Koyaanisqatsi

Well, there's your smoking gun right there. You didn't offer him a proof or a theorem (nor does anyone else) because you don't owe him a proof or a theorem. He owes that to you.

This is well known, so a jump in the program has to be implanted. He must pre-empt you from establishing "first claimant" (to coin a phrase) so that he needn't ever provide support for his positive claim (i.e., "God exists").

You see?

He's pre-empting you from raising the only legitimate point; "What is your evidence?"

"I don't have to give evidence, because this is beyond evidence, man! Don't you get it? It is precisely the non-evidence thing about it that makes it totally proved!"

Or some such facsimile...

It's called "cognitive dissonance;" the mind making up for what the brain lacks, apparently.

But he gives away his conditioning in the very construct of his first response; like the classic detective repartee...

"He told me that he never even touched her necklace, Captain; that he doesn't know who stole it"
"So? What does that prove?"
"I never told him the necklace was stolen."

Capisca?

And yet everything he initially thought and felt and believed about the whole construct of "Gods" to begin with came precisely from someone telling him what he sees and believes. It's called a "family." Then a "church" (or synagogue or mosque, yes, yes). Then a "cult."

If he can honestly state that he was raised in a complete religious vacuum and was in no way influenced by his parents, friends or environment regarding what it is that "we" believe and further that he wandered the Earth without human contact until one day he collapsed on a piece of parchment completely unknown to him and was able to decipher the language well enough to comprehend the message it professed, then and only then could even begin to claim that his beliefs are entirely his own without undue influence from other human beings (and the myriad of "God" stories they like to scare each other with to control them).

A reasonable enough standard for one so seemingly pious, wouldn't you agree?

Ok stop right there. If...he is being deceieved, then he believes the deception to be correct. Think about that. "It doesn't matter if I am being mislead; the lies you are telling me are, in my opinion, preferrable to the truth."

Right? He has just declared that as far as he is concerned, so long as you float my boat, I don't care what lies you tell me. The truth doesn't matter.

Odd position to take for one who seems to be trumpeting the TRUTH, yes?

"I don't care about lies, because lies--to me--are truths."

Sound like cognitive dissonance to you? Lies=truth? Then what the f*ck is truth? Well...lies...or so it is indoctrinated.

It's profoundly simple. Confuse a person's "lies/truth" barometer (installed at the factory, mind you) and they will always see black as white; the truth for lies and the lies for truth.

I-56. Bingo!

And the cycle is complete. He starts by destroying your legitimate question ("what is your evidence"), then walks you around in circles so that you don't ever actually see any causal links (just perceive them), only to arrive at his own beginning by making it seem as if you are the one without the evidence to support your own perceptions.

The fatal smoking gun here, of course, being the fact that central to deity worship is the concept that the deity mandates objective existence, thus destroying the solipsist spiral they just took you for from the outset.

Your friend's entire argument (as others have also pointed out) is nothing but the simplest evidence of snake oil salesmanship--making you think a question has been answered, when in fact one was asked, but of you--so that he never has to provide you with the only standing (i.e., legitimate) burden of proof; the burden of his initial positive claim.

In other much, much shorter words, it's a dodge. And therein lays your proof.

Real magicians wouldn't need flash powder.

Yes. Politely remind him that he is the only one shouldering a burden of proof...no matter what he will continue to say in response.

And he will continue. I guarantee it... Nay, I prophesy it. So force him to read this once he does and ask him to explain my prophetic abilities.

Yeah, it certainly seems that way, except for one obvious thing. You don't have to prove any goddamned thing at all. He does, because he's the one making the claim.

Secular Pinoy

Hey, welcome back Mr. Retired! I hope you can stay much longer.

s5o8

Hi Spass,

How can any human have a thought beyond human perception?
Language/ thought/ideas become meaningless when you try to explain them outside of human perceptions. You are a human and will never have a single thought that is “outside” of human thinking. Nor will you ever perceive something outside human reality.
Example, Say I have a “new” thought which no human has ever had in the history of the human species. Does it mean that, that “thought” is or was outside of the human experience? No, it only means that no human has had it before. The same goes for perception.

Like Biff the unclean said, only if he is a different species can he experience anything outside or beyond human perception of reality. Furthermore anything “outside” reality can only be speculated about, based on our(human) reality.

capnkirk

First, ask him if he means that everyone is guilty of (italicized above), or just you? If he responds that he considers this a generic human shortcoming, then ask "how can he exclude all we know of god from such contamination, since it all had to be filtered through countless human minds...who had to express it in language, etc." In fact, how does HE access those things that exist "beyond the realm of human thought"? He DOES admit to be human, I presume? And being human, is he not also a prisoner of thought. So how does a human think of something beyond human thought? Take the "show me the evidence depends too greatly on human perception of evidence" claim, and generalize it by asking, "what appropriate alternative there is to human perception to evaluate anything? What other tool do we possess except human perception to claim awareness of ANYTHING?"

(But then on the other hand, some of his metaphysical leaps don't particularly encourage me to believe that he has ever HAD a thought.). The embedded point in each of these questions is: How does he exempt himself from the limitations of perception he so readily recognizes in others?

