Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheism is just silly.

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by satron
 


There are an infinite number of things that don't exist, who's nonexistence I am unable to prove. Your argument of a belief in a non-belief is redundant and absurd.

BTW, there is an equal amount of evidence that god and Santa are one in the same, as there is that god exists.




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 



Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.


Like I said, since most everyone for the entire history of mankind has believed in deities of some sort, I say that the "Holder of the burden" is yourself, since YOU'RE the one asserting something that goes against convention and community standards.


I mean, "convention and community standards" ARE the "ad populum."



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyLucian

It's a common sense rule used in debates, discussions and scientific processes. The person that asserts something is true must show their proof, the person that asserts it is false questions the evidence, the process it was acquired, and refutes the findings, etc. It's from this interaction that the truth is discovered.


Evidence isn't required to believe something. If you state something as fact, like you have (God doesn't exist) then you must provide proof for what you are saying.


Yes, I do say there's no god. Until there is even the tiniest fraction of evidence there isn't even the remotest possibility I entertain the thought. I'm 32, not that it matters, the philosophical nature of things don't require a god, and we do live in the same world.


Why don't you just say that you believe God doesn't exist? Why do you abhor the belief so much? Don't you know you sound silly when you state something to be true when you can't prove it? There isn't the least bit of credible evidence to say that God doesn't exist.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


Back when people were trying to prove that the world wasn't flat (since everyone before hand believed that it was) the burden of proof was on THEM. Get it?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


I think the point is the experience itself. I agree with most all the teachings of Christ, it's just that the divinity and god stuff is mythological hullabaloo.

Can we discuss what you said about Jesus and the Jews? What did you mean?

I certainly don't agree that everything has a purpose, and certainly not a... let's say divinely inspired one.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by satron
 


There are an infinite number of things that don't exist, who's nonexistence I am unable to prove. Your argument of a belief in a non-belief is redundant and absurd.


You can even think of a fraction of a fraction of those things, so why are you worried about something you can't even comprehend to comprehend?



BTW, there is an equal amount of evidence that god and Santa are one in the same, as there is that god exists.


Oh is there? Show me. What do you got?




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 


I meant that the Pharisees of the time were more concerned with the legalistic letter of the law rather than the spirit in which it was given. Which is the same thing that "debaters" do to try and win their argument. They legally twist the man made language and words which still just can't fully express the spiritual to make it say things it doesn't really mean.


Like the parable where the adulteress was brought to Jesus and they were to stone her, yet he says "Let the one without sin cast the first stone."
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


No, it's referring to the quality and quantity of evidence when talking about the "convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question". It's this - "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed" that we are talking about. I am the critic. The following part stating "This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level", specifically the bold part is sort of where the bar gets set when talking about god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 


Same as with the earth being round. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since God is spiritual and metaphysical in nature, you can literally spend the rest of your life reading testimonials of these "extraordinary proofs."

One example from my personal life:

At one point my parents and us three kids were living at a desserted campground. We had literally zero money, had been eating berries and fish to survive, although we were still going to school, etc.. So we needed money in a really really bad way. We prayed as a family for the Lord to provide, and the next day when we got "home" from school my parents were just overjoyed. Some random lady had driven out to the campground and dropped some cash on my folks saying "I woke up and God told me to come out here with some money, and give it to you."

Another:

My mom was arrested for assaulting an officer (she was whacked out on pain pills pretty bad) and was fixing to go to prison for a few years. All of us kids were under 18 and my Dad was disabled, she was our only source of income. We NEEDED her, you know? Anyway, while she's waiting in jail getting ready to go to prison, she came down with some crazy gallbladder problem that literally had her writhing and crying in pain. They took her to the hospital where they confirmed that yes, this gallbladder needs to come out. At this point, it's my personal belief that the county (small county) didn't want to be responsible for her medical bills, so the DA dropped the charges and let her go. She came home and went to the hospital the next day, and there was not a single thing wrong with her gallbladder.

God works in spirit.
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


Ok, I gotcha. But I'm not twisting any words. Some people on the thread keep trying to play word games, specifically with the word belief, and I don't care to play. In context belief can have a religious meaning, in another it does not. Yet despite the fact that I'm not using the word, it's being put into my mouth by a person that is twisting words and playing word games.
It's simple to me. In my heart and mind and gut I know there's no god. Not believe. That my position is attacked with childish antics aggravates me to no end when I use the language clearly to say exactly what I mean. And then the word game starts again.
I'm not trying to win a debate. I'm just trying to discuss. Semantic and pragmatic nonsense was not my intent. That's why I quit responding.

