Philosoft

I generally agree, but I admit there are times (probably too many) when I use sarcasm to express frustration that would otherwise appear as anger or insult. I only wish I had the patience of some. Anyway, my objection was to Seraphim's use of the word "right" to describe the degree of respect a person's opinion deserves. There is no right to be free of intellectual ridicule. If one wishes only to have logical, intellectual, respectful criticism, one should be logical, intellectual and respectful in turn. There are people of all walks who don't realize this.

Dr. Retard

I have a right not to be told that I don't have a right to ridicule people!

TerryTryon

For every sensible theory that accounts for all the data relating to the question, there is an infinite number of nonsense theories that account for the same data. If all else fails, the obstinate debater can always point to the wily ways of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Nonsense (in this usage) is beyond logic, and thus no theory can be proven absolutely. To counter this, we have Ockham's razor, which is a generalization, rather than a principle of logic. Nevertheless, according to the razor, the theory which assumes the fewest facts not in evidence wins.

All known arguments for the existence of god fail, and there is good reason to believe that the entire set of possible arguments has been exhausted, therefore using Ockham's razor, it is reasonable to assert that there is no god.

On the subtopic, if something is ridiculous, I will ridicule it. And if ridicule is ineffective, why is it the first thing censored by totalitarian ideololgies?

Jobar

Well said, Terry- though I remind everyone that persistent and prolonged ridicule is severely frowned upon in this forum. (We have Rants & Raves for that!)

Fiach

No, the lack of evidence for God is not disproof. You cannot disprove an hypothesis totally lacking in any manifestations or evidence. You cannot prove a negative.

I cannot disprove JHWH/Joe Hovah/Allah/Trinity God. And I plus any Christian cannot disprove Thor, Odin, Loki, Dagda, Lugh, Danu, Eriu, Sila na nGig, Babd, Brigit, Zeus, Apollo, Mars, Eros, Venus, Diana, Artemis, Hera, Minerva, and Quetzlcoatl. The evidence is equal for each of those gods including Joe Hovah/Allah/Trinity-Jesus. That is there is none.

We can't prove that any imaginary thing totally lacking in evidence doesn't exist. I cannot prove that a invisible purple 7 legged Gomerallosaurus is not living in your attic does't exist.

But anything totally lacking in evidence, means that we are under neither intellectual nor moral obligation to believe in it.

That is what Atheism means, "lack of" = "a", Belief = ism, in "God" = "Theos". A-theos-ism. We simply lack the belief. We don't have to prove that we don't believe. The other side has to prove that their god hypothesis is verifiable.

Fiach

Seraphim

My qoute :
Logic is based on what we know and how much we know is depend solely on what we learn (by method of science) for the last 500 years."

Huh?

My reply : What? I confuse you? I will explain. I assume that modern Science developed around 500 years ago where the need for God and divine intervention was taken out of scientific deduction. So from this point of view, I assume that the modern science we recognise now (astronomy, psycology, medicine etc) is about 500 years old.

My qoute :
1. Our knowledge is too small to come out with a proper assumption whether God exist or not.

"This is not by any means universally true. It is quite dependent on one's definitions of "God" and "exist."

My reply : Which means?

My qoute :
2. Most of our knowledge comes from Human point of view alone without considering any other factor which could contribute to it - Pro or Con. Assuming that we (humans) are the ONLY living organism in the Universe, such assumption could be consider logical.

"How exactly are we to consider something from a point-of-view other than human? "

My reply : By at least observing other creatures which we share out planet with till much better candidate for studying appears. Humans have no right to make assumptions on anything for everyone on the Planet just because he could. I personally do not believe that Humans are the ONLY species on this planet which is considered intelligence, they are however the ONLY species on this planet who is arrogant enough to consider themselves such.

My qoute :
3. Taking into consideration of various other races and their religions/teachings, the weight falls toward God exist (especially from point of view from Hindusm, Taoist and Buddhism) than to assumption that it doesn't exist.

"Argument from popularity aside, how do you decide that three distinct religions all worship the same God? And why not Christianity?"

My reply : Religion and teaching such as Hindusm and Buddhism came from same resource, so not much argument there. Toaist is what you can consider Wiccans are - Naturalist but they (Toaist) believe in a higher force above them. As for Christianity and Islam, even so they said to come from the same source, hell most likely will freeze over first before this two kiss and make up.

My qoute :
Since it is illogical for a single race (such as Americans, or Europeans etc) to make assumption on behalf of all other races, a collective opinion must be taken into consideration.

"What axiom or argument dictates this? Where would the contradiction result if a single "race" made an "assumption on behalf of other races"? Whatever that means."

My reply : If a single race or group make assumption which it alone has not right to make (such as there is no God), it will upset others and in some cases, anger them (those who thinks otherwise) to do something which in return effects all.

My qoute :
Belief in God should be consider as individual right where each person has right to belief what he or she wants.

"I don't think you'll find much disagreement with this."

My reply : I didn't think anyone could disagree.

My qoute :
Other people has no right to impose his or her own belief onto another,

"They have the right to try to some extent, at least in the States."

My reply : Which serves no purpose other than upset others who are entitled to their own opinion and life.

My qoute :
just as same as one who doesn't believe in such belief to impose their point of view to those who do belief, which include sarcastic remarks or making jokes about other people's belief.

"That may be bad form or unethical or fallacious, or whatever you want to call it, but it certainly isn't a right to have your belief system unchallenged by sarcastic remarks. "

My reply : Which means?

Philosoft

Ok, now how about the part about logic being based on what we know?

