Reasons

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think atheists are more objective that theist like you yes and, guess what, 7 votes in and everyone who has voted reckons Catholics are Christians so let's just drop it eh? Whether you believe it to be so or not, Catholics are as Christian as any other Christian cult.

What a pile of crock. If we're courting opinion exclusively from those who can't know, then the possibilities are endless. C'mon Kyu you can do better than this.

As opposed to the opinion of those with an agenda? I don't think so ... I think those removed from the specific arena in question are far better qualified to judge the objective merits of something.

Not here they don't ... I don't believe any rationalist here (apart form theists) "gets" the idea that lack of evidence can be positive for a claim.

Yes they do Kyu.

No they don't Frodo.

No, I didn't!

*sighs*

Yawns!

Yet you apparently maintain that that lack of evidence is somehow a positive evidence for your deity ... THAT is what I have a problem with. If it's just faith, no problem (I disagree but no issue) but you somehow twist that to say that is exactly what is expected and implicitly claim it's positive evidence for your god.

I don't maintain that it's positive evidence of my deity at all! What nonsense! Have you listened to yourself lately? Lack of empirical evidence supports what the Bible says, and what I believe to be true about empirical evidence.

You see? That's EXACTLY what I mean ... you are saying that no evidence is what we should expect THEREFORE (implicitly) you are claiming a lack of evidence as a positive proof! It's offensive on every intellectual level I can consider.

[Now please explain to me how that proves in the slightest that God exists. Or how I say anywhere that it does.

See above.

[All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith.

No, the implications go far beyond that.

Kyu

[Giff]

Fr0d0 do you regard the bible to be the absolute truth? Are you kidding?

It's just a book nothing more nothing less.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Fr0d0 do you regard the bible to be the absolute truth? Are you kidding?

More interesting to me (since I very much doubt he believes the creation to be literal truth) is how one decides what is or is not valid within such a book.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

EvF. You aren't addressing my answer to your question, you're just repeating the same old questions that you always do. I've answered your repetitive questions in other threads, and you haven't answered there, so I'm not going to do it all over again, because I assume that you will follow the pattern and keep on asking regardless. No offence, but as they say on Dragon's Den... I'm out.

No, I'm repeating myself because I don't believe you have really answered them properly...I mean you don't seem to be making any sense here, you seem inconsistent..

You say that there can be no evidence for God - but that you DO have REASONS for believing in God - but if these reasons are at all valid - then other words you are considering it evidence...
Because you say that it is not just a personal thing because many Christians have similar views on the whole thing, etc, etc - and the existence of God is actually important to you..

But you also admit that there is no reasons to believe God exists in the sense of existing objectively than there are for believing that Santa or Zeus or the FSM does etc..
So note,
1: You say you DO have reasons for believing in God but it's not evidence (although if the reasons are valid and are anything more than personal opinion then that's basically the same thing as saying it's evidence).

Right?

2: You say it is not just a personal thing - you say that God exists in reality not just in someone's mind.

Right?

3. You say there are no more rational reasons (or no evidence of any kind, scientific or otherwise) to believe that God exists in an objective sense than there is for Santa, etc.

Right?
And if so, don't you see any contradictions or at least a conflict of some kind between 3 of these points?
You say there are no more reasons for believing God exists objectively than Santa, but you also say that you do have reasons of SOME kind. So what, he exists in a non-objective sense? But you also claim that he DOES exist in an objective sense becasue it is not a matter of personal opinion and many Christians have similar views, etc, etc?

EvF

[WWLD]

wow I can't stay off this forum for a whole week again

[Giff]

I wonder what Fr0d0 think of the bible and what he really meant acctually.

First of all.Fr0d0 since you said that it's theoretical possible for a god/gods to exist then I want you to explain this.

Second of all do I wonder what evidence you have that non of the non-christians gods doesn't exist?

I don't believe in any gods but you seem to think your own god does, but what tells you that yur god exist and other relgions doesn't?

[fr0d0]

1: You say you DO have reasons for believing in God but it's not evidence (although if the reasons are valid and are anything more than personal opinion then that's basically the same thing as saying it's evidence).

Right?

Not empirical evidence. So you're saying that valid reasoning = evidence?

2: You say it is not just a personal thing - you say that God exists in reality not just in someone's mind.

Right?

No. I say that I believe that God exists. I can claim nothing.

3. You say there are no more rational reasons (or no evidence of any kind, scientific or otherwise) to believe that God exists in an objective sense than there is for Santa, etc.

Right?

I can't say objectively (factually) that God exists. No one can, as it's impossible. A ridiculous question.

And if so, don't you see any contradictions or at least a conflict of some kind between 3 of these points?

So... not so. Your understanding of my position is still incorrect. What I'm saying isn't rocket science EvF, it's very simple. How can you be an atheist when you don't understand what it is you're not accepting?

---

I wonder what Fr0d0 think of the bible and what he really meant acctually.

