Author Topic: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge  (Read 19486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #58 on: March 02, 2014, 02:36:06 PM »
You could be right that he is a troll. I have noticed that he ignores the difficult questions and pretends they are not there. He also returns to ideas which have been refuted and pretends they have not been. On the other hand I have seen him struggle to make a reasoned argument and he is genuinely confused about himself, about others, and about reality.

I'm pretty sure he's a troll for all the reasons you stated, including the "On the other hand" part. Just because he's a troll doesn't mean he's smart. In fact, from my experience, they're usually mutually exclusive.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #59 on: March 02, 2014, 02:51:01 PM »
Atheists believe God does not exist based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives.  These interpretations are primarily objective since there is no known way to produce an entity which can be seen and measured and agreed upon as "God".  Since God cannot be reproduced, much less produced, for all to see, atheists conclude God does not exist.

For me, both groups (theists and atheists) are acting upon beliefs / conclusions based on their understanding of the known world.

All atheists don't believe gods exist, but not all atheists believe gods don't exist.

It's true that other beliefs can lead me to the conclusion that I'm an atheist, but that conclusion is not necessarily a belief itself.

It's quite a broad generalisation you have made here, though I think you're perhaps just trying to cover the foundations. However, it's still wrong.


Quote
Thus, to me anyway, theists act upon faith in their understanding of God whereas atheists see no proof of God's existence.  So, theists operate on belief and faith where as atheists operate on belief. 

I see it that the majority of mainstream theists are having their cake and eating it. An understanding of god is used as a basis for faith, while at the same time defining god to be outside our realm of investigation. I'm not atheist because there is no evidence for god, I'm atheist because theists have defined god in such a way that there can't be evidence. It's turned into meaningless wibble.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #60 on: March 02, 2014, 03:10:37 PM »
Added: Just in case he is real and worried about doing me in, he has my full permission to zap me. But only if he is real. Otherwise, the deal is off.
Lets hope we see you then.
You do know that zapping is not on your terms. But trust me it is coming to all of us.

Yes, I know we're all getting zapped. Luckily, I don't have to trust you on that one. In fact, luckily I don't have to trust you on anything. Otherwise, existence would sure be f**ked up.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #61 on: March 02, 2014, 03:13:34 PM »

Atheists believe God does not exist based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives. 

OCG, what I am doing as an atheist is dismissing the interpretations of other about gods. Not making up my own.

I most certainly have a large number of beliefs. About how bad reality TV is, that the weatherman will be wrong again tomorrow. Stuff like that. But the only reason I have any belief related to omnipotent dudes is because others made up stories and I am at times forced to say I disagree.

The difference is not subtle.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1529
  • Darwins +101/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #62 on: March 02, 2014, 03:55:52 PM »

Atheists believe God does not exist based on their interpretations of various experiences in their lives. 

OCG, what I am doing as an atheist is dismissing the interpretations of other about gods. Not making up my own.

I most certainly have a large number of beliefs. About how bad reality TV is, that the weatherman will be wrong again tomorrow. Stuff like that. But the only reason I have any belief related to omnipotent dudes is because others made up stories and I am at times forced to say I disagree.

The difference is not subtle.

Fair enough.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline SpaceTime

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2014, 04:08:53 PM »
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real. How can I say that in a short sentence and be absolutely clear? What phrase would work best? Especially in Skeptic's world, where he wants to tell me I don't know what I think, but that he does.
Well, haven't you answered your own question?
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2014, 04:46:03 PM »
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real. How can I say that in a short sentence and be absolutely clear? What phrase would work best? Especially in Skeptic's world, where he wants to tell me I don't know what I think, but that he does.
Well, haven't you answered your own question?
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real.

Yes, he has. But there's a great deal of evidence right here in this forum that the typical theist poster is incapable of accepting that answer at face value.

