Thanks for your reply

I think that there is. What you do, what I do, in our liberal activism is based on attempts to reason and observe and as rationally as we can look at causes and effects and right and wrong. As you say, we can or at least should be able to admit that we could be wrong and that we are open to changing our views based on new information (cuz we’re not Republicans). Any argument is unavoidably open to the possibility of refutation or debunking.

I don’t think that a religion that relies heavily on faith and the interpretation of divine revelation for its authority works that way. It is selling an absolute, but non-provable truth from an absolute but non-provable source. Obviously some of our political and social views will be in line with the revealed truth of certain religions, but our conclusions can still stand or fall on their own and don’t rely on supernatural input or the approval of a god for their validity.

And I totally agree with you here



He can't, can he. Can any good missionary admit that? Seems like that at best he or she can admit error in tactics or approach, although more often they fall back on the ends justifying the means no matter how destructive or bloody those means might be. But in any case, they can’t admit error in their message absent the Pope, the Prophets or Jesus on a Hog blowing in and telling them that something has changed. They claim to be working in the service of an ultimate truth that is not debatable. This is what makes them so dangerous.

Your god has time to write, but NOT enough time to heal or perform a miracle for ALL to see??

God has hands?



Why should anybody believe Psalms and 1 John??

Wow, missed a lot while i was gone. More nonsense from the theists. No wonder our country is in so much trouble. Let's get back to reality, shall we?

I do not respect your religious opinion or superstitious beliefs based on some untestable feelings, because they have been proven unworthy of respect. It is total BS, a fairy tale of gargantuan proportions. What a waste of a mind. By the way, feelings for something do not make them true. You also need to realize that your interpretation of those feelings is wrong.

Of course you can't explain your beliefs, because there is nothing there to explain. Sorry, just a fact. Your god doesn't "want" anything, because that particular troll under the bridge is just an imaginary friend. There is no "spirit" either. Utter nonsense. And your statement that you would not go against your feelings is frightening. How about joining us in the rational world? Sorry to hear you wasted 2 years of your life with this crap, no matter how much your delusion continues to convince you that you were doing good or that they were the best years of your life. I'm even more sorry for the poor people who had to listen to it for so long. Where we go from here is for you to provide evidence for your beliefs. We will wait.

How do you know that? Can you prove that?


Likewise, also waiting for proof of your own conclusions.

---

The problem is that, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of God, and belief in that existence requires faith (i.e. unproven agreement) ... it is equally impossible to prove the non-existence of God, and belief in that non-existence requires just as much (or perhaps even more) faith.

One can argue against this theology or that theology more or less effectively, but there is no way to successfully argue against the existence of God, any more than it is possible to argue successfully for the existence of God. Both positions require a leap of faith.

For hundreds of years, people must smarter than us have tried to prove that God exists or that God does not exist. No one has been able to do it. Probably because neither task is possible.

So, in the end, atheists, just like theists, believe, but cannot prove, their conclusion about about whether or not God exists. They've each come to the conclusion that their own view about the existence of God is probably correct, they each think that this probability is near certain (with their own unique and limited human ability to perceive and understand reality), and therefore they're each willing to simply accept their chosen position regarding the non-existence or existence of God, even though in actual fact both conclusions are unproven and therefore uncertain (i.e. requiring faith).

This is a particular problem for atheists, however ... since atheism by definition eschews any leap of faith (even though atheism itself requires such a leap, since the non-existence of God cannot be proven), whereas theism does not.

So atheism, in contrast to theism, has the additional weight of inherent self-contradiction and intellectual inconsistency to limit it's flight as a true and reliable idea.

Which is not to say that atheism is wrong, and that God in fact exists. Maybe atheists are correct, and God does not exist. I can't prove this is incorrect. But atheists can't prove they are right, either, and must accept (in a most "un-atheistic" fashion) an unproven faith in reason and randomness that to me seems much harder to justify than the simpler theistic explanation (considering Occam's razor and the staggering complexity and inherent order present in the universe ... or at least in the human mind).

Now, just because one believes in an ultimate Cause, Purpose, and Direction in the universe (i.e. God ... the definition of the term is particularly tricky) does NOT mean that any particular theology is or is not just a pile of ridiculous, delusional, superstitious garbage bearing no actual resemblance to reality. Each of us, individually, can in our own limited human way assign a probability to the likely value of this religious belief system or that one as actual reflections of reality ... though none of us can do this with complete objectivity or certainty, since all theologies are based on untestable assumptions which may or may not be correct and all human judgments carry with them the possibility of error.

