Why Atheists and the Religous are Both Wrong

Here's the thing, at least for me. The claim "There are gods" is a positive claim whereas "There are no gods" is in a sense, a negative one. If I say "There are flying unicorns" that's a pretty outrageous claim that would require extraordinary evidence. If, however, I say "Unicorns are the stuff of legends" it would seem rather absurd to counter with "Oh yeah? Prove it!" it is quite literally asking one to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

Guess what I'm trying to say is if one wants me to accept and believe in things above and beyond, in a positive sense, what I already accept due to overwhelming evidence, then a very affirmative and overwhelming case would have to be made. It takes no additional intellectual effort on my part to not believe in or accept additional claims. It does, however, take that for me to incorporate a completely new world view. The jury isn't out on flying unicorns, or the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus, and until a preponderance of evidence is brought to me about the existence of a god, i simply cannot take a "jury is out" approach there either.

That being said, however, I am not an in-your-face type of person about it. Whatever floats your boat.

 

Guy, ANY assertion made...is a positive one.

IF you assert "there are no gods"...that is a positive assertion about what exists or does not exist in the REALITY of existence.

The assertion "there are no gods" bears as great a burden of proof as does the assertion, "there is a god."

Best thing to do is not make assertions like that.

As for flying unicorns...you would be very hard pressed to "prove" there are none. Your frame of reference is much too small.

Me too.

I certainly am not asking you to "believe" anything.

There are people who want to make others "believe" there is a god.

There are other people who want to make others "believe" there are no gods.

ME...I just do not know what IS or IS NOT...in the REALITY of existence.

Too bad that. IF you finally get to where you can allow the jury to be out...it would be positive movement. But if you want to insist that gods do not exist...you are free to do so, just as the people who want to insist that a god does exist are free to do that.

Thank you, Guy. All we are doing is having a discussion...and I appreciate your comments.

 

I think the reason religion and philosophy are 1 subforum is basically they are the same.
Make up what you want and use illogic to state your case.

 

No it is not a guess blind or of any other sort you simply wish it were. You cannot offer evidence that it is a guess because it is not.

They are not guesses they are logical ideas and conclusions and far superior.

Yes I have demonstrated and proven how wrong you are which is why you now resort to personal remarks as you have nothing of substance to defend your empty assertions with.

The statement that there are no gods is not a guess it is a logical conclusion supported by all evidence and challenged by none.

Yes and atheist is one who believes and concludes no gods exist.

 

The nature of the ego is to be able to say one knows something. We argue incessantly over things that we think we know. Even things that are factually unknowable. So we blind guess, and then from this, claim that we know. Perhaps we do this for emotional reasons. for we fear the unknown. Not being able to tolerate not knowing, we become intellectually dishonest, even fooling ourselves, pretending, and live a life of blind guesses with particular things.

Sometimes I think agnostics like me are just not fearful of the unknown. I can live with not knowing. But neither the religious nor the atheist can seem to do it. And they then begin to make fools of themselves by claiming to know something that so far is unknowable. By guessing, and then claiming their guess is something other than a guess. It really is a tale told by an idiot.


So when it comes to God or gods, there is no certainty. One guess might sound better, more scientific than the other, but just because it sounds better in no way is evidence for anything. Except that it is more attractive to some people.

So, just at least admit it to yourself, if to no one else. That, you in fact do not know jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about this age old question, in regards to the answer. You can guess and write books about it, as long as you do not insult the intelligence of rational people by claiming you know the truth, and that you are certain. For if you do, it is just an arrogant ego creating foolishness. Not knowing something is actually kinda good. For it tends to manifest a little bit of humility, in all but the most arrogant ego. These are my personal observations of over 70 years of observing the idiots that have surrounded me, very intensely. And how many times have I heard these incoherent and lame arguments about having certainty about this age old question? Lost count long ago. And yet we never seem to wise up. Or perhaps discover fundamental honesty.

 

Belief (I believe) is the key. The religious believe in a Creator. Atheists have no belief (or so I am told here at the Forum). In fact....No one really knows for sure so both sides rely on belief....or.....belief in no belief or....so it seems to me. However, I have noticed that there are many stories where belief is the only thing that got human beings through a tough situation therefore, I believe that BELIEF itself has power and should not be discounted. What you believe in is your own business...me....I'd rather believe in a benign but higher power instead of err-prone humans.

 

If you are asserting that there are no gods...you are not basing that on reason, logic, science, or math. All you are doing is to blindly guess that no gods exist in REALITY.

They are not logical...they are not conclusions...they are blind guesses.

You are the one who has been using personal remarks. As far as proving anything I have said to be wrong...do it, don't just say you have done it.

The assertion "there are no gods" IS A GUESS...a blind guess at that. It is not supported by any evidence, let alone all the evidence. And if you think no one challenges the notion that there are no gods...you simply are not thinking.

YES...FINALLY WE AGREE. That is what I have been saying all along.

You...and some of the others here...have been saying that all an atheist is...is someone LACKING BELIEF IN A GOD...rather than someone actually "believing" that no gods exist.

Thanks for the help.

 

Yes. My personal preference is the Greek pantheon. I think that if there are Gods they will be very much like us but writ large. They will demand respect but not love and their main offense will be when we try to exceed our limits as human beings, which sin they will, paradoxically, admire most in us.

