Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Debate on what? the existence of God?

You have read the thread title then?

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm only here to insist that such debate is both pointless and frustrating.

Then leave the field. Why come into a thread where people DO want to debate something and declare the debate pointless? Do you also go on to the sports forums for the sports you personally do not want to play and declare their game pointless too? Or go into the cookery forum declaring everyone should buy ready meals?

This is a debate thread on a discussion forum. If you do not want to engage with the debate or the topic... simply leave.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The question is not, dose God exist?

Actually yes it is. You do not get to change the topic of the thread and derail it. Once again I request you take the time to read the Thread Title. The title "Existence of God debates" very much does make the question "Does god exist".

tommy2bad wrote: »

first you believe and then you know from the effect that believing has on your life.

Alas there is a certain degree of selection bias at play there for the very simple reason that the above "thinking" works with just about everything.

For example if you first believe that all the elite and elected of this planet have been replaced by alien lizards in human disguises then you can very much retrospectively "Suck it and see" and find evidence that confirms that.

If you read the blogs of Jim Corr, as full of unsubstantiated lunacy as anything I can think of, and start from the perspective that everything he says is true.... you will start to see the evidence "confirming" that.

The common example I give is the "23ists" a cult of people who believe that whatever is controlling life and society does so through the number 23. And you can find 23 everywhere. If you start from the perspective that this is true and go LOOKING for 23... you will find it. Everywhere. There was even a Jim Carey film based on these people. The problem they miss.... as do you in a similar way with your god belief justification..... is that it works for ANY number, especially prime numbers for mathematical reasons that are not worth going into here.

The reason for all of this is there is a big, but subtle, difference between "Evidence" that substantiates a claim and evidence that is merely coincidental, parallel or compliments a claim. If you decide something true first, and retrospectively try and justify that to yourself, then you will find an ABUNDANCE of complimentary evidence.

The the comical tragedy for the outside observer is looking at all the people who fall prey to that... theists, 23ists, lizardists, Corrists..... who all preciously defend their own "thinking" on their own pet hypothesis.... in your case god.... while abjectly and entirely rejecting the _exact same "thought" process_ in the other groups.

You might look at lizardists and think them espousing lunacy. They may look at you in exactly the same way. Yet the thought process and methodology that allowed each of you to reach their conclusions is to a tee identical. And each is as blind to that fact as the other.

nagirrac wrote: »

Correct, but because atheists see no compelling reason to be a theist does not mean there is no reason to be a theist.

If there are reasons then by all means show us them. But simply acting like there is, then dodging every request to hear what they may be, is a cop out.

There either is a god, or there is not. I doubt it can be both.

There either are reasons to think there is a god, or there is not. Again I doubt it can be both.

So if there are reasons to think there is, then by all means lay them out. But going on and on ABOUT those reasons without ever GIVING them appears to me to be nothing more than an obfuscation cop out tactic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There either is a god, or there is not. I doubt it can be both.

.

Perhaps that's a mistake, as it can be both. To those who believe, there are lots of gods to believe in. Those those who don't believe, they don't believe.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Perhaps that's a mistake, as it can be both. To those who believe, there are lots of gods to believe in. Those those who don't believe, they don't believe.

Entirely different. You are pointing out that there exists both people who BELIEVE there is a god and people who do not.

I am talking about the objective fact of whether there is a god or not. There either is, or there is not. I am unsure how it can be both.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have read the thread title then?

Yeah read it, so?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then leave the field. Why come into a thread where people DO want to debate something and declare the debate pointless? Do you also go on to the sports forums for the sports you personally do not want to play and declare their game pointless too? Or go into the cookery forum declaring everyone should buy ready meals?

Sounds fun but I'm not interested in sport.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a debate thread on a discussion forum. If you do not want to engage with the debate or the topic... simply leave.

Except it says debates, plural. So moving on from the narrow definition that you insist you are not creating but wont allow movement from is permissible.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually yes it is. You do not get to change the topic of the thread and derail it. Once again I request you take the time to read the Thread Title. The title "Existence of God debates" very much does make the question "Does god exist".

You and I both know that all the main arguments for and against the existence of God have been trashed out endlessly. Empirical, Deductive, Ontological, subjective and objective arguments all have their proponents and opponents, If you are really interested in this end of the debate then read some books. You'll get a better perspective than from anonymous internet posters.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Alas there is a certain degree of selection bias at play there for the very simple reason that the above "thinking" works with just about everything.
For example if you first believe that all the elite and elected of this planet have been replaced by alien lizards in human disguises then you can very much retrospectively "Suck it and see" and find evidence that confirms that.

