Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Atheists Shift The Burden?


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#101 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 July 2010 - 04:39 AM

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner Java, I’ve had a lot going on lately.

This goes back to my wandering mind.  I always have questions about any situation.  For the person who failed to negotiate a turn while operating a vehicle has a chance to survive.  Some of the factors are their health, will to live, safety features, speed traveled, time of day, quickness of emergency response, and location.
I always try to look up verses I see in these threads.  I personally go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ when I need to research a bible verse.

View Post

The Bible Gateway is a good resource for looking up scripture Java; I would recommend it to anyone looking for basic answers. You can get a lot of information there.

Here's what I know about the Bible, from an insiders perspective.  Each 'book' in the bible was at one time a separate book that was written separately  from all of the others.  These books were then looked at by the Council of Nigea to form the current bible that we see today.

View Post

That is an incorrect revised historical misinterpretation promulgated by the Catholic Church Java. All of the books of the New Testament were recognized as scripture long before the council of Nicea. In fact, ALL of the books in our New Testament were so heavily quoted by the early church fathers AND non-Christian writers of the time, that before the end of the second century, you could re-write the entire New Testament verbatim from those quotes. And the council of Nicea didn’t even convene until the fourth century.

Back to the books: These were basically letters written by eyewitnesses of Jesus, and/or eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus, and/or eyewitnesses of the miracles of His apostles, and/or historical chroniclers who investigated (via talking to eyewitnesses of the above) in order to set down an orderly account, of the life of Jesus and His apostles.

These books were faithfully transcribed, and passed around the different churches of the time, and revered as scripture.

So technically these are all individual eye witness accounts when looked at from the inside.

View Post

These are eyewitness accounts no matter how you look at it (but some purposefully deny the truth of this)

#102 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 July 2010 - 04:40 AM

For the outsider they see it as one source.  This is why they will just dismiss it.  It goes back a picture I found on the interwebs that talks about the circular logic of the Bible.  We know the word of God is infallible.  How do we know this? The bible tells us so.  And how do we know the Bible is correct? Because the bible is the word of God.

View Post

No one uses that circular argument Java. I should say; no one who has actually done research into the subject. This is basically a fallacy promulgated and propitiated by some atheistic and skeptic apologists as an easy (albeit false) answer to the God question. It is easily refuted by facts.

God is God, because He has proveen Himself over and over via His creation, His interaction with His creation, and His Son’s interaction with His creation (which is an historical account). The attempt at a “blind faith” argument is a false attempt at refuting the Bible and God, just as the circular reasoning argument.

Personally, I didn’t believe in God, until I sifted through the evidences, and came to a conclusion (and this was no short period of time). There were absolutely NO tautologies in my reasoning. I was an atheist… Period! You were never going to convince me God is God simply by His saying so. Or “the Bible says God is infallible, therefore God is infallible”. That makes absolutely NO sense.

I'm not one who had ever used this as a reason to dismiss the Bible, but this is probably related to those who do.

Ron you are more than studious so I believe that you looked at all the evidence.  I personally cannot account for something that I was not witnessed too.  I'm personally not satisfied by this of course, but I do respect you enough to count on your abilities.

View Post


I would never expect anyone to blindly believe in something. That is a delusion. I would expect honest and open inquiry, go where the evidence leads, and draw conclusions from those evidences. I cannot honestly say that this was my approach. My approach was more of a “I’m going to prove this Bible wrong” approach. And after much research, when I found out that I was wrong, I had to be honest with myself.

Blind faith is not Christianity. Although, I have no doubt some may come to a faith in God that way; that is not the teachings of Christ. And, a true Christian will grow through interaction with the evidences they find along the way, and become more rational about their faith; and their walk with Christ.

#103 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2010 - 05:27 AM

1- Do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from Bradlaugh’s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism?

View Post

I do not believe there is any deliberate attempt going on to dilute the meaning of atheism. Atheism includes, as it always has, those who claim that there is no God.

It also includes those who simply don't believe in any gods.

This seems to me to simply be the way the definition has developed. Theism is belief in God. A-theism is therefore lack of theism, or lack of belief in god.

If there ever was a deliberate attempt to shift the meaning of atheism, perpetrated by atheists, it has succeeded.
The only deliberate attempt to change the meaning of Atheism at present is coming from the theist side, attempting to redefine it to exclude those, like me, who haven't ruled out the possibility of some form of god.

2- Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist?

The burden of proof belongs with the one who makes a claim. If you claim a specific entity exists, you need to provide evidence.

If you claim an entity, or class of entities, don't exist, you need to provide evidence.

3- Shouldn’t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm 

Yes. The required evidence is of a different sort, but should still be provided.

4- Could this shift of Bradlaugh be due to the lack of a origins foundation for atheism, and therefore the need to shift the goal posts due to a lack of said foundations?

I don't know enough about Bradlaugh to comment on his opinions and the basis thereof.

#104 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 September 2010 - 01:57 PM

I do not believe there is any deliberate attempt going on to dilute the meaning of atheism. Atheism includes, as it always has, those who claim that there is no God.

View Post


Actually, that would be incorrect, as it has been recognized for may years now that atheist have diligently (for many reasons) attempted to increase the rolls of atheism by purposefully “casting a wider net” as it were, to make it sound like more perple are practicing atheists.

Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (i.e., the assertion that deities do not exist),[3] or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities).[4] However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[5][6][7] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well.
http://psychology.wi...om/wiki/Atheism



#105 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New mexico

Posted 23 September 2010 - 03:43 AM

Actually, that would be incorrect, as it has been recognized for may years now that atheist have diligently (for many reasons) attempted to increase the rolls of atheism by purposefully “casting a wider net” as it were, to make it sound like more perple are practicing atheists.

View Post


Quick question on the quoted text. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference is between state of disbelieving and absence of believing is? I'm guessing it's somewhere along the lines of state of disbelieving implies a choice while absence of believing implies no choice. If that is what the piece is trying to say then I can agree. Atheism should be a choice.

Now on the burden of proof stuff in the op. Where to begin really? A lot has been said about the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. It's all Russel's Teapot and Flying Spaghetti monsters and all that. You have to give that refutation credence Ron. It is extremely difficult to prove something doesn't exist. That is why the burden of proof is so often placed in the hands of theists. It should be far easier for theists to prove God does exist. It goes back to the logical fallacy argument from ignorance. You have to prove the assertion and not the refutation or the positive and not the negative. It would be like me telling you "prove the big bang didn't happen." I wouldn't do that because it's impossible for you to do so. You can prove that God did happen thereby refuting the big bang. So, I would posit that by trying to prove the big bang and evolution science is in fact shouldering some of the burden through that channel.

Either way the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the assertion. If a theist says there is a God, the burden lies on him. If an atheist says there is no God, the burden lies on him. It is just logically easier for a theist to prove his assertion so the thinking is that all the burden should be on theists. That is not really how it is or should be.

In bare terms a theist only need give an undoctored photo of God as proof. An atheist must prove that every effect in the universe has a natural cause and therefore God is not needed. Science might need awhile. :)

#106 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:04 AM

Quick question on the quoted text. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference is between state of disbelieving and absence of believing is? I'm guessing it's somewhere along the lines of state of disbelieving implies a choice while absence of believing implies no choice. If that is what the piece is trying to say then I can agree. Atheism should be a choice.

View Post


There is no such thing as an “absence of belief”. You either believe something, or you do not. You can believe in something strongly or weakly, but you believe it none-the-less. Believing one way or the other is still a choice.

Now on the burden of proof stuff in the op. Where to begin really? A lot has been said about the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. It's all Russel's Teapot and Flying Spaghetti monsters and all that.

View Post


Russel's Teapot and the flying spaghetti monster are both nothing more than cop outs. And both are logical fallacies. At their very base, they can be easily pulled apart.

And, what is it they’re attempting to disprove? They’re attempting to disprove God! But, has anyone eye witnessed evidence FOR Russel's Teapot and the flying spaghetti monster? Please provide the evidences for such. Please provide the unimpeachable witnesses, who are willing to serve their lives and give their lives (in many cases horrendous and torturous, gruesome deaths) instead of denying what they saw.

Again, Russel's Teapot and the flying spaghetti monster are both nothing more than cop outs, and logically, rationally and scientifically fallacious at best. And, nothing more than shifting the Burdon of proof.

You have to give that refutation credence Ron. It is extremely difficult to prove something doesn't exist.

