The Bible made me an Atheist.

[Dotard]

Dotard,

You CAN! (No advanced course necessary)

http://www.redefinegod.com/

http://www.yoism.org/

Rhizo

Excellent.

[Pippy]

Pippy has a God of his own making.

That's almost a rude way to put it. One of the two faces of god is a personal side, that I have a lot of control over my interpretation of... Kind of like reality, it's all about how you choose to see it. It has nothing to do with ignoring logic. I have said it repeatedly, that we disagree on what is logical, not that either of us is dismissing logic, although it would seem to both of us that the other is.

Can I have one too? Mines gonna have a flame job on his robes and he ain't gonna look like a guitarist from ZZ Top. OH WAIT!! Even better, mines gonna be a chick, a naked chick with an oral fixation who regards my tally-whacker as her finest creation ever! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Sure. You can believe what you want, but to compare my beliefs to this bullshit your spouting is stupid. My personified face of god is a beautiful and morally upright thing that I use to help me act right in my own life. Yours in this rant would seem sexual, that is a disgusting personal god, and what you are pretending to believe in has no connection with what I believe in. If I hadn't learned the value of your opinion already, I might be greatly offended, and screaming mad.

Fine example of man creating God we have here. Damn, why didn't I think of this before?

You just don't listen do you. Go back and read my introduction post, if you have to. I believe in two side, two definitions, of god. One is personal, and controlled by me. The other is objective, and I don't know too much about her for sure. So accuse me of making up god, and I can accuse you of denying the obvious god, and we can both feel superior like we were in kindergarten bullying each other with the extent of our childish wits. Unimpressive.

customizable theology

So you guys hate on religious people. So I say 'I am a believer, but not religious'. And then instead of me being an idiot for letting other people tell me what to believe, I am an idiot for believing what I feel to be right. Seems like a lose-lose. So the only way I won't get torn down on this site is if I convert to your shitty system of disbelief? I am only asking for the same right you demand. To believe what I feel to be true. If you are allowed to be an atheist, I feel I am allowed to be a believer. And you opinion on belief is a lot like your one on the war. Completely the opposite of mine, and seemingly close to madness and very poorly presented.

I don't like posting angrily first thing in the morning. Try to say what you feel you must without being as dismissive and rude. If you could, but hey, believe what you want about the right way to act.

Act now and for the low low price of negating logic you can just make up whatever the fuck you want and nobody can argue with you because if they do they will be seen as "intolerant" which is BAD because in this day and age no judgments are acceptable.

Am i intolerant of your making up atheism? You guys made up "whatever the fuck" belief system you wanted, but if I do something that partially seems like that, I am denying the logic you all see in your infinite fucking wisdom. You atheists believe what you want, and disbelieve what you want. I am doing the same, and I am negating logic?

I've heard it said that if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

Funny, I am the one here that believes in something, not in nothing. If anyone 'stands for nothing' it would be an atheist, right? To say I 'stand for nothing' is also very rude. I would take offense to it, but I don't care what you guys think. I only care what people say if it is presented both respectfully and logically... Something sorely lacking on this website.

Thank you both of you, for your valuable and heartwarming input to the conversation.
All I can do is shake my head.

-Pip

[Pippy]

Do I sound like that? I will try not to engage in those arguments when I just wake up...

Sorry if I was offensive to anyone I was not talking directly too.

Thnaks,-Pip

[Dotard]

Pippy has a God of his own making.

That's almost a rude way to put it.

Rude or not, this God you made is of your own making. You said it yourself, this God you adopted comes not from any ancient writings, but from your own imagination and you believe it exists because you can't prove to yourself the God you made up does not exist.

Sure. You can believe what you want, but to compare my beliefs to this bullshit your spouting is stupid. My personified face of god is a beautiful and morally upright thing that I use to help me act right in my own life. Yours in this rant would seem sexual, that is a disgusting personal god,

Orly? How is my made-up God any more or less stupid and disgusting than your made-up God? My God happens to be a beautiful and morally upright thing that I use to help me act right in my own life. How exactly is mine inferior to yours? So what my God is sexual. It's an attribute I have assigned her because I feel it is right.

So accuse me of making up god,

I'm not merely 'accusing' you. I'm affirming what you had already written.

and I can accuse you of denying the obvious god,

and yet you provide no "obviousness" for the God you are purporting to exist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Um...kind of backwards?

