religious debate

[Guest]

okay, I understand your point, I wasn't really out to have a discussion where we proove or disproove the existence of a god

because I knew, prior to this, that it is impossible to do.

Much like a china teapot circling around our galaxy (from The God Delusion)

Or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created us all after drinking heavily (The theories of pastafarianism, a parody religion)

there is realy no way to proove to someone that it is, or is not true

Another example of why religious people avoid antireligionists. "Your belief in God is equivalent to believing in a china teapot orbiting the galaxy, or a silly cartoon that created everything with his noodly appendage." Not even an attempt at taking the person or his beliefs seriously or respectfully.

Why on earth do you suppose that any religious person would wish to engage in discussion with such a partner?

please try not to be biased about this

I have never said that I KNOW there isn't a God,

because, like I said, you just cannot proove it.

Of course you cannot prove there is no God. You cannot prove a negative. But you can certainly prove a positive. I may posit the existence of someone named Bernard F. Cunningham, and you may claim that no such person exists. But you cannot prove his nonexistence, while I can prove it by simply showing you the man.

I won't try to convince you that the things you felt were willed etc. because I know I cannot proove it

but don't try to convince me that they weren't willed etc. because you cannot proove it.

This would work really great in a court of law. "Your Honor, I move that the witness's testimony be stricken from the record, because, well gee whiz, he can't possibly convince us that he didn't just make the whole thing up."

so let's just say something like "firmly believe" from now on. Deal?

So let's see if I understand you correctly. You want to talk to someone who believes in God and ask them, "Why do you believe in God?". Writersblock responds and says, "I believe in God. I believe in him because he has revealed himself to me, so I know he lives." Then you say, "Now, don't go saying you KNOW anything! Just say that you 'firmly believe' it, okay?"

And they wonder why religionists don't like talking with them...

and then extremists from some religions take well... extreme actions.

which adds to violence.

The three greatest, most despicable mass murderers in the previous century were Mao Xedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolph Hitler. All were atheist.

Therefore, atheists are all despicable mass murderers.

Well, no. But we certainly must keep these examples in mind when dealing with atheists, because they demonstrate the atheist mindset. They show what atheism, taken to its logical end, promotes.

What's that you say? No? You disagree? You claim that all atheists ought not be painted with the same broad brush taken from a limited example of a few crazy people?

Wow. Who'da thunk?

[Guest]

Well I agree with everything Ploper just said

Then all of my replies to him apply equally to you.

Also, Writersblock, I'm not going to dispute you saying "I know there is a god" cuz I know there isnt

This is clearly false. You cannot possibly know there is no God. You are engaging in mere hyperbole, without apparent attempt at rational and truthful discussion. Few religious folks would be likely to continue conversation with someone they perceived to eschew honest discussion. [edited for offensive phraseology]

[Guest]

I'm an atheist because I require extraordinary evidence to believe in extraordinary claims.

False. I also require extraordinary evidence to believe extraordinary claims, but I am no atheist.

You are atheist because you do not believe in God. You are not atheist because of some intellecutal virtue you possess that religious folks lack. [edited for offensive phraseology]]

There is obviously none for the existence of God/gods.

Yet Writersblock has testified that such evidence does exist, and in fact that he is in possession of that evidence.

So simply saying, "Huh-uh, he's lying!" is not sufficent basis to continue to deny the rationality of the religious experience. [edited for offensive phraseology]

Does this mean there are no gods? No. It means until I'm aware of any sufficient evidence I see no reason for such fantastic beliefs. There may be flying pigs, but until someone brings forth sufficient evidence for them, I'll be without belief in them too.

Here you compare the beliefs held sacred by the religious person to some ridiculous, nonsensical idea, without even an attempt at respectful discourse. [edited for offensive phraseology]

You are not likely to get much conversation by saying, "I wish to discuss certain foolish, asinine ideas with everyone who believes them." [edited for offensive phraseology]

[Guest]

spoxjox, the hostility you're bringing to this thread had better stop now! End of discussion about this! Consider this an official warning.

[Guest]

spoxjox, the hostility you're bringing to this thread had better stop now! End of discussion about this! Consider this an official warning.

