Originally posted by rwingettSo what do you know that runs counter to God being real?
What is there not to understand? I spelled it out very plainly. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That would be the person claiming that there is a god. Show me that there is a god and I'll believe it. If you can't t ...[text shortened]... The atheist is not trying to prove anything, nor does he need to.
Your so called knowledge is a positive you claim to have, so
lets have it, or should I just write your claims off as wasting
my time?
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettRob,
An atheist is one who does not believe in god. No evidence can be shown to support the claim for god, therefore it cannot be believed. The atheist will therefore act as though god does not exist. Since the claim for god is contrary to everything we know, it will be assumed to be false until some contrary evidence comes to light.
All claims are not equal. ...[text shortened]... t will start off by assuming the claim to be false unless there is some evidence to support it.
May God forgive you for bringing out the nitpicker in me, but aren't you making two different claims in your first paragraph?
There is surely a difference between "no evidence can be shown to *support* the claim for God" and "the claim for God is *contrary* to everything we know."
Moreover, this is precisely the difference I was trying to bring out.
The fact that there is no evidence in favour of X is not, by itself, all else equal, grounds for disbelieving X. However, if there is evidence against X, then that is, by itself, all else equal, grounds for disbelieving X.
The fact that you claim that belief in God is "fantastical" suggests that there is something in it at odds with our rational suppositions of how things are. Which would count as evidence against God's existing, and accordingly, grounds for disbelief.
You define an atheist as one who does not believe in God, a nonbeliever. Well, that's a defensible definition. But isn't it usually employed to refer to someone who *disbelieves* in God?
You come across as more of an disbeliever objecting to the existence of God than a nonbeliever suspending judgment on the matter.
And that's quite refreshing here at RHP...🙂
Of course, some theists, like Alvin Platinga, do maintain, and go to great lengths to argue, that belief in God is "properly basic", that is, that you don't have to justify it, but can just start with it as a natural way of thinking.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth06.html
Looks like someone is going to get Rob VERY mad indeed...
Ok, Rwing... I'm a simple person.
Are you Athiest, and what does this mean? Does it mean you don't believe in God, or does it mean you are not sure there is a God?
You see, there is little proof in either direction... yet you made a choice (I think) there there is no God. Why did you decide there is no God? What is your proof?
You seem to want to force the burden of proof on people who do believe, and people who don't believe are ok... since they don't need to prove there is no God.
Please explain what I am missing in your logic.
T
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThe position that there definitely is no god is known as "strong" atheism. Most knowledgable atheists will reject this position as it is no more defensible that theism. I am not a disbeliever. I am a non-believer. The distinction is subtle, but very crucial.
Rob,
May God forgive you for bringing out the nitpicker in me, but aren't you making two different claims in your first paragraph?
There is surely a difference between "no evidence can be shown to *support* the claim for God" and "the claim for God is *contrary* to everything we know."
Moreover, this is precisely the difference I was tryi ...[text shortened]... ever suspending judgment on the matter.
And that's quite refreshing here at RHP...🙂
Perhaps a better choice of words would have been for me to say that god is a fantastical claim because there is no parallel to it in human experience (as opposed to being contrary to human experience). It is a claim that resides wholly outside our realm of experience. That is why some people prefer to label themselves as agnostics, because they feel that not only is the answer not known but that it is unknowable. Therefore they suspend judgement on the issue.
There is no direct evidence either for or against the existence of a god. But I call myself an atheist because I think there are enough clues to suggest that it is more likely that god does not exist than that he does.
I'm out of time. I have to go. I'll continue this later...
Originally posted by royalchickenYou know about his claims, how they are connected and
Right, but these claims are connected and have all been substantiated in the 'Religion(or lack thereof)' thread.
have been substantiated in the 'Religion(or lack thereof"' thread?
I can ask you what I asked him and I can get a strait answer
out of you?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but when I last discussed in a serious way why I don't believe in God given the evidence available to me, it took me three posts and several hours. Therefore, if you ask me a similar question now, I may have to just repost those with some editing. I would be happy to hear your criticism. Would you like me to do this?
You know about his claims, how they are connected and
have been substantiated in the 'Religion(or lack thereof"' thread?
I can ask you what I asked him and I can get a strait answer
out of you?
Kelly
Surely the logical view to hold is that there is no 'God'. I believe that there is no God. I am sure most of the contributors to this thread have heard the canard that an atheist holds similar views to a committed Christian; the atheist simply does not believe in the existence of one extra 'God', out of the many that are claimed to exist.
There is no reason for a 'God'. I can't explain full causality, but addinmg in an extra link of 'God' does not seem to improve matters.
I truly do not understand why otherwise intelligent people profess to believe in 'God'. Do these same people believe in ghosts, pixies, fairies, trolls etc.? If not, why not? On what logical basis do they differentiate between them?