No, I don't think. Why are you guys atheists? You surely will go on and on about evidence, logic and obvious conclusions. Well I have evidence of the possible existence of god, and it is logical to me. But we have stood at this point many times before. The things that are evidence to me might not make sense to, or convince yourselves. We are individuals like that. I think if you gave as honest an answer as to why your an atheist, it would be that you can personally disprove the theory.

Lol. My answer is obviously fucking obviously honest. I said I know of no evidence. You've given me of what you believe to be evidence, but it's not evidence, it doesn't demonstrate God. And becasue it's not evidence, that's why the burden of proof is still on you. I don't need to "disprove it" - that would be an unwarranted reversal of the burden of proof.

Ever heard of the burden of proof?

Nope. Hehe, this is also somewhere we end up a lot. I maintain my position on that. The burden of proof is one of your guys favorite tricks. If I claim there may be a god, I should try to back it up. If you claim there is not a god, the same applies.[/quote] I don't claim there is absolutely no God though. I just don't believe in him because there's no evidence. The burden of proof is on the positive claim - I'm not makinga positive claim I'm just dismissing yours because it lacks evidence.

The reasons I have for believing in my god are personal. They are logical, and sensible, to me.

Well that's all good well and proper, fine and dandy - but is it actually evidence?

The eternal philosophical conversation about the existence or non-existence of god exists in a realm devoid of the influence of evidence. The argument about god is an argument about ideas, not things.

Either God exists or he doesn't. I need a reason to believe he exists, just as I need a reason to believe the FSM exists. In other words I need something that backs such a belief up, that gives credence to it - I need evidence.

EvF

[Pippy]

You said it yourself, this God you adopted comes not from any ancient writings

But if it came form ancient writings, you would discredit that. So I am not allowed to believe in a god that exists in old books, and I am not allowed to believe in a god that doesn't exist in old books. I mean, if I told you that I believe in Yahweh or Krishna, then you would be OK with it? I doubt it. The old books are there. My god comes from the fact that all humans everywhere tried to name and interpret god, and wrote many different old books about it. So the subject of the books is worth a thought, especially when they agree or overlap. I don't know how many ways I can say 'I believe in two meanings for the word god'...

because you can't prove to yourself the God you made up does not exist.

Not because I am not trying. Not because I don't want too. Because there is nothing I have found, being thorough and very objective, that disproves god. You, I am assured can't prove to me god doesn't exist either. Just as I can't, and don't want to convince you that there is a god.

How is my made-up God any more or less stupid and disgusting than your made-up God?

Because I believe in my made up god, she is very important to me. Your made up god was just constructed to mock and ridicule me like a child, so that is a huge difference. You don't believe in god, so your personal god your are describing is a rude and immature mockery of mine. That's a difference.

My God happens to be a beautiful and morally upright thing that I use to help me act right in my own life.

That is another statement I know you don't mean, you are just repeating what I say like a little brother, to see if it gets a rise. You have said many times before that you don't believe in god, so...

So what my God is sexual.

But you don't beleive in god, you are just being rude. You are poking fun, and it dosn't do much for the conversation... Your god that liked your hard on is a little gross...

I'm not merely 'accusing' you. I'm affirming what you had already written.

Then affirm what I wrote in total. Don't pick half of what I said. I said god is an objective thing (that's the 'I'm right, you're wrong' part)) and is a personal relationship (that's the I get to see it as I wish part). Those are the TWO sides of god as I have presented them in my opinion. Yes I made up half of the relationship, but I can't help but make it up. You seem to hate my god because I made it up, so I should convert to an existing religion and follow that already established god? And what about you, you choose to see things the way you want, believe what you want. Am I allowed to do that too?

It's not that I made up god in the sense that I decided what she is, and how she functions. I can only believe what makes rational sense to me, and all that I believe of god makes rational sense to me. It is possible that we were seeded as a giant alien genetics experiment, but that does not make rational sense to me. So I just don't believe in anything I want to, all willy nilly, but I believe in what makes sense to me. In that light, I am exercising the same right you guys do. To live with what you think is true. To be allowed to think for yourself...

and yet you provide no "obviousness" for the God you are purporting to exist.

Let me talk slower Dotard, may be that will help.
I can't possibly provide evidence for god to you.
You can't possibly provide evidence of gods non existence to me.
I will never present a scrap of this evidence, of this proof, since I cannot. If you want to believe in god, figure it out. If you don't want to believe in god, have a wonderful time. It is not my job to convert people, I am not a missionary. It is not my job to convince people, I have no need for validation. I can only say "I believe in god" and leave it at that. If you wan to disprove my opinion, go for it. But to rudely mock my beliefs and god is without point. I know you disagree, this is an atheist forum...