PP's words make perfect sense to an atheist and sum up his position quite clearly, but theists cannot reconcile what they perceive as a radical worldview in so few words. That they frequently make reference to such things as "atheistic worldview" in the first place indicates how far apart our perspectives actually are. To those of us who disbelieve in gods, the "well, duh" is apparent. To theists, they really do start with "how can you possibly NOT believe?" and rarely get past that to something more substantial. There are exceptions of course, but I still get surprised to discover how unclear our position remains, even to theists who engage with sincerity, or for a long time.

The (sadly) more common variety -  those who only show up to crash the party and spill drinks on the other guests - they aren't even trying to understand in the first place. It won't matter what anyone says. They're here to engage in some weird battle with an ambiguous end goal, but making an effort to understand someone who doesn't think like themselves is no part of that plan.

I get a lot of critical thinking opportunities here; arguments, good and bad, made and read, sometimes laughed over and sometimes educational for my own benefit. I don't give a sh!t anymore about trying to talk to the vast majority of them, there's just no point - all it does is aggravate me, and that's just wasted energy.

Kudos to all who continue to engage directly. I was getting dangerously close to militant atheism the longer I interacted with them - I'm impressed by the enduring patience you all keep managing to find.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2014, 05:12:15 PM »
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real. How can I say that in a short sentence and be absolutely clear? What phrase would work best? Especially in Skeptic's world, where he wants to tell me I don't know what I think, but that he does.
Well, haven't you answered your own question?
Until a god or gods show up to tell me different, I have absolutely no reason to even suspect that they are real.

Yes, but as Jag said above, many refuse to believe it. A common response from visiting theists, when we say something like that, is "Why do you hate god, and why are you denying him?" So yes, I've answered it, but not everyone listens.

Stick around SpaceTime. You'll see some variation of the above soon. It is inevitable.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Benny

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +16/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Hugs And Love
    • My YouTube channel
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2014, 06:15:11 PM »
I can't believe you're still here.  I figured you'd leave before I came back from my (most recent) hiatus.  I haven't read all of the posts in this thread so I'm sorry if I'm redundant.

If this can't be done, then atheism is a belief.

A lot of atheists falsely think that atheism just means "without belief" but it actually means, "No God." Atheism is a positive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the view where they don't have an opinion either way.

Sure, some atheists like to say, "Atheism just means that we lack belief in God" but this is an attempt by modern atheists to redefine the word. The word NEVER meant that. The word always meant "No God."

I even heard some of them say, "Atheism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for God." But, this backfires too because there ARE theists out there who agree with this statement, but believe in God anyway. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.

The proper meaning of "lacking belief in God" means that you believe God is there, but you don't believe in Him. Sort of like having a friend who betrays your trust and you lose your faith in him. The friend still exists, but you lose your belief in your friend. So, this is why "lacking belief" backfires and actually means you DO think God is real, you just lost faith in Him.

So, that leaves atheism as meaning "No God" which is a positive claim. So, any atheists out there want to defend their positive claim of "No God?"

Prove that I, Heathen Benny, can't fly.  I don't need wings--I can expel enough air from my body for a long enough time that I can fly pretty much anywhere I want.

If you can't do that, then you BELIEVE I can't do it.  But you have no proof--you just have faith.

Now, you can say, "No, I lack belief that you can do it" but you're just redefining terms.  Either you believe I can or you believe I can't.  There is absolutely no middle ground.

The proper meaning of "lacking belief that Benny can fly" means that you believe that I have the powers of levitation, but you don't believe I do. Sort of like having a friend who betrays your trust and you lose your faith in him. The friend still exists, but you lose your belief in your friend. So, this is why "lacking belief" backfires and actually means you DO think I can fly, you just lost faith in my abilities.

...

Do you see where this logic breaks down?  Several places, actually.  The first being that humans can't fly.  The second being that I'm forcing you to empirically prove something that you can't.  Show me all the scientific papers you want, stack the evidence from here to the moon--I can brush it off by saying "but it's true, I can fly, you don't know for sure."  The third is my vague terminology in regards to "lacking belief"  I claim that your disbelief in my levitation implies that I can levitate after all.