But let's at least be honest: any blanket statement that God does or does not exist is unprovable, must therefore be faith-based, and so any presumption of superiority on this point is entirely uncalled for.

You have made the mistake most people from prostelitizing religions make, which is that the nonbeliever has something to prove about "god".

A lot us just are not concerned with the question, but require proof of the prosteletizer's own truth claims.

When they are not provided -- because outside of faith, such proof CAN not be provided -- nothing changes in the mind of the nonbeliever.

(Mainly because we've heard the faithful exhaust every proof attempt ad nauseum).



Just as there is no way to prove you didn't open up the 5th book on the 2nd shelf of your bookcase last night. Proof of negatives are not the responsibility of the nonbeliever.

Not debatable? Maybe for some I guess, who can say that they KNOW absolute actuality, one can only claim that they believe what they believe, could they be wrong? OF course, do they believe that they are wrong, no.

Maybe that's irrational, but rationality is an overated concept, a subjective basis of though, regardless if the rationalist knows it or admits it to be so...

Seez WHO? How is that presupposition authoritative in any way? In other words, who says a person can't say: "Prove me wrong"?

If they believe that I don't deserve the same rights that they have and their belief is based on nothing more than what they believe the god they choose to believe in is telling them then I kind of have a problem with it. It seems like they need something more than their belief that the state ought to enforce their beliefs based on what they believe that a non-provable supernatural being is telling them before trying to write laws that will force the state to do that.

No, I haven't.

I was responding to the following quote from enufairdy:

Your god doesn't "want" anything, because that particular troll under the bridge is just an imaginary friend. There is no "spirit" either. Utter nonsense.

This "nonbeliever" did indeed "have something to prove about God." He was making the assertion that God and spirit do not exist. Then, he went out of his way to belittle the notion that they do exist, as if he could prove with certainty that such a belief was ridiculous.

My point was that the atheist is no more able to prove "there is no God" than the religious person is able to prove "God exists."

Therefore, for one to denigrate the other's basic faith (i.e. the atheists unprovable faith in the non-existence of God/spirit or the religious believer's unprovable faith in the existence of God/spirit) is at best unnecessary and at worst unkind, arrogant, and hypocritical.

Both religion AND atheism rest on unprovable faith. Both require "belief," and both (unfortunately) have their fundamentalists with noses tilted upward who arrogantly and self-righteously declare themselves and their faith-based dogma to be superior.

As we've seen in this thread, there is certainly the well known tendency of religious persons to be unduly condescending and belittling (and worse) toward atheists, but my point here is that many atheists also exhibit a similarly repugnant zealousness in pronouncing themselves and their view of the universe to be superior to religious believers and their God/spirit-based ideas. I have no doubt that some of today's "fundamentalist" atheists would, if they could, forbid religion and persecute religious followers in much the same abhorent ways that religious fundamentalist have done for centuries and millennia.

Fundamentalism, whether of the religious or non-religious variety, in which adherents are placed above non-adherents who are then denigrated as stupid, inferior, and worthy of scorn and mistreatment (or worse) is a prime evil in the world, in my opinion. And that goes for believers in atheism as much as for anyone else. That's what I'm saying.


But you don't think the claims of similarly dogmatic atheists should likewise be held up to the same standard of scrutiny and demand for proof?

Can you refute my assertion ... that it is impossible to prove either the existence or the non-existence of God?

I'd be very interested if you could show me to be wrong, here.


So ... you're saying our court system has never proven anyone not guilty?

Of course human courts are fallible, and absolute proof is never really obtained.

Still, he those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. To be utterly and arrogantly certain about something that's inherently uncertain (e.g. the existence or non-existence of God/spirit) is delusional.

And to declare another's (e.g. religious) belief to be "nonsense" when one's own (atheistic) belief is equally unprovable is just plain hypocrisy.

But by this post, you don't seem to understand what's been said. Atheists (except for a few way far out ones) do not say, "there is no god(s)." They say, "I don't believe in god(s)."

Their reasoning is, that believing in something requires evidence--SOME evidence. Without any evidence, then we choose to go to the default, unbelief. But any honest atheist would jump right on the believer bandwagon if overwhelming evidence to the contrary showed up.

We can't PROVE there's no Zeus, Odin, Mithra, YHVH, The Great Pumpkin or any other spiritual being. But since they don't show themselves or even leave tracks, then it is incumbent on thinking beings to simply say, "I don't believe."

