74 replies to this topic

[Ron]

These questions are directed ONLY at those of the perspective of the questions. There are questions for those of the opposite perspective at: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3892

The Questions:

Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

[falcone]

These questions are directed ONLY at those of the perspective of the questions. There are questions for those of the opposite perspective at: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3892

The Questions:

Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

No, I do not believe there is absolutely no god. There is no evidence that conclusively demonstrates there is no god.

[Ron]

No, I do not believe there is absolutely no god. There is no evidence that conclusively demonstrates there is no god.

So, there might be a God then?

[falcone]

So, there might be a God then?

Yep. I think it's very unlikely, though. Russell's teapot and all that.

[Ron]

Yep. I think it's very unlikely, though. Russell's teapot and all that.

Russell's teapot is illogical, and holds no more water (no pun intended) than fluffy unicorns on Pluto. Their main problem with hypothetical analogies such as “Bertrand Russell’s Teapot” is that they are totally “hypothetical”, and therefore have “no substance”. Also; the thing they are attempting to refute is claimed to be witnessed (or attested to via witnesses) by many intelligent people, further negating the fallacious “teapot” analogy. Further, Russell’s teapot is nothing more than a “smoke screen”, or “Red Herring” to cover the fact that they (people like Russell, and falcone [in this case]) are simply attempting to keep from providing evidence for their claims. And neither of their “hypothetical anologies”can suffice as "evidences" (as was asked for in the OP), nor is "no evidence that conclusively demonstrates" a statement of evidence, let alone itself evidence.

So, having said that, basically stated, you:
1- Believe there is no God.
2- Have no evidence to prove there is no God (hence, the word "believe" in #1).
3- This tempers the non "absoluteness" of your belief.
Conclusion: This is the primary drive for your atheistic worldview? That you believe there is not enough evidence adduced to prove there IS a God, and although there might be a God (agnostic), you choose to not believe...

By the way: I was asking for those who believe there is “absolutely” NO God. But your agnostic worldview works just as well (meaning, it is just as welcome. But, maybe I should open an agnostic thread as well, since these twin threads were intended for the "absolute" opinions).

[Phish]

By the way: I was asking for those who believe there is “absolutely” NO God. But your agnostic worldview works just as well (meaning, it is just as welcome. But, maybe I should open an agnostic thread as well, since these twin threads were intended for the "absolute" opinions).

I doubt that anyone on this forum (or that you'll meet in the world) can say definitively that there is no god, simply because "god" is such a nebulous concept. A thousand people could define "god" a thousand different ways. You have Albert Einstein who defined God as something you find in the laws of physics on one end, and you have Christians (like yourself I'd imagine) who believe that God is a sentient being that humans are able to communicate with on the other end. You also have a whole spectrum of views in the middle. I think the question would be more meaningful if you replaced "God" with "the God of Abraham" or "a personal god (a god which is able to communicate with humans)".

To answer that question: I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false. The evidence I have for this is that I find problems in the Bible (I'm not going to list them all right now since I'm sure you'll run into discussions of most of them by looking around this forum).

I am fairly sure that there is no personal god as described in any world religion, because I see so much disorder and randomness in the world that I can't believe that any humans are able to talk directly to God or have "God on their side".

I have no opinion about whether there is a diestic god behind the scenes pulling on strings to make the laws of physics work (but not ever manifesting itself directly). It either exists or it doesn't. We will never know and I couldn't care less.

[ikester7579]

I doubt that anyone on this forum (or that you'll meet in the world) can say definitively that there is no god, simply because "god" is such a nebulous concept. A thousand people could define "god" a thousand different ways. You have Albert Einstein who defined God as something you find in the laws of physics on one end, and you have Christians (like yourself I'd imagine) who believe that God is a sentient being that humans are able to communicate with on the other end. You also have a whole spectrum of views in the middle. I think the question would be more meaningful if you replaced "God" with "the God of Abraham" or "a personal god (a god which is able to communicate with humans)".

To answer that question: I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false. The evidence I have for this is that I find problems in the Bible (I'm not going to list them all right now since I'm sure you'll run into discussions of most of them by looking around this forum).

I am fairly sure that there is no personal god as described in any world religion, because I see so much disorder and randomness in the world that I can't believe that any humans are able to talk directly to God or have "God on their side".

I have no opinion about whether there is a diestic god behind the scenes pulling on strings to make the laws of physics work (but not ever manifesting itself directly). It either exists or it doesn't. We will never know and I couldn't care less.

Why don't you start a thread and list them?

Also, how do laws evolve? Or is it like matter for the big bang (poof there it is)?

[Phish]

Also, how do laws evolve? Or is it like matter for the big bang (poof there it is)?

