Rejection of positive claims doesn't negate lack of belief.

Hello Salesman,

Quote:This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief. Surely you would admit that this is simply not true.

My statement is based on the fact that many religious beliefs and myths have been abandoned in light of strong evidence to the contrary. It is human nature to defend beliefs to which they have an emotional investment. This applies to scientific as well as religious beliefs. I believe (strictly opinion) most people would rather know and subscribe to the truth of a question.

Quote:Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved

In an argument, you should refrain from using tactics like this to gain favor. This is called "Poisoning the Well". Rather than offer an argument for your position, you've implied that one is not sane, lucid, or an adult if they oppose your position. You haven't given any reason to accept your position as the reasonable one. Instead, you implied that there are consequences for those that may object. That is not thinking critically. Let's edit that part out, and search for some substance in your argument.

I think you misread this. Its not belief in my opinion I was referring to, I was referring to belief in Santa. Do you disagree that most sane lucid adults don't think Santa exists?

Quote:First, I never described any of Santa's properties, you took those liberties without being prompted. When did I say anything about Santa delivering presents worldwide on Christmas Eve? You assumed that was the Santa I believed in, but it's not. That is just a Caricature of my belief. Aside from that, you didn't present this "preponderance of evidence". You made a baseless assertion that it is available and then claimed that you could use it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your caricature of Santa does not exist. You didn't even refute your own version of Santa.

No you didn't describe properties of Santa but so what? If you type the word 'water' in a response would it be inappropriate for me to think your referring to a clear liquid found all over the earth? If by Santa you mean a mythical being to whom nothing is attributed to then I would agree that would be unfalsifiable but who thinks that when you type the word Santa? If you said tooth fairy would I be unjustified to believe your referring to a mythical creature who is alleged to give money for teeth? If we go down this ridiculous path when you wrote 'This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief.' I could say just to make sure were on the same page what do you mean by statement? Presupposes? Evidence? I could say please clearly and carefully define every word you use so we can make sure were on the same page. What do you mean by caricature? Is the idea that Santa is a mythical person who is alleged to deliver presents world wide on Christmas eve a caricature? Isn't that what you were told about Santa at one time or another? Don't parents offer the existence of presents as evidence that Santa came? I didn't think (talking to a smart guy like yourself) I needed to refute not my version of Santa but the version that been around for a long time.

Quote:I don't share your belief, I don't recognize a difference. Don't you see that this begs the very question we set out to answer? If I am of the opinion that not only does your God not exist, but it would be impossible for any sane, lucid, adult to consider it as a possibility, why then ought I take your position seriously? You have to acknowledge that to someone who doesn't believe in mystical supernatural things, I am inclined to have the same attitude toward your God. Instead, I am trying to engage in a rational exchange. I assume you would like me to take you seriously, no? I am sure you do not want me to tell you that it would be a defamation of my character as a rational person to even entertain your position about gods. Do you understand the comparisons yet?

I'll wait for the apparently official definition of Santa which you'll provide. The version of Santa I'm familiar with is easily disproved and is why sane lucid adults who do believe we owe our existence to God don't believe in Santa.

Quote:If it's falsifiable, [God hypothesis] then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.

I wouldn't expect to find anything, I wouldn't expect you or I to be alive. I wouldn't expect living sentient beings to emerge from mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence. I wouldn't expect to find a universe governed by seemingly inviolable laws of physics and that those laws would result in stars, galaxies, planets (from second generation stars with the properties to create rocky matter).

I'll ask you the same question. What would you expect to find (if anything) given that mindless forces somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence (or always existed)? Would you expect such forces to produce sentient life?

I'll get to the rest of your post as time permits...

If the points I was making about Santa were snakes, they would have bit you. The glaring parallel is even in your responses. I want you to read your response to the Santa stuff that I wrote, but while you read your own responses while consciously reminding yourself that my intention is not to offend, pretend you're an Atheist and every time you read yourself referring to Santa, plug in God. If I were a theist, I could provoke an atheist to respond in the exact way about God as I was able to get you to respond about Santa. I want you to know that I agree that your Santa responses were perfectly warranted, I'm trying to get you to think about why you I instinctively responded in the exact way an Atheist would instinctively respond if God were the subject in question rather than Santa.

I gotta run some errands, and I will respond to your post and I will point out exactly what I mean if you havent spotted it by then.

One last thing, I want you to think about the things you plan on using for evidence against Santa and while you do, try to anticipate any room for me to wiggle out of it, because if there is, I will exploit the hell out of it.