I feel no hostility. I am trying to respond rationally and carefully to the claims being put forward here. One complaint made was that (paraphrasing) religious people don't discuss these things. I am simply pointing out reasons why religious people might avoid such discussions.

I do believe there is a considerable amount of hostility being shown to religious beliefs and those who hold them, however. Comparing belief in God to belief in flying pigs strikes me as overtly hostile. And claiming that the reason one is atheist is because one requires extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims very clearly implies that those who are not atheist must not hold this same requirement, which could certainly be considered a hostile assessment.

In short, I agree that there is a lot of hostility on this thread, but I don't think I'm the one bringing it. If pointing out hostility is itself considered a hostile act, then perhaps I am guilty, after all. If this is the case, that I must not point out hostility for fear of being hostile, how do you suggest that I proceed?

[Guest]

What don't you understand about "End of discussion about this!"? This is the second time I'm having problems with your attitude, the first resulted in your post being deleted in another forum. You are the only one who has brought sarcasm and hostility into this thread. Do not respond in this thread if you can't do so without the high level of sarcasm.

End of discussion about this!!!!

Any other further discussion or questions - PM me!

[Guest]

Why on earth do you suppose that any religious person would wish to engage in discussion with such a partner?

You tell us. You couldn't seem to stop yourself from posting.

Of course you cannot prove there is no God. You cannot prove a negative. But you can certainly prove a positive. I may posit the existence of someone named Bernard F. Cunningham, and you may claim that no such person exists. But you cannot prove his nonexistence, while I can prove it by simply showing you the man.

And until you show evidence for Bernard F. Cunningham, there's no good reason to believe he exists.

The three greatest, most despicable mass murderers in the previous century were Mao Xedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolph Hitler. All were atheist.

No, all were not atheists. But that doesn't matter. Their atrocities weren't done in the name of atheism. NO atrocities have been done out of a non-belief in God. Atrocities HAVE been done by religious extremists in the name of religion. That's a pretty big difference you don't seem to get.

False. I also require extraordinary evidence to believe extraordinary claims, but I am no atheist.

You are atheist because you do not believe in God. Quit pretending you are atheist because of some intellecutal virtue you possess that religious folks lack.

You're telling Martini why he's an atheist? I'm an atheist for the same reasons. We're not atheists because we disbelieve in God. We're labeled as atheists because of that. We're atheists because we require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and so far there hasn't been any for God.

Yet again, the atheist compares the beliefs held sacred by the religious person to some ridiculous, nonsensical idea. Not even an attempt at respectful discourse.

"I wish to discuss certain foolish, asinine ideas with everyone who believes them." Great idea, guys. You'll probably get lots of conversation with that line.

No one has to respect the idea of God existing. I see more evidence for the possibility of flying pigs then I do for an omniscient, omnipotent God. Stop being offended by the belief or reasons for non-belief of others.

[Guest]

And until you show evidence for Bernard F. Cunningham, there's no good reason to believe he exists.

Do you believe the same about George Bush? Usama bin Laden? Tom Hanks? Yet I bet you haven't met any of those men. Do you actually believe there are over six billion people on the planet? Have you met them?

The fact is that you accept the testimony of others that those people are real. Yet there are literally billions of people on the planet who testify that God exists, and a large portion of those people claim to have had personal experience with him. This does not mean you have to accept their testimony, of course; but it does suggest that you should not simply dismiss it out of hand.

No, all were not atheists. But that doesn't matter. Their atrocities weren't done in the name of atheism.

Of course they were. Hitler didn't exterminate the Jews because he disliked their wardrobe.

NO atrocities have been done out of a non-belief in God. Atrocities HAVE been done by religious extremists in the name of religion. That's a pretty big difference you don't seem to get.

It's a difference that has no relevant meaning, except (apparently) in the minds of the atheistic.

You're telling Martini why he's an atheist? I'm an atheist for the same reasons. We're not atheists because we disbelieve in God.

Yes, in fact, you are. It's a definition. That's what the word means.

We're labeled as atheists because of that.

This is definitional hair-splitting. If I say that you "are" thin because your height-to-weight ratio is large, you may respond, "I'm not thin! That's just a label!" Well, whatever. You are (or are "labelled") an atheist because you disbelieve in the existence of any gods. I am (or am "labelled") a theist because I believe in God's existence.

