Mark, I'm going to try to clarify my positon regarding God and the burdern of proof, in hopes that it will be helpful to you. Learning about burden of proof was a key moment for me in thinking about God. I had been a Pentecostal, then read the Bible through twice, making me an agnostic theist (although I didn't know the term at the time) for moral reasons (I still believed in a good creator God, I just didn't believe the people who wrote the Bible were particularly guided by a being who fit that description).

Never having been taught any critical thinking skills, I believed almost everything: Bigfoot, alien visitations, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, ESP, ancient astronauts, you name it. I had read a Duke University study that had me convinced that ESP was scientifically proven. Then a few teenagers demonstrated how easy it was to fool those researchers, and when they put safeguards against such cheating in place, their statistical evidence vanished. I started getting a little skeptical after that.

Forward about fifteen years. At this point I'm skeptical about the paranormal, I'm no longer convinced of Bigfoot et al. I thought of myself as an agnostic, though I still leaned theist. I still thought some kind of God was needed to explain the origin of the universe. I wasn't aware of any naturalistic explanations, or even that such explanations were possible. When I learned that there were (finally finishing my BA), I think that was when I finally stopped actively believing in God, but I didn't consider myself an atheist yet. I thought that to be open-minded, I had to keep a space for the concept of God. I didn't want to be one of those atheists, so sure there wasn't a God, because I was sure no one could prove God doesn't exist.

The final straw for me was taking Intro to Religion and Inferential Logic the same semester. My religion professor was up front about being an Orthodox Christian who thought logic was on his side, and I was covering logical fallacies in a nearby building on the same day. It was painful to watch the mental contortions this intelligent, educated man that I respected went through in his efforts to justify his position and holding that spot for God in my own brain was becoming increasingly uncomfortable as well. And then...burden of proof and how it is assigned! It clicked, no more brain strain from trying to hold on to God, it's perfectly reasonable to let go of an idea you can't justify, and it's not being close-minded to reach a conclusion as long as you're willing to change your mind if you learn of a good reason to do so. I did a bit of reading up on atheism, found the defintion didn't require a dogmatic assertion of the nonexistence of God after all, and realized that is what I was, and that I had probably been one longer than I realized.

Which brings us to this: I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in 'not God'. I think God is highly unlikely, like a lot of other things I can't prove don't exist, like all the other gods and supernatural beings that have been proposed. I could be wrong, and I am open to new information that might convince me. I didn't adopt this position to make it harder for theists to argue with me, I wasn't on the internet and didn't know any other atheists (that I knew of), and though I enjoyed friendly arguments about religion, I kept a very light touch on the subject, because it was real life, and it's not worth a friend to be right. My position is merely that I don't believe in God as a real being because I know that I can't meet the burden of proof reasonably expected of me if I were to assert that no conceivable conception of God really exists. All those 'you'd have to be omniscient' accusations would be justifiable. I am not going to hold any position that I know I can't meet the burden of proof for...and that means I can't be a theist at this time.

Now for reading all that, you get a prize: there are some versions of God that I have a positive belief in the nonexistence of. I'm a gnostic atheist regarding the God of theodicy, it's just the result of generations of people claiming their God is greater than anyone else's until they arrived at a pile of omni-attributes that can't possibly coexist in the same being, and one that can't even coexist with itself. That God is a married bachelor, and the people who believe in it always have to sacrifice one of the legs of their theodicy tripod to do so, which means they don't really believe in THAT God after all, they believe in their modified version if pressed to think about it. I share the burden of proof equally with you if that's your God. That would be a topic for a different thread, though.

(January 4, 2013 at 8:58 am)whateverist Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 8:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: It does not take "faith" to reject claims of Santa. It does not take faith to reject invisible pink unicorns. It does not take faith to reject claims of little boys flying around on brooms. It does not take faith to reject Allah or Vishnu as claims.

Well, maybe it takes a little faith .. that the world is a bit predictable .. that what was true yesterday will still be true today. We can't really prove that the world isn't wildly chaotic. All we can do is demonstrate that, yet again, that faith seems to have been justified when we opened our eyes in the morning.

We really are not and cannot operate as 100% rational, conscious beings at all times. Some assumptions are required. I suppose Mark has faith that when he wakes up in the morning there will still be no knockdown proof that his deity does not exist. I have faith that my operational assumption will still be a good one, that no heed need be paid to these 'gods' so many people will be nattering on about.

