Undercurrent

Milton asserts that since God belief predates atheism (a speculative assertion at best), that it should be given the default position in an argument and any opposition to that belief should be given thr burden of proof.

I counter that, God belief, as it is praticed today is vastly different from historical religiousity. The "gods" of old were coporial beings much like humans with special but finite powers, or they were celestial bodies. In either case the condition of humanity was far from their primary concern. The notion of a non-coporial, omniponent, benevolent god is very much a latecomer.

I do not say that we should not refine ideas (although, it would seem to be very close to what Milton is saying), but rather do not claim kinship between modern forms of theism and ancient ones to prove that God-belief is universal, since there really is none. Theism, taken throughout history, has given us no single coherent belief system.

m.

Arrowman

Milton, I think enough people have pointed out your fallacies so I won't repeat that.

There is however one further thing to say about atheism, and "proof", from my perspective.

As an "absence of belief" atheism certainly does not bear the same burden of logical proof as theism. However there is a futher step that the atheist can take (the difference between a "strong atheist" and a "weak atheist"?) which is - "I believe that God does not exist". This latter is a statement which one can justifiably be asked to support, if not "prove".

I was finally moved to a position of strong atheism (in relation to the Judeo-Christian God) a year or so back, when an atheist on a message board challenged me to apply the same parameters to my position on the Judeo-Christian God as I do to other gods (eg Zeus), the Tooth Fairy etc.

In essence, he said "you're prepared to deny that Zeus [etc] exist, but at the same time you qualify your atheism by saying "it's possible that [the J-C] God exists - what is the difference?"

I thought about it and realised that the difference is that the concept of the J-C God is so thoroughly embedded in my upbringing and society that I subconsciously apply a different "standard of proof" to that God. And voila, I moved from agnosticism/weak atheism to strong atheism.

I cannot of course absolutely prove that God does not exist. Neither can I prove absolutely that the Tooth Fairy, Zeus etc do not exist.

But, when I analyse the alleged evidence for the existence of God - well, there are essentially two choices
a. God exists, more or less as described in the Bible, or
b. The God of the Bible is a human construct.

The balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in favour of the latter position.

ex-preacher

Huh? It seems to me that lack of belief in a god in the 18th century is exactly the same as lack of belief in a god in the 21st century. Sadly for you Metacrock, the Bible provides evidence for ancient atheists. Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart 'There is no god.'" One wise sage has added: "The wise man shouts it out loud."

Oh, wait, I forgot that you have the perogative to interpret the Bible metaphorically when it suits you. Yes, that was just a metaphor. No one before the 19th century really believed in atheists (or a literal creation or an inerrant Bible).

Milton

So, do you see what I was saying?

Now, could you explain why you have to provide the proof? And why not ask that I be the only one to prove that it was not bought online?

The same as the argument for or against God.

You are absolutely correct. Do you now understand? If I say have always believed that God exists, would you not be required to prove that He does not, if you are the one who is claiming that my held position is a false one?

I see you got the idea. The burden is on both sides; though, I would say it is more on the one who claims that the held position is false. Anyway, I am glad you see my point.

Ten? Do you have proof that we have not proven it? Even if you don't believe that Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, the fact is real, and He is the greatest evidence; not the only one, however. So, you have to prove that none of the characters of the bible ever existed, to eliminate any possibility of our beliefs being facts.

BTW, just because I mentioned Jesus as the greatest evidence, it does not mean there have not been any evidences after Him.

And this proves what? LOL! The definition is that of Creator, Ruler, and Just. (You can add more, but these are essentials.) I bet you no one will deny this!

Actually, this is not a "new position"--this is history!

Umm...did you already forget your previous comments? Can you prove that He does not exist?

LOL! So, you are contradicting yourself, for you are making a statement, and asking for someone else to prove it for you..lol...lol

Why not?

The same way as the existence of God does not have to be proved?

So, you accept that God exists, until something else comes along? The existence of God is the current position, the denial of this existence is the new position.

Already given!

I never said that I have proven it!

Huh? So, what does pres Bush have to do with this?

They are just complimentary!

I hope you do. However, I don't know if I will be part of it, because I don't come around here much. Maybe some of the others might help keeping you entertained.

Blessings!
Baruch Atah!

ex-preacher

Milton, Do you understand that everything you have said about the existence of your god and the burden of proof could also be said about the existence of Zeus?

Do you believe in Zeus? If not, please explain to us how you disproved his existence. I will then disprove your god using the same methodology.

Geebo

Dear Milton,
Here is an answer to your comments. I get the feeling that other users of this site are aware of you and your comments and I would like to appologise to anyone who finds what I am writing repetative criticism of a simply over stated xian arguement.
Maybe there should be a beginners thread for people like me to practise on people like you milton!

It appears you havent read my post properly..

Milton: Now, could you explain why you have to provide the proof? And why not ask that I be the only one to prove that it was not bought online?
The same as the argument for or against God.

Geebo: Try reading my post properly! I dont say you should provide prove that it was bought on-line. THAT IS THE POINT. The person who makes the assertion (ie. Me about your essay) must provide the proof. Ohterwise I could make a hundred assertions about you and keep you busy for a year trying to disprove them!!!
-----------------------------------------------
Milton:If I say have always believed that God exists, would you not be required to prove that He does not, if you are the one who is claiming that my held position is a false one?