If you read the blogs of Jim Corr, as full of unsubstantiated lunacy as anything I can think of, and start from the perspective that everything he says is true.... you will start to see the evidence "confirming" that.

The common example I give is the "23ists" a cult of people who believe that whatever is controlling life and society does so through the number 23. And you can find 23 everywhere. If you start from the perspective that this is true and go LOOKING for 23... you will find it. Everywhere. There was even a Jim Carey film based on these people. The problem they miss.... as do you in a similar way with your god belief justification..... is that it works for ANY number, especially prime numbers for mathematical reasons that are not worth going into here.

The reason for all of this is there is a big, but subtle, difference between "Evidence" that substantiates a claim and evidence that is merely coincidental, parallel or compliments a claim. If you decide something true first, and retrospectively try and justify that to yourself, then you will find an ABUNDANCE of complimentary evidence.

The the comical tragedy for the outside observer is looking at all the people who fall prey to that... theists, 23ists, lizardists, Corrists..... who all preciously defend their own "thinking" on their own pet hypothesis.... in your case god.... while abjectly and entirely rejecting the _exact same "thought" process_ in the other groups.

You might look at lizardists and think them espousing lunacy. They may look at you in exactly the same way. Yet the thought process and methodology that allowed each of you to reach their conclusions is to a tee identical. And each is as blind to that fact as the other.

And so you demolish the the will to believe doctrine. Hey ho and around we go. Their is no argument that can't be countered. It don't change anything because in spite of all the arguments against belief, people still believe.
Must be frustrating being an atheist!

Yipee!! I got the split quotes thing, Thanks nozzferrahhtoo.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah read it, so?

Then read it again until you understand it. This is a discussion forum. This is a debate thread. And the topic of the thread is whether or not god exists. So do not presume to tell me the topic is something else, or that the entire conversation is pointless. If you do not want to engage in it, simply leave the thread to those who do. Simples.

tommy2bad wrote: »

If you are really interested in this end of the debate then read some books.

Pocket your assumptions about me thanks, they are wrong. I read plenty. That I choose to _compliment_ that reading through discussions with my fellow man is my choice, not yours. No one is forcing you to reply to me, or write on this thread. If the topic is not for you, theres the door.

You want to presume you have heard all the arguments and thrashed them all out. Fine. Presume that. I am not arrogant enough to think I know it all and I keep the discussion open on the chance there are arguments, data, evidence or reasoning I have not yet been made aware of. Closing your mind on an issue and declaring "I have heard it all, I need not listen any more" is an approach I simply refuse to take. On any issue.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Must be frustrating being an atheist!

Not that I have noticed. But that is as wrong as it is irrelevant. The question still remains whether you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to substantiate the claim that there is a god. If not then I guess it is conversation over. Though why you engage in a conversation you already thought pointless is beyond me. Just to derail perhaps?

Nozz, if you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer. Simples.
If you continue to debate/discuss something that goes round in circles without trying another angle of attack, good luck to you. I would prefer to move on to another way of getting to the answer or if you prefer re-frame the question, 'what kind of evidence can we use to prove God exists'. A better question or the same question better posed.
Is that derailing? After 521 pages I don't think so, it's extending and elaborating the debate.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Nozz, if you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer. Simples.

Then is it not lucky I did no such thing. The thread is, once again, about the existence of god. Therefore asking if there is any basis for thinking a god exists is perfectly valid.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then is it not lucky I did no such thing. The thread is, once again, about the existence of god. Therefore asking if there is any basis for thinking a god exists is perfectly valid.

And would you care to elaborate on what kind of evidence is acceptable? What basis is considered rational, what level of verifiability is needed to pass the evidence definition? (it's like pulling teeth! ).
I'v given my reasons and all you can say is 'not good enough' We got that a long time ago. What would be good enough?
BTW Even I don't think the evidence is good enough to categorically state the existence of God as a fact, it's a belief. Hope you get the difference.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Entirely different. You are pointing out that there exists both people who BELIEVE there is a god and people who do not.

I am talking about the objective fact of whether there is a god or not. There either is, or there is not. I am unsure how it can be both.

Which facts might be objective depend on whether you believe in god, or not. Therefore for one person there is a god, and for another there is not.