First of all.Fr0d0 since you said that it's theoretical possible for a god/gods to exist then I want you to explain this.

Tall order!

One rational idea at a time Giff. Read my posts

Second of all do I wonder what evidence you have that non of the non-christians gods doesn't exist?

Like I said, I followed rational process.

I don't believe in any gods but you seem to think your own god does, but what tells you that yur god exist and other relgions doesn't?

See above.

---

I think atheists are more objective that theist like you yes and, guess what, 7 votes in and everyone who has voted reckons Catholics are Christians so let's just drop it eh? Whether you believe it to be so or not, Catholics are as Christian as any other Christian cult.

What a pile of crock. If we're courting opinion exclusively from those who can't know, then the possibilities are endless. C'mon Kyu you can do better than this.

As opposed to the opinion of those with an agenda? I don't think so ... I think those removed from the specific arena in question are far better qualified to judge the objective merits of something.

That's ridiculous Kyu. There's no debatable point here to have an agenda about. You don't understand the subject - simple.

Not here they don't ... I don't believe any rationalist here (apart form theists) "gets" the idea that lack of evidence can be positive for a claim.

Yes they do Kyu.

No they don't Frodo.

Read the posts Kyu - they're in the Evidence thread.

No, I didn't!

*sighs*

Yawns!

This is you being the opposite of disingenuous is it Kyu?

Yet you apparently maintain that that lack of evidence is somehow a positive evidence for your deity ... THAT is what I have a problem with. If it's just faith, no problem (I disagree but no issue) but you somehow twist that to say that is exactly what is expected and implicitly claim it's positive evidence for your god.

I don't maintain that it's positive evidence of my deity at all! What nonsense! Have you listened to yourself lately? Lack of empirical evidence supports what the Bible says, and what I believe to be true about empirical evidence.

You see? That's EXACTLY what I mean ... you are saying that no evidence is what we should expect THEREFORE (implicitly) you are claiming a lack of evidence as a positive proof! It's offensive on every intellectual level I can consider.

Nonsense.

[All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith.

No, the implications go far beyond that.

Elucidate please.

[Giff]

What make you believe in God? Just give me a straight answer Fr0d0. Since you admit there are no evidence what so ever does it sound like you want there to be a god more then that you really believe that there is. I can't understand, not even when I read your posts, how you can just believe in something just like that without any signs or evidence. Also you haven't prestented me how it's theoretical possible to a god to exists nor any explanation why it's logical.

"If there was a God, then religion isn't needed. If there isn't a God, then religion isn't needed" As someone said.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Not empirical evidence. So you're saying that valid reasoning = evidence?

Everything else so far accepted has evidential backing so typically yes but in any case as the claimant (implied) you are making the extraordinary claim it is up to you justify why your particular claim should be excepted from the usual standards of explanation supported by evidence. IOW you are operating from a position of special pleading.

No. I say that I believe that God exists. I can claim nothing.

Yes you do, your claim is implicit and I recall there was a time in this forum when it was explicit.

I can't say objectively (factually) that God exists. No one can, as it's impossible. A ridiculous question.

Then why not keep the stupid fucking idea to yourself? Why advance it or even discuss it here?

So... not so. Your understanding of my position is still incorrect. What I'm saying isn't rocket science EvF, it's very simple. How can you be an atheist when you don't understand what it is you're not accepting?

And you're being arrogant to claim that we cannot comprehend your god or any other and that our own theistic experiences, the beliefs many of us now reject, do not qualify us (arguably even more so than you) to understand such concepts ... all you appear to be doing is advancing a No True Scotsman style argument which is a fallacy.

Your replies to Giff are all dodges ... why don't you actually try answering the points he makes?

As opposed to the opinion of those with an agenda? I don't think so ... I think those removed from the specific arena in question are far better qualified to judge the objective merits of something.

That's ridiculous Kyu. There's no debatable point here to have an agenda about. You don't understand the subject - simple.

Your agenda? I assume to prove you are in some way different from Catholics when, from the POV of the objective critic, you're all the same, you're all Christians.

No they don't Frodo.

Read the posts Kyu - they're in the Evidence thread.

Try posting a reference link Frodo.

Yawns!

This is you being the opposite of disingenuous is it Kyu?

This is me responding like for like.

You see? That's EXACTLY what I mean ... you are saying that no evidence is what we should expect THEREFORE (implicitly) you are claiming a lack of evidence as a positive proof! It's offensive on every intellectual level I can consider.

Nonsense.

What is? That you are doing it or that it's intellectually offensive? Both are true IMO.

No, the implications go far beyond that.

Elucidate please.

I have done many times ... firstly you specifically refer to "Christian faith", does that mean the same logic does not apply to other's faiths and gods? Secondly by putting your beliefs "out there" in the manner you have done (here in an atheism forum, defending those undefendable points of view with claims like a lack of evidence is what is to be expected and indeed actually supports such claims) and apparently expecting them to be taken seriously you are implicitly advancing a claim and thirdly, by doing so, you are elevating belief alone to be the equivalent of reasoned, rational, evidence based inductive research when belief alone has, to date, not explained a damned thing.