View Post


No, I do not; nor does any rational person. And a negative is easy to refute… I can prove empirically that you are not here, for example! I can prove that there are no spotted geese in my bedroom!

That is why the burden of proof is so often placed in the hands of theists. It should be far easier for theists to prove God does exist.

View Post


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, period. If you are not making a claim, you have no burden. If you are making a claim, you have the responsibility to provide the evidence for said claim. If you say you don’t, you have to shift the burden to do so.

It goes back to the logical fallacy argument from ignorance. You have to prove the assertion and not the refutation or the positive and not the negative.

View Post


It is nothing like the argumentum ad ignorantiam. That term can be more readily applied to Russel's Teapot and the flying spaghetti monster, for which there is no evidence, therefore, to make the assertion, you must provide the evidence. A negative assertion is still an assertion, and it still requires evidence.

It would be like me telling you "prove the big bang didn't happen." I wouldn't do that because it's impossible for you to do so. You can prove that God did happen thereby refuting the big bang. So, I would posit that by trying to prove the big bang and evolution science is in fact shouldering some of the burden through that channel. 

View Post


The logical fallacy you are committing here is in asserting that the big bang negates God. And for this you have no evidence. YOU are making an assertion, and are therefore responsible to provide evidence for you assertion. Also, I would submit that God IS “the Prime Mover”, or “the Causative Initiator” (etcetera…) of what you call the big bang. And I have plenty of evidence for a “Causative Initiator” or a “Prime Mover”, and you have absolutely NO evidence for an “uncaused, natural initiation”.

And we BOTH must provide evidence for our assertions. Neither YOU nor I can logically shift the burden from ourselves, if we make an assertion.

#107 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:04 AM

Either way the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the assertion.

View Post

That is exactly right….

If a theist says there is a God, the burden lies on him. If an atheist says there is no God, the burden lies on him.

View Post


That is exactly right….

It is just logically easier for a theist to prove his assertion so the thinking is that all the burden should be on theists. That is not really how it is or should be.

View Post


But that is the logical fallacy of the atheists shifting of the burden…

In bare terms a theist only need give an undoctored photo of God as proof.

View Post


That, of course, is incorrect… The theist can provide many lines of evidence FOR God, without a photo of God. The first is, of course Christ Jesus. But that is for another OP and not this one.

An atheist must prove that every effect in the universe has a natural cause and therefore God is not needed. Science might need awhile. :)

View Post

No, the atheist must provide evidence to support his/her assertion. And that assertion is “There Is No God”. The “Natural Cause” argument doesn’t negate God, because God (if He is who He said He is) may have set those wheels in motion. So, to assert that God is not needed is therefore a non sequitur. And to assert “Science might need awhile” is committing the logical fallacy of an appeal to probability, or appeal to belief, or (more succinctly) Argumentum ad Futuris.
But, the bottom line is this:
If you make an assertion, YOU are responsible to back it up. And, attempting to wriggle out of your responsibility is tantamount to shifting the burden.

#108 Kaliko

Kaliko

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 23 September 2010 - 06:59 AM

Since no atheist has seriously attempted to answer the OP questions (at http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3001 )  , according to the “no equivocation wiggle room” stance, I am posing the following line of questioning (again, the same rules  below apply):

1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!
2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).
3- If you don’t know, simply say “I don’t know”! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) “there is no God”; because you said “I don’t know”. This includes making statements like (for example) “there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God” because; you said “I don’t know”. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
4- If you are going to make a “Negative” assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.
7- If you post links to other people’s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).
Opinions are fine if they can be backed up by facts, but equivocations will not be allowed.

So the questions are:

View Post

I'm sorry if this is already answered elsewhere in the thread, but here's my answers:

1- Do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from Bradlaugh’s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism?

I think the definition that is commonly quoted definition of atheism is innacurate. The claim that "Atheism is the denial of the existence of God" implies that atheists are just lying when they say they don't believe. To turn it around, it would be like saying that "Christianity is the denial of Gods non-existence". I think the definition of "lacking a belief in God" is a better definition.

2- Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist?

It should be. I know this kind of comparison has been made before, but if I tell you, for example, that Unicorns live on Pluto, and that I know for a fact that they do, why should the burden of proof be on the backs of the person who says that unicorns don't exist, and that they're not on Pluto?

