A good case against God

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You seriously believe that those men dressed up in red are Santa Claus? Who let you out of your nut-coat to post here?

They are in effect, Santa Clause. Just like someone with a mask of Barack Obama are, in effect, Barry Soetoro. The point is there is, in both cases as in most cases, some mythology behind the truth. Atheists tend to want nothing more than to slander God without knowing much about the truth and the myth behind the meaning of the word God itself.

No. What we want (or not) is evidence before we even begin to subscribe to the notion that a god or gods exist.

There is no evidence at all to suggest there is any supernatural, transcendent (or whatever) meaning behind the word 'god' at all. Besides, there are a million gods to satisfy a million people. Do you pretend to know the meaning, or to use your words, the 'truth and the myth' behind every single one of them?

[/i]

[The Theist]

This looks bad...
Homor us, what is the meaning of "God"? It has been a topic of discussion on occasion here on the forums a number of times, but since you know for sure, hit me.

Perhaps this calls for a new thread. There isn't much time . . .

---

No. What we want (or not) is evidence before we even begin to subscribe to the notion that a god or gods exist.

There is no evidence at all to suggest there is any supernatural, transcendent (or whatever) meaning behind the word 'god' at all. Besides, there are a million gods to satisfy a million people. Do you pretend to know the meaning, or to use your words, the 'truth and the myth' behind every single one of them?

No. Not every one. But many of them. Of course, I was referring to the simple concept of god[s] and goddesses in a general sense.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Excuse me, asshole? I didn't call that evidence. Blow it out your fucking ass.

Well, you're a pleasant fellow. So you're a badass on the internet? I bet that translates well into real life.

If your pansy ass can't handle adult language, I suggest you avoid web sites and forums where adults are present.

Watch for when Harris' lips are moving.

Well, it wasn't when he was talking about his exchange with the female scientist who refused to say whether a culture that removed the eyes of every third child (due to religious motivation) was failing to perfectly maximize human well-being. And it wasn't in the next exchange I watched--since it's a pain to go through and look for when Harris appears--where Harris started talking about how the problem of evil meant that God wasn't likely to exist (a bit off-topic, I thought, but then so was Craig).[/quote]

Did I claim to subscribe to Harris' vision of a "moral landscape" Stuff yoru straw man up your ass and light it on fire.

Is it really that hard for you to give a single time where Harris addresses the Kalaam Cosmological Argument?


...wait.

...it couldn't be that...you haven't actually watched the video yourself...could it? That would make you...an asshole.

i watched it the day it came out, fuckwit. All anyone needs to point out about kalaam is that it is built entirely upon a special pleading fallacy.

Nice straw man, fuckwit. My argument is that \you have not and cannot provide a shred of evidence to support x -- your silly ass superstitious fucking sky fairy story. And until you trot your fairy-tale-monster god-figure out in front of us in the flesh, you have nothing to refute it.

You use that word a lot, "fuck". Did you just learn it?

i have known it for quite some time. It is interesting and amusing to see you bleat about it like some prissy schoolgirl.

Is this your first time swearing? Man, I remember those halcyon teenage years, when a colorful expletive flying off the tongue made the day just a bit more magical...

Ahem.

Yeah, when we believed in fairy tales and x-tard gods... oh, wait.

That's a really interesting argument. I'd like to see some support for it, though; how do you know that I "cannot provide a shred of evidence to support" that God exists?

If you had a shred of evidence you would have already trotted it out in front of the cameras at fucking CNN.

I get the rhetorical reason to call it a "fairy-tale-monster god-figure", because you want it to seem fictional,

Correction: because I can see through your pack of lies.

but since God's status as a fictional entity is the very issue under debate, it seems like a cheap rhetorical trick.

You can show it to be a cheap rhetorical trick by trotting your fairy tale monster over to my house for a firsthand visit. Bring CNN.

And we all know that you rationalist-skeptic atheists are characterized by reason and logic, not manipulative appeals to emotion, right?

Glad you finally got that figured out. Now run along back to the kiddie pool, little girl, the adults are having a conversation here.

[CliveStaples]

Nonsense. I'm talking directly to you.

Provide evidence that your god exists and we can move on from there. If you cannot provide evidence, that we all have as much reason to agree with Taq re: you being unable to provide evidence.

I say I can fly around the earth in 2 seconds akin to that of superman. I don't provide evidence for it, but we get into discussions about how you not being able to refute my claim leads you to have no argument against my proposition. Absurd, no?

