Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Geebo · 02-09-2002, 09:15 AM

I just found an article called 'the probable conclusion' about the existence of god at

<a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=807" target="_blank">http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=807</a>

It is really so poorly written it is embaressing. I wrote a reply to it. Can someone read it and tell me what they thought about what I wrote?

I found this site a few days ago and just registered. I'm an atheist, but I dont really think about it. I just get on with what is. However I ended up teaching English to some German Jehovahs(!) who wanted to convert me! So I search the net for some evidence to beat them off!and found this place.

Megatron · 02-09-2002, 09:20 AM

Hmm... this would probably get better response in MRD.

Mods?

Writer@Large · 02-09-2002, 10:35 AM

Agreed.

--W@L

Milton · 02-09-2002, 03:48 PM

Geebo,

I don't have much time to write, but I will only point out somethings to you.

The burden of proof is the same for the atheist as it is for the theist. Why? Well, let say we are in the same class, and the teacher assigned a research paper, and wanted it due by next Friday. So, next friday is here, and then all of a sudden you get up and tell the teacher that I did not do my paper on my own, but that I bought it online. Who has to prove that I bought it online, you or I?

The same with God: humanity has believed that God existed since the beginning. Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist. So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? Or does the new belief have to prove that the old one is false?

Blessings!

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Milton ]

Heleilu · 02-09-2002, 04:51 PM

However, children naturally believe that the world is flat and there are monsters under the bed. Just because some belief is traditional doesn't make it true; there has to be some evidence for it. The brunt of all the atheist arguments I've seen is that there is no positive argument for God's existence and several negative ones (the problem of evil, contradictory attributes). Not to mention the principle of Occam's Razor; the universe can be adequately explained without God, so the less elegant solution that postulates an additional entity has to be proved better.

Undercurrent · 02-09-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton:
The same with God: humanity has believed that God existed since the beginning. Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist. So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? Or does the new belief have to prove that the old one is false?
[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Milton ]

You assert history without proof. We certainly do not know that people have believed in God since the "beginning". We do know that as our knowlede of history fades into prehistory, the "gods" worshipped differ greatly from the "God" worshipped today. So much so that it would not be unjustifable to refer to God-belief today as a completely different belief system with a vaguely similar (but capitalized) name.

To assert even that God-belief has existed throughout recorded history sweeps under the rug the massive changes in what a "god" was believed to be over time. To hear the christian apologist talk about it, our earliest records of civilization recount tales of people worshipping a omnipresent, omnipotent, god named Jehovah in a protestant-style churches identical to the ones being built today, and that atheism (and everything else that contradicts christian faith) is just a recent upstart.

m.

P.S. Geebo, welcome to the boards.

Koyaanisqatsi · 02-09-2002, 08:36 PM

Pay no attention to Milton or Yale, Geebo. You'll find that fallacy litters this site over and over and over no matter how many times it is proven to the cult members who post here that there is only one claimant here: the one who asserts magical fairy god kings created existence.

The burden is always and forever on their shoulders to prove this claim regardless of any other alleged claims, which is why they always cower behind their rhetoric and faulty logic. So long as they just keep the ball spinning, they think they never have to provide evidence for their own claim and therefore, never do.

Evidence for nature is all around us. Evidence for supernature does not exist. They know their beliefs are childish wish fulfillments based on nothing, hence the mandate to believe on faith, but even though they are the first ones to throw that one up as a catch-all evasion in other debates, when it comes to the burden of proof it is always conveniently ignored in favor of a forced (false) equivocation of theism/atheism, as if they are simply flipsides to the same coin.

Atheism. Literally, "Without Theism;" the absence of belief in a god or gods.

The absence of a belief is not a positive assertion and therefore shoulders absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever, which is why they always try to turn it into, "Atheists do not just have an absence of belief, they positively state that god does not exist. They therefore share the burden of proof," which is utter nonsense and does not relieve them of their own burden of proof.

It's a transparent redirection/evasion attempt and only serves to further discredit the cult members who post it.

Just stroll around the posts on this site and you'll see they keep posting the same invalid argument over and over and over again, but then, since their minds were closed thousands of years ago, what can you expect?

Welcome to repetitive, "nu-unh!" hell

.

Geebo · 02-10-2002, 05:05 AM

My reply

First Milton. You arguement is shakier than the article I read! You say...

