When I see stuff like this, I'm glad I identify myself as Atheist :P

[Sqrl]

PhoenixKing said:

Sqrl said:

PhoenixKing said:

This is rather convoluted when answering... but.. eh, whatever floats your boat.

1st Green.) Yeah, and what does that have to do with Thiests having some commonalities with athiesm? I never said thiests agree more with athiests, I said there is a common idea towards other beliefs, particularly those that are foreign to them.

Greek mythology is a perfect example. Some people still believe in it in certain countries but many view it as just folklore now.

2nd Green.) Yes, and that had nothing to do with them also having certain similarities. The higher power's that certain religions believe in being different from other higher powers is also something one shouldn't ignore. To do so would change the underlying facts based upon an argument.

Replies to the above have proven circular, I think it's best drop that portion for now.

3rd Green.) No, you're just obviously offended and took my statements too personally.

First, I'm agnostic, so your assumption that I'm offended by claims about theists is substantively unfounded.  Second, at no point did I make the issue personal towards you or even myself in any way. I made a substantive point about what you said and in doing so clearly stated how I interpreted what you've said thus far to reach that conclusion.  Instead of replying with a substantive rebuttal of your own you dismiss the comment by claiming I've taken it personal...and yet you make no real attempt to address those points.

In any case I think your assertion that I have taken it personal may be indicative of a bit of projection, but I digress....

4th Green.) Wow, this part is just ignorant. The BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the thiests side who claim God exists. You obviously have no understanding what Burden of Proof actually is. Thiests have the burden of proof because they claim God exists, athiests do not because their claim is based on the idea that no proof has been found. For thiests to be right they would require EVIDENCE not faith.

Why? Well then, let me ask you, can you prove that a 200 foot long invisible pink polka dotted ghost elephant does not exist high-up in the stratosphere?

Obviously, you can't. Does this mean that you're wrong and that the burden of proof now lies on you because you can't prove it? No, of course not. I'm the one making the claim that this elephant exists, it would be absurd to ask you to prove something that I claimed.

Thiests have the same problem, they cannot prove God's existence and try and argue that atheists can't disprove it, not realizing that the burden only lies on the thiests because they're the ones making a claim.

It is somewhat odd that you claim I am taking this personal and then in your next paragraph you are making personal accusations about my knowledge level.  Is not the point of this discussion to compare opinions and learn from the discussion itself?  Would it then not make more sense for someone who wishes the conversation not to be personal to let your substantive points do the talking rather than directly insulting my competence?  If you're correct that I don't know what I'm talking about then surely it will be evident in the act of having the discussion, no? And yet you felt it necessary to make the claim explicitly. I think that speaks for itself.

As for the issue itself:

First all claims bear a burden of proof.  Thus you are absolutely correct to say that anyone who claims with certainty that god exists bears the burden of proof. However, anyone who claims god does not exist also has a burden of proof because, like it or not, they are making a claim of certainty. As Marcello Truzzi is often credited with saying, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' (it was Sagan who later made it famous), and any claim about an extraordinary subject is an extraordinary claim.  Quite simply ANY and ALL claims, particularly those of an absolute nature, require proof. 

Where I believe you are getting hung up on this is that you seem to think the default position a person should take when they hear an extrodinary claim is to disbelieve the claim.  This is close to correct, but off in one fundamentally important detail.  The default position for such a claim should be skepticism, which differs from disbelief in that it reserves a judgement of certainty. Where it concerns outlandish claims like the example you gave above I would say the default position should be not to conern yourself with it, not to waste any time or energy thinking about it until additional evidence comes along.  But when you cross away from that skeptical position into flatly stating "it absolutely does not exist", well then you are also making a claim.  To believe otherwise is what is known as an argument from ignorance, and I will explain that in the next two paragraphs.

Imagine you have an unimagineably complex math puzzle game.  The possible moves at any point in the game exceed the number of atoms in the universe, and nobody has ever solved it in the past 300 years since it was thought of.  If I were to claim it cannot be solved other mathematicians would demand I submit a proof.  Lacking that proof my claim is not taken as truth, the position of the mathematics community will remain uncertainty as to whether that puzzle can be solved.

The difference between the puzzle example and the question of a higher power is that with a puzzle there are at least some avenues with which to approach creating a proof.  Despite that difference it does not change the fact that on matters of insufficient proof to draw a conclusion you cannot simply say "well I don't see any evidence that it is true, thus it is false".  This is known as an argument from ignorance fallacy

Now, since athiests, by definition, claim, in absolute terms, to dismiss the notion of a higher power of any form, they are making an absolute claim and along with that absolute claim they must bear a burden of proof as well.  I believe it is correct to argue that they do not bear as extraordinary a burden of proof as theists do, but they do in fact bear an extraordinary burden of proof still because they are making an absolute claim about an extraordinary subject.