When the thing in question is an intangible, such as a God, ghosts, fairies, and suchlike, it's impossible to prove a negative. Something that's invisible, and doesn't even live in our universe is utterly disprovable.

3- Shouldn’t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

No, for the same reasons as in question 2.

#109 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 23 September 2010 - 07:25 AM

No, the atheist must provide evidence to support his/her assertion. And that assertion is “There Is No God”. The “Natural Cause” argument doesn’t negate God, because God (if He is who He said He is) may have set those wheels in motion.


This is really the bottom line to the whole God-no God argument. It is impossible to prove that God is not behind everything. The natural causes for adaptation and evolution and really anything else there is can be said to have been caused, at one point or another, by God. There really is nothing to prove. Religion and God are immune to science. At the end of the day the choice is a personal one- no matter how loudly any missionary or atheist argues otherwise.

#110 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:07 AM

I'm sorry if this is already answered elsewhere in the thread, but here's my answers:

View Post

Okay… But it has already been discussed, and answered. By the way, aren’t you an agnostic???

I think the definition that is commonly quoted definition of atheism is innacurate. The claim that "Atheism is the denial of the existence of God" implies that atheists are just lying when they say they don't believe.

View Post


Actually, that is not the “commonly quoted definition of atheism”, and it is not necessarily inaccurate, so I would be curious to see where you researched and found your statistics. The most common quoted definition is dependent upon who you ask (the atheist, or the non-atheist). And that is why I prefer to actually do the research (dictionary, encyclopedia etc…). For example:

Atheism (athe•ism [ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm] noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheism

-OR-

Atheism (a•the•ism [ey-thee-iz-uh m]) noun
The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

—Related forms an•ti•a•the•ism, adjective, noun pro•a•the•ism, noun

Or…. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”
http://plato.stanfor...sm-agnosticism/

Or…. According to Psychology Wiki

“Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief in the existence of a deity or deities”
http://psychology.wi...om/wiki/Atheism

I might suggest you read a little more, and do a little more research.

#111 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 09:09 AM

To turn it around, it would be like saying that "Christianity is the denial of Gods non-existence". I think the definition of "lacking a belief in God" is a better definition.

View Post


Of course, that is a non sequitur. Christians claim that God exists based upon “observed” evidences. Atheists claim God doesn’t exist due to their denial of said evidences. And, for your information “lacking a belief” IS a belief none-the less; you either believe for, or you believe against. It is an incredulity, but it is a type of belief none-the-less.

It should be. I know this kind of comparison has been made before, but if I tell you, for example, that Unicorns live on Pluto, and that I know for a fact that they do, why should the burden of proof be on the backs of the person who says that unicorns don't exist, and that they're not on Pluto?

View Post


That’s pretty easy actually… neither you, nor I, or anyone else for that matter, has/have been to Pluto, therefore you could not have possibly know that unicorns exist on Pluto - That would be strike one. You have no corroborating evidence for your accusations, nor have you provided un-impugned testimony from others to back up your assertion – That would be strike two. Therefore, by making such a claim, you would be either delusional or lying – That would be strike three!

When the thing in question is an intangible, such as a God, ghosts, fairies, and suchlike, it's impossible to prove a negative.

View Post


You are making a false assumption that God is intangible: First, for you to make such a claim, you would have to know something about God, but, since you claim to be agnostic, your claim is self-refuting. Second, Jesus claimed to be God. And His life is corroborated and substantiated by no less than twelve un-impugned eyewitnesses, and as many as five hundred. It would follow, as well, that at least that many were witness to His miracles as well. Also, that would be an equivocation as per #’s 4, 5, and 6 of the OP.

Something that's invisible, and doesn't even live in our universe is utterly disprovable.

View Post


Really??? Thoughts are invisible, love is invisible, the Laws of Logic are invisible, the Laws of Mathematics are invisible. Also, this would be an equivocation as per #’s 4, 5, and 6 of the OP.

No, for the same reasons as in question 2.

View Post


Then you would be as wrong as you were in number two. Also, this would be an equivocation as per #’s 4, 5, and 6 of the OP.

#112 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:10 AM

There is no such thing as an “absence of belief”. You either believe something, or you do not.


If you do not believe something you have an absence of belief in that thing. To believe and to have belief are the same thing.

You can believe in something strongly or weakly, but you believe it none-the-less.

View Post


Or you can not believe in something. I do not believe in mermaids, not even weakly.