We're atheists because we require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims

If this were true, I would be an atheist, as would any number of religious people. Since I and they are not atheistic, that disproves your thesis.

and so far there hasn't been any for God.

Writersblock claims that he has received such extraordinary evidence. I claim the same. So the fact that you haven't found such evidence does not mean such evidence doesn't exist. It just means you haven't found it.

No one has to respect the idea of God existing.

No, but those engaged in mutual conversation ought to respect the beliefs of those they're conversing with. If you talk with someone who believes the grass over his mother's grave is sacred, do you wipe your feet on it or pee on it? Even if you don't consider such things sacred, the fact that other do is reason enough to treat them with respect by honoring their beliefs.

I see more evidence for the possibility of flying pigs then I do for an omniscient, omnipotent God. Stop being offended by the belief or reasons for non-belief of others.

I am not offended by anyone's belief or reasons for non-belief. I am offended by offensive things, like mischaracterization, name-calling, and mocking of another's beliefs.

[Guest]

Do you believe the same about George Bush? Usama bin Laden? Tom Hanks? Yet I bet you haven't met any of those men.

I have sufficient evidence for the existence of those two people. I have none for God.

Yet there are literally billions of people on the planet who testify that God exists, and a large portion of those people claim to have had personal experience with him. This does not mean you have to accept their testimony, of course; but it does suggest that you should not simply dismiss it out of hand.

I haven't dismissed it "out of hand" I've dismissed it by learning about reasons why people believe in God and learning that none of it is done because of evidence.

Of course they were. Hitler didn't exterminate the Jews because he disliked their wardrobe.

Nope, not because their wardrobe:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

It's a difference that has no relevant meaning, except (apparently) in the minds of the atheistic.

It has a HUGE relevant meaning. An atheist killing someone because of his non-belief in God is not an indictment of atheism. Likewise, a theist killing someone for reasons other than theism is not an indictment on his belief. A theist killing in the name of God on the other hand...

Yes, in fact, you are. It's a definition. That's what the word means.

This is definitional hair-splitting. If I say that you "are" thin because your height-to-weight ratio is large, you may respond, "I'm not thin! That's just a label!" Well, whatever. You are (or are "labelled") an atheist because you disbelieve in the existence of any gods. I am (or am "labelled") a theist because I believe in God's existence.

Are you really arguing about this? My point is people are atheists for reasons, not "Because" they don't believe in God. You're telling Martini that he was wrong for his reasons for being an atheist was plain wrong. His reasons for being an atheist are HIS reasons.

If this were true, I would be an atheist, as would any number of religious people. Since I and they are not atheistic, that disproves your thesis.

No, it doesn't. Most theists are theists because of "faith" Others because old scientifically inaccurate 'evidence', such as 'proof' that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. I've yet to see any compelling evidence for God and unless I do, lack of evidence will be my reason for being an atheist.

No, but those engaged in mutual conversation ought to respect the beliefs of those they're conversing with. If you talk with someone who believes the grass over his mother's grave is sacred, do you wipe your feet on it or pee on it? Even if you don't consider such things sacred, the fact that other do is reason enough to treat them with respect by honoring their beliefs.

Apples and oranges. No one here has done anything analogous to peeing on your mother's grave. People should respect people; no one should have to respect another's belief and labeling that belief as "sacred" does not give it special protection.

[Guest]

I have sufficient evidence for the existence of those two people. I have none for God.

I haven't dismissed it "out of hand" I've dismissed it by learning about reasons why people believe in God and learning that none of it is done because of evidence.

So you claim to have talked with every religious person in the world and found each reason to be insufficient? If not, then your reason ("none of it") is insufficient.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

Surely you jest. Hitler brazenly used religion as a pretext for his megalomania. According to Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, page 96:

"The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

The fact that evil men use religion as a pretext for killing is not indictment of religion.

Are you really arguing about this? My point is people are atheists for reasons, not "Because" they don't believe in God. You're telling Martini that he was wrong for his reasons for being an atheist was plain wrong. His reasons for being an atheist are HIS reasons.