Every morning my vehical is parked in front of my house when I am at home. I do not see it while I am asleep. Every day when I get up, it is there.

Now, technically, highly unlikely, but techically, it could get stolen(hard because newer modles have computer keys and jacking the sterering colom is not as easy as it used to be for car theives. But techincally, I't might get stolen.

But, I still do not have "faith" when I say it will be there. I have a reasonable expectiation considering it is in a safe neighborhood, and my dog would bark if someone came near my house. Plus it is in the front right in front of my bedroom window.

If I had "faith" that it would be there, and not natural reasonable expectiaton, if I woke up and it was not there, I would simply pray for it to come back and not call the police.

Saying there are no absolutes in life or nature should not constitue letting our brains fall out and forgetting probibility issues.

When the theist argues "faith" they are investing in gaps. When the atheists says "Semantics don't constitute truth, probibilities do". So when I get up in the moring with all the factors of the type of car and neighborhood, I'd be a fool to waist my time standing guard protecting it considering the observable data of it, and the neighborhood I live in.

I do not have to have "faith" that my car will be there in the morning. The data of 5 years of living there without it being stolen is pretty good data. So when they say we have "faith" too. It is merely prior data and probability issues, that is not faith.

(January 4, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Mark, I'm going to try to clarify my positon regarding God and the burdern of proof, in hopes that it will be helpful to you. Learning about burden of proof was a key moment for me in thinking about God. I had been a Pentecostal, then read the Bible through twice, making me an agnostic theist (although I didn't know the term at the time) for moral reasons (I still believed in a good creator God, I just didn't believe the people who wrote the Bible were particularly guided by a being who fit that description).

Never having been taught any critical thinking skills, I believed almost everything: Bigfoot, alien visitations, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, ESP, ancient astronauts, you name it. I had read a Duke University study that had me convinced that ESP was scientifically proven. Then a few teenagers demonstrated how easy it was to fool those researchers, and when they put safeguards against such cheating in place, their statistical evidence vanished. I started getting a little skeptical after that.

Forward about fifteen years. At this point I'm skeptical about the paranormal, I'm no longer convinced of Bigfoot et al. I thought of myself as an agnostic, though I still leaned theist. I still thought some kind of God was needed to explain the origin of the universe. I wasn't aware of any naturalistic explanations, or even that such explanations were possible. When I learned that there were (finally finishing my BA), I think that was when I finally stopped actively believing in God, but I didn't consider myself an atheist yet. I thought that to be open-minded, I had to keep a space for the concept of God. I didn't want to be one of those atheists, so sure there wasn't a God, because I was sure no one could prove God doesn't exist.

The final straw for me was taking Intro to Religion and Inferential Logic the same semester. My religion professor was up front about being an Orthodox Christian who thought logic was on his side, and I was covering logical fallacies in a nearby building on the same day. It was painful to watch the mental contortions this intelligent, educated man that I respected went through in his efforts to justify his position and holding that spot for God in my own brain was becoming increasingly uncomfortable as well. And then...burden of proof and how it is assigned! It clicked, no more brain strain from trying to hold on to God, it's perfectly reasonable to let go of an idea you can't justify, and it's not being close-minded to reach a conclusion as long as you're willing to change your mind if you learn of a good reason to do so. I did a bit of reading up on atheism, found the defintion didn't require a dogmatic assertion of the nonexistence of God after all, and realized that is what I was, and that I had probably been one longer than I realized.

Which brings us to this: I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in 'not God'. I think God is highly unlikely, like a lot of other things I can't prove don't exist, like all the other gods and supernatural beings that have been proposed. I could be wrong, and I am open to new information that might convince me. I didn't adopt this position to make it harder for theists to argue with me, I wasn't on the internet and didn't know any other atheists (that I knew of), and though I enjoyed friendly arguments about religion, I kept a very light touch on the subject, because it was real life, and it's not worth a friend to be right. My position is merely that I don't believe in God as a real being because I know that I can't meet the burden of proof reasonably expected of me if I were to assert that no conceivable conception of God really exists. All those 'you'd have to be omniscient' accusations would be justifiable. I am not going to hold any position that I know I can't meet the burden of proof for...and that means I can't be a theist at this time.