Tactic: Don't argue! (When you don't agree, say you don't understand. Ask him to clarify.) Ask provocative questions. Listen to his responses. Continue asking and listening, using his responses to frame new questions. Seek out questions whose answers conflict with previous answers. Soon, the questions you are asking will almost entirely focused on getting him to resolve the conflicts between his previous answers. If he begins to recognize those conflicts as real and as issues to be resolved, then there is a chance for him. If not, then he is still in completely in the thrall of his addiction, and there is little you can do.

spazz

Ah i did make the arguement about the burden of proof since he make the assertion that God exists, yet he says that is just another notion created by humans. I asked him up front that since he can conceive that God exists God must. Then my friend made up some example like conceiving an invisible troll similar to one of the earlier posters and that does not make it exist.


He claims that God does not need an explanation or, anything for that matter. He says that is jsut a word to feed ones "ego". He says that I have to break the confines of words themselves becasue they are meaningless.


Since he is at college i have not been able to talk to him lately but, thanks for the interesting comments it sheds some light perhaps into what he was getting at.

Koyaanisqatsi

Have you pointed out to him that anything created by humans must have first come from his God?

He's trying to obfuscate his cake and eat it too! You might try asking him if words are meaningless (hell, all of human communication, for that matter), then what's the point of his God even existing at all? Of creating us with the attributes we all share?

You might also point out that what he's saying could very well be attributed to Goering.

Again, the question isn't what God "wants" or "needs" or anything to do with God at all. The question is, upon what is he basing his claim?

All he has is words as well. How is it that his words matter and yours don't?

And the pot calls the kettle black once again. It's such a dead giveaway, I only wish there were some sort of electro-shock feedback loop in the human brain whenever that gets triggered.

What is his whole trip but the ultimate in ego gratification? "I know what God is and you don't," is all he's professing.

Worse, he then shuts down any legitimate inquiry into his egocentrism. This is why I detest cult mentality and the adverse effects it always instills.

Pity.

And he communicated this idea how? Telepathy?

He's not "getting at" anything at all. He's doing nothing more than avoiding the question.

Don't worry too much, though. He's only in College, which means nothing he talks about has any real impact anyway. Trust me.

This is nothing more than a Freudian projection of what he is most guilty; egocentrism.

Oxymoron

Just to be a pedant: cognitive dissonance describes the state when two mutually contradictory ideas being held by an individual results in psychological and behaviourial pathologies.

This often occurs when a cherished belief is contradicted by some external event or realisation.

spazz

Well, I talked to my brother and he had a little to say.

He stated that you seem to know what he is thinking and interpreting things that are not there. Also he says that you are stating that his views are "wrong" deconstructiong or attacking them, and then countering them with your own views which you presuppose to be "right" ideas , who is to say that your ideas are any more right than his?

He says that you guys profess to "Know what God is and state that others do not," which he sasys is the ultimate ego gratification
Also that you attack his character and state in life which he says is baseless.

Koyaanisqatsi

In other words, he's once again avoiding the only relevant question (i.e., his burden of proof).

Did I call it or did I call it? What do I win?

Except for one salient point. We have no "presuppositions" at all. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in god or gods.

Nowhere cares what his "views" are. We're only interested in the fulfillment of his burden of proof. He's made a positive claim and when asked upon what does he base this claim, he attacks us (you) for even mentioning such a thing.

Methinks the Lady doth protest too much. Don't worry, though, it's always the same procedure. You can clock it better than Greenwhich Mean.

And where did we "guys" ever do that?

More evasion.

Pot calling the kettle opaque, at this point.

As it certainly is, since no one is doing any such thing. We're simply asking him to fulfill his burden of proof. He's the one making the claim that an invisible, impossible to define by human standards, super being exists somewhere. Ok. What's your basis for this belief?

Ask him why he's so defensive? Rather, ask his ego why it's hurling false accusations in order to avoid what is nothing more than the most basic, fundamental procedure whenever someone makes a grandiose claim.

They're his beliefs; his claims. So what does he offer to back them up?

Not to be childish, but he started it. All you're (we) are doing is asking him to support what it is he claims.

Regardless of who else might (or might not) shoulder a burden of proof, pointing this out in others does not alleviate one's own.

admice

Yes, logic is. But as others say, the burden of proof is on him, since he makes the assertion.

.

Several groups claim this, Buddhism being the most dominant one I know of.

Does he really mean perception of evidence or criteria for acceptable evidence?

If so, then it doesn’t matter if a god exists, because he also could not believe in it, ascribe him (or her, or it,) attributes, or concieve of it.

Yes, you would have to allow irrrationality and illogic to be your criteria for belief. I really hope you don’t do that.

Some links:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

a good article here at the library (they have other good documents also

http://www.skeptic.com/

has some stuff on non-belief

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...kins_18_3.html

a fairly famous paper by a noted atheist and scientist

http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...htm#philosophy

good general library

Plus go to Amazon look up philosophy or atheism or skeptism , look at the reveiws and browse. Tons of stuff out there. If you want more links, just ask.

Good job everyone else for your replies.

And good for you for questioning!

"The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."
--H.L. Menken