Just because we lack proof of the non- existence doesn't mean the opposite is automatically true. As my little sister often says to me "Just because you can't see something, doesnt mean it's not real." to which i retort, "But that doesn't mean that it IS real either!"

I admit that I would have to concede some kind of faith to definitively say that god does not exist. I would say that the idea is EXTREMELY unlikely (since we're speaking in specifics)

What exactly is the difference between the practical and scientific knowledge? (according to you)

Allow me to borrow a few words from Richard Dawkins, (paraphrased) I assume that when you say god that you mean the judeo christian god and not say any of these :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
You could have picked any of these gods, and lets see here,
Further information: Australian Aboriginal mythology

* Adnoartina - the lizard guard of Uluru
* Altjira - God of Dreams
* Anjea - Fertility goddess
* Bagadjimbiri - Two brothers and creator gods
* Baiame - God of rain
* Bamapana - A trickster god who causes discord
* Banaitja - A creator god
* Bobbi-Bobbi - Supernatural being who lived in the heavens in the Dreamtime
* Bunjil - The supreme god, represented as an eagle
* Daramulum - Son of Baiame
* Dilga - Goddess of fertility and growth
* Djanggawul - Three siblings, two female and one male, who created the landscape of Australia
* Eingana - Creator goddess
* Galeru - A rainbow snake who swallowed the Djanggawul
* Gnowee - A solar goddess
* Julana - A lecherous spirit who surprises women
* Julunggul - A rainbow snake goddess
* Karora - A creator god
* Kidili - Ancient moon-man
* Kunapipi - Mother goddess (patron deity of heroes)
* Mangar-kunjer-kunja - Lizard god who created humans
* Numakulla - Two sky gods who created all life on Earth
* Pundjel - Creator god
* Ulanji - Snake-ancestor of the Binbinga
* Wala
* Wawalag - Sisters who were daughters of Djanggawul
* Wuriupranili - A solar goddess
* Yurlungur - Mythological copper snake

Do you believe in these gods as well? Do you concede faith to them because their existence can't be disproven?

Give it up, if you were born and raised in Africa you'd be worshiping Jengu (water/river spirit). All I'm asking for is a re-evaluation of your opinions with what fits with the facts.

If your doctor came into the surgery room with all sorts of unproven ideas about how to operate on you, you'd understandably feel uncomfortable. AND THATS A GOOD THING!! The demand for solid evidence has given us clean water, a healthy abundant food supply, modern medicine, and brought an end to witch hunts! Well...Almost.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2007/10/03/book-burning-fueling-flames-of-censorship/

More people that are willing to re-evaluate their opinions (something encouraged by a scientific approach) means less crazy ideas running rampant and more sensible honest people.

In reply to this comment by nadabu:
Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

Oh, good, it seems we're more on the same page than i thought. If we lack proof of God's non-existence, then it seems to me quite wrong to limit the options for theists like myself are not limited to liar, ignoramus or (self-)deceived. So, may we now consider the option of faith? Faith being neither pretense, ignorance nor deception, but rather a sincere belief (possibly of varying degree) in that which is clearly unproven in any scientific sense and yet also admittedly impossible to disprove.

It seems to me that limiting what we "know" (in the practical sense, not the scientific sense) to that which can be scientifically proven is absurdly, paralyzingly impractical. We constantly live "by faith" in all sorts of little and big things. All humans regularly act as though "[we] know more about something than [we] possibly could". Why then, when it comes to the issue of theism, should my faith merit your derision? My theism didn't come from proof, and i'm not ever going to prove it. I believe one day God will force the matter, but i sure as hell can't do it for you. If you want to know what and why i believe about God and how that works in my life, i can talk about that.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

The burden of proof lays in your hands not mine. Trying to disprove the existence of god would be like trying to disprove the existance of unicorns or dragons. We have stories about dragons and unicorns but maybe even those are bad analogies. Perhaps Bigfoot or Loch Ness would be better examples(since people actually do seem to believe said things are real) despite a lack of credible evidence.

Maybe you could answer a question for me and then i'll be able to help you.

Find something we can both agree isn't real, and then tell me how to disprove it's existence.