Now for reading all that, you get a prize: there are some versions of God that I have a positive belief in the nonexistence of. I'm a gnostic atheist regarding the God of theodicy, it's just the result of generations of people claiming their God is greater than anyone else's until they arrived at a pile of omni-attributes that can't possibly coexist in the same being, and one that can't even coexist with itself. That God is a married bachelor, and the people who believe in it always have to sacrifice one of the legs of their theodicy tripod to do so, which means they don't really believe in THAT God after all, they believe in their modified version if pressed to think about it. I share the burden of proof equally with you if that's your God. That would be a topic for a different thread, though.

TBH im kinda srted on the Burden of proof thing ;i have conceeded it already to you guys as its irrelevent to me and what I'm doing here as odd as it seems I actually come from a similar mental set to many of you guys and know If the shoe was on the other foot I would go down the same tracks. I know I will never win anyone over by proving GOD exists and even without bumping in to this burden of proof thing for first time with such a flurry I already knew this. But I see nothing illogical or inconsistent in saying I can state my beliefs and opinions giving forum acceptable proof when I can, without the need to have a burden of proof if I don't try to prove them. Why its still a live topics is I forget where I got with this process on each thread and some people seem reluctant to accept the concept not proving so no burden of proving.

I think looking at your list we had the same library, and although I have no credence to some of the theories I still find some of the stuff interesting eg the piri reis map. I think being a Catholic meant that science v religion was not an issue for me as Catholics aren't so hung up on the literal reading of the Bible. I even developed my own theory of fitting in evolution with the Bible was very elegant lol it would be so funny to start a similar thread here but leave the evolution bit out. I even managed to delve into various aspects of occult, DONT EVEN GO THERE whether you are an athiest or not. But as far as just following logic to the conclusion of athiesm would be easy if I didn't have lots of minor experiences that singularly could be brushed of but as a whole cant. So hence my stubborness. But even for me these event were never powerful enough to ever give me 100% certainty but enough to swing me enough. I often asked myself why does GOD continue to play with me and give me little bits but not enough to eliminate my doubts. Like why not some Pauline moment, then I think apart from scaring the absolute crap out of me what would my life be then how could I function in the role and life I have now. I would have to give it up to spend the rest of my life convincing people of what happened to me. So I don't ask for the big one anymore whether that's spiritual cowardness on my part or acceptance of Gods plan, its a bit of both but probably closer to spiritual cowardness as to pray for the big one would be to give up my life completely to GOD if it happens or to remove GOD from my life if it doesn't. So I am thankfull for the little experiences that others don't seem to get or at least rate.

As far as peoples concepts of GOD well not that many people really question what their concept is and what the implications are. But my concepts for God is not simple to get over to people and my reconcilliation of some of the terrible things in the OT is also very complicated and hard to express clearly in words but part of it lies in finite/infinite and is not completely formed ( a bit like when I'm doing a complicated maths question and I know that i'm on the right track to a solution but not quite got all the details in place yet but when I get in that place I always get the answer in the end, but in the case of God I can only get to a closer to answer place that I can cope with). The nearest I came to a Pentecostal experience was when my mum joined the Charasmatics for a while and took me to some of their meetings and then a week end seminar. I just thought they were mad, bad or possessed and got out fast. Went mountain climbing on the weekend instead cos it was in a lovely place and I always felt closer to GOD in Nature great expanses alone.

So you know a little more about me , hope the read didn't bore you

(January 4, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I ate the flying spaghetti monster so I know it doesn't exist. Sorry about that I didn't realise it was so popular.

Facetious but dense. In order to eat a thing, it would have to exist in the first place. Thus the very act of eating the FSM is a verification of its existence. When was the last time someone ate your god? And no, I'm not talking about some childish wafer story.

(January 4, 2013 at 3:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: So, then coveting thy neighbor's ass is not a sin?

Damn, then I'm in big trouble as I covet quite a few neighbor's ass. Butt I can't help it.

(January 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I ate the flying spaghetti monster so I know it doesn't exist. Sorry about that I didn't realise it was so popular.

Facetious but dense. In order to eat a thing, it would have to exist in the first place. Thus the very act of eating the FSM is a verification of its existence. When was the last time someone ate your god? And no, I'm not talking about some childish wafer story.

Sorry bit full at moment , mess of spaggetti on floor i need to sweep up. I really didn't want to upset anyone, I just thought you guys would find another flying thing to take its place.

(January 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 5:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Mark, I'm going to try to clarify my positon regarding God and the burdern of proof, in hopes that it will be helpful to you. Learning about burden of proof was a key moment for me in thinking about God. I had been a Pentecostal, then read the Bible through twice, making me an agnostic theist (although I didn't know the term at the time) for moral reasons (I still believed in a good creator God, I just didn't believe the people who wrote the Bible were particularly guided by a being who fit that description).