So until athiests can unequivocally disprove the existence of god they will, despite how much it might offend their sensabilities, hold their belief based on a measure of faith.  I would argue that it is the least amount of faith required of any absolute position as it is faith born out of an inability to prove a negative (to be clear it is possible to prove some negative propositions when sufficient information is available, but this is a case with insufficient information by definition).  Nevertheless it is, undeniably, a position of faith. 

 

 Another thing, which God would it be? As I have shown before with the religions I specified completely different God's as the ones who exist. So which God would be the real one?

Which god it is, is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.  I'm not making a claim that god exists or doesn't exist.

5th Green.) Yes, thus the problem. Which faith is the real faith? Ah, yes. Nobody really knows. So how do you know you're following the legit faith? How do you know that what you're believing in is not the devil's faith and that God will punish you in the afterlife for not strictly obeying its faith?

There is no possible way to determine which religion is right or wrong, or false or true. If one were real than a majority of the others would be completely false anyway.

There is, as of yet, no way to discern this. And just as there is, as of yet, no way to discern which view of a higher power is correct there is, as of yet, no way to discern that no higher power exists.

Atheists believe God doesn't exist. They DON'T have faith, they just believe this because there is no evidence of God's existence.

By definition any absolute claim that lacks absolute proof is a belief held by faith. This is a natural consequence of the fact that all beliefs are supported by either proof or faith. Any absolute belief that lacks absolute proof can only be supported by faith.  In the case of atheists it is a faith that their interpretation of the facts is the correct one. 

Theists are faithful to God's existence. They never use proof to claim they're right because they have comfort in faith's ignorance and certainty.

I actually think theists should not bother trying to prove their faith, it undermines the concept of faith.  I think the appeal of religion for most people is in the excercise of having faith itself.  So on that point I don't really disagree that they take comfort in the certainty of their faith.  For many that is a large portion of the appeal.

I believe that this whole issue is moot because you never know until you're dead anyway.

This may well be true, but the point of the discussion goes to the heart of metaphysics in general, not just religion. I suppose it's worth as a discussion depends largely on what you seek to get out of it.

 

1st Green.) You're ignoring the argument. Something you accuse me of doing later on in the paragraphs you wrote so there is hypocrisy on your part yet again.

No I'm choosing to drop an issue we've both addressed because the discussion is circular. I've addressed everything you wrote there and you replied with the same thing we covered already.  Sometimes in a discussion you have to accept that you're not going to agree and move on.  This is decidedly different from accusing someone of taking an issue personally and then giving no reply to their points.  I've addressed it, you replied, I addressed it again, and you replied again with neither of us really advancing it....quite simply that aspect of the discussion has played itself out.

2nd green.) Anyone who knew the full definition of theism would know that you CAN be theist and agnostic. So, anything that was "unfounded" is again, you just dodging the point and dismissing it without an answer.

Precisely what point were you making by declaring without basis that I was taking the discussion personal?   If you could highlight that point I'd reply to it...I didn't dismiss the point...I just missed it. I honestly don't think there was a point other than to be confrontational.

3rd 'wall of text' green.) The problem with this is thus: How can you disprove the existence of something that isn't tangible and only centers around belief? It's not possible. The burden of proof HAS to be on the theists, who have no evidence for their claims, then it does the atheists who say it doesn't exist when there is no proof of its existence.

So your argument is that because atheist can't disprove the existence of a higher power they have no burden of proof to their claim that he/she/it/they does not exist? The problem with this is that it is also impossible for theists to prove the existence of an omnipotent being that deliberately avoids providing proof of his existence.  Thus by your logic neither theists or atheists should have a burden of proof to their claims.

You obviously couldn't understand from my example of the ghostly, giant pink polka dotted elephant so I suppose I can't expect you to understand now either.

No, you're not being dismissive, insulting, or confrontational at all.

4th.) The claims of different God's denote that theists are conflicted in their argument over which religion is real, which God is real, and further proves MY argument.

Ok, all this comment proves is that you believe you're correct and that you can make a statement to that effect.  Now you need to make your case by 1) explaining the nature of the theists conflict as you see it, 2) precisely describe the central crux of your argument, and 3) explain exactly how point #1 proves #2.  Just making a declaration is hardly convincing and it leaves me nothing to reply to. 

PS - Why exactly did you emphasize "MY"?  I'm not having a discussion just to prove that "MY" position is correct, I also expect to learn from a discussion and vehemently defending my worldview doesn't allow for that.  It's a close-minded way to handle the discussion and it ultimately would hurt me because I would be immune to adaptation. Defending what you believe is one thing, but emphaticly claiming personal ownership is another entirely.  Please take note how I highlighted an example that makes me believe you are taking it personal rather than just tossing the belief itself out there without anything to support it.

Unfortunately, you only seem to acknowledge or address things that help your argument and ignore everything else you don't agree with.

