Atheists & Spiritualists = Equal Fools

#201
#201
Tenacious D said:
And upon what evidences do you base that doubt?

Wouldn't it simply be easier to say, "I don't want that to be true."?

Much like a spiritualist refuses to whitewash the atheists many arguments by effectively saying, "I believe these things to be true, despite reason or evidence.".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not wanting it to be true and believing it not to be true are different.
 
#202
#202
Tenacious D said:
Ok, so you can't.

IPO - You've been notoriously absent from this thread.

Why don't you take a stab at disproving God's existence, or are you just waiting on someona else's theory to piggy back on? That's cool, too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm notoriously anything? Sweet. Didn't realize I had so much cred. In any event, I have posted multiple times.

The premise of the thread is silly. I reject the Socratic notion that nothing is knowable, accept knowing nothing. That's basically what you're arguing here. It isn't the same to say one must prove god doesn't exist. There's no logic in proving every null, as you can't absolutely prove any null. Clearly you don't walk around entertaining the existence of fairies and boogie men, since you can't ever fully disprove them. The burden of proof is not on an unbeliever. I'm sure you'll continue to argue otherwise. And that's fine. It's why I haven't participated very much in this thread: it isn't going anywhere, and isn't nearly as clever as you think it is.
 
#203
#203
Tenacious D said:
So you "think" that there are natural causes for everything? Is that correct?

But then you (honestly) admit that there are some things which cannot presently be explained by natural causes, which seems to leave the possibility - however unlikely and remote (or impossible) - of a supernatural cause.

You missed a pretty big word, so I insterted for you. Again, you are misunderstanding my position.

Isn't it more accurate to say that you believe that no such supernatural being / forces exist, and hence, you believe that there must be a natural cause - even in the absence of evidence. Further, you must also then say that no evidences which suggest a supernatural cause will be sufficient to allow you to believe in anything but a natural cause, alone.

I have no reason to believe a supernatural being exists. Huge difference. Furthermore, if Jesus, Muhammad, Elvis were to come to me right now and perform a miracle or Jailhouse Rock I would consider it pretty significant proof that Christianity or whatever is in fact true and God exists. If we are talking about the supreme creator of the universe, this should be piddly for him to do. For a supernatural claim, supernatural evidence is required.

Please, remind me again as to how best to differentiate your position from that of a spiritualist?

I weight my beliefs on how strong the evidence is. if better evidence comes along, I simply weight my belief to the new evidence. I need you to explain to me how that is in any way similar to a spiritualist.

You seem to be doing the exact same thing as you decry them for - believing a position held without absolute certainty despite the absence of evidence - and which you have seemingly adopted as little more than an assumed by personal belief (read: faith), and then dogmatically refusing to consider even the possibility of the oppositions offered theories and evidences.

Wrong. See above or any other post in this thread I have written.

Surely you can understand how eerily similar you each appear, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't see them similar in the least. Two completely different mode of thoughts. Everybody in this world weights what they believe and acts according to rational thought before they do anything, from buying groceries to deciding what school to go to. I am simply doing it with the matter at hand, and not throwing it out the window before I go to church (if I went) or read a special book.

What I gather from you is some things in this world cannot be presently explained by empirical means, so the supernatural/spiritual explanation deserves equal consideration. This is where we disagree.
 
#204
#204
IPorange said:
I'm notoriously anything? Sweet. Didn't realize I had so much cred. In any event, I have posted multiple times.

The premise of the thread is silly. I reject the Socratic notion that nothing is knowable, accept knowing nothing. That's basically what you're arguing here. It isn't the same to say one must prove god doesn't exist. There's no logic in proving every null, as you can't absolutely prove any null. Clearly you don't walk around entertaining the existence of fairies and boogie men, since you can't ever fully disprove them. The burden of proof is not on an unbeliever. I'm sure you'll continue to argue otherwise. And that's fine. It's why I haven't participated very much in this thread: it isn't going anywhere, and isn't nearly as clever as you think it is.
Click to expand...

Why is there a burden of proof? I don't give a crap what you, or anyone else, believes.

The hardcore on both sides are dying to prove the other side wrong. They have said burden and will have it forever, as their golden bullet doesn't exist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#205
#205
IPorange said:
I'm notoriously anything? Sweet. Didn't realize I had so much cred. In any event, I have posted multiple times.

The premise of the thread is silly. I reject the Socratic notion that nothing is knowable, accept knowing nothing. That's basically what you're arguing here. It isn't the same to say one must prove god doesn't exist. There's no logic in proving every null, as you can't absolutely prove any null. Clearly you don't walk around entertaining the existence of fairies and boogie men, since you can't ever fully disprove them. The burden of proof is not on an unbeliever. I'm sure you'll continue to argue otherwise. And that's fine. It's why I haven't participated very much in this thread: it isn't going anywhere, and isn't nearly as clever as you think it is.
Click to expand...

Solid post, and agreed. I can only say this so much. I like these discussions, but I am to the point where it is fruitless to continue.
 
#206
#206
BigPapaVol said:
Why is there a burden of proof? I don't give a crap what you, or anyone else, believes.

The hardcore on both sides are dying to prove the other side wrong. They have said burden and will have it forever, as their golden bullet doesn't exist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Because I'm not trying to convince anyone to take a leap of faith-- despite what is claimed in this thread. People can believe in their gods and devils all they want. I don't care. But if they pretend like there is one shred of tangible evidence for any of it, I'm going to call a spade a spade. That's all.

If a joe southerner wants to tell me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than god, he doesn't have a logical leg to stand on. It's not about convincing anyone of anything. It's just a matter of what we know and what we don't know.
 
