Wyrdsmyth

Yes, you are talking about unicorns... and leprechauns... and gods, and any other supernatural entities men have believed in throughout history. They all have two things in common:

(1) You, personally, don't get to see or experience them, and

(2) You have to rely on the testimony of someone else that they exist -- that testimony coming from a person you may or may not know, who may or may not have lived hundreds of years ago.

Does there?

Why is it impossible for intelligence to arise from non-intelligence, or life from non-life?
How is it we are able to rule that out? Is it logically impossible or just difficult to conceive?

To say, "We're not sure how all this came about," is one thing. To say, "This all came about because the Canaanite sky-god, YHWH, created it all" is quite another.

The Greeks believed the universe was birthed out of Chaos, which then gave rise to the titans, who in turn sired gods, who in turn made men. The Norsemen believed a giant supernatural cow licked the world out of a block of ice, or that it came from the remains of a dead frost giant (I can't recall exactly how that story goes).

All throughout history, men have made fanciful stories about how the world and everything in it came about. And these stories are entertaining and certainly more colorful than a simple, honest answer of "I don't know." But that doesn't make any of them true. A colorful answer isn't necessarily better than no answer at all.

vagrant

Class...settle down. I have a visual aid for us today. Its a perfect example of a theist.

See how, when you talk to it, it avoids addressing issues you raise?

See how it is apparently capable of applying critical thought to a logical argument?

See how it can't really consider an actual alternative to its mythology?...

Perhaps a bit harsh and ad hominem, but reading the previous postings, it really struck me that Moiii is a classic example. A theist who appears completely incapable of understanding logical thought and unwilling to actually listen to dissenting opinion.

Moiii, we would all be more than happy to engage in debate with you, but if you aren't actually willing to listen and consider the arguments presented, there is no point for you to be here.

sighhswolf

The burden of proof always lies with the positive assertion.
You are making a claim that something "exists"-- that something has positive attributes.
Therefore the burden of proof lies with you and your position that something exists that cannot be objectively observed, quantified, qualified, and classified by known scientific methodology.

The Atheist mearly has an absence of belief in your god.
The Atheist does not "believe" there is no god.

The term "Belief" indicates a utilization of
an intuitive knowledge of some kind, based on
no real validation of the material.
Therefore the Atheist says he/she has a lack of belief in a supreme being.

The positive assertion must bear the weight of investigation, just as if you were to claim aliens
had abducted you and flown you to another star system and back.
We as non-believers are not presenting a claim of anything supernatural, you as a christian are presenting that claim, therefore you must present evidence to back your claim and allow objective investigation to validate the evidence to eventually prove your initial assertion.

In the last 2000 years, the evidence that could validate your claim has been lacking for some reason.
No one has yet been able to offer "sound and concrete" evidence, that could weather an objective investigation that would provide proof of the existence of a supernatural divine being.

You say Atheists cannot "disprove" the existence of your god, thats true.
But to harken back to your original question and reroute it back to you: Why should we take our valuable time to even try to prove something that doesn't exist.........doesn't exist?????

My christian friend, heresay is inadmissable as evidence in a court of law. Sadly...that is all you have to back your claim.

In my own opinion, I am constantly reminded on a daily basis how selfserving, deceptive, and generally destructive we as a species are, and particularly those who seek power and control over others for gain.
These people are part of the very same species who say they wrote the Holy Word of god with "his" inspiration.
I am always amazed at the word play and semantics that are used in the religious indoctrination.
For example the word "inspiration", this word was not a part of language until the 14th century.
It is identified as a "noun". The actual
definition is " a divine influence or action on a person "believed" to qualify him or her to recieve and communicate sacred revelation."
Websters

If you will notice the word again "believed". The divinely inspired revelation from god as written in the Holy Bible is nothing but a "belief" that someone had "communicated" with this supernatural being, and by some unknown qualification had been given the "authority" to speak on behalf of this being.
I'm sorry but I simply find this to be way to much to swallow, it smacks of personal motivation
not divine influence.