You can't have a rational debate with someone whose final position is "I know I am right because god tells me" as you can see from Tommy2bad's post above, and others.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And would you care to elaborate on what kind of evidence is acceptable?

I already did. Quite clearly. In a post not even that long ago which was a reply to you. Go read it again. Hint: It is the last section in the post. Anything that fits that 3 part structure is submissable as "evidence" for me and is usefully discussable.

Aside from that, no, I can not help you. It is up to the claimant to lay out their evidence. Not for the mark to do it for you. If you think there is a god, and want to actually discuss that, then the onus is entirely on you to lay out what your evidence is.

This is for many reasons, not least because if I tell you what evidence I want, then since I do not know what the evidence is, I risk pre-declining evidence before you even present it because it does not meet the expectations I have laid out.

No, better is I remain open minded in terms of all evidence presented (in this case: None) and evaluate each on its own merits and demerits as it arrives. Without parsing it through a predetermined selection of filters which risk filtering out the actual evidence if and when it arrives.

I will consider all evidence, arguments, data and reasoning placed before me, openly and honestly and.... as you no doubt have observed so far.... at great length.

At the other end however I can certainly lay out the kinds of evidence I would NOT accept. For example the list of fallacies. I would not accept, for example, "The majority of our species by far has believed in a god, so does this not lend credence to the claim there is one?" as evidence. That is the fallacy of Argumenum Ad Populum and it in no way lends credibility to the idea there actually is a god.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'v given my reasons and all you can say is 'not good enough'

That is as dishonest as it is disingenuous. I evaluated your reasoning and replied at some length why I found it lacking and wanting and insufficient. I did not simply dismiss it with a wave of a hand or a "not good enough". I explained exactly why, with clear points, the evidence failed.

Rather than rebut or discuss my points on the matter however you simply skipped over them all and changed tact into a "This conversation is pointless anyway" mode.

So it is rather telling when you accuse another of a level of quick dismissivness that in fact only you have displayed.

tommy2bad wrote: »

it's a belief. Hope you get the difference.

Clearly I do get the difference since I discussed it at length in an earlier post. One begins to question now, given I have started and ended this post answering points I already answered not just on this thread... but directly to you.... whether you are bothering to read what I write at all.

The difference is... as I said when it came up before.... that "I believe it because I believe it" is all well and good, and clearly you think it sounds good on paper, but it breaks down discourse on the very topic this thread is about.

If you want to trot out "I believe it because I believe it" in one form or another.... great.... have at it..... but all conversation breaks down at that point and you may as well leave the thread. Alas for reasons only you appear to be able to fathom, you complain the entire debate is pointless..... while continuing to post repeatedly on the debate thread. The only motivation I can envision for this is an attempt to derail the thread or stifle a discussion that it not going the way you want it. If it is all so pointless, why even READ the thread, let alone post on it and derail it.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Which facts might be objective depend on whether you believe in god, or not. Therefore for one person there is a god, and for another there is not.

Again you are talking about subjectivity. While I am talking about the objective fact. We are simply talking past each other now.

There either is, objectively, a football sitting beside me on the table right now.... or there is not. What anyone believes about that fact is irrelevant. It is either there or it is not. There is no "For one person...." about it. The object is either there, or it is not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly I do get the difference since I discussed it at length in an earlier post. One begins to question now, given I have started and ended this post answering points I already answered not just on this thread... but directly to you.... whether you are bothering to read what I write at all.

Maybe you don't understand that someone whose trump card is "I believe what I believe because god tells me I am right" is not able to stick to logic or other evidence.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Maybe you don't understand that someone whose trump card is "I believe what I believe because god tells me I am right" is not able to stick to logic or other evidence.

Perhaps not, but I do not regret the attempt all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps not, but I do not regret the attempt all the same.

Sure, but why try to pretend you will convince such a person with logic and "evidence". You won't.

Turtwig

Mod: I'm not sure where exactly this is going. But if you believe this to be a futile discussion there one obvious solution. The whole idea of a discussion forum is discussion. Stating your opinion is fine, but repeatedly stating something to be your opinion and leaving it at that without elaborating isn't. Likewise, repeatedly posting one liners stating someone cannot be reasoned with through logic and reason or whatever is destructive to a discussion.

Jernal wrote: »

Mod: I'm not sure where exactly this is going. But if you believe this to be a futile discussion there one obvious solution. The whole idea of a discussion forum is discussion. Stating your opinion is fine, but repeatedly stating something to be your opinion and leaving it at that without elaborating isn't. Likewise, repeatedly posting one liners stating someone cannot be reasoned with through logic and reason or whatever is destructive to a discussion.

