Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And if that is so, how have you benefitted?

I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.

[floo]

I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.

Oh flipping heck is that possible?

[Shaker]

Ah, the Waugh gambit.

It's almost endearing that he actually thought that that was some sort of recommendation, as apparently do you.

Only almost, mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Either you accept my interpretation of my experience is correct or you don't. You must have reasons that you don't.

It's simple enough: the reasons for thinking you're more probably wrong than right are first that the arguments you attempt to validate your interpretation are very bad ones, which means all that's left is epistemically worthless "faith"; and second that there are various commonplace (though doubtless less thrilling) possible explanations that you have no interest in investigating.

Personally I go with gravity making the apple fall rather than invisible pixies with very thin strings doing it, but each to his own I guess. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

I'd be a bigger bastard than I am now.

Though absent your commitment to lying for Jesus possibly a more honest one too?

[BeRational]

I think you are confusing thinking that something is right with infallibility, the state of never being wrong here.

The elephant in the room are the claim that we can never know whether there is a God and that no one knows whether there is a God. How is that established?

Whether you have to prove something is a different thing from whether you can prove something. I have said I cannot prove my correctness but that may be because I do not have the skills. Your assertion that we can assume the non existence of something until it can be demonstrated is odd since it seems to conjur stuff out of nothing and ignores discovery. This alters the default position and therefore the burden of proof.

I couldn't find any entries for the no proof fallacy on the interweb even on an acronym site. I did find an acronym though which describes the antitheist effort today...................No Pants Friday.

Do you mean the fallacy which states you cant prove it isn't therefore it must be? That is different from a statement that goes you can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't........which I believe is a definition of unfalsifiability rather than a fallacy.

Lot of waffle.

You commit the NPF a lot!

Could you be wrong about the existence of god?

Yes or no it is a simple question.

[Shaker]

Lot of waffle.

You commit the NPF a lot!

Could you be wrong about the existence of god?

Yes or no it is a simple question.

You have your answer already in #44:

Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Not really No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Do you accept the possibility that God doesn't exist?

Not really No.

And there we have it - the man who tells us without realising it that his mind is closed.

This'll be lost on him entirely, but it seems to me that a closed mind was a necessary condition for the actions of the Barcelona terrorists too. There was no uncertainty there either - they knew - really, really knew - that the deaths of innocents was a price worth paying, so thus armed with certainty there wouldn't even have been the possibility of persuading them otherwise.

Me, I’d have basic philosophy taught from primary school onwards and I’d put the primacy of doubt front and centre to boot. Then I'd sign Vlad up for the course.

Some hope eh? Ah well.   

[Owlswing]

Why is atheism so difficult to understand.

Because he doesn't WANT to understand as it would bring his whole antitheist edifice crashing down around his anti-atheist ears!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because he doesn't WANT to understand as it would bring his whole antitheist edifice crashing down around his anti-atheist ears!

If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.

If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?

That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.

[Owlswing]

If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.

If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?

That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.

Why the hoo-har?

Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.

I am not as clever as you and cannot deal in -isms and fallacies but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad O’Irrational,

If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it.

By George, he’s finally got it!

One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.

Not really. “The vast bulk of traffic” is merely responding to the irrationalisms of those who would insist their personal faith beliefs be afforded special privileges over and above those proper to any other guessing, especially in the public square.

If that is all atheists can say about themselves…

It isn’t, except insofar as their/our atheism is the relevant common factor. When atheism isn’t the locus of the conversation, there’s no such collective groups as “atheists”.   

…why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?

Because as citizens of the world some of us see and object to the fucked up harm that beliefs in ancient superstitions can cause, especially when those beliefs are underpinned by the closed minded certainty of which you for example seem so proud. 

That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.

“Of course” it’s no such thing. There is such a thing as anti-theism, but your routine use of the term when you actually refer only to atheism is just another example of your dishonesty.
 

…so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.

So now all you have to do is to show your working out that led to that remarkable but un-argued assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why the hoo-har?

Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.

I am not as clever as you and cannot deal in -isms and fallacies but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.