Graphuto, are you of the belief that the OT laws were "repealed" at the crucifixion?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by graphuto
 


Ok, I gotcha. But I'm not twisting any words. Some people on the thread keep trying to play word games, specifically with the word belief, and I don't care to play. In context belief can have a religious meaning, in another it does not. Yet despite the fact that I'm not using the word, it's being put into my mouth by a person that is twisting words and playing word games.
It's simple to me. In my heart and mind and gut I know there's no god. Not believe. That my position is attacked with childish antics aggravates me to no end when I use the language clearly to say exactly what I mean. And then the word game starts again.
I'm not trying to win a debate. I'm just trying to discuss. Semantic and pragmatic nonsense was not my intent. That's why I quit responding.

Graphuto, are you of the belief that the OT laws were "repealed" at the crucifixion?


A question that I honestly don't know the answer to myself, so I won't pretend to.

That being said:

Are we even positive that the 600 some odd laws weren't part of the legal doctrine of man, which Jesus was really fighting so hard against? I mean, why would God command them to stone adulterers and Jesus tell them not to?
I'm leaning towards God doling out the 10 commandments and man creating the rest to suit their selfish and self righteous desires.

And on the other hand, Jesus also said "I came not to abolish the law, but fulfill it."

Someone else says:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

What say you to my flat earth analogy in relation to the existance of God?

And I'd say I feel the same as you, in regards to my "belief". I KNOW that God exists in my heart, mind, and gut, it's not something I merely believe. I've (seen/felt/experienced) the invisible hand of God acting in my life and the lives of those around me.
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Now, I am baffled by the Christians that tell me "just believe." "It's so simple to just believe!" No, it's not! Belief isn't something that be turned on or off with will. It isn't a pointy arrow that can be turned around. My belief is gone, non existent. Period.


I don't know what part of "IT NEVER WAS" - - people don't get.

You go through the motions. You want to belong. You want to be like everyone else.

But - I never could cross that line to actual belief. It just never was.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


I get that believers have a low bar for evidence for the existence of god by virtue of their very beliefs, but a persons personal experience isn't empirical evidence. In the case of the world being flat or round, it was well known by the Greeks long before Christ. The empirical evidence is all there to show the earth is round. Those who claimed it was round set sail, circumnavigated the globe, then someone repeated it. Now we have satellites circling overhead. All benchmarks were met. Observable and repeatable.

I'm glad your family received aid when they needed it most. It's a great thing to remember and tell others.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 


And really that just relates to a bigger issue of mankind putting more emphasis on science, and the "letter of the law" than the spirit of.

Science is great, and it has done awesome things for the world, but it still can't express reality perfectly. The idea that "empirical evidence" is needed when talking in metaphysical terms just doesn't make sense.
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
However - - every honest legitimate Atheist is also Agnostic. God can not be proven or dis-proven.

An Atheist doesn't know - - - - anymore then a believer knows.

I agree, and I call myself an agnostic atheist.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto
Yea, most definitions of atheism says "Doctrine or belief relating to the non existence of god."


If could depend on a timeline and/or source. Dictionaries have been updating and correcting to the accepted: Lack of belief in a deity.

Some of the definitions from older dictionaries are hilarious.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, I googled "Dictionary" and then went to the first 4 or 5. They all had included both definitions.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


Ha. Well... I certainly believe (oh my god, I said it!) that those laws were mans own product. Used for a number of reasons. Keeping people healthy and able to procreate chief among them. The contradictions have always bothered me and depending on denomination, which laws are followed changes. I think the "fulfill" is supposed to mean to satisfy the need for those laws.

The grace/sin relationship may be what bothers me most about christianity. I don't think any of the divine stuff makes sense anyway, so, take that for what it is. I'm a heathen.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'll tell you that people make it harder than it really is. Imagine, for a moment, that we really ARE all ONE, i.e: the infinite God experiencing himself (because he must be awfully bored) in nature and mankind. But in order to make it even MORE interesting, we all have free will. An object created by God that is so heavy even He can't move it.

Love your neighbor as well as your enemy, because it IS still really you, even if you don't know it. It really is that simple.

Not that I'm saying that is the actual nature of things...


James 2:18
English Standard Version (©2001)
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-3-2012 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


I don't necessarily think there's a true 'metaphysical universe' that can't be studied. Philosophy is one thing, but the fields of consciousness research and how it relates to the physical, where it comes from, etc are all extremely young fields. Most parts are only in their infancy, and I am extremely excited to see how things progress. Sure, science doesn't explain everything, let alone perfectly, but it's a process of discovery that everyone should at least be interested in. (My opinion, obviously.)






top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join