All three of these problems are present in your argument, along with several more.  And don't tell me "It's different, God exists, I know for sure."  It's exactly the same thing as "It's different, I can fly, I know for sure."
I'm here every now and again.
We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2014, 06:49:41 PM »
Prove there is one, and then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, I dismiss your claim just as I dismiss every claim for which there is no evidence, as a rational and open-minded person does.
A donkey can only be led to the water - one cannot make it drink it. Drinking is in the will of the donkey.
Same with individual consciousness trying to know the all consciousness.
If I want to be an Engineer there is a process born out of the will.
If I want to be a scientist working in Cern there is a process born out of the will
If I want to know God there is a process to know born out of the will.
Let's not kid ourselves about open mindedness. We know "Where there is a will there is a way".
Those who do not know God have no such will.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2014, 06:53:40 PM »
Added: Just in case he is real and worried about doing me in, he has my full permission to zap me. But only if he is real. Otherwise, the deal is off.
Lets hope we see you then.
You do know that zapping is not on your terms. But trust me it is coming to all of us.

Yes, I know we're all getting zapped. Luckily, I don't have to trust you on that one. In fact, luckily I don't have to trust you on anything. Otherwise, existence would sure be f**ked up.
Was I supposed to be offended? I was hoping we saw you today - unzapped. Was I wrong to have hoped?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2014, 07:06:36 PM »
If my atheism is a belief, then so are all of my other disbeliefs. Since there is potentially an infinite amount of things for me to disbelieve in, then it's impossible for me to believe them all, as, funnily enough, I don't have the brain capacity.
If atheism is defined as one who does not know God it makes debating simpler. There is no word belief. That way we know what we want to know. We know
1. how open minded one is,
2. what steps are being taking to know and
3. what limits one from knowing through a process of self evaluation and progression.

There is no hidden agenda in individuals knowing.

But there is a hidden agendas in beliefs. Why hide behind beliefs or non beliefs that confuse everyone?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2014, 07:26:45 PM »
a-theism as has been pointed out MANY MANY MANY times simply means "without god." It is NOT a knowledge claim, nor is it a belief, it's a position nothing more, nothing less, you and skeptic keep attempting to rebuild the same strawman that we've eviscerated countless times. STOP trying this argument, it doesn't work, try something else.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #71 on: March 02, 2014, 07:41:38 PM »
As I'm sure it's been pointed to you a thousand time, I don't need to prove the non-existence of something.
Theists say "Consciousness" does exist in life and it is part of the all conscious they call "God". Both are the same essence or spiritual in nature. All you have to do is prove you know what consciousness is. From here on it is a process of knowing yourself. It is said "What one man can do so can another" "As iron sharpens iron so does one man sharpen another". A master disciple relationship. One knows because one is taught. This is how God remains known in the minds of men in the world. Theists have never disappeared from the earth - they are still here through a process of being taught.

Quote
It's more productive to try and prove the existence of something, than it is the non-existence of something.
Try and prove that you are conscious. That is the first positive productive step to knowing something as grand as the all conscious.

Quote
  When no evidence is forthcoming, then there's little reason to hold on to the "it might exists" card.
The evidence that life is conscious is embedded in life itself. Where can that which is already conscious look to solve the question of consciousness, what it is, and where it comes from is a determination of the will in the individual to prove that which is observed.

Quote
If there is no evidence that my shoes flies around at night, if everything operates exactly as though my shoes do not fly at night, then I'm going to hold on to the idea that shoes do not fly at night. 
If you are unconscious how would you really "know"? Someone may have told you but to know would require you to remain conscious all night.

Quote
Same with your god.
Well not according to the Theists - God is all conscious and we are part of God. So the problem is a self realization process. The evidence of the all conscious lies with the theists who have become one with the all conscious.  This has been done over and over throughout history.

Quote
If you're going to pull the "you can't disprove it" card, that's a tacit admission that you have no solid evidence for its existence.
All can be proved by those who really want to prove it to themselves. Its in that nature of an individual who really wants to know. The will is already in us, we need to engage it to know the things we want to know. If we wanted to know that the god particle exists there is a process of knowing and it is in the will of many that they can prove it.