You are mistaken. I was not "telling Martini that he was wrong for his reasons"; I was pointing out that his reasons were not, as he claimed, an intellectual framework. As I've said several times now, if his (and your) reason for atheism were that you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, then I, too, would be atheist, as would a great many theists.

No, it doesn't. Most theists are theists because of "faith"

Prove this.

I've yet to see any compelling evidence for God and unless I do, lack of evidence will be my reason for being an atheist.

This is much different from your previous claim, that you are atheist because you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

And, to reiterate, the fact that you have failed to secure compelling evidence for God's existence does not mean that I, or anyone else, has likewise failed.

Apples and oranges. No one here has done anything analogous to peeing on your mother's grave.

Yet I just said you did. Are you now instructing me what I do or do not feel?

People should respect people; no one should have to respect another's belief

What do you suppose it means to treat another with respect, if not to show respect for his differences of belief?

[Guest]

So you claim to have talked with every religious person in the world and found each reason to be insufficient? If not, then your reason ("none of it") is insufficient.

Nonsense. I don't have to talk to every person in the world that believes in leprechauns for me to be without belief in them. Nor do you have to do the same to be without belief in the countless other gods you don't believe in.

The fact that evil men use religion as a pretext for killing is not indictment of religion.

I never said it necessarily was. But religion HAS been the reason for much killing and the Bible DOES command to kill homosexuals, those who work on the Sabbath, etc., and Christians have killed for those reasons.

You are mistaken. I was not "telling Martini that he was wrong for his reasons"

Yes, you did. You quoted his giving a reason and you next said "False". His reasons for being an atheist are not false and your saying so was not only rude, but blatantly incorrect.

As I've said several times now, if his (and your) reason for atheism were that you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, then I, too, would be atheist, as would a great many theists.

Sorry, but my reason for being an atheist IS because I require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and your saying that that's not doesn't change the fact for why I have no belief in any god's existence.

This is much different from your previous claim, that you are atheist because you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

No, it's not.

And, to reiterate, the fact that you have failed to secure compelling evidence for God's existence does not mean that I, or anyone else, has likewise failed.

Goody for you. No one that claims to have this evidence has been able to share it with me. Stop telling me lack of evidence isn't my reason for being an atheist. IT IS!

Yet I just said you did. Are you now instructing me what I do or do not feel?

Sigh. I never told you how to feel. Get a frickin' clue.

What do you suppose it means to treat another with respect, if not to show respect for his differences of belief?

See this.

I'm going to drop out of this conversation now. I've had to correct the same old theist misunderstanding about atheism too many times on too many message boards and frankly, I'm tired of it.

For anyone who's interested in learning more, check out the links Martini posted. The Richard Dawkins website is pretty good.

Peace.

[unreality]

I will tell you why I am an atheist. I am not sure if this is the same reasons as Ploper, or Martini, or Scraff, but this is why I am an atheist: (btw cool new board, Rookie)

I have examined religion, I have been to church- different churches- I have seen and talked to religious people and heard their beliefs. Many of them have been brainwashed by religious organizations and assume that 'their way is the only way'. Whether or not you want to call it "brainwashing" is a fine point, but it's similar. They believe the teachings from a book. A book! A book that is known to have many discrepancies, controversies, wrong facts, outlandish claims, contrary 'evidence' and facts with no evidence to back it up, put together by MANY people over MANY years with MANY differing opinions and many of them are just that- opinions

And yet people worship this book. It doesnt have to be the bible, it could be the quran, or whatever. The fact is, people are told, over and over again, by convincing good speakers, that this book is cold, hard, unarguable fact. Yet many religious scholars themselves know that most of the bible is fiction. YES, FICTION. I dont mean to sound rude, but it is INSANE that people believe that a WORLDWIDE FLOOR with enough water to COVER MT EVEREST happened at some point. This is plain impossible, but also, we would definitely have evidence now, and we know when all the major extinctions have been as well, and there has been no mass extinction during humans' lives on earth. Yes, the Greeks have a legend about a flood in which only few people survived and the japanese have a similar myth. It shows that Floods were a dangerous natural disaster for early civilizations. Anyway I'm gonna debate the outrageous fact of a Worldwide Floor, it's just plain false, same with people walking on water, with people parting oceans, with people resurrecting from the dead (and I never did understand how Jesus saved everyone by dying, they left that fuzzy), same with angels, and demons and devils, and heaven and hell... those are pretty extraordinary claims, as others have said, and require extraordinary evidence.