Such a fixation on "evolution". Evolution by natural selection is a theory in biology. I was talking about physics in my post. This article is a really cooldiscussion of physical constants if you're interested though.

http://www.economist.com/node/16930866

[Ron]

I doubt that anyone on this forum (or that you'll meet in the world) can say definitively that there is no god, simply because "god" is such a nebulous concept. A thousand people could define "god" a thousand different ways. You have Albert Einstein who defined God as something you find in the laws of physics on one end, and you have Christians (like yourself I'd imagine) who believe that God is a sentient being that humans are able to communicate with on the other end. You also have a whole spectrum of views in the middle. I think the question would be more meaningful if you replaced "God" with "the God of Abraham" or "a personal god (a god which is able to communicate with humans)".

To answer that question: I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false. The evidence I have for this is that I find problems in the Bible (I'm not going to list them all right now since I'm sure you'll run into discussions of most of them by looking around this forum).

I am fairly sure that there is no personal god as described in any world religion, because I see so much disorder and randomness in the world that I can't believe that any humans are able to talk directly to God or have "God on their side".

I have no opinion about whether there is a diestic god behind the scenes pulling on strings to make the laws of physics work (but not ever manifesting itself directly). It either exists or it doesn't. We will never know and I couldn't care less.

Okay, the problem you’re having here is this: The OP questions are concerning “God”, and not god, or gods. I’m fairly sure that you are completely aware of the concept I am speaking about. And “God” is no more a “nebulous” or murky concept then evolution, or natural selection. So your attempt to use the “god” versus “God” red herring at this thread renders that portion of your most a non sequitur.

Also, if you’re going to claim “I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false”, then you are “de facto” an atheist, and not and agnostic. Not only that, but the OP called for evidences:

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

And you provided absolutely none (zero, zilch). So your attempt to use the statement “I'm not going to list them” (for your errant Bible fallacy) red herring at this thread renders that portion of your post a non sequitur as well. And when combining (within context) your further insult “since I'm sure you'll run into discussions of most of them by looking around this forum” will do nothing more than garner you a warning. And I suggest you read the forum rules (that you agreed to prior to being accepted to this forum) before posting here again. Trolling tactics are not allowed here, and neither are Ad hominem attacks, name calling or mudslinging, so I would caution you to be aware of the slippery slope you seem to heading down.

[falcone]

Russell's teapot is illogical, and holds no more water (no pun intended) than fluffy unicorns on Pluto. Their main problem with hypothetical analogies such as “Bertrand Russell’s Teapot” is that they are totally “hypothetical”, and therefore have “no substance”. Also; the thing they are attempting to refute is claimed to be witnessed (or attested to via witnesses) by many intelligent people, further negating the fallacious “teapot” analogy. Further, Russell’s teapot is nothing more than a “smoke screen”, or “Red Herring” to cover the fact that they (people like Russell, and falcone [in this case]) are simply attempting to keep from providing evidence for their claims. And neither of their “hypothetical anologies”can suffice as "evidences" (as was asked for in the OP), nor is "no evidence that conclusively demonstrates" a statement of evidence, let alone itself evidence.

So, having said that, basically stated, you:
1- Believe there is no God.
2- Have no evidence to prove there is no God (hence, the word "believe" in #1).
3- This tempers the non "absoluteness" of your belief.
Conclusion: This is the primary drive for your atheistic worldview? That you believe there is not enough evidence adduced to prove there IS a God, and although there might be a God (agnostic), you choose to not believe...

Close, but not quite. You are correct to say that I have no evidence to prove there is no god. But more importantly, I have no evidence to prove there is a god. This is the primary drive for my atheistic worldview.

By the way: I was asking for those who believe there is “absolutely” NO God. But your agnostic worldview works just as well (meaning, it is just as welcome. But, maybe I should open an agnostic thread as well, since these twin threads were intended for the "absolute" opinions).

As Phish said, you'll probably be hard pushed to find anyone who claims there is absoultely no god, but that doesn't mean they're agnostic rather than atheist.

When I signed up here I felt 'atheist' described my worldview better than 'agnosic'. I still do, but I'm happy to change it if you're more comfortable talking to me as an agnostic.

Edit: It wasn't clear to me from the OP that you were looking for replies only from people who believe there is absolutely no god. I'm glad my reply was welcome though

[falcone]

Okay, the problem you’re having here is this: The OP questions are concerning “God”, and not god, or gods. I’m fairly sure that you are completely aware of the concept I am speaking about. And “God” is no more a “nebulous” or murky concept then evolution, or natural selection.  So your attempt to use the “god” versus “God” red herring at this thread renders that portion of your most a non sequitur.

Sorry, I just read this bit and had the same problem. Okay, if we're talking about God then my earlier comments still stand. I am more convinced there is no God than I am about god(s), but I wouldn't go as far as to say 'absolutely' convinced.

Also, if you’re going to claim “I absolutely believe that the God of Abraham is false”, then you are “de facto” an atheist, and not and agnostic.