Quite the opposite, I believe this to be one of the most important and interesting discussions, and many of the posts here are interesting and intelligent. However, its also true that someone who can trump any argument, based on evidence, by saying " I believe I am right because god tells me I am right" is effectively unable to be logical or see evidence.

georgesstreet wrote: »

Quite the opposite, I believe this to be one of the most important and interesting discussions, and many of the posts here are interesting and intelligent. However, its also true that someone who can trump any argument, based on evidence, by saying " I believe I am right because god tells me I am right" is effectively unable to be logical or see evidence.

Nice! so misquoting someone is now acceptable. I might go too far, paraphrasing someone inaccurately is now ok?

I never said or implied that " I believe I am right because god tells me I am right"
I will return to this, it seems I made the mistake of presuming that noz understood the arguments and could work with discussing them in short references. I might have to build the argument from scratch if he needs to catch up that much.

Again the constant references to evidence without any definition of what 'evidence' is.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: What Jernal said, effectively. Tommy / Nozz - although it doesn't seem to be deliberate, I think you guys are talking past each other at this stage. This thread is pretty free-wheeling by nature, and it would be nice to keep it that way. If someone feels that there is no point to this discussion, then please disengage, likewise, soapboxing is contrary to the charter. Please bear this in mind before continuing this discussion.

1) State clearly what it is you are claiming.
That a being we call God exists.
That's the easy bit, it gets complicated from here on

2) State clearly the things you think support that claim.
(a)First cause. I'm going to do a bit of a cop out here because this is the one that every proof of anything is specifiable too. Everything we know if probed enough runs into the 'and before that?' So it not really a proof or disproof. It's a presumption. None the less one we apply to everything else so why not God. At it's heart first cause is; for x their must exist the possibility for x, the materials, If this is absent then no X. Let x be the universe and God the possibility. Yeah it's weak enough as we can have almost anything replace God and we are back to an infinite regression. So the atheist position We cant know therefore it's not worth asking until we can, is just an avoidance of the conclusion that something uncreated brought this space time into existence. That's kind of the definition of God, uncreated.

(b) Direction or as I said previously order from chaos. It could be that we only perceive it as order and theirs actually no order just chaos that we happen to be a consequence of but then we wouldn't have science or this discussion. But that's just foolish and again we are back to first cause. See how this becomes circular real fast?

(c) Testimony; This one is not so much about the actual things they passed down but the fact that every culture has conceived of the divine. It's part of human nature to seek a God, I believe that this yearning is because God call to us.

(d) My own personal one. Suck it and see. It's an version of Pascals wager without the long wait. If it's better to believe in God then it's folly to disbelieve. By living as a believer my life is better, this is what the whole theistic drive is and it works. It's 'true' because the results are what would be expected if it were 'true'.
For me this limits what I can consent to as true but that's OK. I'm not a stickler for dogma.

3) State clearly exactly how the things in 2 support the things in 1.
Eh it's kind of obvious if you got it as I went along.

Summarizing; I'm not a fan of first cause as it an annoying thing that we must just accept without any way of testing but again it apply to everything so what can you do. I like direction a little better but it fails the test ability thing again as we can never have any other model to observe. Testimony is even better as it demonstrates that at the very minimum God is part and parcel of what it means to be human. Truth as a pragmatic conclusion in the end is the only test we can apply to the existence of God and for me it passes well enough to consent to the conclusion that God exists.

Reasonable? Proof enough? I doubt it or a lot of people better than me or you have wasted their time over this one.

Brian Shanahan

Mar Mar Marmalade wrote: »

yet I simply do not understand a lot of people of believe in Atheism.

Name me one person in history who has believed in atheism. Go on, I dare you.

As the rest of your post is unalloyed tripe I see no need to address it.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

2) State clearly the things you think support that claim.
(a)First cause. I'm going to do a bit of a cop out here because this is the one that every proof of anything is specifiable too. Everything we know if probed enough runs into the 'and before that?' So it not really a proof or disproof. It's a presumption. None the less one we apply to everything else so why not God. At it's heart first cause is; for x their must exist the possibility for x, the materials, If this is absent then no X. Let x be the universe and God the possibility. Yeah it's weak enough as we can have almost anything replace God and we are back to an infinite regression. So the atheist position We cant know therefore it's not worth asking until we can, is just an avoidance of the conclusion that something uncreated brought this space time into existence. That's kind of the definition of God, uncreated.

