Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

Would it appease you if I lumped god in with all the other fairy tales, including unicorns, leprechauns, phoenixes, Zeus, Snow White, Bambi, werewolves, vampires, yeti, the loch ness monster, extraterrestrials, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause? It is commonly held by the majority that those things do not exist. God can be held to the same standard.

I already answer that before. I will repeat it again in here with another similar example. I don't know whether some kind of sea monster (similar to Loch Ness Monster) exists or not in our universe (because there is no evidence either way), but I don't believe it. Why? One of the reason is because believing in the existence of that monster does not give any positive impact to me. On the contrary, there is a negative impact (e.g. make me feel scare when I'm on sea). Believing in God does give me overall positive impact as I said in my previous posts. That the reason *for me*.

So when I said that I don't believe in that monster, I have to give a reason (which I did above). If I said there the monster should be considered not exist simply because there is no evidence of its existence, then that's a false dilemma according to the article on Wikipedia.

You have not responded to my question. Do you agree with the article on Wikipedia that say that "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dilemma? Agree or not?

[LostLocke]

If you think that "there is no evidence of God existence" is the reason (or even proof) that God does not exist, then that is a false dilemma according to Wikipedia.

Two things to keep in mind when trying this....

Stating that something does not exist is not the same thing as saying that you do not believe something exists.

And, if you're going by the position that if there is no evidence that something does not exist is enough 'reason' to believe it does exist, then there a crapload of things you have to believe in.
Mainly because I'd challenge you to prove evidence that anything does not exist.

---

I already answer that before. I will repeat it again in here with another similar example. I don't know whether some kind of sea monster (similar to Loch Ness Monster) exists or not in our universe (because there is no evidence either way), but I don't believe it. Why? One of the reason is because believing in the existence of that monster does not give any positive impact to me. On the contrary, there is a negative impact (e.g. make me feel scare when I'm on sea). Believing in God does give me overall positive impact as I said in my previous posts. That the reason *for me*.

Everything you stated here is completely irrelevant.

Either the monster exists or it doesn't. It's impact on your life whether positive, negative, or neutral doesn't mean anything.
You don't get to decide if something exists or not based on whether it makes you 'feel good' or not.

[Silver]

Believing in God does give me overall positive impact as I said in my previous posts. That the reason *for me*.

Which is not a valid reason for believing in the existence of god. A feeling is an emotional appeal, and illogical.

Also, if the biblical god gives you good feelings, then you clearly have not properly read the bible. Otherwise, the biblical tyrant of a deity would give you nightmares.

[LostLocke]

Believing in God does give me overall positive impact as I said in my previous posts. That the reason *for me*.

[Bad Writer]

So if I believe in the Easter Bunny because it feels good to me, is this okay? Am I justified in doing this? Should I tell others that he's real because I think he is? Should I make up a set of rules called the Bunny laws and then tell people that if they don't follow them that they'll forfeit their ticket to Easter Bunny Land, a magical place of wonderment and joy that we only go to after we die?

Have I taken this far enough yet, or should I continue?

[Theo Zacharias]

Believing in God does give me overall positive impact as I said in my previous posts. That the reason *for me*.

Which is not a valid reason for believing in the existence of god. A feeling is an emotional appeal, and illogical.

Also, if the biblical god gives you good feelings, then you clearly have not properly read the bible. Otherwise, the biblical tyrant of a deity would give you nightmares.

Again, you're avoiding my question about the article on Wikipedia, i.e. whether you agree or not about the false dilemma example on the article. This is the second time. Why is that? Because you're afraid that it will shake your disbelief?

[Cyberman]

Yes, Theo, our disbelief is so flimsy that the mere sight of a Wikipedia link throws the entire atheist community into a blind panic.

[Silver]

Again, you're avoiding my question about the article on Wikipedia, i.e. whether you agree or not about the false dilemma example on the article.

The false dilemma issue you seem so concerned about can be disputed via the absence of evidence argument.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

This is so silly. I would LOVE for so many fictional characters to exist and hang out with me. But that doesn't mean I should believe they exist. lol, how old are you?

[Theo Zacharias]

Again, you're avoiding my question about the article on Wikipedia, i.e. whether you agree or not about the false dilemma example on the article.

The false dilemma issue you seem so concerned about can be disputed via the absence of evidence argument.

Are you saying that you don't agree with the article in Wikipedia that say that "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dilemma? Don't afraid to say that because Wikipedia can be wrong (although very rare). Fyi, I agree with the article. Do you agree or not. You seem to say that there statement is refuted by another article. So you don't agree?

The article on Wikipedia about "Evidence of absence" is actually does not support your position. It's said that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You said that there is no evidence that God exist (absence of evidence), hence it's a proof that God does not exist (evidence of absence). So what you said before is the same as saying that absence of evidence is the same with evidence of absence. The article on Wikipedia disagree with that. So you don't agree with this article on Wikipedia too?