atheist_in_foxhole

Don't apologize for anything, Ronin. Childish religious superstition has caused (and still causes) tremendous amounts of pain and suffering, and with the fundie xians like Bush and Ashcroft in total control of the U.S. government, we might well be looking at WW3 and millions (or billions) of deaths.

All because of their stupid, pathetic, illogical delusions about an invisible man who lives in the clouds.

They're the ones who should be apologizing.

And they sure as hell shouldn't come to an atheist/agnostic board and demand that we respect their idiotic, destructive beliefs. If they want that they should leave.

HD, we're *all* afraid of death, but you just have to accept the fact that you will eventually die just like every other creature on this earth. It will more than likely be just like it was before you were born (nothingness), so don't waste too much of your precious life worrying about it. Just as you (hopefully) accept that 2+2=4, you must accept that you will die. Hiding behind imaginary gods won't change anything, so live already! A wise man once said that if death is, you are not. If death is not, you are. Think about it!

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Living Dead Chipmunk

Ronin: I don't bitch at the people who try to start fights. I bitch at the people who should know better when they egg such fights on.

How do you know? While there might not be any compelling evidence to believe in any, you have to keep in mind that absence of evidence is not in and of itself evidence of absence.

Nobody can see over the hill. The theist says "There's a gas station over that hill!". The (strong) atheist says "There's no gas station over that hill!" They then begin to fling ad homeniems around at each other. I can understand that kind of behavior from a theist; he feels his core values and beliefs are being directly attacked when his faith in a gas station is questioned. But the who atheist is educated and has nothing to lose, and still participated in the name-calling festival, is being deliberately nasty. I forgive defensiveness; I don't tolerate intentional button-pushing.

I expect more from freethinkers than from sheep. Are you saying I should not?

~
Atheist in Foxhole said:
And while we're at it, let's go to that homeless guy down the street from Starbucks and say "You just have to accept you're not really riding a bicycle. Just accept it already! Live your life!" And then we'll walk to the edge of town where my shrink's office is, and tell people coming out of it "Just accept that life is good! Cheer up! Live life! Just accept it!"

Strangely, I find very little difference between that and the guy at the corner screaming "You must accept Christ is Lord! Accept him! Accept him!" They're both confrontationally dualistic and neither will solve and problems. Ever.

If someone has a fear of death, screaming "JUST ACCEPT IT!!" at him isn't going to do a whole lot. Neither will insulting him over it.

Um.. I'm not. I don't *want* to die, but I've never been truly *afraid* of it. When I die.. well.. I die. Big deal. The world existed for billions of years just fine without me, and it'll continue to exist for billions of years just fine without me.

Why anyone would be truly scared of dying completely mystifies me. I mean, I could understand if there's something you want to get done, or someone you'll be leaving behind, but isn't that just an incentive to get it done quicker and make sure your kids know you love her?

However, just because it mystifies me doesn't mean I make fun of people who are scared, or who believe in an afterlife. That's just downright mean.

Ronin

Ronin: I don't bitch at the people who try to start fights. I bitch at the people who should know better when they egg such fights on.

I'm over it, LDC ~ I have apologized for engaging in a mindless flame and you know nothing about me.

Regarding the existence of deities ~

How do you know?

Because there is no evidence to support any of the assorted deities as described in their respective holy lexicons and/or fable filled oral traditions.

While there might not be any compelling evidence to believe in any, you have to keep in mind that absence of evidence is not in and of itself evidence of absence.

That is not a rational assertion.

I also do not believe in unicorns, faeries, magic leprechauns, angels, devils, etc.

Do you assert that I should refrain from a rational assessment that these creatures do not exist in order to be a freethinker?

That would be completely nonsensical and not consistent with reality in plain view.

Nobody can see over the hill. The theist says "There's a gas station over that hill!". The (strong) atheist says "There's no gas station over that hill!"