(b) Direction or as I said previously order from chaos. It could be that we only perceive it as order and theirs actually no order just chaos that we happen to be a consequence of but then we wouldn't have science or this discussion. But that's just foolish and again we are back to first cause. See how this becomes circular real fast?

(c) Testimony; This one is not so much about the actual things they passed down but the fact that every culture has conceived of the divine. It's part of human nature to seek a God, I believe that this yearning is because God call to us.

(d) My own personal one. Suck it and see. It's an version of Pascals wager without the long wait. If it's better to believe in God then it's folly to disbelieve. By living as a believer my life is better, this is what the whole theistic drive is and it works. It's 'true' because the results are what would be expected if it were 'true'.
For me this limits what I can consent to as true but that's OK. I'm not a stickler for dogma.

I'm sorry but this is not even close to being evidence on whatever scale you wish to use. Basically what you're saying here is "I believe that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe, therefore god has to exist. QED"
You are simply stating your beliefs and following on saying that because you believe it has to be true.

Breaking it down a bit more:
a) You have to show in some way or form that there is a need for first cause, because nothing ever discovered yet about the universe points to such a need. And then you have to show how your putative god is that first cause, which is a huge ask, because your putative god is basically a very immature human who was spoiled all his life with great power. You yourself have essentially admitted it is no evidence in the quoted post.

b) "Direction from chaos to order"? Yeah either you've phrased yourself very badly or you don't understand the meaning of chaos as it is used in terms of physics. Oh, and the existence of humans is no indications of chaos being "diminished" as we are as subject to quantum mechanics (the outgrowth of chaos theory) as random space dust. So still no evidence.

c) The plural of anecdote is not evidence. There are far more plausible explanations for such "testimony". If a person is severely injured and "meets" god, hallucination caused by lack of oxygen to the brain (due to blood loss) is the most plausible explanation; if a man writes a book about the end of days with fantastical happenings and implausible creatures, then eating magic mushrooms is a more plausible explanation; if a man bases his religion's rules off a golden tablet which mysteriously disappears before anyone else sees it and needs magic glasses to read the replacement (which nobody else sees either), then fraud is the only plausible expalantion; if a man sees a cross in the sky on the eve of a battle which could see him either exalted or trampled under the feet of the soldiers of his enemy, either politicking or anxiety are the most plausible causes.

d) Pascal's Wager is idiotic. I'm actually suprised Blaise Pascal himself didn't cop onto it. Firstly, are you sure you're believing in the right god, I hear Anubis is quite snippy about such matters. Secondly, if god is correct, then how are you going to explain your pretend belief in him when ye meet? He's going to notice.

It's 'true' because the results are what would be expected if it were 'true'.

i) It is only "true" because you expect it to be true. You are assuming evidence because you believe it fits your theory.
ii) The universe works just as well if there were no god. In fact, what we know of the universe, I'd be suprised if it were to work as it does if there were one.

So I say again, you have no evidence, just what you believe.

pauldla

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

....
c) The plural of anecdote is not evidence. There are far more plausible explanations for such "testimony". If a person is severely injured and "meets" god, hallucination caused by lack of oxygen to the brain (due to blood loss) is the most plausible explanation; if a man writes a book about the end of days with fantastical happenings and implausible creatures, then eating magic mushrooms is a more plausible explanation; if a man bases his religion's rules off a golden tablet which mysteriously disappears before anyone else sees it and needs magic glasses to read the replacement (which nobody else sees either), then fraud is the only plausible expalantion; if a man sees a cross in the sky on the eve of a battle which could see him either exalted or trampled under the feet of the soldiers of his enemy, either politicking or anxiety are the most plausible causes.

....

Not meaning to cherry pick, Brian, but I saw a documentary a few months back that put together a compelling argument that the cross he saw was actually a meteorite. AFAIK they even found a likely impact crater that matched the date in question. Intereting theory.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is not even close to being evidence on whatever scale you wish to use. Basically what you're saying here is "I believe that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe, therefore god has to exist. QED"
You are simply stating your beliefs and following on saying that because you believe it has to be true.

Breaking it down a bit more:
a) You have to show in some way or form that there is a need for first cause, because nothing ever discovered yet about the universe points to such a need. And then you have to show how your putative god is that first cause, which is a huge ask, because your putative god is basically a very immature human who was spoiled all his life with great power. You yourself have essentially admitted it is no evidence in the quoted post.