Then shut up and just say that you don't believe it, however, we can prove there is no great pumpkin, since there is no one positing that the great pumpkin is anything other than a creation of Charles Shultz, produce me one human who says that they've meet the greet pumpkin, and then it might be the same issue...

Prove yourself right.

"Faith" does not count as "proof", btw.

God, great pumpkin, same stuff of fiction.

And cartoonish comedy.

Nobody around here has to "shut up". Tough shit if you don't like your belief hung out to dry like the pounded dead carcass it is.

Your own comments in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs above sound very reasonable.

But it seems you disagree with enufalrdy, who authored the original post (#1005) I've been responding to.

Here's what enufalrdy said:

---

Your god doesn't "want" anything, because that particular troll under the bridge is just an imaginary friend. There is no "spirit" either. Utter nonsense.

---

You say that '"Atheists (except for a few way far out ones) do not say, "there is no god(s)." They say, "I don't believe in god(s)."'

But enufardy IS saying that "there is no God." That "there is no spirit." He's saying they are "imaginary" and "utter nonsense" ... not simply that he doesn't believe in them. His quote above is quite clear an unambiguous on this.

Would you, therefore, classify enufalrdy as one of the "few way far out [atheists]" with whom you don't associate yourself, philosophically? Because quite clearly enufardy is in fact declaring that God does not exist, and further, that belief to the contrary is ridiculous.

I disagree vehemently with enufardy, and take offense at his hypocrisy and terribly demeaning tone toward those religious persons who insist that their unprovable faith-based belief is certain truth while he himself does exactly the same thing with respect to his own unprovable faith-based belief (i.e. the one that posits that God and spirit do NOT exist).

My point is that enufardy's position, that GOD DOES NOT EXIST -- PERIOD (the fundamentalist atheist position) is just as irrational and faith-based as the position of religious fundamentalists like justamere10 who say GOD DOES EXIST -- PERIOD ... since each of these positions is unprovable.

The evidence suggests that it's just impossible to know with certainty whether or not there is a creator of the universe, or not. At least, to date, no one has been able to prove either hypothesis (though a great many brilliant minds have tried very hard to do so).

In my view, statements to the contrary (whether made by atheists or religious adherents) indicate a dishonest, hubristic, irrational, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing fundamentalist character that I believe is responsible for much of the suffering and mayhem in the world.

enufalrdy's statement was one such statement, I felt.

I'd have to ask for clarity from enufairdy. Does he really "believe" this as an absolute or is it simply his way of putting it, due to an overwhelming lack of evidence of any kind? I mean, there's a lot of things theists don't believe in, right? But since NOTHING can be proven in any absolute way, then they can't say "this thing" or "that thing" doesn't exist--just like atheists.

It kind of comes down to, "we're both atheists, except I don't believe in one more deity than you."

But like I say, ask enfairdy. I too have made similar statements to his--but without saying anything is absolute to a zero disproof level. It's just a manner of speaking. "there are no cream-colored, tangerine flavored, giant frogs with a penchant for sloth lying in wait by the 7-11 on 5th Avenue at 9PM."

Or are there?

Absurdum.

My own point is that it bugs me just as much to hear an atheist put down religious belief in a demeaning and self-righteous way as it does to hear any religious fundamentalist do the same thing to someone not sharing precisely his own theological view.

Both are way out of line, and both are doing real damage, in my opinion.

Ok. That's another issue.

Shut up was not literal, my bad. However, if you are simple enough to equate the concept (not the actuality) of God with the "great pumpkin", what is the point of discussing the subject with you? You obviously have a problem with grasping concepts that are bigger than your limitations.

The only difference between your cartoonish god and the comical Great Pumpkin is nobody has mass-murdered others, taken over land, witchhunted, inquisitioned, or otherwise suppressed people in the name of the Great Pumpkin.

Spasre me. Humans have mass murdered over all kinds of ideas, religion is just a convenient excuse, and hardly ever the root cause.

Religion and politics are the same damn thing, you delude yourself in thinking there should be seperation, when they are both to forward and serve the same purpose, control of the masses, religion oft being the tool.

But that is incosequential, we were talking about the concept of God verses the concept of the great pumpkin, the concept of GGod i svery importatnt and alive in the human collective psyche, the great pumpkin is not, one is an ideal that needs to be addressed in one way or another, the other has no such power. Any like thing (as u posit the two are) is defined by its differences.

Irrelevant.

Your blood-worshipping, god-eating religion is responsible for the bloody murder of countless millions.



Both are products of fiction.

At least people can admit that the Great Pumpkin is such.

