(September 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm)Fred Wrote: I don't know how this board works, so is there a way to put this discussion in a place that folks will see it. The more the merrier.

You have attained that goal already.

(September 3, 2011 at 9:02 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: Start another thread in the atheism sub-forum.

I'm not familiar with the interface, so I didn't even see the replies that were there before I posted. I'll stay here for now unless someone who knows what they are doing would like to move it.

---

(September 3, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I see no evidence for any of the gods which have been invented by human imagination from the beginning of time.


Welcome.

Ah, the "kill-shot." Great start, as that and materialism are the two key points I'm interested in.

What would classify as evidence and why?

In the modern world one could not possibly have far to look to discover for oneself the intelligent, rational arguments for atheism. So those who ostentatiously claim to be looking for "rational intelligent" argument sounds very much like a theist troll hoping to redefine "intelligent and rational" from their normally useful meaning into some theological obfuscation so that theism can pretend to meet it, all in the hope of making theism seem less discreditable to the shallow observer.

But perhaps you will demonstrate you are otherwise.

(September 3, 2011 at 9:00 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: You only have one question: What proof is there for any god or gods?

Ok, tell me what constitutes proof and how you arrived at that conclusion.

---

(September 3, 2011 at 9:10 pm)Chuck Wrote: In the modern world one could not possibly have far to look to discover for oneself the intelligent, rational arguments for atheism. So those who ostentatiously claim to be looking for "rational intelligent" argument sounds very much like a theist troll hoping to redefine "intelligent and rational" from their normally useful meaning into something theological obfuscation so that theism can pretend to meet it, all in the hope of making theism seem less discreditable to the shallow observer.

But perhaps you will demonstrate you are otherwise.

Heh. Great start with the assumptions. the only thing worse than trolls are those that assume anything outside the box are trolls. I'd be happy to engage you if you jump off the soapbox.

---

(September 3, 2011 at 9:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm)Fred Wrote: I don't know how this board works, so is there a way to put this discussion in a place that folks will see it. The more the merrier.

You have attained that goal already.

Appears you are right. Cool. Hey, no offense to anyone, but this interface is a pain in the butt.

It is not "intelligently designed".


But then again, neither is anything else.

(September 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It is not "intelligently designed".


But then again, neither is anything else.

This is a question I have asked over and over and nobody has been willing to answer it beyond a throw away line.

Epistemology is a huge topic. To consider an idea "true" IMHO is when that idea generates the feeling of certitude to a high enough degree that it influences my actions. In other words I "feel" like the idea, a mental image, faithfully reflects reality somehow. The problem is that something can feel true whether it is or not. That's why critical thinking is so important IMO. Since our feelings of certitude are not connected to each others', what one considers proof is not to another. Is that meaningful?

(September 3, 2011 at 9:44 pm)MSizer Wrote: Epistemology is a huge topic. To consider an idea "true" IMHO is when that idea generates the feeling of certitude to a high enough degree that it influences my actions. In other words I "feel" like the idea, a mental image, faithfully reflects reality somehow. The problem is that something can feel true whether it is or not. That's why critical thinking is so important IMO. Since our feelings of certitude are not connected to each others', what one considers proof is not to another. Is that meaningful?

Hey, there ya are. cool. Let's go from here.

yes, the problem of proof/evidence is a tricky one. usually it's the first shot out of the box, but it is problematic all along the way.

It's not so much that there is no evidence as much as the question is framed poorly.

(September 3, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Fred Wrote:

(September 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It is not "intelligently designed".


But then again, neither is anything else.

This is a question I have asked over and over and nobody has been willing to answer it beyond a throw away line.

What? The board software?

(September 3, 2011 at 9:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 3, 2011 at 9:44 pm)Fred Wrote:

(September 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It is not "intelligently designed".


But then again, neither is anything else.

This is a question I have asked over and over and nobody has been willing to answer it beyond a throw away line.

What? The board software?

No, the question as to what constitutes proof and why.

But this interface does leave a lot to be desired. It's confusing as hell.