Why Atheists and the Religous are Both Wrong

I gave you a very specific, clear, reasonable description of what I mean when I am using the words "god or gods", William. There was no evasion...no being fast and loose. It was completely aboveboard and logical.

If you need to pretend I haven't...okay with me. I can laugh at the notion that I haven't with no problem at all.

You have my questions, William. I doubt you will ever answer them.

But why not! Here they are again:

Is this thing we humans call "the universe" all there is...or is it possible there is more?

Is this thing we humans call "the universe" a creation?

 

No need to pretend anything Frank. I presented evidence of your wilful conduct. You might want to try that one day, you know, presenting things that back up your argument rather than just trying to bore us into accepting it with dogmatic repetition.

I have offered to answer your question, once you have presented it.

 

You have the questions, William. What is missing is spine on your part to answer them.

 

I will answer your question when you ask it, I can't say fairer than that Frank. You only have to ask and the Lord Rea will provide.

 

You have the questions.

Answer them or continue to evade them.

 

I don't think I've ever seen anyone spend so much time and effort defending a position of "I Don't Know".

Instead of defending your wishy washy viewpoint, and arguing about definitions, you would be better off doing some real research and making a decision, one way or the other.

 

Why start a thread and then fail to participate in it?

 

That is very interesting. I thank you for sharing what you don't think you've ever seen.

Nothing "wishy washy" about acknowledging that I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Some of the finest minds that have ever existed on this planet have considered the issue...so it is not an unimportant one.

If you want to pretend you have done "real research" and it has caused you to make a decision one way or the other (on whether gods exist or not, for instance)...fine with me. I find it laughable...but you are well within your rights.

As for me...I prefer to take the ethical, rational, reasonale route...and simply acknowledge that I do not know...and that the evidence is so ambiguous, I cannot even make a meaningful guess.

 

How much effort is it to avoid any kind of analysis and argument and just keep cut and pasting dogma?

- - - Updated - - -

How can I evade a question that you have not asked Frank?

 

Refer to my post #126.

 

The word "Gods" is a bit oldfashioned, so maybe we should think of them as "alien intelligences".
The famous "Drake Equation" is open to wide interpretation by scientists, but the consensus is that there are "several thousand" alien races out there..

 

There are a number of serious fallacies in the OP that need to be addressed first;

Stalin was raised as an eastern orthodox Christian and studied in a seminary to become a priest. Mao Zedong was raised as a devout Buddhist. To allege that both were "well known atheists" is make the fallacious claim that what they did was done in the name of atheism.

Hitler was raised as a devout Catholic. His reasons for killing the Jews are well known. He was a great admirer of Henry Ford who promoted anti-semitism.

If you are going to make allegations about historical figures it is best to research them first and make sure that they can be substantiated.

As far as the thread heading goes it is wrong because it is a false equivalence.

Theists are not wrong about their religions and their beliefs. They have the individual right to believe as they choose but their freedom of religion does not extend to imposing their beliefs on others.

Atheists are not wrong about religions being based upon myths and superstitions. Even if characters like Buddha and Moses existed that does not mean that the myths and superstitions that surround them have any basis in reality. Moses might have climbed a mountain in the desert but there is zero evidence that there was any God who gave him some stone tablets to bring down. If those commandments were "written in stone" then why are there two different versions of them in the same bible?

The false equivalence is that you are trying to equate theist beliefs to scientific facts. They are not comparable and it is a mistake to try and equate them. Theists have attempted to usurp science to support their beliefs and failed on every occasion. Atheists have been steadfast in trying to ensure that this is a secular nation and have only had a modicum of success.

Personally I am all for a SECULAR government OF the People and FOR the People where everyone has both freedom OF and FROM religion upheld.

 

Most of those "finest minds" have come to a conclusion, something that you are seemingly incapable of doing.

I don't have to pretend - see below.

The evidence is not ambiguous at all.

It is absolutely clear that the gods of the Hindus, Deists, Christians or Cherokees cannot all be GOD. Step one, evaluate the evidence for, and against, each. Come to a conclusion...make a decision. You should be able to decide which of these gods is, or at least, is not, GOD. It's called the process of elimination.

