rainbow walking

Hi Baloo,
Mind you I'm just arguing as the devil's advocate here but you said:

Well, technically, yes. It's called a proof by contradiction. If I start with an assumption, and show that it leads to a logical inconsistency, then either there is a flaw in the argument, or I've proved the assumption wrong. Unless a "carte blanche" proof is different from a the mathematical definition of a proof, that is.

The problem with your focus on logical contradiction is that you have to account for both the logic and the contradiction in some coherent manner. Now if you begin with "incomprehensibility" how did you begin to comprehend enough to arrive at the logical contradiction? If you start with the assumption that this being possesses omnimax attributes you end up with an incomprehensible concept. There are many things in nature that remain incomprehensible to us at present but we don't stop trying to unravel the mystery they represent just because we can find no logical consistency at present.

rainbow walking

This seems to be quite a challenging and provocative subject...yes?

Baloo: Um, rainbow walking, when did curby say he "knows there is no god"?



rw: In his second post he said, "Many people never grow up to realise that there is no God." It's the last sentence at the bottom of the paragraph.


Baloo: Do you know there is no Santa?

rw: I have been santa on occasion.

Baloo: Now do you see what he's driving at?

rw: I've never lost sight of it. What makes you think I have?






Baloo: RW, when did curby say he had proof of the claim that there is no god?


rw: I never said he did. That's why I asked him if he had any because he did seem to indicate he had evidence enough to lead him to his conclusion.


Baloo: Do you have proof that there is no Santa?


rw: I never said there was or wasn't a santa. Do you have proof there isn't?

Baloo: When did he say that he didn't believe in god as a result of a lack of proof in that god?

rw: He said this in his OP: The evidence for atheism is overwhelming. People that can't understand it intellectually must be retarded.


Baloo: Is your disbelief in Santa based only on the fact that nobody has proven to you that Santa exists?

rw: When did I make any statements, one way or the other, about my personal views on the subject of santa?

Baloo: Why are you pulling lawyer-like tactics here, and questioning curby on points he never made?

rw: I asked simple questions based on his words and their obvious implications and I provided you with those words to support the basis of my questions. Why does this trouble you?






Baloo: How is your belief that there is no Santa any different than that of a five year old listening for hoofs on the rooftop Christmas Eve?

rw: What is the relevance of this straw man?

diana

But of course. I was halfway through a thorough reply a few hours ago, then decided I'd leave such responses for someone who who has the time, energy and actual interest in ripping it apart. There are plenty amongst us with the tools, time and temper to tamper with such tripe without me being bothered to bash it to bits.

d,
practicing her alliteration

Belem

This is the funniest thing I´ve ever read

So you start saying that atheists are aggressive and in the next breath you call christians retarded !!!

Well, I think that if you look inside yourself you will understand intolerance.

Belem

B. H. Manners

Let's try to avoid sweeping generalizations in the future like calling theists "retarded." It is okay to attack a position with logic and sound information, but we need to avoid personal insults.

Ion

rainbow walking,

me I claim that based on the definition of 'God' in the Bible, the contradictions -within the Bible itself and with the world outside of the Bible- disprove that the Bible's 'God' does exist.

There you go:
you have now a "...proof of the claim that there is no god...", when my claim is addressing religion by religion, each with a definition of a god in its texts.

Philosoft

I fail to see the irony.
What does his opinion of the brainpower of theists have to do with tolerance? He's not advocating persecution or differential treatment, is he?

curbyIII

I see that controversial threads here tend to gallop away into weird directions quickly.

Nowhere did I say that Christians or theists are retarded. Please read what I say carefully, rather than skimming it and picking up on offensive words. I was actually making the exact opposite point. It's a terrible thing to quote somebody out of context, you can make them seem to say almost anything. Here is the quote (not taken out of context):

I was making the point that despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence against the existence of the Biblical God people still believe in him. They will continue to do so regardless of the evidence. But they are NOT stupid. They don't accept the evidence because they don't WANT to, not because they don't UNDERSTAND.

To rainbow walking:
I don't KNOW absolutely that there is no God just as I don't KNOW absolutely that there is no Santa Claus (There is almost nothing that we can know ABSOLUTELY). But it is rational for me to believe that there is no God. If I am trying to determine the existence of something then I should start off in a state of uncertainty (agnosticism). Then I should gather evidence of whether this being exists or not. In the absence of evidence I should remain in a state of uncertainty. However, if there is an absence of evidence for the existence of this thing AND its existence contradicts things I know to be true (the laws of physics for example), then it is rational for me to reject the existence of this thing (atheism). For example: Is there bacterial life on Mars? In the absence of evidence I should remain uncertain. Are there perpetual motion machines on Mars? There is an absence of evidence for this and the existence of such machines contradicts things I know to be true, namely the laws of physics. So I should reject the existence of perpetual motion machines on Mars. Similarly there is a lack of evidence (or very little) for the existence of God and his existence violates most (if not all) of the laws of physics. Extraordinary claims such as the existence of God need extraordinary proof. This is why I am an atheist. I'm sorry for rambling on like this but this is an important point.

Many people believe that Theism is a belief in X, and Atheism is a belief in -X (not X). But this is NOT the case!! Atheism is a rejection of the groundless belief in God itself. I don't have FAITH in the fact that there is no God. I have no faith in anything at all. I reject faith itself. I use my rational (hopefully) mind to gather evidence and decide for myself.

To pug846:
You said that I have made a lot of fallacies. Could you please tell me what they are? I like to keep my arguments valid and I would really appreciate it if you could point out my mistakes. But note that most of my original post was my personal opinion which was why it wasn't accompanied by a strict proof. If you would like, I could justify my opinion for you.

To DarthDane:
You said: "I have faith in doubt." I'm pretty sure that that is a meaningless sentence similar to "This sentence is false."

To diana:
I would also appreciate it if you could explain where you think I made a mistake. Thank you.

To Belem:
Unfortunately your quote of my original post cuts off at the worst possible place making me seem to contradict myself. Please be kind enough to include the next two sentences.

To B.H. Manners:
I never said any Christians were retarded. If this was taken as an insult then I'm sorry, it was not intended as one. But please don't take my words out of context.

To Ion:
The evidence against a Biblical God is quite strong. The Bible is rife with contradictions, there is a good web page here. But the rejection of the Biblical God is not enough to call yourself an atheist. An atheist rejects the existence of all Gods.

I'm sorry that this post has been so exhaustive but I felt that I should defend myself against accusations of insults and intolerance.

HelenM

What about this:

Calling all theists "immature" is an insult, imo.

Helen

curbyIII

I don't think that calling theists immature is an insult. This is not name calling. I believe that there are levels of maturity. I define maturity by the amount of reality a person is willing to embrace. Although theists are mature in the normal sense of the word, I believe that atheists are even more mature, mature enough to reject the comfortable myth of God.