"sudden(ly) you get up and tell the teacher that I did not do my paper on my own, but that I bought it online. Who has to prove that I bought it online, you or I?

1.
If I made such a positive statement about you essay I would also provide proof or it would be meaningless. As an athesist I dont make such staements without fulfilling the burden of proof.

I could also say the fairies gave it to you, god wrote it for you etc. Without evidence it doesnt stand up. Just like your assertions about God. You have right to say I have to prove my statement, same as I have the right to say you have to prove you statement that god exists, and you and your fellows have had at least 10,000 years to do so and havent. In fact you theists cant even agreed on a definition of the God you're looking for!!!!!!!!! What a great start.

2.
"humanity has believed that God existed since the beginning.".... So, in your own words, prove it! (still having trouble with the definition of god?)

"Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist." ....We dont claim it. It just is! Fact, until proved otherwise. The non existence of God does not have to be proved. Just like the non existence of pink three legged homo, hetro, lesbian elephants that look like penguins dont have to be proved. we accept what is until something else comes along. (Im sill waiting for that definition)

"So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? ".... Reprove? REPROVE??? You havent even proved it once!!!! Just saying it over and over again doesnt make it true or proof otherwise Pres Bush would turn into male or female genitals!

3. Blessings- nice offer, but I dont beleive in them!

Othewise........

Thanks very much for the welcome. It's nice to feel normal. Boy am I going to have fun here!

Metacrock · 02-10-2002, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael:


You assert history without proof. We certainly do not know that people have believed in God since the "beginning".

Meta =>We find evidence of religious belief going back 50,000 years to neanderthal, 35,000 to Cromagnon. That's pretty much proof that humans have always been religious, at least way way back.

Quote:

We do know that as our knowlede of history fades into prehistory, the "gods" worshipped differ greatly from the "God" worshipped today. So much so that it would not be unjustifable to refer to God-belief today as a completely different belief system with a vaguely similar (but capitalized) name.

Meta => Why does that matter? That's like saying you can never refine an idea. Anytime you refine an idea it becomes a totally different idea and doesn't count. The new versions are just like totally new inventions with no precursers. I've never seen the logic in that. For that matter, then why can't we say that people were never atheistic before 20th century? The atheists in the Renaissance don't count because they didn't have the exact same concepts so they were a totally different thing.

Quote:

To assert even that God-belief has existed throughout recorded history sweeps under the rug the massive changes in what a "god" was believed to be over time. To hear the christian apologist talk about it, our earliest records of civilization recount tales of people worshipping a omnipresent, omnipotent, god named Jehovah in a protestant-style churches identical to the ones being built today, and that atheism (and everything else that contradicts christian faith) is just a recent upstart.

Meta =>Really, dont' see the point. Why must it be exactly the same?

Seeker196 · 02-10-2002, 07:14 AM

"We find evidence of religious belief going back 50,000 years to neanderthal, 35,000 to Cromagnon. That's pretty much proof that humans have always been religious, at least way way back."

I thought his point was a belief in God/s? The paleolithic finds have only shown that early man believed in sympathetic magic, and perhaps in spirit.

Many primitive animist beliefs do not even have a disembodied spirit or non-physical world. This world IS the spirit world. Some of earths most isolated tribes did not have any God/s-concept until introduced to it by missionaries.

02-09-2002, 09:15 AM	#1
Geebo Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: UK Posts: 13	my first atheist arguement I just found an article called 'the probable conclusion' about the existence of god at <a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=807" target="_blank">http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=807</a> It is really so poorly written it is embaressing. I wrote a reply to it. Can someone read it and tell me what they thought about what I wrote? I found this site a few days ago and just registered. I'm an atheist, but I dont really think about it. I just get on with what is. However I ended up teaching English to some German Jehovahs(!) who wanted to convert me! So I search the net for some evidence to beat them off!and found this place.

02-09-2002, 03:48 PM	#4
Milton Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Atlanta,GA,USA Posts: 172	Geebo, I don't have much time to write, but I will only point out somethings to you. The burden of proof is the same for the atheist as it is for the theist. Why? Well, let say we are in the same class, and the teacher assigned a research paper, and wanted it due by next Friday. So, next friday is here, and then all of a sudden you get up and tell the teacher that I did not do my paper on my own, but that I bought it online. Who has to prove that I bought it online, you or I? The same with God: humanity has believed that God existed since the beginning. Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist. So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? Or does the new belief have to prove that the old one is false? Blessings! [ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Milton ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2002, 09:20 AM	#2
Megatron Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: New York Posts: 5,441	Hmm... this would probably get better response in MRD. Mods?

