disprove the existence of God, or unicorns. The default position is that they don't exist, until we find evidence to the contrary. There is no more evidence in favour of God's existence than there is for unicorns, so I remain skeptical about each.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zodd man
Stranger
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 12
Loc: uk
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
ive always know what i am and what my thoughts on existence and this colony we exist on, And I’ve always know why im different to everyone elts. for some strange reason 90 % percent of the human race needs an undeniable reason to get up in the morning. Weather that be god, the lack of god, or simply a herd to be moved powerlessly to and from without the blind bit of car as to weathered that direction is a good direction or not.
i my self dont need to have those things i never have.
I’ve never claimed that god doesn’t exist and punched some one in the face for thinking his own way.
ive never sat in a cherch preaching hypocritical nonsense, while wishing war on some one for something as simple as ideology
and I’ve never pissed in a letter box
and what of it you cant prove any of it.
all you can do is speculate
can you really verify that i exist, can i really verify that i exist. what is the point in trying. go have a bear and be your own god for a day its much more enlightening.
i suppose that what im really trying to say is that earthiest are just another form of religion with nothing more to say than join us you know were right or dam your religion dam your god (Sound familiar). And are usually made up of people foolishly wasting there time trying to convert people into one undeniable truth like religion, when they could be shagging there mum hypothetically.. who would want to join a religion when the leader shags there mum.
who knows
its all speculation and all a waste of perfectly good life
and remember its only your life your wasting
so to sumeries do what the fuck you want think what the fuck you like, but don’t disturb my jam on toast for it.
There is no such thing as truth. Just the ever defining kaleidoscope of reality as is understood by the proposed individual.
-------------------- good vibes to all who trpp
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151097 - 04/12/09 09:19 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: to think of God as a personal being implies he is discrete
being discrete implies he has boundaries
boundaries imply he has a supportive space
if God is the source of all; what is the source of this supportive space?
to me... God cannot be personal... as being personal means being confined... which imparts the existence of a higher structure
perhaps minor God(s)... but the Supreme Source... would transcend all forms (imo)
First of all, could you explain what you mean by a personal being having to be discrete? Second, why does personal imply having boundaries? Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
I would also remind you that Hindus have a different word for God(Isvara) than they do for the supreme source(Brahman). It is the same in Kabbalistic Judaism, where Ein Sof precedes God. And it's found in Meister Eckhart's writing about God and Godhead. That is how I think about it. God is not the supreme source, but rather a necessary being who proceeds from the supreme source.
--------------------
Edited by Silversoul (04/12/09 09:26 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
Something that fits in a shirt pocket.
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 59 minutes, 47 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
deff said: to think of God as a personal being implies he is discrete
being discrete implies he has boundaries
boundaries imply he has a supportive space
if God is the source of all; what is the source of this supportive space?
to me... God cannot be personal... as being personal means being confined... which imparts the existence of a higher structure
perhaps minor God(s)... but the Supreme Source... would transcend all forms (imo)
First of all, could you explain what you mean by a personal being having to be discrete? Second, why does personal imply having boundaries? Also, what do we mean by "personal"?
I would also remind you that Hindus have a different word for God(Isvara) than they do for the supreme source(Brahman). It is the same in Kabbalistic Judaism, where Ein Sof precedes God. And it's found in Meister Eckhart's writing about God and Godhead. That is how I think about it. God is not the supreme source, but rather a necessary being who proceeds from the supreme source.
Yes I agree with all of that. The Supreme Source is what I meant originally by "God" - which is why I said lesser Gods could remain personal. What is a personality? A set of traits. You can only really define traits by setting boundaries - as in "this is A implies it is not B". The Supreme Source would be without any boundaries (as such boundaries would imply a higher source to encompass that which "is" the being and that which could have been but was not)
I'm all for other Gods and being personal (wherein they remain very close to the Supreme Source) much like Hinduism - with Brahman as you said. To seek union with Brahman - which is the goal of many - one has to transcend desires, attachments, and more importantly boundaries - it would be like dissolving into infinity. If instead you have specific discrete desires from life (i.e. a good career, finding the love of your life, etc.) then lesser Gods come more into play - as their abstraction from the Supreme Source (however slight) is enough to give them traits.