Never having been taught any critical thinking skills, I believed almost everything: Bigfoot, alien visitations, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, ESP, ancient astronauts, you name it. I had read a Duke University study that had me convinced that ESP was scientifically proven. Then a few teenagers demonstrated how easy it was to fool those researchers, and when they put safeguards against such cheating in place, their statistical evidence vanished. I started getting a little skeptical after that.

Forward about fifteen years. At this point I'm skeptical about the paranormal, I'm no longer convinced of Bigfoot et al. I thought of myself as an agnostic, though I still leaned theist. I still thought some kind of God was needed to explain the origin of the universe. I wasn't aware of any naturalistic explanations, or even that such explanations were possible. When I learned that there were (finally finishing my BA), I think that was when I finally stopped actively believing in God, but I didn't consider myself an atheist yet. I thought that to be open-minded, I had to keep a space for the concept of God. I didn't want to be one of those atheists, so sure there wasn't a God, because I was sure no one could prove God doesn't exist.

The final straw for me was taking Intro to Religion and Inferential Logic the same semester. My religion professor was up front about being an Orthodox Christian who thought logic was on his side, and I was covering logical fallacies in a nearby building on the same day. It was painful to watch the mental contortions this intelligent, educated man that I respected went through in his efforts to justify his position and holding that spot for God in my own brain was becoming increasingly uncomfortable as well. And then...burden of proof and how it is assigned! It clicked, no more brain strain from trying to hold on to God, it's perfectly reasonable to let go of an idea you can't justify, and it's not being close-minded to reach a conclusion as long as you're willing to change your mind if you learn of a good reason to do so. I did a bit of reading up on atheism, found the defintion didn't require a dogmatic assertion of the nonexistence of God after all, and realized that is what I was, and that I had probably been one longer than I realized.

Which brings us to this: I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in 'not God'. I think God is highly unlikely, like a lot of other things I can't prove don't exist, like all the other gods and supernatural beings that have been proposed. I could be wrong, and I am open to new information that might convince me. I didn't adopt this position to make it harder for theists to argue with me, I wasn't on the internet and didn't know any other atheists (that I knew of), and though I enjoyed friendly arguments about religion, I kept a very light touch on the subject, because it was real life, and it's not worth a friend to be right. My position is merely that I don't believe in God as a real being because I know that I can't meet the burden of proof reasonably expected of me if I were to assert that no conceivable conception of God really exists. All those 'you'd have to be omniscient' accusations would be justifiable. I am not going to hold any position that I know I can't meet the burden of proof for...and that means I can't be a theist at this time.

Now for reading all that, you get a prize: there are some versions of God that I have a positive belief in the nonexistence of. I'm a gnostic atheist regarding the God of theodicy, it's just the result of generations of people claiming their God is greater than anyone else's until they arrived at a pile of omni-attributes that can't possibly coexist in the same being, and one that can't even coexist with itself. That God is a married bachelor, and the people who believe in it always have to sacrifice one of the legs of their theodicy tripod to do so, which means they don't really believe in THAT God after all, they believe in their modified version if pressed to think about it. I share the burden of proof equally with you if that's your God. That would be a topic for a different thread, though.

TBH im kinda srted on the Burden of proof thing ;i have conceeded it already to you guys as its irrelevent to me and what I'm doing here as odd as it seems I actually come from a similar mental set to many of you guys and know If the shoe was on the other foot I would go down the same tracks. I know I will never win anyone over by proving GOD exists and even without bumping in to this burden of proof thing for first time with such a flurry I already knew this. But I see nothing illogical or inconsistent in saying I can state my beliefs and opinions giving forum acceptable proof when I can, without the need to have a burden of proof if I don't try to prove them. Why its still a live topics is I forget where I got with this process on each thread and some people seem reluctant to accept the concept not proving so no burden of proving.