 

Lack of evidence is indeed a form of evidence lets say theists make a wild claim: The story of Exodus as per the Biblical account is true as written in the KJV.

Okay we look for evidence there should be three key things at least. A ton of written accounts the mighty Empire had plagues striking the whole nation low. There should be as many accounts of a huge number of people leaving the nation for the North East by regional impacted powers. And last a degradation of the Egyptian Empire as satellite nations pulled away, were invaded an annexed by other major powers and possible invasion of Egypt. Now if none of those happened it would be odd to say the account has a basis in fact so one can justly claim the account is false, But one can seek out the real story it might be based on.

God claims are the same way we have scientific theories and investigations saying no deity is necessary, then the theists make the claim a deity did it, so we should then look at both and see what is true and yes I can claim with no evidence to the contrary no deity is necessary so doesn't exist. I'm personally over 90% sure there is no one super sky-fairy, less so for perhaps lesser deities all over, however its over 70% sure which is enough. However its simple if I find real evidence of a deity I'll gladly change my position. I see no reason to guess my position is a rational study of what I know now.

 

The Old Testament books are an abomination. The Brother Grimm...wrote stuff that is more realistic...and less barbaric.

That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether or not gods exist.

As I said...the Old Testament is an abomination. The god described in it seems to me to be less likely to exist than Zeus or Odin. The god described in the Old Testament disgusts me...a murderous, barbaric, jealous, vindictive, petty abomination.

That in no way impacts on whether or not gods exist.

You can certainly logically claim no deity is necessary. I do it all the time...because NO DEITY IS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

You also can claim "therefore no deity exists" if you want...but it would not be logical at all.

That is a very interesting blind guess about whether gods exist. Thank you for sharing it.

Okay...but your common sense should do the job.

You should be able to get to: I do not know if gods exist or not...and there is not enough unambiguous evidence available upon which to base a meaningful guess.

 

My definition of Atheist is someone who believes there is no evidence for the existance of a God.

 

Are you doing the old quibble of " god" versus "God"

 

If you are asserting that age and socioecomonic status are predictors of acceptance of homosexuality and athiesm my belief is that while there is slightly higher acceptance there is nowhere near actualy majority acceptance either as core belief or in public pronouncement.

 

`
No, I'm stating that in my particular environment, in my particular experience, those were the factors. As I said at the start, which you missed, my examples are anecdotal. If you are unsure as to the meaning of words, please ask for clarification before assuming anything.

 

Well since you went to great pains to proclaim your youth and socioeconomic status, I think it is fair to assume you thought that had some relevance to the validity of your "anecdote".

 

Okay.

So that would make "atheists"..."believers."

I can buy that.

In any case, I would say there is no UNAMBIGUOUS evidence for a god.

IF (that is a huge IF) if there is a creator god, though...EVERYTHING is evidence of that god...whether we can see it as evidence of the god or not.

Gangrene was once evidence of germs...but no one knew it. IT WAS EVIDENCE OF GERMS despite the fact that no one could recognize it as evidence of germs.

If there are no gods...nothing is evidence of a god.

For me...I am back at square one...I do not know if gods exist in the REALITY of existence...and I can see no unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

So I don't.

Do you get what I am saying here, Jester?

 

I have been talking about whether gods (or a god) exists.

If by the use of the word "God"...you mean a specific entity (or non-entity)...I have NOT been talking about that.

There could be a creator god. If there is, it probably should be referred to as GOD...not God.

 

Not really. But perhaps for clairity I should say that my definition of Athiest is a person who believes there is no scientific evidence for the existance of God or of a god.

- - - Updated - - -

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"
exclamation

 

Ambiguous evidence IS evidence...just not very good evidence...and certainly not the kind of evidence upon which a meaningful guess can be based.

Meaning what???

Does the REALITY of existence include any gods?

Is what we humans call "the universe" a creation?

My answers would be, "Beats the hell out of me."

How about you?

 

`
With all due respect, I don't trust your assumptions....not one bit, no siree.

 

Nopd you have been proven wrong.

They are not blind guesses at all they are reasonable logical claims based on evidence making them massively more intelligent than theistic claims..

This is all proven fact and you know it.

 

I have not been proven wrong. But continue to delude yourself. I'm sure it feels good.

The blind guess "there are no gods" is not more "intelligent" than the blind guess "There is a god."

As I said...continue to delude yourself.

 

What blind guess, I don't see deities, I don't see angels or demons, I never saw a miracle done and no scientist has ever verified this information using the many tools of science so how exactly are we guessing without evidence I'm perfectly happy saying until this happens the deity hypothesis is a failure.

 

If you are claiming that gods DO NOT exist...it is a blind guess.

If you are claiming that gods DO exist...it is a blind guess.

I do not see atoms or germs. That does not mean they do not exist.

I do not see life on other planets. That does not mean there is no life on other planets.

If you are asserting no life exists anywhere in the universe except on Earth...you are guessing. If you are asserting that the only kind of life that can exist is the kind we find on planet Earth...you are guessing. AND if you are asserting there are no gods...you are guessing.

Whatever.

But if you are asserting that no gods exist...you are guessing.



For the record...some people claim they KNOW that a god exists, because they "talk" to the god and the god "talks" to them. When that happens, I ask how the person KNOWS he/she is not deluding him/herself. After that, I tend to suspend discussion with them.

 

You guys should ask frank to replace "god" in his argument with "Easter bunny" and see what he does.

It's hilarious.