Too bad about the rest who cling to the idea of god as if it's a fact.

My lady, MY religion is REALITY, so in that case, I guess you are right, you see, I believe HUMANS are repsonsible for the bloody murder of countless millions, unlike you, I am not under the delusion that religion is primary motivator for that nature.



No, one is a product of fiction, the other has an origin that doesn't suit your ability to apprehend.



Everyone except Linus Van Pelt



The IDEA of God is a fact, rather one believes in one or not. As for TRUTH about God, that is another matter entirely...

Some people believe they are REALLY Napoleon.

Big f'n deal.



Your fantasies about your imaginary friend are the stuff of fiction.

Just because you share in a collective delusion doesn't make it any more TRUE or REAL than the FACT that Shiva made Ganesh out of some soap suds.

Go eat your god, condescending basher.

Eat my "God"? Sorry, I am not into spiritual cunnilengous...

I said "eat", not "eat out".

Looks like theophagy will have to suffice. How's that workin for ya, jesus eater?

Ok, I met and greeted the Great Pumpkin. Prove me a liar.

Small world. We had his Orange Eminence over for cocktails last Saturday. I don't see how anyone can seriously doubt his existence.

Hope the meeting was good, tell you anything that we need to know? How the hell is Linus anyway?

Please. Linus is a character in a comic strip. No need to mock.

I wonder if this discussion, which seems to have wandered a bit off topic, should continue in a new thread called, "Which is better: theism or atheism?"

Here we have two unprovable, faith-based belief systems each claiming to be good and right and that the other is bad and wrong. It's intensely ironic, really, to see the religious judging the irreligious in violation of their own moral code to leave judgement to God while rationalist atheists irrationally assert the notion of their own unprovable superiority.

Could be that each is looking at the same cylinder, one proclaiming it to be a circle while the other declaring it to be a rectangle.

Nevertheless, self-righteousness rules, name calling and hard feelings ensue. Great.

It's an interesting spectacle, that's for sure ...

Ever get the feeling that we're all part of some cosmic 8th grade science fair project? That the universe is nothing more than a giant petri dish watched over by some rather inept amateur science hobbist? Like the ant farms we all used to get as kids?

Atheism is not a "faith system".

Atheists do not need "faith".

I agree that we left the OT by the side of the road quite a while back. A new thread might be in order. But I'm not sure that the question as to which is "better", theism or atheism question really computes for me. I don't think that a value judgement quite fits here since they can't be judged usinig the same criteria. Can they?

I disagree with your assertion that atheism is faith based. It isn't. I do not have faith that there isn't a god. I simply have no evidence that there is one. If someone were to provide some evidence that I felt was valid then I'd accept that God existed. That is until such time, if any, that someone else was able to convincingly refute that evidence and then I'd be a non-believer again. I have no vested interest here and faith doesn't enter into it.

Faith is beleiving something you can't necessarily prove, you believe that the universe was created without the presence of or design of God, that is a leap of faith by definition....

I do not have any "beliefs" about the universe, nor do I accept the believer-imposed rhetoric that the universe was "created".

Then tell my, how do you think the universe was created, if you think about that sort of thing...

Did you not read what I just wrote?

I do not accept creationist language.

Well that opinion is kind of a place holder until evidence comes in that convinces me otherwise. But I don't have an emotional stake in it. If it turns out that there is a God, super.

O.K. Counsleor, how do you think this actuality, this universe came about, use whatever language suits you to tell me if hyou choose (just not Japanese, I'm bad with that one)...

I'm your huckleberry, tell me how do you think or what do you believe about the origins of our reality (the temporal and spatial existance known as the universe)....

Well, it SAYS in the Rig Veda that Brahma made the universe out of an egg. So it must be true

Might as well believe that if you're gonna believe the bible's claim that some asshole in the sky came down and made the universe in 7 days.

I created it myself. Every last bit of it.

Your turn.

If you are going to quote the Yajurveda, the Rigveda or the Bhagavad Gita do so properly, they state that Vishnu is the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within.

BTW, my undergrad is Religious Studies not "Bible College" even though I did get a BA in Christian Theology (for kicks) later...now, We know what the Rigveda says, what do you really think?

Prove it.

Join the goddamn club, condescending creep.

None of them are any more believable than your bullshit bible.

Hey, perhaps less ASSumption on your part would lead to less condescension from me. Nonetheless, since we now know you know less about the Rigveda then the Bible, how about being a daisy and telling us What you believe in regards to the origins of our spatial and temporal existance?