In reply to this comment by nadabu:
No, i didn't think you meant to insult, nor was i insulted. It was only hypocrisy i saw in the words you chose, which really took all the sting out of the accusation. The more interesting thing out of it is that you find insincerity to be less negative than ignorance or being (self-)deceived. If so, then we ought to take great care in what we assume about each other, as we clearly have different mores.

As to your question, since it's unlikely anyone realizes they are (self-)deceived and yes, i'm quite sincere, i'll have to take ignorance. Of course, why being a theist makes me either a liar, fool or nutjob is something you'll have to explain to me. Exactly what am i so ignorant of in my theism? Is there proof that there's no God that i've not heard about? Or did i answer wrong? Is there proof of God's non-existence that i've convinced myself is false? Please don't be afraid to tell me so.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
For the record, I chose the word pretending because it has less negative connotations. And though this may sound suprising, I'm not trying to be insulting.

But to use your words, as a theist, if you're not pretending which are you: ignorant? or self decieved?

Paranormal stuff, UFOs, Bigfoot, and of course Religion.

People believe what they want to believe and even when cornered with opposing evidence they often just fall back on their "conspiracy" theories to explain away the difference.

Wasn't this in a captain disillusion or something? Where the 'bigfoot' turned out to be the size of an action or figure or something when perspective was taken into account?

Edit: http://www.videosift.com/video/Captain-Dissolution-Debunks-the-Man-on-Mars

Yes, the argument about bigfoot is still on... and yes there will always remain people doubting about DDWFTTW also.

Drachen_Jager said: "Read the following if you still don't believe me"
my answer:
link 1: poor attempt to rebuild the DDWFTTW trolley, so no surprize it's not working... but that doesn't proof it's impossible.
link 2: lot's of people on boingboing giving good hints why it IS working, and the usual sceptics also surely.
link 3: poor blogger is a non-believer and a professor... shame on him, but again no proof it doesn't work

1) Show me where the evidence is, so far the evidence (one poorly shot video) is about as convincing as the evidence for Bigfoot.

2) If you're moving as fast or faster than the wind you're no longer "wind powered". You're harnessing a new form of power which I will dub "Magical Thinking".

3) If you can truly tap into this new and heretofore undiscovered source of power you will surely become the richest person on earth

>> ^Fade:
Yea that's right, ignore the evidence and pretend that you know the truth.


I'm telling you, it was totally bigfoot. He, Jesus and George Bush planned the entire thing.

You can't ignore YouTube.

>> ^Fade:
It's probably to long and detailed for the usual nay sayers to have bothered watching the whole thing.


Actually you're way off base here.

To me, this is the same thing as Christianity vs Atheism. It's a stupid argument that's boring to get involved with.

You guys can keep researching bigfoot all you want. Have at it. I'm sure you'll once and for all prove he's real one day.

I really doubt that the conspiracy theory which claims this was an act caused by the US government used to invade Iraq or whatever motive claimed. Some have said that the US is a country that has invaded and bombed countries with far less extremes means such as bombing them based on their 'principles'. That said, the only thing I find interesting, and probably what people allude to a conspiracy to is that I haven't seen any clear evidence of a plane crash on the Pentagon/Pittsburgh. Then again, I'm not an expert in plane collisions. So who I am to say how/what happened?

Prove me wrong and I'll believe in unicorns, ghosts, bigfoot, the world was created in 7 days... oh wait, you guys believe that too. nevermind.

more lulz on VS please!

Conspiracy is wrapped around romanticism. But Occams Razor prevails, and I'm the type to absorb massive amounts of historical data, than to believe in some giant and completely implausible master plan, like the inside-jobbers.

I'm so sick to death of this conversation. There's a very good reason why almost every liberal blog around scrubs their comments of the troof-movement set. There's other outlets on the tubes that feed on these CT's, whether it's 9/11, Elvis, Jeebus or Bigfoot.

I find it amusing that people with such intelligence can overlook the fact that all this conspiracy shit is a pack of fucking lies.

This is like arguing about where those pesky WMD's are hidden, or if bigfoot is real.


TROOF!!!!

If I ever go diamond I want a *redhanded channel. You know for stuff you catch in the act. Like Bigfoot.

^ Can you really call someone a "pussy" when they don't believe something so stupid?

He also doesn't talk about bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

hey! bigfoot is hearding cats! two impossibly things in one video, well done!