Then evaluate whether there is significant evidence to ascertain that this god actually exists/existed based on what is "known" and written about him/her. It's really a straight forward process.

There is nothing ethical, rational or reasonable about your wishy washy viewpoint. More likely, it is rooted in a fear of making a wrong decision.

Golly, if I become a Christian and I'm wrong, Allah will punish me. Maybe, by not making a decision, the Christian god will take pity on me and allow me into his heaven.​

 

Many of those finest minds have come to the same "conclusion" I have.

We do not know if gods exist or not...and there appears to be no way to determine which it is.

You do pretend...but your pretense is so good, you have convinced yourself that you are not pretending.

Good work.

The evidence is so ambiguous, that any "conclusion" other than, "We do not know if gods exist or not"...is just a blind guess.

If every god proposed by humans were proven to be a false god...that would have absolutely NO IMPACT whatever on whether or not gods exist.

That is hard for someone like you to accept, but...that is your problem.

My position is not wishy washy...it is ethical and reasonable.

My position on whether or not gods exist is...I do not know.

You don't either...but apparently you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you do not.

 

bottom line here is that for either side to make a definitive statement about the existence of a god or gods has the burden of proof to support the assertion. Neither side can accomplish this.

however, it is perfectly rational and logical to state that it is less likely a god or gods exist, than that they do exist based on all the available evidence to date.

 

Look everybody the point that I am trying to get at is that I don't know if their is a God or if there isn't a God. I probably will never know until I die. All I am saying is that I see no sufficient evidence to suggest that God does exist or that he Doesn't exist.

 

There is absolutely no way to establish that it is less likely that a god (or gods) exist than that they do not.

I defy anyone to make a reasonable case for what the REALITY is...using reason, logic, science or math.

It cannot be done.

The people who claim it is more likely that there is a god than that there are none...are simply sharing a blind guess about the REALITY...almost certainly based on a bias.

The people who claim it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...are simply sharing a blind guess abouat the REALITY...almost certainly based on a bias.

Too bad all that.

 

That pretty much covers it.

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if there are no gods; there is not sufficient unambiguous evidence to make a reasonable guess.

 

of course there is frank. The same way you can establish it is less likely that the easter bunny doesn't exist.

see above

can and has been done.

agree

nope. based on a reasoned and logical conclusion.

not really, since I've just demonstrated otherwise.

 

Granted an entity or force may exist that could be described as "God", but the things we humans have made up are most certainly NOT it.

 

I gotta agree with you there, Tecoyah. I would be willing to guess that ALL of the gods humans have worshiped throughout history...have been human invented.

It would be a guess...but one that I would be willing to make.

 

I only use the analogy to show how absurd your argument is. This is beautifully demonstrated by how terrified you are to address it.

except with reason and logic. Just like we can establish the likelihood of the easter bunny existing using the same.

refuted above

can be done, and has been done.

yes

I don't do guessing frank. I do logic and reason.

demonstrated otherwise.

 

If every Fairie proposed by humans were proven to be false you would still believe that Fairies could exist.
...that is your problem.

What is ethical about it? Is it reasonable to believe that Fairies exist?

You have made that quite clear.

Why would it be ethical of me to acknowledge that gods and Fairies exist when there is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of gods and Fairies?

 

Nonsense. There is no burden of proof needed to support the non-existence of something. Is there any burden on you to prove that Fairies do not not exist? Of course not. The burden rests solely on those who make claims that they do.

Do you believe everything was created last Thursday (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)? Is the burden of proof on your shoulders to prove it wasn't? Of course not.

 

Most things in life are more than black or white, 1's or 0's. In most things, there is a lot of gray area in between.

However, "Gods exist" - "Gods do not exist" is a black or white, 1's or 0's issue. Either they do or they don't. There can be no middle ground. The fact that some people cannot make a decision on the existence or non-existence of god(s) does not alter the equation.

There is only "middle ground" regarding which god(s) you worship and how you worship them and how much of scripture you believe and how much of scripture you take as allegorical.