Geebo: NO!. If I claim fairies exist would YOU not be required to prove they do not... Rubbish! You assume that your beleive= proof. You cant just say something and leave it to others to disprove, society wouldnt, couldnt and doesnt function so. It functions on the basic statement-proof principle.
------------------------------------------------

I SAID: 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,

MILTON:I see you got the idea. The burden is on both sides; though, I would say it is more on the one who claims that the held position is false. Anyway, I am glad you see my point.

Geebo: You still dont grasp this simplest concept of reason! I said you have the right to ask for prove of my POSITIVE statement about your essay. I havent made any positive statement about god!
-----------------------------------------------

I SAID:you and your fellows have had at least 10,000 years to do so and havent.

MILTON: Do you have proof that we have not proven it? Even if you don't believe that Jesus existed 2,000 years ago, the fact is real...you have to prove that none of the characters of the bible ever existed, to eliminate any possibility of our beliefs being facts.

Geebo: Science, reason and the modern thinking world have never detected any xian arguement that provides proof of god, so I dont have to refute it. You say the fact is real but you dont provide proof! You really dont see that I and everyone else in the world can come up with a concept of god and in your eyes, Milton, it would be just as 'valid' and 'fact' as your God. You have argued yourself into a relative position!
----------------------------------------------

I SAID: In fact you theists cant even agreed on a definition of the God you're looking for!!!!!!!!!

MILTON:And this proves what? LOL! The definition is that of Creator, Ruler, and Just. (You can add more, but these are essentials.) I bet you no one will deny this!

Geebo: This PROVES that all but one of the 1,000 gods created are, by logic, false. And the one left? Get me a piece of paper with a (or your) definiton of god signed by every religious god in the world and then we can talk scientifically about whether he exists.
----------------------------------------------
I SAID: I ask you to prove 'human belief in god from the begining'

MILTON: Actually, this is not a "new position"--this is history!

Geebo: ??? I dont say 'belief is new. I say prove it. NO, a history of belief is not proof!
------------------------------------------------

I SAID "Atheists are the ones who now claim that God does not exist." ....We dont claim it. It just is!......Fact, until proved otherwise.

MILTON: Umm...did you already forget your previous comments? Can you prove that He does not exist?

Geebo: I didnt say I can prove he doesnt exist (but I can). Non existence of ANYTHING is accepted as fact until proven otherwise. It's not a contradiction to ask you to prove god. It is STANDARD logic.
-----------------------------------------------
I SAID: 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.

MILTON:So, you accept that God exists (no pink elephants actually!!-geebo ), until something else comes along? The existence of God is the current position, the denial of this existence is the new position.

MILTON: "So, does the already held position has to re-prove itself? "
ME:You havent even proved it once!!!!
MILTON:I never said that I have proven it!

Geebo: You really do not understand the difference between 'belief' 'fact' 'proof' or 'reason'
---------------------------------------------
I SAID: Just saying it over and over again doesnt make it true or proof, otherwise Pres Bush would turn into male or female genitals!

MILTON:Huh? So, what does pres Bush have to do with this?

Geebo: Because people in England BELIEVE he's a cunt. By your logic, he is one until otherwise proved!

Arrowman

Careful. I once asked a Christian the same question - and he replied that yes, he does believe that Zeus existed, and that he was one of some obscure group of entities mentioned somewhere in the Bible (I don't recall the details). I was quite amused by that; I didn't expect that answer!

Dark Jedi

Arguing with Milton:

Atheist: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Milton: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Atheist: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Milton: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Milton

Really? LOL! I don't know any of the ones who responded to this thread. I visited often when I first signed up, but that was a year ago. The only few times I have come, I have made two or three comments, and they weren't even a debate over God's existence. You need to stop assuming, just because you see, or hear others say something.

Actually, your criticism is the one that is being criticized.

And by that you mean Christians? Theists? People who believe different? or what?

No, I did understand what you said. The problem is that you are not understanding what you are saying. You stated that if you make a statement (such as negating the truthfulness of something), then you would provide evidence. Yet, when it comes to [you] negating the truthfulness of God's existence, you claim that the burden of proof is on the one who already believes that God exists. This is a contradiction!

I read it properly, and this is exactly what I got from it. I hope you can understand your own ideas.

It is clearly a waste of time to argue with someone like you, so I will just leave it here. That is the problem with people around here, no one is ever honest to accept when [at least] part of their argument is wrong.

Blessings!
Baruch Atah!

Koyaanisqatsi

And once again the lies of the cult keep the ball spinning and spinning and spinning and spinning so that they never have to ever step up and meet their burden of proof.

"But you have the burden of proof, too!"
"I don't, but so what if I did?"
"But...but, you have it too."
"What's your point?"
"That you have it too."
"So?"
"So, you have it too."
"Where's your evidence?"
"Where's your evidence?"

WHAT ARE YOU, FIVE?

It is entirely irrelevant who else may or may not have a burden of proof. Theists claim god exists. Fulfill your burden of proof!

"No, fulfill your burden of proof. We're petulent little children that have absolutely no evidence for our ridiculous beliefs that mystical fairy god kings magically blinked everything into existence in order to punish it and can never face that fact because we're terrified of life."
"I don't believe in such things."
"YOU DON'T? THEN YOU PROVE IT! YOU PROVE IT! YOU PROVE IT!"

GROW THE F*CK UP

The claimant has the burden of proof. If you claim god exists then you must prove it or concede that your beliefs have no basis in fact.

There is no escaping this. There is no evasion from this. There is no redirecting this. There is no refuting this.

"No, you prove god doesn't exist, first! Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

Repulsive. Your cult has destroyed your minds. Period.

(eidted for formatting - Koy)

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>