What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

Cheers, was just checking

I don't know your post history though, and even if I did there is real folklore where I live with some folk who believe in pixies, town carnivals and all sorts, so even if the lore is word of mouth over generations it is as valid as any written book.
Nobody knows if the author was just writing fiction for the masses, and control of them.

Same with dragons, they've held their place in folklore, no more or less evidence for them than gods, I stand by that.
...unless you know something different? Dragons/gods/pixies, meh, same same.
Please explain if you see gods as being more believable, and why?

While I get your point, I'm not sure it stands up. Whether you are in agreement or not, faith in God does not require evidence - that's what faith means, it's a belief system. To state that pixies, dragons etc exist requires evidence as they are allegedly physical things for which proof must exist otherwise.... they don't.

Given that dragons could have been an elaboration based on witnessing large lizards, or fossils, it's not so hard to see where they sprang from in mythology - just the fire breathing bit that pushes it a little.

a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

You make a good point. They are correct to say metaphysics really cant be proven as in a belief. but the deduction that another metaphysical situation need to be proven is not correct. Its the active claim that can be refuted. As in God does exist. That needs an arguement. But the agnostic theist saying i believe in god but can not prove it is not an active claim. Just as saying god does not exist is an active claim. So i had to recend my argument that there is no agnostic atheist. I have come to realize you can believe a god does not exist but not make the active claim god doesn not exist. Its very close to agnostic the difference being the agnostic does not hold a belief either way.

Ps. I provided some substancial links to the FTU. In one you can find a link of 200 peer reviewed papers on fine tuning from cosmologists. Its the conclusion that it must mean God that is the argument. It also displays why most people including Peters comments are ad hominem fallacies. Same with Stenger who got the science completely wrong which is probably why he never published any papers in cosmology.

Even Dawkins and Hitchins have admitted that FT is a good argument for teleological arguments for god. Obviously not a complete admission or they wouldnt be atheists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Do you expect to see george washington? Did he exist? This is how to prove if your logic makes sense.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.

a reply to: luthier

I gave you a star for the post and finally posting sources, but I really don't feel like continuing that conversation we were having. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.

Its a genetic fallacy though to include how humans used to view god.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I gave you a star for the post and finally posting sources, but I really don't feel like continuing that conversation we were having. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I apologise for my lack of patience and snarky behaviour. It wasnt fair or your fault others made ad hominem attacks on me.

a reply to: luthier

Regardless, you can't just declare that the reason no proof exists for something is because proof for it is unobtainable. How do we know then that it existed in the first place then? It had to interact at SOME point with the physical universe to announce its presence. It also reasons that if it can interact with our senses to establish its existence, then we should be able to build equipment that it can ALSO interact with to prove its objective existence. That is unless you want to define said god to be able to break the laws of physics, but that is yet again a further cop out.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Regardless, you can't just declare that the reason no proof exists for something is because proof for it is unobtainable. How do we know then that it existed in the first place then? It had to interact at SOME point with the physical universe to announce its presence. It also reasons that if it can interact with our senses to establish its existence, then we should be able to build equipment that it can ALSO interact with to prove its objective existence. That is unless you want to define said god to be able to break the laws of physics, but that is yet again a further cop out.

It comes down to the claim. If you argue god does exist you have to provide proof. That is what people did (tried too) in the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

Ps you can make the claim proof is unobtainable that is with all metaphysics and why the arguements are useless.

Kant said the shores of debate are littered with ship wrecks regarding metaphysics. There is no use debating the subject. It doesnt mean its useless to believe in metaphysics nore is it a cop out.

Sometimes even in science theories are hard to prove and things just point in that direction. For instance prove a multiverse exists? Its the common argument against the teleological argument for god.

There is a great podcast of similar arguments that can be used for many things regarding the ftu. You can also clearly see Barnes is not a theist. commonsenseatheism.com...

a reply to: luthier

Well that's what I'm saying. You can't just declare that you cannot obtain proof for something that you are claiming exists. If we are aware of it, then that means we should be able to find objective proof of it. The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are just roundabout ways of trying to use words and reasoning as a substitute for real, objective proof.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Well that's what I'm saying. You can't just declare that you cannot obtain proof for something that you are claiming exists. If we are aware of it, then that means we should be able to find objective proof of it. The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are just roundabout ways of trying to use words and reasoning as a substitute for real, objective proof.

Ok i understand your argument now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Well that's what I'm saying. You can't just declare that you cannot obtain proof for something that you are claiming exists. If we are aware of it, then that means we should be able to find objective proof of it. The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are just roundabout ways of trying to use words and reasoning as a substitute for real, objective proof.

Whoa thats just an opinion. Even experts who argue against dont feel that way. You have to disprove the information and logic provided other wise its just an opinion. There are rules and logic equations to check and see if you have a valid arguement and your claim wont hold up. Its an opinion.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Do you expect to see george washington? Did he exist? This is how to prove if your logic makes sense.

That's an extremely weak argument. George Washington was a human being from a few centuries ago, why would I expect to 'see' him? Why you would consider placing God against that kind of 'logic' is a little strange - again, you are using two different standards and expecting the same rule to apply.

a reply to: luthier

I guess, at its very basis, it IS an opinion. I see it as applying the same standards of existence to god as is applied to anything else. We don't let fancy inductive reasoning prove the existence of Bigfoot, so why is it ok to make an exception for god?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

I guess, at its very basis, it IS an opinion. I see it as applying the same standards of existence to god as is applied to anything else. We don't let fancy inductive reasoning prove the existence of Bigfoot, so why is it ok to make an exception for god?

Because the logic of the arguement cant be denied. Also sciwnce would never ask questions without. Can anyone prove a multiverse or super strings?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.

No, actually the cop out is the expectation you seem to have that if God exists there must be physical, quantifiable evidence that shouts out "This is God". Faith doesn't work like that I'm afraid, if you don't get that, I'm not sure how you can engage in any kind of theological debate as it's fairly much the crux.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Do you expect to see george washington? Did he exist? This is how to prove if your logic makes sense.

That's an extremely weak argument. George Washington was a human being from a few centuries ago, why would I expect to 'see' him? Why you would consider placing God against that kind of 'logic' is a little strange - again, you are using two different standards and expecting the same rule to apply.

Was he do you have emperical evidence? I made no claims about god. I was referring to the logic you provided.

If I have historical records of dragons from 6,000 years ago is that proof?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: uncommitted

That sounds like a double standard. You have to provide proof for dragons, pixies, and whatnot, but you only need faith for god. What if god is a dragon in your religion?

Not a double standard at all. If dragons do exist I would expect to be able to see one, if God exists I don't necessarily expect to see him/her/it - you are holding two different concepts to the same rules - doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Why can't you expect to see god if god exists? Because that is how humans have defined god? Well humans used to define god to look very human like as well. Your rebuttal is rather weak. You can't just declare that proof for something is unnecessary because you as a human have defined it to be undetectable to humans. That is called a cop out.

No, actually the cop out is the expectation you seem to have that if God exists there must be physical, quantifiable evidence that shouts out "This is God". Faith doesn't work like that I'm afraid, if you don't get that, I'm not sure how you can engage in any kind of theological debate as it's fairly much the crux.

If you make an active gnostic claim god exists you have to provide a logical explaination. Other wise it is necesarry to admit you can not prove it which is perfectly fine and is "faith". Its just that the argument has no way of resolution that way.