And that last, BTW, explains why your stated views are intellectually offensive.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Not empirical evidence. So you're saying that valid reasoning = evidence?

If there's any valid reason to believe in God, that isn't just subjective and for you personally, then how can that not count as evidence? If you are not just speaking of you but saying there are valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in this universe and that that would be true for everyone..?
If you are only speaking of you - then I think that's a contradiction because I swear you said earlier that you are not just saying that 'God' is 'true for you' but that he's also true for everyone else..right?

But if you say there are valid reasons to believe God actually exists in this universe- for everyone that would be - then those valid reasons would have to count as evidence right? If they were actually valid reasons to believe that God does indeed exist, in reality - and not just on your own head.

No. I say that I believe that God exists. I can claim nothing.

All I want is to ask you now is how these reasons are at all valid - if they are not evidence in any shape or form of God's existence then how on earth are they valid? And if they are valid then how don't they count as evidence? Either there is evidence of God or there isn't. If you say there is no evidence then basically it's just another way of saying no valid reasons.
If, as you say, there ARE valid reasons - then that would count as evidence even if it may not be empricial evidence as you say.

If there really ARE valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in reality then THAT'S EVIDENCE.

If there AREN'T then that's obviously not evidence.

So I'd like to hear these 'valid reasons' and if it's not so personal that it only applies to you in your own head. If these reasons are not valid then it's not evidence and if it's not evidence then it's not a valid reason!

Either it counts towards the likelihood of God's existence or it doesn't - if it doesn't then it's not a valid reason to believe in his existence, and it's not evidence.

Unless we're not talking about the probability and possibility of God and only what goes on in your own head and what's "true for you"..?

So what is you evidence (non-empirical I assume) OR - valid reasons to believe that God actually exists in this universe? (In other words, evidence...if it's actually a valid reason to believe in his existence in reality)

So it's not a wager or anything like that (as you say you reject) - it's an actual valid reason to believe in his existence i.e - evidence.

I can't say objectively (factually) that God exists. No one can, as it's impossible. A ridiculous question.

You can say God exists objectively - you don't have to claim he absolutely definitely exists and that we 'KNOW' this.

If you are saying he actually exists objectively in reality - you can say this, but I would ask for your valid reasons to believe this that also applies to others (i.e, your evidence).

If you are NOT saying he exists objectively - only subjectively and that it's 'true for you' that he exists - then what can I say? Anything can be 'true' in your own head. I just wonder why you would believe God in your own head and NOT say he actually exists objectively - but he only exists subjectively in you personally or others who believe?

Isn't it a lot more probable that God doesn't exist and people are mistaken that he DOES exist in reality but only for CERTAIN people?

Or is it also more probable that he only exists subjectively as in - in the IMAGINATION of people who believe in him?

If you indeed DON'T say he exists objectively - and are only saying he exists for YOU - or others who believe - then how does that work? Does God actually exist or not?

So do you NOT say he actually exists objecively? What, he exists for some and not for others? And in which case, what evidence or valid reasons do you have to believe that he exists for you or others who believe rather than it just being your imagination - what actual valid reasons do you have? If it's just in your mind and you indeed do not say he objectively exists?....because that would be 'a ridiculous question'? As you say?

So... not so. Your understanding of my position is still incorrect. What I'm saying isn't rocket science EvF, it's very simple. How can you be an atheist when you don't understand what it is you're not accepting?

You say one thing and then another. You say that there can be no evidence of God - but then on the other hand you say there can be - just not emprical.

And you say there are valid reasons to believe God actually exists but that this is NOT evidence.

I on the other hand am asking for one simple thing evidence you say there can be be no evidence/no empirical evidence...

So I am asking for valid non-emprical evidence - or these valid reasons of yours... - which if actually valid reasons for believing in the actual existence of "God" - then that would count as evidence. If they're invalid then it's NOT evidence.

Are there any more VALID reasons for your God, according to you - that applies not just in your own head personally - than there are for Santa, the FSM or Zeus etc? And if then that - counting as valid reasons to beleive he, God, is more likely to exist - in other words counts as evidence.

If you do not believe there are any more valid reasons to believe God exists than them - then why on earth do you believe? And then obviously there is no more evidence for him than Zeus, the FSM, Santa, etc.
If there are valid reasons to believe in God's existence then that is evidence. What is this evidence?

If there aren't valid reasons to believe in God's existence then this doesn't count as evidence.
What are your valid reasons? /Evidence whether non-empricial or whatever?
And how is there any more evidence/ valid reasons for God than Zeus/FSM/Santa exactly?
They're all absurd claims with no evidence.

And by the way - no, I know EXACTLY what I am rejecting. I am rejecting God as in any supernatural creator(s)/designer(s)/ and I am also rejecting any supernatural being/anything supernatural.

EvF