You may want to think about the implications of your answer to my evidence question. If there can be no evidence to disprove something, how could there be any evidence to prove it? That's the first clue that your position is unfalsifiable. See ya later! Have fun

This IS supposed to be fun you know...

---

Also, don't get too hung up on a particular version of Santa. If Santa doesn't exist, and is easily refutable, then it couldn't possibly matter what version I try to defend. Right?

(March 18, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist)

(emphasis is mine)

It keeps getting pointed out to you that this is not a majority opinion among atheists. Please quit trying to tell us what we believe.

I actually believe that god does not exist. I don't claim it very often because I am comfortable admitting that I cannot prove that god does not exist. As I point out from time to time, this is an issue that can be settled easily enough if anyone produces an actual god. And to be honest, if everyone who ever professed belief in god always seemed to describe the exact same god, then that by itself would be a pretty compelling bit of evidence. But not only have humans claimed belief in hundreds of gods (if not thousands, or even millions) over the course of our history, even the relative few that have been distilled over the centuries are viewed in thousands of different ways-- some compatible, some completely opposed.

I don't think the theist is asking me to believe that "a" god exists, or some powerful creative being exists. He is asking me to believe that his specific god... no, his specific version of his specific god exists. That's a pretty high hurdle to clear, and few even bother to attempt it, preferring to make one assertion after another instead. But the resolution to the problem remains quite simple: you get god to show up, and I won't have a reason to disbelieve.

(March 18, 2015 at 11:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: When someone starts off a giant wall of text with "atheism isn't a growing movement" they are not making an argument for their position, they are merely arguing for the gang they subscribe to. All religions do this.

What's more, they are making an argument I will never read. Too many clues that nothing of consequence lies behind that wall to ever throw away the time it would take to find out for sure.

Instead of a tease followed by a labyrinth, I would suggest he just pick his main point and make it. If that goes well, he can make another. If the stupid isn't absolutely radioactive, I'll follow along. Otherwise, I'm done.

(March 18, 2015 at 7:49 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 11:57 am)Brian37 Wrote: When someone starts off a giant wall of text with "atheism isn't a growing movement" they are not making an argument for their position, they are merely arguing for the gang they subscribe to. All religions do this.

What's more, they are making an argument I will never read. Too many clues that nothing of consequence lies behind that wall to ever throw away the time it would take to find out for sure.

Instead of a tease followed by a labyrinth, I would suggest he just pick his main point and make it. If that goes well, he can make another. If the stupid isn't absolutely radioactive, I'll follow along. Otherwise, I'm done.

I hope to one day acquire your wisdom. When you say things like that, I know you're right but I can't help but feel like a young dog who continues to chase the car while the wiser dog continues to explain to me why there's nothing of value awaiting me even if I actually caught it. I see nonsense, and I run it down (and more often than not, the nonsense lives on) but alas...here comes another one, and away I go!

(March 18, 2015 at 6:50 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist)

(emphasis is mine)

It keeps getting pointed out to you that this is not a majority opinion among atheists. Please quit trying to tell us what we believe.

Okay so the majority of atheists believe God does exist....

---

(March 18, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Tonus Wrote: I actually believe that god does not exist. I don't claim it very often because I am comfortable admitting that I cannot prove that god does not exist. As I point out from time to time, this is an issue that can be settled easily enough if anyone produces an actual god. And to be honest, if everyone who ever professed belief in god always seemed to describe the exact same god, then that by itself would be a pretty compelling bit of evidence. But not only have humans claimed belief in hundreds of gods (if not thousands, or even millions) over the course of our history, even the relative few that have been distilled over the centuries are viewed in thousands of different ways-- some compatible, some completely opposed.

I don't think the theist is asking me to believe that "a" god exists, or some powerful creative being exists. He is asking me to believe that his specific god... no, his specific version of his specific god exists. That's a pretty high hurdle to clear, and few even bother to attempt it, preferring to make one assertion after another instead. But the resolution to the problem remains quite simple: you get god to show up, and I won't have a reason to disbelieve.

Tonus,

You call yourself an atheist so it would hardly come as a surprise to anyone that you believe God doesn't exist. I can't prove God does exist but I can and have offered evidence in favor of my opinion. The God I believe in is the God of theism.

The point is if neither side has enough evidence to prove their point then all the two sides have is a difference of opinion. If its reasonable to have the opinion God doesn't exist minus conclusive proof isn't it just as reasonable to believe God does exist minus conclusive proof? There is no reason for either side to act as if the other side are imbeciles or can't see the obvious or compare belief in the existence of God to mythical characters no sane people believe in.