#207
#207
IPorange said:
Because I'm not trying to convince anyone to take a leap of faith-- despite what is claimed in this thread. People can believe in their gods and devils all they want. I don't care. But if they pretend like there is one shred of tangible evidence for any of it, I'm going to call a spade a spade. That's all.

If a joe southerner wants to tell me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than god, he doesn't have a logical leg to stand on. It's not about convincing anyone of anything. It's just a matter of what we know and what we don't know.
Click to expand...

But again, how dies that shift any burden of proof from one side to the other? Neither side can close the loop and both run into serious pitfalls.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#208
#208
BigPapaVol said:
Why is there a burden of proof? I don't give a crap what you, or anyone else, believes.

The hardcore on both sides are dying to prove the other side wrong. They have said burden and will have it forever, as their golden bullet doesn't exist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

People are going to believe what they want, I simply argue why I don't believe. The OP says the burden of proof is critical to both sides, I disagree. It is only critical to the side making the claim. In addition to being a non-believer, I also happen to be a non-astrologer...so what. If somebody else is, it is on them to prove why they believe it or why I should, I'm simply saying why I don't believe it, but neither side will get concrete proof one way or the other. It would be absurd to ask the non-believer to produce proof of every nonexistent thing.

I completely reject the premise of the OP and I am just stating why.
 
#209
#209
IPorange said:
If a joe southerner wants to tell me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than god, he doesn't have a logical leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

True. Evolution as a science has evidence and research supporting it.

What take equal amounts of faith are the following statements.

(a) "everything exists because God created it."
(b) "everything exists because it just always WAS, and there is no God."

To me, those statements are on equal footing. Identical, even, because they're both asserting something unobservable.
 
#211
#211
BigPapaVol said:
But again, how dies that shift any burden of proof from one side to the other? Neither side can close the loop and both run into serious pitfalls.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What loop does the negative need to close...or for that matter...why do they even need to close it?
 
#212
#212
rjd970 said:
What loop does the negative need to close...or for that matter...why do they even need to close it?
Click to expand...

Either has to close it when he's trying to shove his own view down someone else's throat.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#213
#213
rjd970 said:
What loop does the negative need to close...or for that matter...why do they even need to close it?
Click to expand...

Why does the positive need to "close a loop" either? Neither side particularly has a "burden of proof," unless they're specifically trying to convince someone to change their mind.
 
#214
#214
BigPapaVol said:
Either has to close it when he's trying to shove his own view down someone else's throat.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I don't think this thread applies. In a philosophical debate the negative doesn't have to prove a thing because they are not the one proposing the default position.

Your point is absolutely credible if we are talking about prayer in schools or the ten commandments in courtrooms.
 
#215
#215
rjd970 said:
Not sure what you mean by "material cause". Yes, I do think there is a natural cause to everything.
Click to expand...

Assuming the present universe started with a "big bang," what's the rational explanation for where the matter involved came from before that?
 
#216
#216
rjd970 said:
Fair enough. But I don't think this thread applies. In a philosophical debate the negative doesn't have to prove a thing because they are not the one proposing the default position.

Your point is absolutely credible if we are talking about prayer in schools or the ten commandments in courtrooms.
Click to expand...

Default position in this case depends upon viewpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#217
#217
At what point, or with what evidence will those that do not believe in the existence of God change their mind?
 
#219
#219
StepCross said:
Why does the positive need to "close a loop" either? Neither side particularly has a "burden of proof," unless they're specifically trying to convince someone to change their mind.
Click to expand...

If we are not trying to change minds, it really doesn't matter. I'm simply saying the atheists aren't the ones making the claim here. As far as I am concerned, the word "atheist" shouldn't even exist, as we don't have a word every other belief people don't believe. I read once that any non-belief is just a refusal to deny the obvious until proven otherwise. It's hard to put it better than that. I think "atheism" applies perfectly.
 
#220
#220
BigPapaVol said:
Default position in this case depends upon viewpoint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

With the vast majority of the world believing in a supernatural being of some sort, I think it is safe to assume one side is the default.
 
#221
#221
BeecherVol said:
At what point, or with what evidence will those that do not believe in the existence of God change their mind?
Click to expand...

I used to be very religious. I think it depends on the person as to what changes their mind. Honestly, for me, it was what I learned in school and being honest with myself about the tough questions. I don't mean to offend anyone with that, it is just what worked for me.
 
#222
#222
rjd970 said:
I used to be very religious. I think it depends on the person as to what changes their mind. Honestly, for me, it was what I learned in school and being honest with myself about the tough questions. I don't mean to offend anyone with that, it is just what worked for me.
Click to expand...

Somebody posted it earlier IIRC, but at this point do you think some people hope that God does not exist?
 
#223
#223
BeecherVol said:
Somebody posted it earlier IIRC, but at this point do you think some people hope that God does not exist?
Click to expand...

If you follow the Hitchens view, yes. Personally, I think it would be great if there was an overarching power watching over us and there was something better waiting for us when we died. But simply wanting to believe something isn't good enough for me, at some point it has to make sense.
 
#224
#224
rjd970 said:
If you follow the Hitchens view, yes. Personally, I think it would be great if there was an overarching power watching over us and there was something better waiting for us when we died. But simply wanting to believe something isn't good enough for me, at some point it has to make sense.
Click to expand...

But is the hope (in regards to Gods existence) more about the fear of being separated from God for eternity?

For those that hope there is not one.

I think the fear of hell is stronger than the joys of heaven to most.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top