If the definition of God produces a logical contradiction, I can safely conclude that particular God does not exist, unless the definition of "exist" changes as well.

I don't see how any of this allows us access to a completely different point-of-view. Are we not just projecting our self-interests onto other species?

How's that? What exactly did Buddha have to do with the development of Hinduism?

Not really similar to the others.

And less similar still to the aforementioned. If you are trying to show the balance of evidence (based apparently on sheer number of believers) favors the existence of a God, you are doing an exceedingly poor job of it.

OK, understand, you are making a pragmatic or ethical argument, not a logical argument as you first indicated.

If you are making, as you appear to be, an ethical argument about how we should behave, then I somewhat agree.

While your suggestions may describe ways in which we should behave, they do not describe rights, natural, civil or otherwise.

TerryTryon

The proposition that god exists and reigns over all he created entails some very strong claims about the structure of the universe. Therefore, the existence of god can be verified or refuted by observing his creation and apparent traces of his work in it. In other words, a phenonmenon as great as god is said to be cannot be hidden.

A parable may illustrate this point. Joe claims that during the Cuban missle crisis, Kennedy actually ordered the city of Havana destroyed by nuclear weapons and that the order was carried out. John disputes this argument and decides to investigate. He goes to the city. First, he looks at cornerstones of buildings and finds that many were dated well before the claimed destruction date. He talks to many older Cubans who claim that they lived in Havana at the time and no such holocaust occurred. He visits libraries and newspaper offices and finds continuous publication with no apparent break for the nuclear disaster. Then he canvasses the city with a geiger counter and finds no residual radioactivity. John returns to Joe with his massive research, and declares, "The United States never attacked Cuba in the early sixties."

Joe wrinkles his lip in a sneer and retorts, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, you cannot prove a negative."

And so it is with god. Every claim of the theist that purports to show god's hand in the universe fails. Agnostic apologies for faith are disingenuous. Loading the burden of proof on the proper ass is unnecessary. The god-concept is so absurd that it can be dismissed out of hand.

Seraphim

"Ok, now how about the part about logic being based on what we know?"

My reply : Since you understood about the time frame from which our knowledge (which I consider as Modern Knowledge where Theological factors was taken out) originated from, I can now show you what I meant by logic based on what we know part.

Most of people who discuss anything here discuss it because of what they know. If Man 1 knows about Geology, he will discuss from Geological point of view. If Man 2 knows medicine, he will follow that point of view. Each follows what he or she is very familiar of.

However, such discussion is illogical by itself, simply because what you know is only limited to what you do not know. While Man 1 may know Geology, he will have little or no knowledge whatsoever of what Man 2 knows. In both point of view (Man 1 and 2), both of them are correct in their logical deduction and the other is wrong simply because the other do not discuss in the same concept as he is discussing.

In layman's term - Man 1 (who knows Geology) will say Man 2 (who knows Medicine) is wrong because Man 2 is talking from Medicine term (which Man 1 doesn't know or understand). Thus logic exist simply because of what we know rather than what is the true.

"If the definition of God produces a logical contradiction, I can safely conclude that particular God does not exist, unless the definition of "exist" changes as well."

My reply : refer to the above example. Each person's logical deduction and contradiction is based on individual understanding and not the whole picture itself, since individuals is not capable of showing the whole picture simply because he or she may not be able to understand ALL. Afterall, you are just a human.

"I don't see how any of this allows us access to a completely different point-of-view. Are we not just projecting our self-interests onto other species?"

My reply : Yes, you (as a human) are projecting your self-interest onto another species. Question is - Is this acceptable? I don't think so. Humans on this planet are not because they were meant to be masters, they are here just as another species.

"How's that? What exactly did Buddha have to do with the development of Hinduism?"

My reply : Buddha follows the path as mentioned by Bhavagad Gita (of Hindusm) and despite of being a new teaching which upset most of old Brahmin's system (such as Caste), it found it's ways into Hindusm and Hindus' hearts. Gautama Buddha was taught how to meditate and all by Hindus priests.

"Not really similar to the others."

My reply : And why is that? Mind explaining?

"And less similar still to the aforementioned. If you are trying to show the balance of evidence (based apparently on sheer number of believers) favors the existence of a God, you are doing an exceedingly poor job of it."

My reply : Great number of followers doesn't means that what they are following is correct.

"OK, understand, you are making a pragmatic or ethical argument, not a logical argument as you first indicated."

My reply : No, I'm making a simple argument based on my 1st (about the knowledge) and 3rd (about Humans making assumptions for other species) arguments.
In the 1st, I have mentioned that the knowledge you have is not same as other have, thus you cannot arrive at the same conclusion as others will.
In the 3rd argument, I said that Humans push their self-interest into another species. In this context, here ... a certain group (which obviously consider themselves intelligent than others such as those from backwater and 3rd world countries) push forward their own "understand" without considering what others less "sofisticated" could know.
On example is what Western missionaries and so-called Explorers did in beginning of 1900s when they reach Africa and Asia. They viewed this locals as less "evolved" and thus took it as their "duty" to educate this "barbarians".

"If you are making, as you appear to be, an ethical argument about how we should behave, then I somewhat agree."

My reply : Fine. Nothing to add to it then.

"While your suggestions may describe ways in which we should behave, they do not describe rights, natural, civil or otherwise. "

My reply : Suggestion to how to behave is more important in my opinion since it forms the basic of most of the social tool such as law and order. Individual right and civil rights could be include within this circle of behavior once it is accepted in the group under which they exist.

Castaway

Returning to Sourdough's argument. Sourdough's proposition reminded me of a Carl Sagan quotation.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.