@shinyblurry

Two points I want to clarify:

... it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

As to demonstration:
How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

I'll address the rest of your content above in a later comment.

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to
be true.

I am commanded by God to do so. It's not optional.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that.

Okay..cool.

Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their
mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot
prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful
view of other people.

Again, I am commanded by God to do so. Although, in this case, I didn't start the conversation about God.

You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how
much you think you do. You don't. Period.

That's your opinion.
Go ahead and try to
convince them.

You can't argue someone into faith. Only God is capable of changing someones heart.

There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to
claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions
because they don't share yours.

Would it be immoral to tell a rapist that raping people is wrong?

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing
in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely
exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with
certainty god doesn't exist either

It doesn't really bother me. I agree though, it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; God gives everyone freedom to believe whatever they want. I also see everyone in the image of God. Neither am I interested in arguing; I prefer as little drama as possible.

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint
on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated
spirituality to being right or wrong.

Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs
wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to
yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't
in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and
always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all
your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Rather than drag it out, I am just going to let this drop. I fully acknowledge atheists have valid opinions on morality and ethics.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not
debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how
to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others.
You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is
messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more
valid because you're Christian.

Since you're preaching at me about how I should conduct myself, I think it's only fair that you share what you believe in. I think it's relevent, in that context, to see if your behavior lines up to the stanards of conduct of your faith.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their
beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side,
here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and
understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap
about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people
spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the
Christian Golden Rule?

As a previous unbeliever and skeptic, I am very familiar with what atheists believe and why. Not only from a personal standpoint, but due to the fact that they tell me exactly what they believe all the time. You're really working overtime trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (and not responding to the substance of the conversation), when the point of fact is, there is nothing wrong with my sharing what I believe. If you can tell me I am wrong, I can say that I am right. But I am not even saying that. I am saying God is right, and I believe Him.

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter
disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word
of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you
re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone.
I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other
devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than
not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an
irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a
believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like
your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a
petulant 5 year old know it all.

What have I said that is so terrible? I'm far from perfect but your accusations are ringing a little hollow. You could try putting away the strawmen and ad homs and actually engage the substance of the conversation. Do you think messanger needs you to defend him? He and I are in familiar territory. Honestly, I am sorry if I have been rude in any way. Though, how is it that you chastise someone about being respectful when you yourself are being disrespectful, anyway? I'm not sure I understand that dynamic.


>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why you would bother to 'prove' that Britain is not socialist? The liberalsift majority favors worldwide socialism. Is it because socialism always has to pull up stakes and move elsewhere when the original plan falls apart?

I'm not excluding the US of A. We're almost as bad now.
Why, here's what happens when you elect a socialist to the White House:
Regulation Nation: New study finds Obama’s regs cost $46 billion a year

Indeed. Why try to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you. Not that I expect you to take up that burden; you never do.

atheos - without god

It's a metaphysical position, a denial that any deity exists. The redefinition of atheism is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof by turning atheism from a positive to a negative claim. To say you lack belief is simply an obfuscation of your true position. If you are unwilling to say God does not exist, you are an agnostic and not an atheist. There is no inbetween; you have a belief about the existence of God, which is that either you don't believe it, or you don't know.


>> ^shuac:
It's less a re-definition and more of a course correction. Compare atheism to similar words:
amoral = without morals.
atypical = without type.
apathy = without pathos. More specifically, without empathy or sympathy.
agnostic = without gnosis (greek: knowledge).
So let's talk about what theism is, since atheism is without it. Theism, as I understand it, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
So there you go. I credit the internet for this course correction, since most popular dictionaries usually define an atheist incorrectly by claiming it is someone who believes there is/can be no god. You're free to do that too, shiny. Your comfort level at being wrong is well road-tested, clearly.

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?
Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.
I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.
I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.
One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?
The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.
This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.
Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.
I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.
The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.
Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.
The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.
Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.
I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

hah. I point out the flaws in your weak reasoning and then you run away calling me irrational.