Lol. My answer is obviously fucking obviously honest. I said I know of no evidence. You've given me of what you believe to be evidence, but it's not evidence, it doesn't demonstrate God. And becasue it's not evidence, that's why the burden of proof is still on you. I don't need to "disprove it" - that would be an unwarranted reversal of the burden of proof.

We have to figure this out. I don't believe the burden of proof falls on me. I don't believe the burden of proof falls on me. If you guys get out that dusty stick again, I will repeat. I don't agree that the burden of proof falls on me. I would only be burdened to prove what I am saying if it was a) possible, and b) my intention. I don't want to convince you to believe in my god. I would like to think you guys would take my word on it that I believe in my god, but obviously not. I don't care if you think my beliefs are stupid, I think yours are stupid, so that is a big stupid circle... That's why I try not to go there, out of respect for your guys right to think whatever you want ( a right I don't seem to be granted).

Why I believe in god. I know of no evidence. You've all given me what you believe to be evidence, but's it's not evidence, it doesn't dismiss god. The bible made me an atheist? The silliness of the bible is evidence of a fault in god, I thought a man wrote the book. So which of us is treating it as divine then?

I'm not makinga positive claim I'm just dismissing yours because it lacks evidence.

And you too EvF... I CAN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE. Stop chastising me for not making my god seem obvious to atheists. Jesus guys, come on. I never said I could provide evidence, and I always maintained that we are in a type of cyber relationship that excludes the possibility of either of us sharing evidence in this format. Sigh.

fine and dandy - but is it actually evidence?

no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence...

I need evidence.

I cannot provide that in this situation. I am sorry, you will have to find god all on your own.

It's the same 3 arguments over and over and over here. I don't want to fall for the burden of proof trap, I can't provide evidence in this capacity, and I already know you're all atheists... Son of a bitch...

This is why I don't want to discuss god. It gets no where, but so slowly...
-Pip

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So I am not allowed to believe in a god that exists in old books, and I am not allowed to believe in a god that doesn't exist in old books. I mean, if I told you that I believe in Yahweh or Krishna, then you would be OK with it? I doubt it.

No mate,I've never said that.I really,truly don't care what you believe. You need no one's permission to believe whatever you want. I do however,reserve the right to reject any belief whatsoever presented to me without evidence.


From reading many of your posts I get the impression you struggle with the meaning of the word "'evidence". People here [rightly] attack your claims when you fail to produce supporting evidence and demonstrate woolly thinking. (which is often) From what I can tell,most of us are not being deliberately mean or unjust.

Faith is not an acceptable reason for me to believe a thing. For me religious beliefs have an even greater burden of proof than many scientific claims. As Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs"

ON EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Burden of proof

Main article: Burden of proof

The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion. Whoever does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption. Whoever bears the burden of proof must present sufficient evidence to move the conclusion to their own position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled both by establishing positive evidence and negating oppositional evidence.


The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence which underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defence might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

[Dotard]

Wait, What? Why you upset? I have seen the light and am adopting theology a'la Pippy style.

1. Accept a objective God. Ok fine, I'll give you that. One Objective God. Check
2. Assign this God attributes you personally want. Ok, female, naked, regards my wanker as her greatest creation ever. Check.

Now you insult me and my God? I am not allowed to do the same as you did?

How dare you accuse me of making my God up as a form of mockery?! I made her up as a guiding light, as what will help me lead a moral and upright life. She 'feels' right.

You can believe whatever it is you wish to believe if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. No one disallows you to play make believe. It's when you come to a place like here and spout it all (or 1/2 of it) to be objectively true you open yourself up to mockery.

Honestly bud, if I came here in all seriousness claiming there were aqua-fairies living at the bottom of my koi ponds in my backyard that keeps all the flowers blooming, the water clear and my fish shiney and healthy can I reasonably expect not to be mocked? Expecially if I say their existance is the objective part and any attribute they have (keeping water clear, flowers blooming etc) I make up as I go along.

You, nor I, can prove the aqua-fairies do not exist.

[Pippy]

I don't want to talk about aqua fairies with you any more.

Thank you.

-Pip

[Dotard]

I don't want to talk about aqua fairies with you any more.
Thank you.
-Pip

Because?

Aquaman will be quite displeased you dismiss the existance of the fairies he has created to maintain the koi ponds.

St. Carpeous from the 17th century, one of the koi pond founders, hath said;
"For what are the koi ponds without God (Aquaman)? They are no more than mud-holes."