I'm afraid as many non believers are seeking to convert as believers around here IMHO.

If there is a mystery here it is that you believe in the gods, believe in P but do not believe they exist in any sense. How do you square that? Just using the word faith doesn't cover it. Since the antitheists around here have faith they are justified and there is at the end of the day no God and there is a naturalistic universe and I have faith that there is a God of a supernaturalistic nature. having faith insomething you don't think is justiable ever in the natural or supernatural domains is a strange formulation of faith indeed.

In other words your are trying to have your cake and eat it and attempting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad O’Irrational,

By George, he’s finally got it!

Then the huge mystery is why you said anything further when you had established those credentials for yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Why the hoo-har?

Even that is simple - because of the theists who insist that "not believing in P" is not an option and demand that they give up "not believing in P" whilst being unable to offer the slightest iota of proof that "believing in P" has any basis in fact, to accept that it is purely a matter of faith, that there is no proof of any sort that God, of any God, or Goddess, that can be shown to exist.

I am not as clever as you…

I must correct you there – you most certainly are. And then some.

..and cannot deal in –isms…

That’s OK, nor can he. For the most part he gets them wrong, and often resorts to re-defining them for his own purposes too.

… and fallacies…

Ah, now you have a point. Vladdo relies heavily on fallacies for his “arguments”, and worse yet persists in them even when they’re explained. His absolute favourite is the straw man – there’s almost no relationship between what people actually say and what he claims them to say – but he has several other trusty options when that one won’t serve.

…but I do understand when something is shown to be impossible to prove by the inability of any one of several billion really clever people to prove it.

Well, to be fair the fact that no theist we know of has been able to make an argument for a “true for you too” god that isn’t flawed doesn’t mean that someone somewhere hasn’t managed it, though it would seem surprising that any such argument hasn’t yet at least seen the light of day.

Still, you never know eh?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad O'Irrational,

Then the huge mystery is why you said anything further when you had established those credentials for yourself.

Except any "mystery" would have disappeared for you had you bothered to read it.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you had read Professor Davey, Atheism is merely not believing in God......and that's it. One must ask then what is the nature of the vast bulk of the rest of the traffic from certain folks beyond the simple message, and I quote ''not believing in P''.

If that is all atheists can say about themselves why all the hoo har and criticism from many who claim atheism over ''believing in P''?

That traffic of course is definitionally antitheist.
so when totted up, the definition of atheism must make up less than one percent of what those defining themselves of that actually write about God.

You are correct about the definition of atheism.

You ask about the rest of the traffic here. Well part of that is about the reasons why we are atheist - i.e. a lack of evidence sufficient to 'believe in P'.

Secondly there is a lot of discussion about religion and its place in society - with many of us believing that society should be neutral regarding religion such that how people are treated within society is not influenced positively or negatively by whether or not they believe in a deity or regard themselves as religious. Currently we don't have that with believers and, in particular, those who adhere to mainstream religion having special privileges (which turned on its head means that those who aren't religious suffer levels of discrimination). In other words a view that society should be secular.

None of that is 'anti-theist' - and of course secularism (in its NSS sense) is incompatible with anti-theism, as an anti-theist society wouldn't be neutral.

[Owlswing]

I'm afraid as many non believers are seeking to convert as believers around here IMHO.

If there is a mystery here it is that you believe in the gods, believe in P but do not believe they exist in any sense. How do you square that? Just using the word faith doesn't cover it. Since the antitheists around here have faith they are justified and there is at the end of the day no God and there is a naturalistic universe and I have faith that there is a God of a supernaturalistic nature. having faith insomething you don't think is justiable ever in the natural or supernatural domains is a strange formulation of faith indeed.

In other words your are trying to have your cake and eat it and attempting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

As I said I am not as clever as you which, when appllied to such comments as those you make above, makes me really bloody stupid.

I am willing and able to state categorically that there is not one jot or tittle of proof that the Gods and Goddesses that I worship exist.

I have FAITH that they do!