You said that the concept of a supernatural being is meaningless because it cannot be falsified. That is so obviously untrue I scarcely have to construct an argument against it, but I graciously provided you two proofs that show you that your fundemental assumptions about life cannot be falsified either, making your point meaningless in itself. Does this mean I don't believe in concept of knowledge? Show me where I said that please. What I believe in an absolute truth that can be grasped by anyone. In any case, the concept could actually be falsified if you could show it to be logically incoherent.

What you really mean to say is that the existence of God cannot be empirically verified, because you believe in the fundemental assumptions of atheistic materialism, which is that knowledge only comes by the senses. IE, if I can't see it, touch it or taste it, it isn't there. Yet none of this does anything to advance your case, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What I mean by an irreducibly complex system is a system which cannot be reduced in complexity without compromising its functionality. Meaning, it would be impossible for it to evolve. There are plenty of examples of this in nature, yes like the flagellum.

We have an equal burden of proof, so I do hold myself to the same standards. My question was designed to test your level of rationality, actually. You didn't answer it because it is a yes or no question. If Jesus is God, would you follow Him? That you cannot even answer a hypothetical question about God is a very good measurement on where you're at in the rationality department.

"Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct."

God has given you sufficient evidence of His existence, and you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?

The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.

This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.

Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.

I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.

The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says

"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.

The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:

LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

It's interesting to read a response like yours.

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws? Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth. The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.
That you don't know what the truth is, or that you believe it isn't knowable, does not preclude me from knowing what it is. It is not beneficial to be ignorant of the truth.
The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of.
How do you go from "I don't know" to rejecting the existence of God? How does explaining a mechanism rule out agency? Do you understand what I meant earlier about the uniformity of nature?
"We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it".
Not if it's true.
It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.
It's not a God of the gaps when a Creator is a better explanation for the phenomena, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems and the information in DNA. It is an abominable act to dismiss the idea of Gods existence out of hand.
I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.
You certainly have faith in a naturalistic explanation if you reject a creator. Although a purely naturalistic origin is something you cannot prove and have zero evidence for, you believe it anyway, and reject a creator outright, by your own words. That is blind faith.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of evidence for both. There is no appearance of design in biological systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100 years or so), and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary. (Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we would never know it existed, we do not know how many universes exist, have existed, or can exist, etc. If you want to maintain a god of the gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable. The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It cannot be measured


>> ^shinyblurry:
So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

I am an atheist, but I am not blind to evidence and so my position is capable of change.

The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.

You can prove a negative. For instance, there are no US Senators who are muslims. Go to http://www.senate.gov/ to verify.

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

Explanatory power is entirely relevent to the question because you are trying to establish an equivilency between the question of Gods existence and the question of the existence of anything you can dream up in your mind. It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

When Christopher attested to the fact that he believes that God does not exist, the burden of proof was on him to prove that He does not. The reason he could not is because he had blind faith in this idea.

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?



>> ^botono9:
>> ^shinyblurry:
A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence
The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.
I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

@Pantalones

Natural rights means they come from nature, meaning you have some deep insight into the "real" nature of nature. You might call them God given rights, but then that begs the question, how do you know what those are? The ones we call natural rights, are they really? Why isn't property? Why isn't it actually happiness, not pursuit of happiness? There is no evidence to support which ones are natural, and which ones we are just deciding arbitrarily. As such, the burden of proof is on people claiming rights are natural. If we look out into nature, it tells a tail of a very "inhuman" nature. Nature respects nothing; parents eat their children or murder the children of a genetic rival, rape, genocide, slavery, suffering of all kinds shapes and varieties, life is a tail of endless suffering inflicted on other life. The rule of nature is there fairness isn't real, only brutality and domination. So to say there is a "natural" right to live, freedom and fruit salad, you would need some justification for that. The founders used a justification; God did it. I can't hold to that justification, and even if I did, I couldn't hold to the justification is those 3 things and not some others. As such, if there are "natural rights", no one has a valid claim to what they are.