I, as a strong atheist, have seen the gas station over the hill, have purchased gas there and enjoyed their Big Frosty Combo ~ so I know that one exists.

They then begin to fling ad homeniems around at each other. I can understand that kind of behavior from a theist; he feels his core values and beliefs are being directly attacked when his faith in a gas station is questioned.

Gas stations are provable. God(s)ess(es) are not real and remain firmly entrenched in the fantasy realm.

But the who atheist is educated and has nothing to lose, and still participated in the name-calling festival, is being deliberately nasty. I forgive defensiveness; I don't tolerate intentional button-pushing.

I no longer care whether or not my giggling at theistic silliness meets what you deem is tolerant ~ sometimes I just get a hoot out of the assertions of the credulous and cannot resist the urge to snicker.

I realized that I came across as overbearing and made my offering to make amends.

I expect more from freethinkers than from sheep. Are you saying I should not?

Do what you want, LDC.

This freethinker merely disbelieves in God(s)ess(es) and their supernatural tales ~ I never promised you a rose garden.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]</p>

Living Dead Chipmunk

If it wasn't, we would have given up looking for neutrinos a long time ago. We only found direct evidence for them a couple years ago, but the theory has been around since, well, before I was born.

And how long was it between the theorizing of black holes and the finding?

Have we found dark matter yet? I seem to recall hearing something recently, but it's fuzzy.

Most of the field of theoretical physics would fall into tiny pieces of my above statement wasn't rational. Is there evidence for a torus-shaped universe?

I realize I might be on uncertain ground here, but you can't go around making ABSOLUTE statements without something to back it up. We can say "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist" because we've had people combing that damn lake for a century or two. We can't exactly look and see if there's something happening after death. Not only do you NOT know what happens when you die, nobody CAN know. Saying you DO know is no better than some twit running around talking about a magic happy kingdom in the sky. The same is true with the existance or non-existance of a higher being. We CAN'T know for sure. It's simply NOT possible.

We CAN know that unicorns don't exist, because we've got a finite area to look for them, they require some sort of ecosystem, and they'd leave bones behind when they died. A God wouldn't necessarily require any of those things. It's not falsifiable, which by definition means that nobody can say for absolutely certainty that it is false without being the Rush Limbaugh of freethinking.

Ronin

LDC ~ so far you have merely asserted the possibility of the existence of a god (that you call "God") from actually having no evidence at all.

In order to pursue your assertion I must know your particular definition of "God". For now, I don't even know what you're talking about.

You have defined a 'unicorn' being unproven due to lack of bones. However, if I were to claim unicorns were supernatural beings that do not die then, by your logic, I must not yet disbelieve in them. This is sheer credulity.

The scientific theories you have brought into the equation are a result of specific examination of reality and are still theories.

The "God" that is commonly portrayed in the three Abrahamic traditions is an omnipresent male deity that renders anthropocentric judgement and has personality traits that include anger, jealousy, vanity and greed.

There is no "God" present here and now in reality, therefore "God" does not exist by that standard.

Please provide a clear meaning of the term "God" as you use it, and then you must make the case for your claim (rather, assumption) that a "God" exists or even can be proven to exist in rational terms.

Until then you may have faith that a "God" will one day be discovered in the belly of a supernova or the hangnail of a neutrino.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Why are you being so dismissive?

Do you "believe" in string theory? No evidence.

"God" being defined as any sort of higher divine critter with the capability of somehow or other creating an universe.

Why is this so hard to grasp? If it's not possible to falseify a claim, it's by definition not possible to assert with any certainty that it is false.

I'm not saying that a god exists. I'm not saying it can be proven. In fact, I'm saying there's no way in hell anyone can know anything about the nature or presence or lack thereof of a god. Including that one doesn't exist.

Saying "there is no God. Period." is exactly like saying "there are no extraterrestrial races. Period." There may or may not be, but unless you're omnipotent yourself, you can't possibly know. There's simply no way anyone can answer that question in the definitive, with absolute certainty. You can *believe* it, but you can't *know* it in the manner humans collect knowledge.