I don't think that's really fair to say, Ron. If Phish were a Hindu, would you consider him/her an atheist?

Actually, this leads me to a question. We're going off topic but can probably be answered very quickly: Give that this is a Christian forum, is the label 'atheist' used in the context of one who does not believe in the Christian God, regardless of that person's other religious beliefs? 'Yes' or 'no' with no further explanation will do, just so I understand.

[Ron]

Close, but not quite. You are correct to say that I have no evidence to prove there is no god. But more importantly, I have no evidence to prove there is a god. This is the primary drive for my atheistic worldview.

You may want to re-read the OP… It clearly states:

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

And, since “no evidence” is, well, NO EVIDENCE, your post is a non sequitur. But you did point out one distinction that should be commented on: You are claiming that your Atheistic worldview is based upon “no evidence”. And while I realize that you are going to claim a negative view to point to positive atheism, I would be remiss if I didn’t expose the fallacy in your claim.

As Phish said, you'll probably be hard pushed to find anyone who claims there is absoultely no god, but that doesn't mean they're agnostic rather than atheist.

Since that is what the OP asked for, and you decided to come here with agnostic, instead of atheistic answers, you made your case pretty plain. You are taking an agnostic, instead of an atheistic stance. And, I have no problem with that, I will point it out.

When I signed up here I felt 'atheist' described my worldview better than 'agnosic'. I still do, but I'm happy to change it if you're more comfortable talking to me as an agnostic.

You are the one who posted without evidence falcone. And somehow you felt compelled to do so, without any coercion from me. I made a succinct and concise post that set simplistic parameters, and asked only two questions.

Again, since you decided to reply with an agnostic answer (and no evidence), you have no complaint when I point out the blatantly obvious.

Edit: It wasn't clear to me from the OP that you were looking for replies only from people who believe there is absolutely no god. I'm glad my reply was welcome though 

Hmmmm, let’s see… I said:

These questions are directed ONLY at those of the perspective of the questions.

So your confusion stems from?

And, anyway; of course your reply was welcome. But, as I said, I was looking for both extremes in my dual posts, not the uncommitted middle ground.

[Ron]

Actually, this leads me to a question. We're going off topic but can probably be answered very quickly: Give that this is a Christian forum, is the label 'atheist' used in the context of one who does not believe in the Christian God, regardless of that person's other religious beliefs? 'Yes' or 'no' with no further explanation will do, just so I understand.

This particular post was dealing with the Christian God; that was obvious from the outset. But, your question begs a further question… Are you saying that you might believe in “another god”? Or are you saying that you believe in some “gods” less than other “gods” (or God)?

Is one “god” or “God” more (or less) palpable than another?

You see, you want to play the “Yes or No” game (which I personally have no problem with), but your own viewpoint is too gray (or easily equivocated upon) to have a solid enough foundation to build upon. One cannot build a castle upon a sand mound.

[falcone]

But, your question begs a further question… Are you saying that you might believe in “another god”? Or are you saying that you believe in some “gods” less than other “gods” (or God)?

No, I don't belive in any gods. But I don't completely rule out the notion of some undefined, unexplained, undiscovered intelligence somewhere. Please note, this is not the same as believing in something. I don't rule out the possibility of Scotland one day winning the World Cup, but that's not to say I believe it might happen.

Is one “god” or “God” more (or less) palpable than another?

No. Human constructs of god or God are all equally unlikely.

You see, you want to play the “Yes or No” game (which I personally have no problem with), but your own viewpoint is too gray (or easily equivocated upon) to have a solid enough foundation to build upon. One cannot build a castle upon a sand mound.

My question has nothing to do with my veiwpoint. For the sake of understanding, I simply want to know if atheists on Evolution Fairytale are those who don't believe in the Christian God, or those who don't belive in any god(s). This doesn't need a discussion, let's just leave it if you'd prefer not to answer.

[Mike Summers]

No. Human constructs of god or God are all equally unlikely.

This statement seems awfully grandiose.

Here is the problem I have with this reasoning. On one hand you say human construction of god or God is equally unlikely. By the same token human construction of evolution would merit equal disdain or treatment. Do we not see the incongruency of such a statement? Isn't it hard not to be painted with the same brush we paint others with?

[Ron]

This statement seems awfully grandiose.

Here is the problem I have with this reasoning. On one hand you say human construction of god or God is equally unlikely. By the same token human construction of evolution would merit equal disdain or treatment. Do we not see the incongruency of such a statement? Isn't it hard not to be painted with the same brush we paint others with?

The main problem here is the ease in which the atheist (I say atheist here, due to the context of the OP) fiths their faith into evolution, and yet disregard God, and they base their faith in evolution on far less evidence that that for an intitial Causer of all we see.