Also, religion started as a replacement of science. People made up gods and stuff to explain things that back then, couldn't be explained, such as volcanoes and lightning bolts and earthquakes and floods and diseases. Today, these are all easily explained. Religious people understand that lightning is static electricity and that earthquakes are caused when two tectonic plates collide. Any spiritual evidence that you may have now... what if that is explained by science as we move on? Just another thing to think about

Another thing that makes me laugh about religious people is that they assume that THEIR religion is correct. That goes to show, they believe in whatever church they or their family goes to. I respect Buddhism and its openness a lot though.

The thing about atheism is: freedom, free will. We marvel at the beauty of our world- and how it's just one planet. I always hated how religion acts like Earth is "special" in some way. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't, as of now we have only found primitive life on other planets and moons, but life nontheless. But I'm not gonna debate this. Whether Earth is "special" or not is a matter of personal opinion.

Anyway I could go on, but there is just no reason that anyone should believe in any god or outside spiritual force. Since there is no proof and never has been, instead of religious people grilling atheists on "whats your proof that god doesnt exist" it should be the other way around. We atheists 'should' grill theists about why they think that god does exist, since THAT is the contrary arguement that goes against ALL evidence. Yet we atheists don't usually care about what the theists think. It's their own business. I don't honestly give a damn if someone believes in God. If it gives them hope and morals and stuff, well good for them. I find hope and morals in myself, not in any god.

On a final note... I forgot what I was gonna say. lol, sorry. Maybe I'll think of it later

[Guest]

Nonsense. I don't have to talk to every person in the world that believes in leprechauns for me to be without belief in them.

No, but you do have to talk with every leprechaun believer in order to truthfully claim that there exists no compelling reason to believe in them.

and the Bible DOES command to kill homosexuals, those who work on the Sabbath, etc., and Christians have killed for those reasons.

So what? The Bible does not command Christians to kill for those reasons, or for anyone outside the particular community to whom it was given.

Yes, you did. You quoted his giving a reason and you next said "False". His reasons for being an atheist are not false, and your saying so was not only rude, but blatantly incorrect.

Rude? Perhaps. If so, I apologize to Martini. I recognize that I am often too blunt.

Not false? This is getting a bit ridiculous. I am surprised you are unable to understand what I'm saying. Let me give you an example of a false "reason":

I am a theist because I have brown hair.

Whatever Martini's (and your) reason for being atheistic, it is not because you require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, any more than I am a theist because I have brown hair.

Sorry, but my reason for being an atheist IS because I require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and your saying that that's not doesn't change the fact for why I have no belief in any god's existence.

No, it doesn't, you are correct. Rather, my saying that that is not your reason is simply a recognition of insufficient cause.

Stop telling me lack of evidence isn't my reason for being an atheist. IT IS!

I have never made any such claim. I do not doubt for a moment that lack of evidence underlies your atheism. It would be truthful for you to say, for example, "I am atheist because I perceive no evidence of the existence of God or gods."

On the other hand, it is false to say, "I am atheist because I have brown hair" or "I am atheist because I require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims."

Sigh. I never told you how to feel.

You told me what is and is not offensive to me. You were incorrect.

Get a frickin' clue.

I find this interesting, given your previous criticism of me for being "rude" to Martini.

I'm going to drop out of this conversation now. I've had to correct the same old theist misunderstanding about atheism too many times on too many message boards and frankly, I'm tired of it.

I can understand how you feel. It's like when I point out logical flaws in the arguments of others, and in response they engage in ad hominem rebuffs without ever addressing the content of my argument.

For anyone who's interested in learning more, check out the links Martini posted. The Richard Dawkins website is pretty good.

The Dawkins website is indeed interesting, but the particular links posted by Martini were definitely not the best works on the site.

Peace.

Is that before or after I get a frickin' clue?

[Guest]

I have examined religion, I have been to church- different churches- I have seen and talked to religious people and heard their beliefs. Many of them have been brainwashed by religious organizations and assume that 'their way is the only way'. Whether or not you want to call it "brainwashing" is a fine point, but it's similar.