We don't live in a binary world, Ronin. There are perfectly appropriate choices in between "Belief in X" and "Active Rejection of Belief X".

Your unicorn thing is an insulting oversimplification of the issue. No I'm not asking you to believe in it. I'm *telling* you that you don't know one way or the other. Is the difference too minute? Am I crazy? Are you of the opinion that if you admit you can't possibly know for sure, you're admitting to the veracity and accuracy of a belief? Does that make me just as bad as a Christian?

There's no evidence that stem cells will cure alzheimers. Therefore, stem cells do not cure alzheimers. Right?

Ronin

Why are you being so dismissive?

I am not dismissive ~ I merely disagree with your assertions and have requested that you rationally focus your claims so that we can come to a better understanding.

I do not find any value to your grand generalization that since we, as humans with limited nervous systems, cannot ‘know everything’ therefore magic beings can exist.

That perspective is not even logically plausible.

Please do not take this as a personal attack ~ I merely find your existentialist claims lacking merit.

Do you "believe" in string theory? No evidence.

I know nothing of string theory. Did you find “God” in that abstract realm?

You may need to define what you personally consider ‘evidence’ of anything given this mindset you have regarding what is real.

"God" being defined as any sort of higher divine critter with the capability of somehow or other creating an universe.

Thank you for finally presenting me with a “God” hypothesis.

Reality in plain view shows a constant state of perpetual flux ~ interdependent co-arising of infinite levels of causes and effects.

There is no evidence or observable requirement for a ‘higher divine critter’ with the capability of ‘somehow or other creating’ all that is.

Now please define for me your personal understanding of the meaning “higher divine critter” and how this differs from “magic sky faery”.

If these terms are so similar as to be nearly identical, then we can come to the mutual understanding that you are still not dealing with rational thought. Rather you are still fixed in abstract symbolism while I am dealing with reality as it is perceived by our senses.

That said ~ do you now admit that the Abrahamic “God” lacks evidence as described in the book of Christian tales?

How about other myths such as Zeus and his half-human son Hercules?

What mental tools are you able to use to disbelieve in these gods, if you do, especially in light of their description as ‘higher divine critters’?

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Because you are, so far, dealing in fantasy and not reality.

I write a good deal of fiction, prose and poetry ~ they are emotive realms for me and formed with the use of much metaphor, ironic symbolism and hidden meaning.

I do not promote my fables as natural reality.

If it's not possible to falseify a claim, it's by definition not possible to assert with any certainty that it is false.

If you are talking about a ridiculously non-specific claim, then you are correct.

I am merely trying to point out to you that a close examination of the merits of the claim is required for further assessment.

Talk of God(s)ess(es) that are ‘higher divine critters’ without further specification as to qualification and quantification is pure fantasy and not found within a discussion involving rational thought.

I'm not saying that a god exists. I'm not saying it can be proven. In fact, I'm saying there's no way in hell anyone can know anything about the nature or presence or lack thereof of a god. Including that one doesn't exist.

Yes. I have shown that anyone can, indeed, show that God(s)ess(es) do not exist in reality once they are given the attributes found in all religions.

You may continue to assert otherwise at your choosing.

Saying "there is no God. Period." is exactly like saying "there are no extraterrestrial races. Period."

Incorrect.

Together we can qualify and quantify our definition of an extraterrestrial race and then explore the universe in search of such entities.

God(s)ess(es) as defined as ‘higher divine critters’ is unqualifiable and unquantifiable and places them firmly in the realm of fantasy.

Which is not a bad thing ~ it is just not a real thing.

God(s)ess(es) as defined in the assorted myths of religions give attributes that can be refuted directly.

As a strong atheist, I merely point this out to you.

There may or may not be, but unless you're omnipotent yourself, you can't possibly know. There's simply no way anyone can answer that question in the definitive, with absolute certainty. You can *believe* it, but you can't *know* it in the manner humans collect knowledge.