Further, atheism lacks any logical foundation to begin with, and base their entire philosophy on a “lack” of evidence: Abiogenesis, Steady State, Multiverse (more than one universe) etcetera…

But, when it comes down to it, the so-called “atheist” lives an “agnostic” life.

[falcone]

Close, but not quite. You are correct to say that I have no evidence to prove there is no god. But more importantly, I have no evidence to prove there is a god. This is the primary drive for my atheistic worldview.

You may want to re-read the OP… It clearly states:

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

This particular comment was a reply to your post#5, not the OP. I did give my answer to that, and your first question in post#2

And, since “no evidence” is, well, NO EVIDENCE, your post is a non sequitur. But you did point out one distinction that should be commented on: You are claiming that your Atheistic worldview is based upon “no evidence”. And while I realize that you are going to claim a negative view to point to positive atheism, I would be remiss if I didn’t expose the fallacy in your claim.

Sorry Ron, you've lost me. I don't understand this.

Since that is what the OP asked for, and you decided to come here with agnostic, instead of atheistic answers, you made your case pretty plain. You are taking an agnostic, instead of an atheistic stance. And, I have no problem with that, I will point it out.

You are the one who posted without evidence falcone. And somehow you felt compelled to do so, without any coercion from me. I made a succinct and concise post that set simplistic parameters, and asked only two questions.

Again, since you decided to reply with an agnostic answer (and no evidence), you have no complaint when I point out the blatantly obvious.
Hmmmm, let’s see… I said:

So your confusion stems from?

And, anyway; of course your reply was welcome. But, as I said, I was looking for both extremes in my dual posts, not the uncommitted middle ground.

The open question, "Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?" is what threw me. Okay, I understand now you were really only looking for a conversation with someone who wouyld answer 'yes' to that question. Perhaps your OP might better have been phrased something like this:

"For those who believe there is absolutely no God, what evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?"

Since this isn't me, I'm going to bow out at this point. I'm still an atheist though!

[falcone]

This statement seems awfully grandiose.

Here is the problem I have with this reasoning. On one hand you say human construction of god or God is equally unlikely. By the same token human construction of evolution would merit equal disdain or treatment. Do we not see the incongruency of such a statement? Isn't it hard not to be painted with the same brush we paint others with?

But I don't think evolution is a human construct. It's not hard, you and I just see the world differently. Besides, this is off topic, so I'm definitely, absolutely going this time.

[Ron]

Close, but not quite. You are correct to say that I have no evidence to prove there is no god. But more importantly, I have no evidence to prove there is a god. This is the primary drive for my atheistic worldview.

You may want to re-read the OP… It clearly states:

What evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?

This particular comment was a reply to your post#5, not the OP. I did give my answer to that, and your first question in post#2

And, since “no evidence” is, well, NO EVIDENCE, your post is a non sequitur. But you did point out one distinction that should be commented on: You are claiming that your Atheistic worldview is based upon “no evidence”. And while I realize that you are going to claim a negative view to point to positive atheism, I would be remiss if I didn’t expose the fallacy in your claim.

Sorry Ron, you've lost me. I don't understand this.

Since that is what the OP asked for, and you decided to come here with agnostic, instead of atheistic answers, you made your case pretty plain. You are taking an agnostic, instead of an atheistic stance. And, I have no problem with that, I will point it out.

You are the one who posted without evidence falcone. And somehow you felt compelled to do so, without any coercion from me. I made a succinct and concise post that set simplistic parameters, and asked only two questions.

Again, since you decided to reply with an agnostic answer (and no evidence), you have no complaint when I point out the blatantly obvious.
Hmmmm, let’s see… I said:

So your confusion stems from?

And, anyway; of course your reply was welcome. But, as I said, I was looking for both extremes in my dual posts, not the uncommitted middle ground.

The open question, "Do you believe there is “absolutely” NO God?" is what threw me. Okay, I understand now you were really only looking for a conversation with someone who wouyld answer 'yes' to that question. Perhaps your OP might better have been phrased something like this:

"For those who believe there is absolutely no God, what evidence, or evidences do you have to prove this conclusion?"

Since this isn't me, I'm going to bow out at this point. I'm still an atheist though!

1- Your reply to post #5, and #2 are still responses to the Op. They are tied together contextually! I am just not allowing a deviation from the OP. And your answer is still incorrect in that context.
2- Saying you “have no evidence”, is NOT evidence. And is therefore a logical fallacy to attempt such.
3- The Op is correctly stated, especially when kept in context.
4- I guess, based upon your statements, you are an agno-atheist.

[ikester7579]

Such a fixation on "evolution". Evolution by natural selection is a theory in biology. I was talking about physics in my post. This article is a really cooldiscussion of physical constants if you're interested though.

http://www.economist.com/node/16930866

Start a thread and list the contradictions you have a problem with in the Bible. You brought it up, so let's discuss it.