Do you have any recognized credentials for determining whether a person is "brainwashed"?

They believe the teachings from a book. A book!

Do you believe the teachings from Serway's Enhanced College Physics? (Warning: It's a book.)

A book that is known to have many discrepancies, controversies, wrong facts, outlandish claims, contrary 'evidence' and facts with no evidence to back it up, put together by MANY people over MANY years with MANY differing opinions

So...the fact that a book contains errors is sufficent cause to dismiss it outright?

Yet many religious scholars themselves know that most of the bible is fiction. YES, FICTION. I dont mean to sound rude, but it is INSANE that people believe that a WORLDWIDE FLOOR with enough water to COVER MT EVEREST happened at some point.

How do they "know" this? Did God tell them?

Are you qualified to judge insanity, as well? Such a belief may be ignorant or naive, but it does not strike me as insane.

Anyway I'm gonna debate the outrageous fact of a Worldwide Floor, it's just plain false, same with people walking on water, with people parting oceans, with people resurrecting from the dead (and I never did understand how Jesus saved everyone by dying, they left that fuzzy), same with angels, and demons and devils, and heaven and hell... those are pretty extraordinary claims, as others have said, and require extraordinary evidence.

So the fact that you have not recieved that evidence therefore means that no one else has, either?

Okay, I've been cutting back on my response, but I can't get it under the minimum number of allowed quotes, so I'll break it into two parts.

[Guest]

[Part 2]

Also, religion started as a replacement of science. People made up gods and stuff to explain things that back then, couldn't be explained, such as volcanoes and lightning bolts and earthquakes and floods and diseases.

Your statement that religion was a replacement for science is demonstrably false, since science itself shows that religion vastly predates science.

How do you know why people "made up gods and stuff"? Because other atheists claim it's so?

Another thing that makes me laugh about religious people is that they assume that THEIR religion is correct.

Not sure why honesty makes you laugh. Clearly, if an honest person assumed their religion was incorrect, they would not take part in that religion.

I always hated how religion acts like Earth is "special" in some way. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't

If you concede it might be true, then why do you hate the idea?

I am sure you would hate me, since I go even further and think that my home and family are special.

as of now we have only found primitive life on other planets and moons, but life nontheless.

Please elaborate. I know of no instance throughout history that life of any sort has (yet) been found on another planet, unless you're talking about the astronauts walking on the moon.

Anyway I could go on, but there is just no reason that anyone should believe in any god or outside spiritual force.

Clearly, many billion people disagree with you. There are in fact a multitude of reasons.

Since there is no proof and never has been

Yet people have claimed on this very thread that such proof exists, while atheists go on affirming its non-existence.

We atheists 'should' grill theists about why they think that god does exist, since THAT is the contrary arguement that goes against ALL evidence.

Please name a piece of evidence -- just one will suffice -- that God does not exist.

[Guest]

Last post.

No, but you do have to talk with every leprechaun believer in order to truthfully claim that there exists no compelling reason to believe in them.

I KNOW OF NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS LEPRECHAUNS EXIST THEREFORE I AM WITHOUT BELIEF IN THEIR EXISTENCE!

So what? The Bible does not command Christians to kill for those reasons, or for anyone outside the particular community to whom it was given.

Uh, yeah, it does.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13

"Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." Exodus 35:1-3

Not false? This is getting a bit ridiculous. I am surprised you are unable to understand what I'm saying. Let me give you an example of a false "reason":

I am a theist because I have brown hair.

If your reasons for believing in any gods rests on your having brown hair for one reason or another, then having brown hair is not a false reason for your theism. It is the 'true' reason you're a theist.

Whatever Martini's (and your) reason for being atheistic, it is not because you require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims

Yes, it is. I am an atheist because I require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It is THE reason I and many others have no belief in gods. Nothing you say will take that away from us.

No, it doesn't, you are correct. Rather, my saying that that is not your reason is simply a recognition of insufficient cause.

Requiring evidence for belief in imaginary beings is not an insufficient cause.

On the other hand, it is false to say, "I am atheist because I have brown hair" or "I am atheist because I require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims."

Wrong. If either of those things cause someone to not have belief in any gods then there is nothing false about it.