I do NOT demand that non-believers give up their non-belief and believe (have faith) as I do.

I do NOT threaten people with a eternity of damnation awaits all those who refuse to give up their non-belief in MY deities.

I do NOT claim that my deities, male and female, created all that exists is seven, sorry, six-days.

I do NOT claim that my deities created "All things bright and beautiful" and carefully turn a blind eye to the creation, at the same time, of things like childhood cancer.

I do NOT condemn men who love other men and women who love other women because a two-thousand year old book says I must.

I do not worship deities who COMMAND that their followers "shall not kill" and at the same time COMMAND that they "not suffer a witch to live".

The above might well be some of the reasons why I am Pagan and not Christian.

I might not be clever but I am not a hypocrite.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am willing and able to state categorically that there is not one jot or tittle of proof that the Gods and Goddesses that I worship exist.

I have FAITH that they do!
 

I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.

Jesus having existed does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.

As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.

[Gordon]

I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board

Nope - unlike some (but not all) theists, Owl isn't insisting on either claiming the existence of the divine or that his beliefs are also true for others: therefore his stance is indeed different to that of others.

...since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead.

Who 'pleads' on this basis?

''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.

Who has expressed this particular opinion?

Jesus having existed

Probably, but not certainly.

...does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Huf the cosmmanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.

Owl's stance, while personal, is reasonable - why should that be a problem?

As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.

Don't think so, and I see you still enjoy a bit of hyperbole.

[BeRational]

I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board since all have faith in something because there is no proof for any of their positions no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.

Jesus having existed does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...In other words You don't seem to bother them.

As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave, just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.

I don't have any faith in anything.

[Owlswing]

Nope - unlike some (but not all) theists, Owl isn't insisting on either claiming the existence of the divine or that his beliefs are also true for others: therefore his stance is indeed different to that of others.

Who 'pleads' on this basis?

Who has expressed this particular opinion?

Probably, but not certainly.

Owl's stance, while personal, is reasonable - why should that be a problem?

Don't think so, and I see you still enjoy a bit of hyperbole.

Thanks Big G - trying to discuss anything with such a died-in-the-wool 'my God exists until you can prove otherwise' brainwashed theist is tiring at the best of times and I spent some time relaxing reading Mark Chadbourn's "Age of misrule" - soemthing I've been meaning to do for about five years - and missed Vlad's comment..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Fallacious,

I don't think you are therefore different from anybody else on this board…

Yes he is, for the reasons he explained. Try reading them. 

…since all have faith in something…

Ah the fallacy of ambiguous terms. What “faith” do you think some of have? Presumably you’re trying again your old trick of conflating the prosaic sense (reasonable confidence based on experience and logic – eg "I have faith that my car will start") with the religious sense (guess – eg "God"). 

…because there is no proof for any of their positions…

Yes there is when logic provides those proofs.

…no matter how hard they plead. ''I have no view of the cosmos but I know it can't be God'' is unfortunately an opinion for which there is no jot or tittle of proof.

It’s also one of your favourite fallacies – the straw man. Who would you say attempts the “but I know it can’t be God” bit?

Why do you even bother lying like this?

Jesus having existed…

More ambiguity: Jesus the man, or Jesus the man/god?

…does stir the pot up though and leaves, in todays Secular Humanist/New atheist environment, the pagan with it's vague position on divinity safe and comfortable and criticism free rather than the Christian...

Words. Yup, them’s definitely words. Any chance of trying to organise some of them into a coherent sentence though?

In other words You don't seem to bother them.

Presumably because he doesn’t expect special privileges for his beliefs as you do – like insisting they’re true for anyone else.

As I've said if and when the Christians leave this particularly rabid enclave,

Ah, the fallacy of judgmental language again. “Rabid” eh?

…just like all the other faiths, you may well find yourself on the menu.

Not if he doesn’t overreach as you do into unsupportable claims he won’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

As I said I am not as clever as you...

For the reasons I explained, please don't be fooled. Of course you are.

[SteveH]

The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.

That is wrong for a start!

'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.