Again, I have directly refuted this assertion.

Once you define your claim, you simply can know ~ just as with our previous unicorn analogy, which you seemed to directly disbelieve once you qualified their skeletal attributes.

We don't live in a binary world, Ronin. There are perfectly appropriate choices in between "Belief in X" and "Active Rejection of Belief X".

Yes, I agree, there are choices.

But there do exist active rejections of Belief X.

You have done as much yourself with your Loch Ness analogy.

The same applies to God(s)ess(es).

Your unicorn thing is an insulting oversimplification of the issue. No I'm not asking you to believe in it. I'm *telling* you that you don't know one way or the other.

I know that unicorns do not exist in reality. I do not choose to perceive the beauty of nature with such emotional credulity.

You may do so, at your leisure.

Is the difference too minute? Am I crazy? Are you of the opinion that if you admit you can't possibly know for sure, you're admitting to the veracity and accuracy of a belief? Does that make me just as bad as a Christian?

Bit of an emotional mess there ~ I’ll leave these as pointlessly rhetorical or previously addressed.

There's no evidence that stem cells will cure alzheimers. Therefore, stem cells do not cure alzheimers. Right?

Stem cells are not ‘higher divine critters’, so this argument does not apply to scientific medical examination of real substances.

Living Dead Chipmunk

So it all hinges on how someone defines God?

What if I define God as "a being capable of creating the planet Earth"? That would mean God could be just an alien race of some sort with lots of nifty technology.

Would that therefore would that make a reservation of judgement warrented? Now that we have an area to look in, and we just can't yet given our current technology, would it still be irrational to assert that we can't know whether or not God exists?

Do you essentially believe that if we cannot percieve something, it doesn't exist?

The AntiChris

Living Dead Chipmunk

Only if you believe that your particular definition of God is as logically coherent as the many plausible hypotheses for the existence of extraterrestrial life. In other words, what makes sense to a rational person based on the sum of human experience and knowledge?

You appear to be arguing that the mere absence of absolute proof for non-existence must compel any rational person to adopt the agnostic postion. This ignores completely any evaluation of the logical coherency of the claim.

I'm a strong atheist who is completely happy to state that I know God does not exist. I take this view because I've found that all arguments I've encountered for God's existence appear nonsensical and absurd to me. I suspect (in fact I'm pretty sure ) that you dismiss claims every day which you consider to be absurd and nonsensical. You do this, even in the absence of absolute proof, purely on the basis of reason.

I should point out that my position is not one of absolute certainty but is strong enough for me to state provisionally (I'm always open to the posssibility that evidence may emerge) that "I know God does not exist".

For you to disagree with my position presumably means that you find the claims for God's existence to be logically coherent - that is, according to your experience and knowledge, the claims make sense. It is therefore encumbent upon you to explain how these claims appear reasonable to you.

It is not enough to merely accuse those who disagree with you of intellectual dishonesty purely on the basis that they cannot provide you with absolute proof.

Chris

Ronin

So it all hinges on how someone defines God?

I have made that clear, along with associative caveats, in my posts.

What if I define God as "a being capable of creating the planet Earth"? That would mean God could be just an alien race of some sort with lots of nifty technology.

No ~ that would be just another flaky religious claim, which I would refute, unless you could provide me sufficient physical evidence that this alien race exists along with the asserted nifty technology.

Do you essentially believe that if we cannot percieve something, it doesn't exist?

If it is 'something' then, by that definition, it exists.

Now, it is up to you to provide the subject matter you are specifically referring to for the discussion to proceed.

I would like you to address some of the simple questions I have previously posed, when you get a chance ~

1. Do you now admit that the Abrahamic “God” lacks evidence as described in the book of Christian tales?

2. How about other myths such as Zeus and his half-human son Hercules?

3. What mental tools are you able to use to disbelieve in these gods, if you do, especially in light of their description as ‘higher divine critters’?