You told me what is and is not offensive to me. You were incorrect.

No, I didn't. I said that nothing anyone said in this thread was analogous to peeing on your mother's grave.

I find this interesting, given your previous criticism of me for being "rude" to Martini.

Is that before or after I get a frickin' clue?

That's your response to someone saying "Peace"? I really do hope your time on this board is short.

I won't be responding in this thread again.

[unreality]

spoxjox, about the brainwashing, I do not mean actual brainwashing, but something similar, as I said in that chunk you quoted I dont mean hypnotizing or anything like that. Just repetitive instructing that one thing is true. That has never happened to me, so that is how I know that I am not brainwashed- though maybe I am totally brainwashed and I dont even remember that I was brainwashed, but that's unlikely and not the kind of brainwashing I'm talking about lol

as for that the last quote in Part One (gah this quote thing is confusing), do you remember when i said these are MY reasons for being an atheist... yes I have not received that proof. I am only speaking for myself.

On another note I'd like to add, spoxjox, that you have showed much closedmindedness while talking to Scraff.

[unreality]

We atheists 'should' grill theists about why they think that god does exist, since THAT is the contrary arguement that goes against ALL evidence, yet we don't (spoxjox snipped this part out of the quote, I'm readding it).

Please name a piece of evidence -- just one will suffice -- that God does not exist.

Thats what I'm talking about in the quote in the quote. Right there. You just proved my point. You ask us for proof that god does NOT exist. That proof is not needed- it is all around us. We should be asking you.

Like Scraff, I am done here. You pulled apart my post and did your best, but you aren't converting anyone... the fact is that you believe claims from something known to contain LOTS of false information, and its been told to you over and over that that is the truth. I do not accept that truth. So I ask you: give me proof that god DOES exist. But it is a rhetorical question, because there is no such proof. That's what agnosticism is about (though I'm not agnostic personally)

Maybe I'll check back here once in a while, but probably not, because you pointed out silly flaws in my arguement that dont relate (such as the definition of brainwashing) and you completely ignored the message I was giving you in my post. Like Scraff, and like the enlightened writersblock said (that such a debate cannot be won), I'm outta here

[Guest unreality as a guest]

I agree with ^. If God creates everything, then it is not your fault that you don't go to heaven; it is God's fault for creating you that way.

Also, religion answers everything. It is for those people who just want to accept everything as it is. I'm guessing that was why it was prominent in Medieval times... people didn't have answers, so they made an entity that could answer everything. Why is the sky blue? God made it that way. Why has all my family died? God made it that way. What is the meaning of life? Only God knows. Why were hundreds of people killed in a tsunami? God made it happen. Why am I crippled for life? God made it so. Why does my brother have terminal cancer? God made it so.

Suddenly everything is done by God's hand. If you are depressed, God must be punishing you. If it's the best time of your life, God is making it that way. If your dream comes true, God must have helped you. You do nothing without God's help. Everything revolves around this greater power, and people are asked to have faith in this greater power; to believe in something that never reveals itself.

[Guest]

I KNOW OF NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS LEPRECHAUNS EXIST THEREFORE I AM WITHOUT BELIEF IN THEIR EXISTENCE!

Finally, a reasonable statement with which I can agree. Please note how different this is from, "I REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF FOR EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS THEREFORE I AM WITHOUT BELIEF IN LEPRECHAUNS!"

Uh, yeah, it does.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13

"Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." Exodus 35:1-3

No, it does not. Moses did not live in the Christian era.

Yes, it is. I am an atheist because I require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It is THE reason I and many others have no belief in gods. Nothing you say will take that away from us.

Try this:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God himself appeared before you and made known to you, beyond any possible doubt in your mind, that he did exist.

Would you then know that God exists?

Yes, of course.

Would you still require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims?

Yes, I assume you would.

Since you still require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims -- which you claim as your reason for being atheist -- would you therefore still be atheist?

No.

Therefore, the fact that you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims cannot be the reason you are atheist. In logical terms, it is a non sequitur.

For a second example, suppose for a moment that you no longer required extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims in every case. Perhaps in some cases, ordinary, less compelling evidence would suffice. Would you then suddenly become a theist?