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,008
|
|
would a compassionate god permit such atrocities of spelling and grammar.
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151175 - 04/12/09 09:53 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Supreme Source is what I meant originally by "God"
Substituting one nebulous word with a vague phrase clarifies nothing.
God to me merely implies ignorance of a cause.
What created the universe? I don't know. What created the universe? God.
God = "I don't have a fucking clue."
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 59 minutes, 47 seconds
|
|
that's only the idea of a creator God... many different religions have plethora of Gods with varying traits (i.e. creation/preservation/destruction)
supreme source would be akin to infinite potential
but this kinda stuff is more right-brain than left-brain
--------------------
|
deff
just love everyone
Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,421
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 59 minutes, 47 seconds
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: deff]
#10151198 - 04/12/09 09:59 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
also - the "supreme source" in this regard would be akin to the Tao in which it is ultimately unknowable, you can only approach it (or live in harmony with it)
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: zouden]
#10151509 - 04/12/09 11:22 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said: How do you know unicorns have bones? Perhaps they don't fossilise? I can keep moving the goalposts, making it harder and harder for you to find evidence that they don't exist. Similarly, there's no way you could find evidence that God doesn't exist. The fact that there was no global flood, for example, is not enough.
Of course unicorns have bones, they are always depicted as mammals and are well defined. Now if you change the traits of a unicorn, then you are making a claim about some different creature of course different analysis is required.
There is evidence you can find that disproves many definitions of god. The greeks gods lived on mount olymups, we looked and didnt find them - thats evidence against them. The christian god caused a flood which evidence shows didnt happen - thats evidence against the christian god. If you move the goal posts further then of course its gonna be harder to say with certainty if that definition of god exists or not.
Im curious how a scientific person like yourself can willfully embrace absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Do you not believe in gravity waves since they have not been observed yet? Do you not believe in extra solar life since it has not been observed yet? Do you think the michelson-morley experiment was useless, since there was no evidence of the aether before or after it was conducted?
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 11 months, 11 days
|
|
Quote:
MindGorilla said: So I'd like to hear some good arguments on why people think that God does NOT exist.
In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
If you say that there are dog sized, orange and black poke-a-dotted elephants constantly floating just out of sight of everyone (but never-the-less there), then I say you should provide proof. And by proof, I mean more than anecdotes passed down from antiquity by our scientifically unsophisticated and superstitious ancestors. Just because they came before doesn't mean their every word should be worshiped as total truth.
While I don't go around proclaiming that god doesn't exist, I certainly haven't been presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary. So far as I can tell, the only proof offered up to date is the ever frustrating argument that the worlds holy books say it is so therefore it must be.
The other argument given to me is from people who claim to have felt the presence of god in their lives. I hardly see this as proof. At most it could be classified as the power of suggestion gone wild. People who have been told to believe in god all of their lives will USUALLY continue to do so for the remainder of the days, no matter how absurd the idea may seem. I personally have experienced this feeling. Shedding the thought patterns of belief in myth is very hard when those doctrines have been instilled into your mind from birth. It's very hard to come to grips with the idea that the people you love believe something false, that you can never be able to convince them otherwise. Even as I began to see the irrationality of religious beliefs, I still entertained the idea that if I was wrong I might be dooming myself to eternity in the burning fires of hell. I still use phrases such as, "Oh my god", "god bless you", "lord help me", etc., which are simply leftovers of from my previous religious education. No wonder people claim to feel the presence of god in their life. They've been told from birth that they should. SO they use that as proof? That's a symptom of the belief, not the cause of it.