Of course if you are gullible enough to preach the truth of this heresay presentation of divine "inspiration" be my guest, but as for me,
I prefer to withhold my "worship" until it has been proven who and what it is I am supposed to be adoring.
If you cannot define your god, if you are unable to understand the nature of this being then by your own admission, he/she/it cannot exist.
Nothing exists without attributes, characteristics
and definable parameters.
Wolf

Brian63

Several people here have mentioned that "you can't prove a negative." Actually, you can according to Richard Carrier. This is a good read.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html" target="_blank">Proving a Negative</a>

Anyway, Moiii...

Before you can understand much of anything about atheism, you have to understand the following two statements, and most importantly the difference between them. They sound very similar, but there is a very subtle yet incredibly significant difference between the two.

(1)I believe that God does not exist.
(2)I do not believe that God exists.

The crucial part of each of these statements is in the first portion. One says "I believe..." and the other says "I do not believe..." The former is a positive assertion and the latter is a negative assertion. In meaningful, persuasive dialogue, the burden of proof is held to the person making the positive assertion.

A theist like yourself making the assertion "God exists" then bears the burden of proof. An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not believe in God, not necessarily one who believes in no God. There are some atheists who will make the positive assertion that "God does not exist," and in that case they shoulder a burden of proof, just as the person who says "God does exist" bears a burden of proof. When someone says instead, "I do not believe that God exists," it is more of a neutral stance.

You have to understand the difference between the two to get a grasp at atheism. When I first started learning about atheism, I didn't understand that difference. So I can empathize with those that find it difficult to understand.

Cheers,

Brian

britinusa

Moiii

The idea that an Intelligent Designer (ID) created the universe has at least some logic to it, but you have two problems.
None of my fellow atheists have asked the obvious question yet (probably because after asking the same question 10,000 times it gets a little old). But since you're new I'll ask it, one more time: if god created the universe, who or what created god?
From an atheistic point of view, scientists are trying to find out how the universe began, whereas the xian must show 1) How did God beginand 2) how did god create the universe. By applying Occam's Razor, you simply eliminate all unnecessary components of a hypothesis. That means god has to go!
The second, and by far the biggest problem you have is proving that the ID is none other than the warrior-deity of some ancient nomadic tribe. That is one huge leap of faith. Lets face it, your boy Yahweh is a bit of a clown, isn't he? Not a very funny clown, of course. More like Pennywise the clown in that Stephen King novel.

Dr. Retard

moiii:
Let me first say that all the atheists who haven't taken any strong position on the existence of God are under no obligation to prove God's nonexistence -- after all, most of them don't even believe in God's nonexistence! Since you are taking the strong position that God exists, you are the one who bears a burden of proof, not these "weak atheist" nonbelievers. Of course, atheists who take the strong position that God doesn't exist must bear a reciprocal burden. But don't just charge in demanding that everyone who doesn't accept your pet theory either explain themselves or be without rational excuse. It's not as if bizarre metaphysical theories like theism are true unless proven otherwise.

Now, if you really want some arguments for God's nonexistence, I'll be happy to provide some. I don't believe that any of them are conclusive -- after all, this is philosophy -- but I do believe that they are quite strong and certainly superior to any argument for God's existence.

britinusa

Moiii

As Dr. Retard and others have explained, there are strong and weak atheists. Personally, I am a strong atheist when it comes to the Judeo-xian god, but a weak atheist as far as non-revealed god(s) are concerned, although I believe they are extremely unlikely.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: britinusa ]</p>

ju'iblex

no there isnt. i have no desire, no longing. believe what you like.

I think its kind of obvious why there arent unicorns or leprechauns, or even juiblexes. Its because. Just because.

WJ

God and Jesus exists.
I exist.
My human consciousness exists.
Therefore, both God and humans exist.

Next question.


Walrus

Wyrdsmyth

Ever heard of an annoying little thing called 'logic'?