Probably not.

But why not? Your reason for being atheist would be gone.

In fact, it would not be gone. You are atheist because you have not perceived sufficient evidence of God, not because you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

Wrong. If either of those things cause someone to not have belief in any gods then there is nothing false about it.

But as I have demonstrated, your insistence on proof is not causal to your atheism. Rather, it is your perception of the lack of evidence that is causul to your atheism.

No, I didn't. I said that nothing anyone said in this thread was analogous to peeing on your mother's grave.

And I said they did.

That's your response to someone saying "Peace"? I really do hope your time on this board is short.

You know, unlike my first responses on this thread, I have taken special pains in every response I have made to you to avoid any possible ad hominem. You have made (apparently) little attempt to do likewise. I have at all times tried to argue the point, while you have been free with your criticisms of both myself and theists in general. I found your use of the term "Peace" to be highly ironic, given the tenor of your postings, and I commented on it in a humorous way. I thought my use of a "smiley" would make that groaningly obvious, which is why I used it, even though in general I detest using smileys.

[Guest unreality as a guest]

by the way that's something I found somewhere, dont take it out of context, I didnt say that- but I agree with it

[Guest]

On another note I'd like to add, spoxjox, that you have showed much closedmindedness while talking to Scraff.

I don't know what you mean. You will need to provide quotes of what you think is "closeminded" about my postings. I have dealt in strictly logical terms with Scraff.

[Guest unreality as a guest again]

"In fact, it would not be gone. You are atheist because you have not perceived sufficient evidence of God, not because you require extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims." -spoxjox

I agree. That is the reason.

~unreality

[Guest]

We atheists 'should' grill theists about why they think that god does exist, since THAT is the contrary arguement that goes against ALL evidence, yet we don't

Please name a piece of evidence -- just one will suffice -- that God does not exist.

Thats what I'm talking about in the quote in the quote. Right there. You just proved my point. You ask us for proof that god does NOT exist. That proof is not needed- it is all around us. We should be asking you.

Please note your claims, which I have marked in bold. I am merely asking you to substantiate these claims that you have put forth. If you are going to use a claim, you need to establish it. So far, you have merely asserted that belief in a god "goes against ALL evidence". Assertions do not make truth. So I'm inviting you to back up your assertion. If you cannot, then your assertion is invalid.

Like Scraff, I am done here. You pulled apart my post and did your best, but you aren't converting anyone...

You mistake my purpose. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. I am arguing the proposition. I thought that was the point of the thread.

So I ask you: give me proof that god DOES exist. But it is a rhetorical question, because there is no such proof.

So you ask a question that you refuse to consider an answer for, declaring the question "rhetorical". Then you use that to affirm your own (wrong) opinion about lack of proof, and declare yourself atheist.

Do you see a problem with this?

Maybe I'll check back here once in a while, but probably not, because you pointed out silly flaws in my arguement that dont relate (such as the definition of brainwashing) and you completely ignored the message I was giving you in my post.

Your message appeared to be nothing more than, "I don't believe in God." I was attempting to respond to the reasons you provided. Perhaps I just didn't understand your message. Can you restate it succinctly?

[Guest]

I agree with ^.

You mean that you agree with yourself? I should hope so.

If God creates everything, then it is not your fault that you don't go to heaven; it is God's fault for creating you that way.

True enough. But the question under discussion is not whether God created everything. It is whether God exists, and why theists might so believe.

Also, religion answers everything. It is for those people who just want to accept everything as it is.

Can you back up this assertion? I personally know nonreligious people who are striving "to accept everything as it is", which contradicts your claim.

I'm guessing that was why it was prominent in Medieval times... people didn't have answers, so they made an entity that could answer everything.

I do not believe that religion was either more or less prevalent in medieval times than in earlier times in history. Can you provide evidence to buttress your assertion?

Suddenly everything is done by God's hand. If you are depressed, God must be punishing you.

Funny, but as far as I know, no theists I know believe as you claim. And I know a great number of theists.

Everything revolves around this greater power, and people are asked to have faith in this greater power; to believe in something that never reveals itself.

Yet just on this thread alone, at least two people have testified that God has indeed revealed himself to them. Your statement fails to take this testimony into consideration.