#113 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:27 AM

If you do not believe something you have an absence of belief in that thing. 

View Post

And therefore believe in the opposite.
Example:
To say – “I don’t believe in God”, therefor means “I believe there is no God!”

To believe and to have belief are the same thing.

View Post

Absolutely! And to say you don’t believe in something is to have a belief against it. (see the above).

Or you can not believe in something. 

View Post

And therefore believe in the contrary.

I do not believe in mermaids, not even weakly.

View Post

And therefore “believe” they do not exist! And you, by your own admission, believe this “strongly”!




By the way Tommy, aren’t you an agnostic as well?

#114 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 10:43 AM

This is really the bottom line to the whole God-no God argument.  It is impossible to prove that God is not behind everything. 

View Post

Especially since the evidence strongly supports “something” rather than “nothing”, and “design” rather than “randomness”, and a “Causer/Initiator” rather than “Ooops, there it is”.

The natural causes for adaptation and evolution and really anything else there is can be said to have been caused, at one point or another, by God.

View Post

Were evolution true, then yes, absolutely.

There really is nothing to prove. 

View Post

In keeping with the OP, the above statement is incorrect. If atheists weren’t “shifting the burden” by hiding from their “faith statements”, then they would stand up and accept their responsibility.

Religion and God are immune to science. 

View Post

Not so! If you can prove “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, our “reason for existence from an atheistic standpoint” (etcetera…) then you could make a great case against God and religion. But the bottom line is this; atheism AND agnosticism are laden with as much (if not more) faith then the theist.

At the end of the day the choice is a personal one- no matter how loudly any missionary or atheist argues otherwise..

View Post

Once again, that is incorrect. Every choice we make affects those around us. And, non-theists come here on their own “mission” as well. Because, if it weren’t, they (the non-theist) wouldn’t be coming here attempting to make a case so dogmatically.

By the way Joe, aren’t you an agnostic as well?

#115 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2010 - 01:55 PM

And therefore believe in the opposite.
Example:
To say – “I don’t believe in God”, therefor means “I believe there is no God!”
Absolutely! And to say you don’t believe in something is to have a belief against it. (see the above).
And therefore believe in the contrary.
And therefore “believe” they do not exist! And you, by your own admission, believe this “strongly”!


Agree with all of that, not sure then of your objection to an "absence of belief".

An atheist would by implication believe that there is no God. This only follows from a previous claim of belief in a God and is not the basis for investigation - seeking evidence for a negative, particularly negating that which is mooted to be beyond the comprehension of the natural sciences, would be futile. A non-believer is justified in not attempting the impossible.

By the way Tommy, aren’t you an agnostic as well?

View Post


Technically, yes, although I don't give much thought to the supernatural as history shows that naturalistic explanations are always more effective so you could say I am a de facto philosophical naturalist.

#116 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 September 2010 - 04:29 PM

Agree with all of that, not sure then of your objection to an "absence of belief".

View Post

Absence of belief is a misnomer if you are pretending that it isn’t belief in the opposite. Again, if you don’t “believe in God” you de facto “believe against God”.

An atheist would by implication believe that there is no God. 

View Post

Which “IS” a faith statement, and a belief.

This only follows from a previous claim of belief in a God and is not the basis for investigation - seeking evidence for a negative, particularly negating that which is mooted to be beyond the comprehension of the natural sciences, would be futile.

View Post

What follows is; if you are going to make an assertion, you need the evidence to back it up. Your “assumption” is that God is a negative, and then attempt to equivocate by equating God with the flying spaghetti monster, or spotted geese, or a flying tea pot.

A non-believer is justified in not attempting the impossible.

View Post

Unfortunately, a “non-believer” in one thing, is nothing more than a believer in something else. I am a non-believer in atheism. I find absolutely no logical or scientific rationale in nothingness, nor do you have any evidence for such. It would be like an attempt to justify the impossible.

Technically, yes, although I don't give much thought to the supernatural as history shows that naturalistic explanations are always more effective so you could say I am a de facto philosophical naturalist.

View Post

There is no technicality involved; either you don’t believe in God, or you aren’t sure. And “naturalistic” explanations, lacking real explanations are faith based, and no different than a “supernatural” explanation. AND it “still” needs a reasonable and logical explanation for origins.