As I said, it a bad argument but one that we are stuck with for everything. I'm not saying otherwise. You seem to dismiss the need for a first cause without any evidence at all and reject the logic of something cannot come from nothing. Or possibly think that the universe had no beginning and is itself eternal. It's not worth the argument as we have no way of testing it anyway.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

b) "Direction from chaos to order"? Yeah either you've phrased yourself very badly or you don't understand the meaning of chaos as it is used in terms of physics. Oh, and the existence of humans is no indications of chaos being "diminished" as we are as subject to quantum mechanics (the outgrowth of chaos theory) as random space dust. So still no evidence.

Must have because you don't seem to get my point. and you missed my addendum that I don't like the argument because it's untestable.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

c) The plural of anecdote is not evidence. There are far more plausible explanations for such "testimony". If a person is severely injured and "meets" god, hallucination caused by lack of oxygen to the brain (due to blood loss) is the most plausible explanation; if a man writes a book about the end of days with fantastical happenings and implausible creatures, then eating magic mushrooms is a more plausible explanation; if a man bases his religion's rules off a golden tablet which mysteriously disappears before anyone else sees it and needs magic glasses to read the replacement (which nobody else sees either), then fraud is the only plausible expalantion; if a man sees a cross in the sky on the eve of a battle which could see him either exalted or trampled under the feet of the soldiers of his enemy, either politicking or anxiety are the most plausible causes.

Again you seem to not have read what I posted. Or possibly you think that the order we see is actually disorder. You are right BTW I'm not using chaos as it is used in physics but as commonly understood, a lack of intelligible pattern or combination. Are ye trying to make this as long winded as possible?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

d) Pascal's Wager is idiotic. I'm actually suprised Blaise Pascal himself didn't cop onto it. Firstly, are you sure you're believing in the right god, I hear Anubis is quite snippy about such matters. Secondly, if god is correct, then how are you going to explain your pretend belief in him when ye meet? He's going to notice.

Which is why I'm conservative as to what I will consent to about God. Again you use someone else's definition of God to argue against mine. I gave none, some people are snippy about this thread staying on topic -the existence of God, lets not stray into the nature of God until we establish that first.
Again; If x then y, if we can see y then x must be true., not unknown in physics or any logic or any other method. Deduction I think it's called.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

i) It is only "true" because you expect it to be true. You are assuming evidence because you believe it fits your theory.
ii) The universe works just as well if there were no god. In fact, what we know of the universe, I'd be suprised if it were to work as it does if there were one.

So I say again, you have no evidence, just what you believe.

Or it wouldn't exist at all. I'd be as surprised as you if God was as He is described by the excesses of most traditions. Then again I don't hold that they are right about God, just close enough to give us a way to live as best we can.

Mar Mar Marmalade

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Name me one person in history who has believed in atheism. Go on, I dare you.

As the rest of your post is unalloyed tripe I see no need to address it.

Now maybe Looking the tad bit past that post would actually have helped you. What I mean't by that sentence was that you don't think/believe there is a god. The word "believe" does not solely mean believing in a certain religion. It's an assumption and or opinion. Nagirrac actually put it quite clearly.

Put more thought into your post next time before making yourself look like a fool.

Geomy

The belief or non belief in God is vulnerable to further experience. ...

Brian Shanahan

Mar Mar Marmalade wrote: »

Now maybe Looking the tad bit past that post would actually have helped you. What I mean't by that sentence was that you don't think/believe there is a god. The word "believe" does not solely mean believing in a certain religion. It's an assumption and or opinion. Nagirrac actually put it quite clearly.

Put more thought into your post next time before making yourself look like a fool.

<Mod Snip. Condescending remark. >
b) Lack of belief is not itself a belief. Calling atheism a belief is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby to use the famous phrase.

I know full well that you wrote gibberish.

Mar Mar Marmalade

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

<>
b) Lack of belief is not itself a belief. Calling atheism a belief is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby to use the famous phrase.
<>. I know full well that you wrote gibberish.

You clearly did not understand my post that you have just replied to. Atheism is not a belief in a religious manner such as "I believe in god". I could go into many aspects as to how these words are slightly different but overall in short term, "believe" is very much the same as "opinion" or "think" and that's what I explained to you. I did not say that Atheism is a religious belief. I said it was a belief. Big difference. It's a much stronger word than the ones I listed so it suited my first post well considering this is a debate about religion we're on.

"Gibberish"? That's funny.