Some people say that they came to god after a lifetime without religion. That god came to them and helped to turn their lives around. Most of these people USUALLY say that they suddenly felt a presence where before there was only a void. They say that something was missing in their life and that god and the church has filled that space for them. This is completely reasonable. Churches are by their very nature a place designed to accept people and give a sense of community. By joining a religious organization you suddenly have a huge base of support from which to draw strength from. You have positioned yourself in such a way as to make it virtually impossible to fail. You will see your life improve and you will inevitably believe that this was the work of god. I actually know people who go to church simply for the social networking that is available by being involved in church. Connections can be made in church between people of such differing social dynamics because at that place people are considered equal under god. Where I live it is quite profitable to be a member of the right congregation.
So back to the main question. Why do I not believe in god? Because I've been given insufficient data to support his/her existence and science has been able to sufficiently explain(to me) the questions that made people need a god in the first place.
There is a reason god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It's because knowledge erodes belief. Understanding dispels superstitious beliefs. When we start to find the answers on our own we no longer need to give credit to our imaginary friend's magical abilities. Does understanding the universe and our place in it take away from the beauty of all things? NO!! There will always be questions. There will always be something unknown to keep life interesting. There's no reason to make things up to make things interesting.
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10151782 - 04/12/09 12:21 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ekstaza said: In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
Somethings can only be proven by experience.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10151811 - 04/12/09 12:26 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The burden of proof lies on those making a claim, any claim - not just the claim you dont believe in.
Edited by Qubit (04/12/09 12:55 PM)
|
Ekstaza
stranger than most
Registered: 04/10/03
Posts: 4,324
Loc: Around the corner
Last seen: 11 months, 11 days
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: DieCommie]
#10151959 - 04/12/09 12:52 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spyder said:
Quote:
Ekstaza said: In my mind the burden of proof should rest on those stating the existence of god.
Somethings can only be proven by experience.
If this is your argument supporting the existence of god, it is weak. You're basically saying that once I believe I will have proof from the experience. Therefore proof is only available to believers. Funny thing is, believers shouldn't need proof. Religion is designed to negate the need for proof.
"Welcome everyone, please come inside, sit down and turn off your mind. For the next hour god will tell you what to believe, how to feel, and who to love".
-------------------- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: Ekstaza]
#10152422 - 04/12/09 02:22 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
You have twisted what I said into it's opposite. No book, no person, no words can prove the existence of God. The only thing that can prove the existence of God is for you to have a direct personal experience. Everything you have posted seems to be some sort of Christian bashing exercise. I am not Christian or religious. I am not even talking about me. I do not know if there is a God.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
Loc: mumuland
|
Re: Atheist welcome! [Re: spyder]
#10152452 - 04/12/09 02:27 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Are you talking about proof or belief?
Proof is measured according to a system. It's checked for correctness; it's reviewed. Who reviews your proof of God if you're the only one who knows?
|
spyder
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/09
Posts: 444
|
|
You are operating under the rules of science, proof in a court room is different. At this time you cannot prove God under the rules of science, you don't have the tools. Just because you do not have the tools to prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think it is up to each person to decide how much evidence is enough.
|
MindGorilla
Stranger
Registered: 10/27/06
Posts: 285
Loc: Detroit
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
|
I was brought up my whole life as a Catholic. Never believed in God primarily because of Catholicism and the fact that science is pounded into your head as truth, from early elementary. Only until a few months ago could I ever realize how brainwashed I was. The only truth you can have is subjective, yet man continues to try and make the subjective, objective. Time into numbers, music with lyrics.
If you can understand in your mind the idea of a God being something that none greater can be thought of.
By not believing it exist in reality creates a contradiction. For if your idea of nothing greater than god still remains, you have created something greater. A being that exist in your mind, and in reality.
The Big Bang created everything in this universe that is physical. So to say that something that created everything is physical is impossible, which means it must have been personal.
True relationship with God does not begin with experiencing, rather understanding. By understanding god, things like evolving or being created in some fashion become irrelevant to the infinite itself.
With the matter of having a relationship, those who don't believe in God can not understand. God is personal, which also makes it subjective, as something that can only be subjectively understood. And like our relationship with the external world which we never truly know, their is no uncertainty in god. If you could reach out and grasp god, would you believe?
|
|