Quote
Wrong.  To state something does not exist can also be a valid conclusion to draw when one notice that evidence is either lacking or non-existence.
Consciousness in life exists abundantly - and for life to know where it came from is determined by the will in the self -- that opportunity is available and observed in the human form especially solved in the lives of the Theists before they become theists.

It is in the actions we take "to know" that determines if we would know or not. But to claim All consciousness does not exists is to deny the method of self realization that theists say works and offer mankind if he wants to know the same way he did it. "If you love me follow my commandments". Of course if you don't follow then you should know what it is that you love and what is in your will. "To thine own self be true"

Quote
A truly open-minded honest person keeps open the possibility that there are certain things that simply do not exists.  Do you consider the possibility that your god does not exists?
How could one truly be "open minded" to a state of all consciousness if one wont give up their self consciousness to merge in the all consciousness?  Open mindedness requires the self to be open and not closed. So long as it is closed it is observing duality - if it is open it can become one with the all conscious - which make it unity.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #72 on: March 02, 2014, 07:44:28 PM »
I can't believe you're still here.  I figured you'd leave before I came back from my (most recent) hiatus.  I haven't read all of the posts in this thread so I'm sorry if I'm redundant.
What does that even mean -- is it a threat of some sorts?

According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #73 on: March 02, 2014, 07:44:59 PM »
Skep and Jesuis: tag-team word redefiners. I can't believe anyone here actually had a go at this so-called 'challenge'. I mean really, guys, you should know that Skep is smugly wrapped up in his self righteousness, and Jesuis either has real trouble with the English language, or is just a plain troll. No one will ever get anywhere with either of them when they continue to redefine words to suit their own agenda.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #74 on: March 02, 2014, 07:59:57 PM »
I think it's mankind's responsibility to update theology as we learn and grow just as science is updated as it learns and grows or is just proven to be wrong as slavery was or a flat earth.

JB
True - Mankind is doing that.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #75 on: March 02, 2014, 08:24:46 PM »
Skep and Jesuis: tag-team word redefiners. I can't believe anyone here actually had a go at this so-called 'challenge'. I mean really, guys, you should know that Skep is smugly wrapped up in his self righteousness, and Jesuis either has real trouble with the English language, or is just a plain troll. No one will ever get anywhere with either of them when they continue to redefine words to suit their own agenda.

You're absolutely right, nat (like your new avatar, by the way). But we don't have anyone else to play with right now.

Personally, I'm wondering how many new age "thinkers" Jesuis can parrot in one post. But I keep loosing count. But hey, its more fun than the Oscars.

But I do have some serious things to say to Jesuis:

Your spritual field of consciousness promotes spiritual quantum entanglement. Humankind's transformational aura balances nature's serenity. A unseen field of consciousness unites spiritual serenity. Humankind's divine energy field forsees holistic inner peace.The mind's hyperdimensional new paradigm is holistic experiences. The inner enigma grows unseen healing powers.The unexplainable shapes incredible facts. And, of course, Interdependence meditates on ephemeral destiny.

Just trying to help you out.


Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #76 on: March 02, 2014, 08:42:28 PM »
Skep and Jesuis: tag-team word redefiners. I can't believe anyone here actually had a go at this so-called 'challenge'. I mean really, guys, you should know that Skep is smugly wrapped up in his self righteousness, and Jesuis either has real trouble with the English language, or is just a plain troll. No one will ever get anywhere with either of them when they continue to redefine words to suit their own agenda.

What do you think of this

You don't get to decide what atheism means and then tell atheists that they have to conform to your definition.  "A-theism" literally means "without theism".  And since theism means the belief in a god or gods, that means atheists are without belief in a god or gods.

Theism derived from 'theos' which meant 'god' (in ancient Greek).  Yet I do not think you would consider yourself a god because you are a theist.  So why are you trying to make the same claim when it comes to atheists?  "No god', indeed!

Besides, words and definitions change over time, so even the original definition (used by the Greeks) meant something like "godless" or "without god", there is no reason to assume that the definition is the same as it was hundreds or thousands of years ago.  Just like the word 'faggot' originally meant a piece of wood, but now it's a pejorative term for a homosexual man.

