Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kara Smith on March 16, 2011 at 4:09am

Sheesh. I just go with Dawkins' definition.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 8:45pm

It's not so much a logical issue as it is a natural issue. While I'm fairly certain you could prove to me you don't have a pig in your pocket, it's far more difficult to prove no one in the entire world has a pig in their pocket. Since I have a limited lifespan I could hardly check 7 billion pockets. Especially, during a debate or whilst writing a paper. Therefore, it is up to the person making a claim to prove it. Similarly, a Theist making a claim of a Deity should be required to produce the proof, not the Atheist to disprove it by checking for the Deity under every rock or nook or cranny. It's about logistics not logic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 9:12pm

I'd just as soon put a pig in my pocket and have done with it.

But there are such things as pigs and pockets. Even small pigs and big pockets. A pig in a pocket is a coherent concept. We know what pigs are and we know what pockets are.

But "God?" Someone still has all their work in front of them. Those who assert that there is a God have yet to offer a coherent definition of the utterance which must be done before they can move on to the business of proof.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 9:30pm

Unfortunately, for humanity "god" is very often the "pea" in a shell game. The Theist says he knows god and convinces you to find him/her/it. While the Theist is lifting your purse you are focusing on the "pea". I think that describes almost every major religion in a nutshell. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaylene Wetzel on March 15, 2011 at 10:07pm

Such an interesting discussion!  Still, Vince, don't you think that Xians/Muslims/whatever think that they have done all the work in their 'holey' books?  Our assertions that they have to define god are all very well, but they figure it's all there for the reading.  We'll rarely if ever convince anybody with logic - they have to come to enlightenment the same way the rest of us did, one step at a time.  Meantime, they have all the 'proof' and definitions they need.  It doesn't even seem to matter that they keep shooting themselves in the foot eg. Jim and Tammy Faye etc. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 16, 2011 at 3:12am

Actually, I don't think most religious people, whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or what have you, actually think their holy texts offer a cohesive definition of the Gods in which they profess to believe. They are happy to have a vague word to which they can tape all their mystical connotations and let it go at that. If there were a coherent definition, it would not require their special brand of faith, and they love faith.

But I don't have debates or even conversations based on their terms. I don't allow the premise in the first place. Intelligent conversation must demand logic.

So far, I have led quite a few away from theism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 6:51pm

There's no compelling evidence there are dieties. If there is bring it forward and let's take look. Thousands of diests have never been able to answer this challenge credibly and it isn't an Athiests responsiblity to prove the negative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 7:19pm

While it is certainly proper manners for the person asserting the existence of something to provide proof, this is simply a matter of protocol.

As an atheist who would like to have less theistic interference in government and society, I think it is very much my responsibility to myself and my children at the very least to prove that God does not exist.

Luckily, this is not very difficult.

What is very difficult is finding someone who can posit a coherent definition for "God" so that I can prove it doesn't exist. Usually, most efforts are either incoherent/oxymoronic, or attempt to synonymize God with love, flowers, bees, birds, the universe, blue skies, and butterflies. Refusing to accept the premise that butterflies are a deity is easy enough.

So we see that there is not merely a lack of compelling evidence that there is a God, but there is absolute proof that there is not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Yager on March 15, 2011 at 8:56pm

I think we are on the same page. See my reply to Will-I-am above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ara Tidwell on March 15, 2011 at 9:38pm

I am 100% sure, such just defies the laws of physics, science and any sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Willa Cartwright on March 16, 2011 at 12:52am

100% positive there is no God?

 

Well, no - but, I'm not 100% positive about anything.

 

I'm fairly certain that all the "deity" and "creation" myths are just really myths - as most of them are simply absurd and have no supporting evidence.

 

As to "proof" - ultimately, one can only "prove" mathematics and gain evidence for the existence of something. You can't "prove" something doesn't exist, you can only gain evidence for it's contrary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 16, 2011 at 3:16am

"You can't 'prove' something doesn't exist..." Why do people keep saying that when it clearly isn't so?

Seriously, if I believed what the majority of the so-called atheists on this site believe, my ass would be in church every week praying.

People play the lotto with less chance of winning than some of you cling to your atheism by.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 56
• 57
• 58
• 59
• 60
• …
• 155
• Next ›
• Page