#117 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 September 2010 - 05:47 PM

Again, if you don’t “believe in God” you de facto “believe against God”.


If one doesn't believe in God one then it doesn't follow that one is "against God", as if you are in opposition to God. I vaguely recall some NT quote of Jesus stating this but "against God" does not logically follow from not believing in God.

What follows is; if you are going to make an assertion, you need the evidence to back it up. Your “assumption” is that God is a negative, and then attempt to equivocate by equating God with the flying spaghetti monster, or spotted geese, or a flying tea pot.


Where have I compared God to any of those things? My reference to God as a negative describes the outlook of an atheist who indeed believes that there is no God.

There is no technicality involved; either you don’t believe in God, or you aren’t sure. And “naturalistic” explanations, lacking real explanations are faith based, and no different than a “supernatural” explanation. AND it “still” needs a reasonable and logical explanation for origins.

View Post


I don't know if supernatural entities exist but for the reason given lean toward skepticism.

An understanding of medicine, physics and chemistry, for instance, offer real explanations whereas we now know that demons don't cause mental illness, chariots don't pull the sun across the sky and spells don't turn lead into gold.

Common ancestry implies the origin of life is explained by self-replicating chemistry.

#118 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 23 September 2010 - 07:09 PM

Especially since the evidence strongly supports “something” rather than “nothing”, and “design” rather than “randomness”, and a “Causer/Initiator” rather than “Ooops, there it is”.

Not so! If you can prove “something from nothing”, “life from non-life”, our “reason for existence from an atheistic standpoint” (etcetera…) then you could make a great case against God and religion. But the bottom line is this; atheism AND agnosticism are laden with as much (if not more) faith then the theist.

Once again, that is incorrect. Every choice we make affects those around us. And, non-theists come here on their own “mission” as well. Because, if it weren’t, they (the non-theist) wouldn’t be coming here attempting to make a case so dogmatically.

By the way Joe, aren’t you an agnostic as well?


Mutation is random, natural selection (and the much-debated evolution that arises from it) isn't.

"Something from nothing" was already done. Repeatedly. In Miller-Urey and Miller-Urey derivatives. The issue "something from nothing" isn't an issue at all, but rather "the right things from the right mix".

Eh, dogmatism -much like beauty- is all relative to the beholder.

And not really, I just couldn't leave the 'affiliation' thing blank and it seemed like the mildest option. I think evolution -micro by observation and macro by logical extension of micro and sound theory- is real, but as to whether God is at the end of it all...who knows?

#119 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 September 2010 - 07:56 PM

"Something from nothing" was already done.  Repeatedly.  In Miller-Urey and Miller-Urey derivatives.  The issue "something from nothing" isn't an issue at all, but rather "the right things from the right mix".


View Post


That's absolutely false, and I'll show you why!

In the experiment... something was used to create. "Nothing" no molecules, or atoms would be used if the experiment was truly "Something from Nothing."

What I assume you are trying to say is: Abiogenesis was proven with this experiment...

Unfortunately Life was not produced with the Miller-Urey experiment, because a living organism was not created. You must have life, to have a living organism.

The experiment proved that you could put the basic building blocks of life together in a lab, but that proved nothing but the obvious. Anyone could do that with the right molecules in place in a lab, but that does not however produce life.

#120 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 23 September 2010 - 08:53 PM

That's absolutely false, and I'll show you why!

In the experiment... something was used to create.  "Nothing" no molecules, or atoms would be used if the experiment was truly "Something from Nothing."

What I assume you are trying to say is:  Abiogenesis was proven with this experiment...

Unfortunately Life was not produced with the Miller-Urey experiment, because a living organism was not created.  You must have life, to have a living organism.

The experiment proved that you could put the basic building blocks of life together in a lab, but that proved nothing but the obvious.  Anyone could do that with the right molecules in place in a lab, but that does not however produce life.

View Post


Well it has been reproduced a lot, owing to its obviously surprising nature. No, they didn't just sit and observe nothing; you have me there. They tried to mimic 'early earth' conditions (that were changed many times in later experiments yielding in similar results). Yes, I meant abiogenesis, but amino acids can form into self-replicating structures, hence "life". It is important because it showed the building blocks of all life could be created from abiotic conditions, which invites speculation on the formation of the precursors to more complex life.

Apologies for lack of clarity.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users