Quit trying to play word games, skeptic.  There is no way that you don't know that there's (at least) two different definitions of "believe in", therefore you are intentionally conflating them to attempt to confuse the issue.  Yes, you can define "believing in X" as saying that you don't have faith in X but you acknowledge its existence, but it is equally valid to define it as "don't accept X exists".  Like the saying, "I don't believe in faeries".  Do you seriously think the person saying this actually does think that faeries exist but doesn't have faith in them?


Why don't you get off flogging the troll horse and debate your wisdom? I have not changed anything I have made it possible for progression for the inhumane to become humane.

Atheists as I observe them to be are simply people who do not know God. I do not give them a belief of any sort. I do not lock them in. A person who is not tied to a belief can drop out of that state of mind in order to progress and to become more humane.  The way of the Theists has always been a more humane one.

Take this idea for instance
I have real issues with extreme atheism, but even then my definition of atheism is based on truths and it allows the extreme atheist the more inhumane amongst people to become more humane through a process.

By me not locking them into beliefs I have created a process to a better way of life. I can promote humanity where there is none through a theistic and humanistic agenda - God.

So what does your version and definition of atheism do apart from it being inflexible - which leads to more and extreme versions of atheism.

Who in atheism will stand up to say it is the moral authority that is leading atheists to become more humane.?
This is problem with beliefs and the belief in atheism. It lack the moral teacher. In theism there is a human being teaching about God, Always has and always will be - in atheism there is none.

Troll ??? Why?? You feel insecure? You feel threatened? What is the problem with atheists that they seem to want to play the troll card when faced with simple logic? Lets stop doing that. I have a point to debate and it is a humane agenda -- what is yours and whose authority is it??
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #77 on: March 02, 2014, 08:54:30 PM »
Skep and Jesuis: tag-team word redefiners. I can't believe anyone here actually had a go at this so-called 'challenge'. I mean really, guys, you should know that Skep is smugly wrapped up in his self righteousness, and Jesuis either has real trouble with the English language, or is just a plain troll. No one will ever get anywhere with either of them when they continue to redefine words to suit their own agenda.

I think Jesuis genuinely believes he's right about everything. I remember when I was about 13-18, when I read a book written by some author, pushing his own delusions, and I'd sort of believe what he wrote, because it was in a book. However, that was back in 1977, when people really couldn't find the truth about anything, without going to the University archive, to tracking down journals. Now you have no excuse; journals are just a google away.

I read a book by Lyall Watson, (Supernature), and I told my extremely well-read friend how interesting it was. My well-read friend replied that he "didn't like Lyall's references". I had never actually thought to pay serious attention to the references. It's true, everything that Lyall writes if full of references, which you can look up in the back. The trouble is that they are all references to books that are more idiotic than his. It didn't occur to me that you could stitch a whole plausible book together, by citing idiotic books.

I also read a few other books written by single authors, like Laurie Garrett's "The coming plague". I learned a lot about Machupo, Ebola, Marburg, but I am still waiting for the coming plague. Also Ravi Batra's "Surviving The Great Depression of 1990". Ravi had anticipated the GFC, and had only been out by 19 years.

To this day, I'm wary of reading any books by single authors, because they seem to go on delusion treks, and hide any facts that go against their best-selling thesis. Ideal books, today, should be written by multiple authors, who viciously demolish each other's position.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6493
  • Darwins +772/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #78 on: March 02, 2014, 09:07:28 PM »
I know Jesuis has really, really tried. But he still hasn't explained, at least to my satisfaction, why it is so bad not to know god when there isn't one. I've tried to wrap my head around what he has said, but I can't help it. I keep having thoughts. Which prevents me from entering his space.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Benny

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +16/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Hugs And Love
    • My YouTube channel
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #79 on: March 02, 2014, 09:12:07 PM »
I can't believe you're still here.  I figured you'd leave before I came back from my (most recent) hiatus.  I haven't read all of the posts in this thread so I'm sorry if I'm redundant.
What does that even mean -- is it a threat of some sorts?
No, it's just that almost every Christian preacher that comes here gets bored after a few weeks.  I'm actually impressed at skep's stamina.  No harm intended at all.
I'm here every now and again.
We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