02-09-2002, 10:35 AM	#3
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Agreed. --W@L

02-09-2002, 04:51 PM	#5
Heleilu Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Takaliapa, KR Posts: 188	However, children naturally believe that the world is flat and there are monsters under the bed. Just because some belief is traditional doesn't make it true; there has to be some evidence for it. The brunt of all the atheist arguments I've seen is that there is no positive argument for God's existence and several negative ones (the problem of evil, contradictory attributes). Not to mention the principle of Occam's Razor; the universe can be adequately explained without God, so the less elegant solution that postulates an additional entity has to be proved better.

02-09-2002, 08:36 PM	#7
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Pay no attention to Milton or Yale, Geebo. You'll find that fallacy litters this site over and over and over no matter how many times it is proven to the cult members who post here that there is only one claimant here: the one who asserts magical fairy god kings created existence. The burden is always and forever on their shoulders to prove this claim regardless of any other alleged claims, which is why they always cower behind their rhetoric and faulty logic. So long as they just keep the ball spinning, they think they never have to provide evidence for their own claim and therefore, never do. Evidence for nature is all around us. Evidence for supernature does not exist. They know their beliefs are childish wish fulfillments based on nothing, hence the mandate to believe on faith, but even though they are the first ones to throw that one up as a catch-all evasion in other debates, when it comes to the burden of proof it is always conveniently ignored in favor of a forced (false) equivocation of theism/atheism, as if they are simply flipsides to the same coin. Atheism. Literally, "Without Theism;" the absence of belief in a god or gods. The absence of a belief is not a positive assertion and therefore shoulders absolutely no burden of proof whatsoever, which is why they always try to turn it into, "Atheists do not just have an absence of belief, they positively state that god does not exist. They therefore share the burden of proof," which is utter nonsense and does not relieve them of their own burden of proof. It's a transparent redirection/evasion attempt and only serves to further discredit the cult members who post it. Just stroll around the posts on this site and you'll see they keep posting the same invalid argument over and over and over again, but then, since their minds were closed thousands of years ago, what can you expect? Welcome to repetitive, "nu-unh!" hell .

02-10-2002, 05:05 AM	#8
Geebo Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: UK Posts: 13	My reply First Milton. You arguement is shakier than the article I read! You say... "sudden(ly) you get up and tell the teacher that I did not do my paper on my own, but that I bought it online. Who has to prove that I bought it online, you or I? 1. If I made such a positive statement about you essay I would also provide proof or it would be meaningless. As an athesist I dont make such staements without fulfilling the burden of proof. I could also say the fairies gave it to you, god wrote it for you etc. Without evidence it doesnt stand up. Just like your assertions about God. You have right to say I have to prove my statement, same as I have the right to say you have to prove you statement that god exists, and you and your fellows have had at least 10,000 years to do so and havent. In fact you theists cant even agreed on a definition of the God you're looking for!!!!!!!!! What a great start. 2. "humanity has believed that God existed since the beginning.".... So, in your own words, prove it! (still having trouble with the definition of god?) "Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist." ....We dont claim it. It just is! Fact, until proved otherwise. The non existence of God does not have to be proved. Just like the non existence of pink three legged homo, hetro, lesbian elephants that look like penguins dont have to be proved. we accept what is until something else comes along. (Im sill waiting for that definition) "So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? ".... Reprove? REPROVE??? You havent even proved it once!!!! Just saying it over and over again doesnt make it true or proof otherwise Pres Bush would turn into male or female genitals! 3. Blessings- nice offer, but I dont beleive in them! Othewise........ Thanks very much for the welcome. It's nice to feel normal. Boy am I going to have fun here!

02-10-2002, 07:14 AM	#10
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	"We find evidence of religious belief going back 50,000 years to neanderthal, 35,000 to Cromagnon. That's pretty much proof that humans have always been religious, at least way way back." I thought his point was a belief in God/s? The paleolithic finds have only shown that early man believed in sympathetic magic, and perhaps in spirit. Many primitive animist beliefs do not even have a disembodied spirit or non-physical world. This world IS the spirit world. Some of earths most isolated tribes did not have any God/s-concept until introduced to it by missionaries.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.