@budzos

I digress good sir, we are arguing semantics of our own personal morality, an intractable thing for me in text. I wish you well, and hope I didn't cause you much distress. I, too, often find myself frustrated by what I see as fatuous arguments, but the problem doesn't come from logical flaws, but my own inability to make clear the exceptions that are inherent in such complex issues, compounded by my own lack of command of the English language.

>> ^vaire2ube:

why hide that you're doing good things, unless you have a secret motive that may not withstand scrutiny or conscience ... ie the history of all CIA actions everywhere...


I'd prefer they were more open about. Al-Shabab is bad and we are willing to use a lower burden of proof than "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when it comes to fighting them because getting rid of them sooner is worth making mistakes along the way. There are literally millions of innocent lives being destroyed the entire time the world is failing to deal with Al-Shabab.

And I have no delusions about America sending in the CIA for it's own profit, benefit and reasons. America wouldn't be there unless it thought it benefited by being there, and humanitarian reasons are NOT something America cares enough about to risk their own resources to only help foreigners. I still support that American actions coincidentally align with removing a horrific entity destroying the lives of millions of the most underprivileged people on the planet. It's too bad the Congo and Rwanda aren't strategically more important, at least enough to warrant outrage at genocides in progress.

How can you not see the flaw in this logic? Atheists do not make claims for which evidence must be provided, there is no point in trying to "DISPROVE" god, or any other imaginary entity. the "evidence that god doesnt exist" is that there is no evidence that god does exist.

Drac did make the claim "I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature" So therefore he has a burden of proof.

Also, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finally, no matter how you've redefined the definition, atheism is the belief that there is no God:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

This is what the world looks like to you, huh? absolute laws layed down and explained by God?

In the scientific worldview, there are no absolutes, our "laws" are based on repeated observations and revisions, take for instance Newtons first law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Now, this actually works, it turns out that the world is this way*. It is natural for a curious human to ask "why?" because we expect,perhaps deep down that there is a reason and a purpose behind the world being arranged this way. But there doesnt seem to be any real reason, had Newton or Galileo lived in an alternate universe, where objects would move at random, independent of the forces acted upon them, well, then we wouldnt have this law, would we? Perhaps such a universe exist, but perhaps there are no Newtons there to check, because the evolution of life and therefore Newtons brain, requires objects to behave in this predictable Newtonian way.

We only have one sample, which is this Universe. Shoulds, woulds and perhaps don't explain away design. What you're really trying to express here is the anthropic principle. Take this example..let's say you're standing before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all aiming for your heart, and then you hear the shots go off..and to your surprise you find that you're still alive, that they all missed. Should you be surprised that you do not observe you are dead? If you were dead, obviously you couldn't observe it. However, you are justified in being surprised you are alive, since all 100 marksmen missing you is extremely improbable. Which is the same reason we should be surprised that there is a conspiracy in the physical laws to support life in the Universe.

Anyway, here we are, we make our laws based on our observations of how things seem predictable, and if things arent that predictable, we cant make laws about them. For instance, why hasnt god, being so clever with the whole "law of motion" trick and all, made a similar law-system for finance? ie: "every 50 years, the market will collapse" and so on? or evolution " the ultimate goal of all of evolution is for all species to evolve big brains trunks, like the humans elephants have?

God laid down a lot of laws about how we should behave. The reason for the chaos in the world is because we haven't obeyed those laws.

No, it seems while God likes order and laws to apply to inanimate object, he's decided to go for chaos and indetermency when dealing with large, complex systems.

You'd almost think there was no god at all, huh?

*Yeah,yeah Einstein, relativity blah blah, for all intends and purposes, Newton will suffice here.

He gave us laws about how to live. Perhaps you have heard of the bible?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! ).

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?