Offline Benny

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +16/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Hugs And Love
    • My YouTube channel
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #80 on: March 02, 2014, 09:15:37 PM »
I think Jesuis genuinely believes he's right about everything. -snip-

Jesuis and skep: how old are you two?  You both remind me of my middle school know-it-all phase.  (I know, most people go through that, but mine was VERY pronounced.)
I'm here every now and again.
We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4954
  • Darwins +566/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #81 on: March 02, 2014, 09:46:58 PM »
Why don't you get off flogging the troll horse and debate your wisdom? I have not changed anything I have made it possible for progression for the inhumane to become humane.
I haven't called either you or skeptic trolls, so I'll thank you not to accuse me of such.  As far as the rest goes, I have no need to prove anything to you; I didn't show up on a website you frequent and start preaching about stuff.  You are the one who needs to prove stuff to me, and so far you're doing a really bad job of it.

Quote from: Jesuis
Atheists as I observe them to be are simply people who do not know God. I do not give them a belief of any sort. I do not lock them in. A person who is not tied to a belief can drop out of that state of mind in order to progress and to become more humane.  The way of the Theists has always been a more humane one.
How can you know that there is such a thing as a god if you've never run into one?  And if you think you've encountered one, how do you know you actually did if you have no way to verify it?  This is the crux of your problem.  You're talking as if these gnostics[1] of yours should be believed because you think they've tapped into some kind of cosmic 'all-consciousness', when the fact of the matter is that there's no way to independently tell if they have in the first place.  And to complicate matters, you're also assuming that these gnostics are tapped into some kind of greater 'humaneness' and thus they become more humane and want to promote humaneness in the world.  While I have no problems with promoting humaneness, there's a perfectly good way of doing this that doesn't involve trying to promote yet another of the innumerable supernatural/unverifiable beliefs that people seem to produce without even trying.

Quote from: Jesuis
Take this idea for instance
I have real issues with extreme atheism, but even then my definition of atheism is based on truths and it allows the extreme atheist the more inhumane amongst people to become more humane through a process.
No, your definition of atheism is based on your belief that to be a theist is to know 'god', whatever it is.  Except it never was.  It was always based on the belief in a god, but there never was any way to verify that the belief was accurate because of the lack of external, non-subjective evidence.  Thus modern atheism, which in general is based on the premise that there's no point in believing in a god or gods unless someone can find evidence to show that such a thing exists.  Plus, I simply don't see how your definition of atheism has anything to do with promoting humaneness.  Seems to me that if you want to promote humaneness, you don't need to do so by trying to push this idea of 'all-consciousness' in order to make yourself look authoritative.  You can simply promote humaneness.  Don't worry about trying to push the idea that people need to be closer to 'god' in order to be more humane, because it's really not necessary.

Quote from: Jesuis
By me not locking them into beliefs I have created a process to a better way of life. I can promote humanity where there is none through a theistic and humanistic agenda - God.
But you are trying to lock people into a belief - that a god exists at all.  You're trying to tie this "better way of life" to your 'theistic' agenda.  It simply makes you sound like yet another fringe believer who is trying to distinguish themselves from all the other fringe believers, and you're not doing a very good job of it.

Quote from: Jesuis
So what does your version and definition of atheism do apart from it being inflexible - which leads to more and extreme versions of atheism.
On the contrary.  Atheism as most atheists define it is simply that one doesn't assume that gods exist without evidence.  That's all it is; it isn't tied to any agendas, nor should it be.  Indeed, if atheism were tied to agendas the way that religious belief normally is, you'd end up with sects and splinter groups and ultimately the same kind of divisiveness that has plagued humanity since the beginning of history.