I think looking at your list we had the same library, and although I have no credence to some of the theories I still find some of the stuff interesting eg the piri reis map. I think being a Catholic meant that science v religion was not an issue for me as Catholics aren't so hung up on the literal reading of the Bible. I even developed my own theory of fitting in evolution with the Bible was very elegant lol it would be so funny to start a similar thread here but leave the evolution bit out. I even managed to delve into various aspects of occult, DONT EVEN GO THERE whether you are an athiest or not. But as far as just following logic to the conclusion of athiesm would be easy if I didn't have lots of minor experiences that singularly could be brushed of but as a whole cant. So hence my stubborness. But even for me these event were never powerful enough to ever give me 100% certainty but enough to swing me enough. I often asked myself why does GOD continue to play with me and give me little bits but not enough to eliminate my doubts. Like why not some Pauline moment, then I think apart from scaring the absolute crap out of me what would my life be then how could I function in the role and life I have now. I would have to give it up to spend the rest of my life convincing people of what happened to me. So I don't ask for the big one anymore whether that's spiritual cowardness on my part or acceptance of Gods plan, its a bit of both but probably closer to spiritual cowardness as to pray for the big one would be to give up my life completely to GOD if it happens or to remove GOD from my life if it doesn't. So I am thankfull for the little experiences that others don't seem to get or at least rate.

As far as peoples concepts of GOD well not that many people really question what their concept is and what the implications are. But my concepts for God is not simple to get over to people and my reconcilliation of some of the terrible things in the OT is also very complicated and hard to express clearly in words but part of it lies in finite/infinite and is not completely formed ( a bit like when I'm doing a complicated maths question and I know that i'm on the right track to a solution but not quite got all the details in place yet but when I get in that place I always get the answer in the end, but in the case of God I can only get to a closer to answer place that I can cope with). The nearest I came to a Pentecostal experience was when my mum joined the Charasmatics for a while and took me to some of their meetings and then a week end seminar. I just thought they were mad, bad or possessed and got out fast. Went mountain climbing on the weekend instead cos it was in a lovely place and I always felt closer to GOD in Nature great expanses alone.

So you know a little more about me , hope the read didn't bore you

This is just a long winded way of saying "I know I cant prove it, but could you let me at least talk about it?"

Yes, you can talk all you want about it, and we can and will criticize any claim you make on the issue God/god/s/deities. Just like we do with people with other pet gods you reject.

Quote:But as far as just following logic to the conclusion of athiesm would be easy if I didn't have lots of minor experiences that singularly could be brushed of but as a whole cant.

Yep, we get that all the time too. "There is no way what I experienced could have been anything less than proof of a god".

Our "personal experiences" are notoriously flawed, just like that video of the man in the "seemingly" normal sized hallway, but then he moves backwards and the hall shrinks(optical illusion). God belief is the mental version of this. It amounts to simply "if you want to believe it badly enough you will".

People do not understand that depression, stress, mental illness and chemical activity and mundane misperception (not understanding that the wind, and not a ghost, slammed the door).

People who claim to see spirits or hear voices, are having hallucinations caused by all sorts of things. Power of suggestion(people indoctrinating them so much the belief gets scared into them long term. Or misfires of neurons that mix memories with auditory and visual nerves. Or flat out mental illness. Combine your life input and lack of brain chemistry and psychology understanding, add superstition, and these are the "experiences" that make you say "This has to be a god".

Our misperceptions cause these things, not any comic book made up fictional being. Otherwise the Oracles of the Romans and Greeks and Egyptians would have real gods because they too claimed to have "experiences".

(January 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Facetious but dense. In order to eat a thing, it would have to exist in the first place. Thus the very act of eating the FSM is a verification of its existence. When was the last time someone ate your god? And no, I'm not talking about some childish wafer story.

Sorry bit full at moment , mess of spaggetti on floor i need to sweep up. I really didn't want to upset anyone, I just thought you guys would find another flying thing to take its place.

Facetious and dumb deflection, compounded by atrocious spelling, noted.

(January 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Sorry bit full at moment , mess of spaggetti on floor i need to sweep up. I really didn't want to upset anyone, I just thought you guys would find another flying thing to take its place.

Facetious and dumb deflection, compounded by atrocious spelling, noted.

Hic watt is wrong width meye speeling

(January 5, 2013 at 4:56 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Facetious and dumb deflection, compounded by atrocious spelling, noted.

Hic watt is wrong width meye speeling

I am a bad speller too. But most websites and computers have the ability to underline in red while you are typing, a misspelled word. I would suggest when you see those read lines open another tab and google that word with the word"definition" after that. It will give you lists of links of that particular word.

I don't always catch everything, but I do try.

Besides that I really care more about you selling a myth than your spelling. But if one's spelling is really really bad, it can lead people to think you didn't make it out of grade school.