First, the reason I reply within your text in an alternate color is so that I can go down your comments and try to address each peice one by one.  So if I miss an important portion you should highlight it and explain why/how it is important to your point.  If after doing that I ignore it again you could certainly say I was ignoring it, but the fact is that I address what I feel are your critical points and it is your job to highlight anything I miss, not mine (you know your argument best, if I'm missing your point then you're the only one who can tell me).

So please feel free to highlight and/or restate the points I've missed addressing.  Again simply making the statement that I missed something does nothing to alleviate the situation..

5th.) Yes, but that not applicable to absurd claims like my pink polka dotted invisible, ghostly elephant in the sky. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Nope. Thus it's not 'extreme' to say it doesn't exist.

It is applicable though.  You can no more decree with absolute logical certainty that your pink polka dotted invisible ghostly elephant in the sky doesn't exist than you can decree with absolute logical certainty that there is no higher power.  You can of course draw a conclusion and say the likelihood is extremely low of such a creature existing...and yet you cannot prove it.  Thus any claim that the elephant doesn't exist is made with a measure of faith in your conclusion and not purely on logical certainty.

Having said that, at no point did I say it was 'extreme' to say it doesn't exist.  Quite the contrary, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to draw...and yet it cannot be proven.  Because it cannot be proven you cannot declare it as an immutable fact, it's just not.  It's a very safe bet, it's practically a sure thing, a near certainty if you will....but it's not certain.

The distance from certainty is clearly trivial, but the distinction is vitally important to philosophy, science, and rational thinking as a whole.  Put simply you cannot relenquish the distinction between 'near certainty' and 'immutable facts' into the sensibilities of the individual.  Immutable facts are defined by their being devoid of faith and fully supported by incontrovertible proof. Failing to observe the difference is giving way to an emotional certainty rather than a logical rational certainty.

6.) Exactly how would one disprove God's existence? Obviously not possible considering the absurd amount of attributes it is given credence too. People have faith that God is perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. They would have to prove its existence and then prove all its qualities.

I pretty much agree with this, in fact I think I made the same point in my post above. There are actually a few potential avenues to approach disproving aspects of the concept of a higher power in the realm of theoretical physics (specifically M-theory) but those prospects are in the extreme long-term and there is of course no gauruntee they will pan out.

You also hypocritically ignore the fact that different religions ascert different God's.

I do?  Let's review the record on this, shall we?

"You seem to think I'm saying you should ignore the differences between religions when I'm not, I'm saying you can't focus on them exclusively. I'm saying you have to consider the fundamental disasgreement theists and atheist have, which is not mutually exclusive with considering the differences in theistic beliefs. "

"When you say theist are atheist, even "in a sense", you're saying the similarities between a given brand of theism and atheism are greater than that brand of theism and other brands of theism."

I seem to be acknowledging the difference between the various forms of theism rather explicitly. What about it have I not addressed or ignored that is critical to your argument?  Simply saying that there are differences between the different forms of theism is ...well just stating the obvious.  How exactly does that fact go to the heart of your point?

7th.) In which case, it isn't fair to the atheist side that asks for proof and the theist side that attempts to stamp out the rights of gays everywhere.

Ok now I know there more to your position than you have been letting on....I'm not really sure where the gay rights thing came from out of this discussion to be honest. Nevertheless, I think you'll find you have no disagreement with me in regards to the ridiculousness of using religion to attack gay and lesbian lifestyles.

As far as "not being fair".  I don't follow you on this at all.  A belief in a higher power is not a debate competition, theists are not required to provide proof to athiests in order to believe as they do and atheists are not required to provide proof to theists to believe as they do.  They can simply agree to disagree, and so long as each is respectful of the others views and positions there should be no problems.  The issues start when people use atheism to justify immortal actions against theists and when theists use their religion to justify immoral actions against those who don't subscribe to their brand of theism (ie basically the same thing from both).

8th.) To me it seems it will only be dismissed unless it helps your argument.

Wow.  I was making a friendly comment about how a philisophical discussion can mean different things to different people and you reply with an insult at me?  Seriously, you need to settle with that stuff.  And on that note.....

My comments in green again.

@your comments in red,

Let me just make it clear that I neither see the need for, nor do I appreciate the confrontational approach you're taking here (see the red highlights above).   I'm just replying to your comments trying to explain my position, and if you feel I've been confrontational let me assure you that you've substantially misread my intent. If you feel like I didn't reply to something, point it out and explain why it's important to your point so I can better understand and reply to it.   Constantly making comments that implicitly (ie "...I suppose I can't expect you to understand...") or explicitly (ie "You obviously have no understanding of what Burden of Proof actually is.") insult my intelligence are simply not going to be tolerated. So I'll put this very simply, I enjoy the philisophical portion of the discussion, but I'm not going to tolerate constant insults in order to enjoy that discussion. Either drop them or drop the discussion, I hope you'll choose the former.