Quote from: Jesuis
Who in atheism will stand up to say it is the moral authority that is leading atheists to become more humane.?
This is problem with beliefs and the belief in atheism. It lack the moral teacher. In theism there is a human being teaching about God, Always has and always will be - in atheism there is none.
Nor should there be.  Atheism isn't about teaching people to be moral.  It's not about teaching people to be anything.  It's simply a statement that a person does not believe.  And that's really for the best.  If you go back and look at history, religious belief has never really been about trying to teach people to be more humane (leaving aside lip service to that effect).  It's been about trying to teach people to follow the leader, usually for the leader's own agenda, and we've seen where that ultimately leads.  Thanks, but no thanks.  If you want to promote humaneness, promote humaneness.  Don't try to get it tied up in religious belief, because if there's one thing history has ever taught us, it's that the two don't really mix that well, and it doesn't take long for the religious belief to take center stage while humaneness gets left in the dustbin.

Quote from: Jesuis
Troll ??? Why?? You feel insecure? You feel threatened? What is the problem with atheists that they seem to want to play the troll card when faced with simple logic? Lets stop doing that. I have a point to debate and it is a humane agenda -- what is yours and whose authority is it??
I haven't called you a troll!  Did you even think to look to see if I was before you said this?

I don't have an agenda, because I'm not trying to foist anything off on the people here.  I just like to discuss things.  So, what authority are you claiming for your agenda?
 1. which is a lot closer to the word you should be using instead of theist

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #82 on: March 02, 2014, 10:19:13 PM »
The primitive writings of early superstitious humans, does not prove any kind of god. It only proves that early humans could write.           
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #83 on: March 02, 2014, 10:54:48 PM »
We can try to address stupid here,but we can't fix it. There are a whole whack of things that have existed over the years,but in fact there is no evidence for their existence,just folk stories.

 Santa,tooth fairy,easter bunny,unicorns,dragons,aliens and gods. At one time all Gods that have vanished did exist,were worshiped feared and praised. We can't change your belief in a god,but time will.  Time has made all other gods that have existed VANISH,not during your lifetime will your god vanish,but soon enough time will swallow your god like it has all others.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #84 on: March 02, 2014, 10:58:54 PM »
Skep and Jesuis: tag-team word redefiners. I can't believe anyone here actually had a go at this so-called 'challenge'. I mean really, guys, you should know that Skep is smugly wrapped up in his self righteousness, and Jesuis either has real trouble with the English language, or is just a plain troll. No one will ever get anywhere with either of them when they continue to redefine words to suit their own agenda.

What do you think of this

Besides, words and definitions change over time, so even the original definition (used by the Greeks) meant something like "godless" or "without god", there is no reason to assume that the definition is the same as it was hundreds or thousands of years ago.  Just like the word 'faggot' originally meant a piece of wood, but now it's a pejorative term for a homosexual man.

Holy shit! Someone else said it so it must be true!! My bad.

Troll ??? Why?? You feel insecure? You feel threatened? What is the problem with atheists that they seem to want to play the troll card when faced with simple logic? Lets stop doing that. I have a point to debate and it is a humane agenda -- what is yours and whose authority is it??

Is that a threat?[1]

 1. I realise it isn't, I'm just really not interested in engaging with your crazy
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2671
  • Darwins +52/-438
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2014, 11:13:59 PM »
I think Jesuis genuinely believes he's right about everything. -snip-

Jesuis and skep: how old are you two?  You both remind me of my middle school know-it-all phase.  (I know, most people go through that, but mine was VERY pronounced.)

Just so you know, I am 38. But, in my experience it is usually the atheists that act like they know everything just because they stopped believing in God.

It's like they got some "super secret revelation" one day about how God doesn't exist that only they can see, and then act all high and mighty about it.

it's sad to think that an atheist who plays world of warcraft all day long is viewed as more intelligent than a Christian who feeds the homeless and is involved in the community.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2671
  • Darwins +52/-438
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #86 on: March 02, 2014, 11:17:56 PM »
The primitive writings of early superstitious humans, does not prove any kind of god. It only proves that early humans could write.         

This is true. This is why God gave us biblical prophecy as solid proof. Book of Revelation mentions television, for example.

but, this is a discussion for another thread. Just making a point here.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)