I find it ironic that you would post a WIKI link on an argument from ignorance as well...

Bullshit. I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

Here's the argument I'm criticizing:

"You cannot provide a shred of proof to support the existence of God."

Here's my counter:

"How do you know that's true? What is your support for your claim?"

Here's your counter to my counter:

"Provide your proof and we'll know that his claim was false."


Here's what an argument from ignorance is (from the wiki link):

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).

If you claim that X is true, I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to support your claim. This is Atheism 101.

If we're going to accept bald assertions of fact without support--like "You cannot provide a shred of evidence that God exists", or "You cannot rationally deny that God exists", or "Santa Claus exists"--then I will simply assert the negation of Taq's claim, "I can provide a shred of evidence that God exists". Since my claim and his claim have equal support at this point--zero--our conclusions have equal weight, and we are left at an impasse. That's why it's unproductive to accept bald assertions.

---

If your pansy ass can't handle adult language, I suggest you avoid web sites and forums where adults are present.

"Adult language"? This is high school crap. Hitchens insulted with adult language. You're more like Jersey Shore.

Did I claim to subscribe to Harris' vision of a "moral landscape" Stuff yoru straw man up your ass and light it on fire.

I never said that you subscribed to Harris's vision of a "moral landscape". Where are you getting this??? I was just telling you that I didn't see where Harris addressed the KCA, and gave what I thought were enough details to show that I actually bothered to watch some of the video.

i watched it the day it came out, fuckwit. All anyone needs to point out about kalaam is that it is built entirely upon a special pleading fallacy.

...so you don't know where Harris addresses the KCA, then? Guess we can just dispose of your claim, then.

i have known it for quite some time. It is interesting and amusing to see you bleat about it like some prissy schoolgirl.

It's not that I'm offended by it. Well, actually I am, but not because it's obscene. It's because it's boring. And really, really lazy.

If you had a shred of evidence you would have already trotted it out in front of the cameras at fucking CNN.

That I lack evidence does not imply that it is impossible to provide such evidence. Don't you guys know about logical fallacies? How can you be atheists and be this ignorant?

Correction: because I can see through your pack of lies.

Clearly. That must be why you are unwilling to support any of your claims. That piercing insight.

You can show it to be a cheap rhetorical trick by trotting your fairy tale monster over to my house for a firsthand visit. Bring CNN.

...what?

It would be still be a cheap rhetorical trick even if its content were true. Saying "You should think that 1+1=2 because otherwise you hate America" is bullshit emotional manipulation, regardless of the fact that 1+1 really does equal 2.

Glad you finally got that figured out. Now run along back to the kiddie pool, little girl, the adults are having a conversation here.

Yeah, a conversation where you don't support any of your assertions. Less of a 'conversation' and more of a circle-jerk.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Then please provide evidence for said god and we'll move on from there. Then we will know that you can indeed provide evidence, and that Taq is in fact incorrect.

NB: Personal anecdotes, opinions and beliefs are not evidence.

I look forward to reading your evidence and reassessing my views on the matter.

Here's a random wikipedia link, apropos of nothing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You are absolutely right. Not applicable at all.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

INCORRECT. I am pointing out your abject failure to meet your burden of proof.

Taq made the claim; he needs to support it, or retract it.

I point out that you have failed to meet your burden of proof, to wit, you have not provided a shred of evidence. That is a "black swan" argument that you can destroy by providing a single bit of evidence. Now trot your fairy tale monster over to CNN and show the world, or shut the fuck up.


I thought atheists were supposed to know about the basics of reasoned discussion.[/quote]

Far better than you, little girl.

[

hr]

Are you seriously going to get at him for cussing? Only the religious would give special abilities to words. Besides, you look at explitives a a nastalgic throwback to the good ol' days. get over it.

...it was a bit. You know, a joke? Witty repartee? ...things going a little to fast for you?

We know a hysterical with nothing else to argue but "The adults are swearing, boo hoo!!!!" when we see one.

[quote]You also get onto him for calling god a monster creature fairy lord, or something, right? If him calling it as he sees it is an appeal to emotion, then so is you calling God, God.

"God" is just a useful label. We aren't talking about NASCAR or WoW, we're talking about "God". If you'd prefer that I use the label "god" instead, I'm fine with that.

Yes, it means whatever you make it up to be. That is because it is the product of every x-tard's pathological lying.

---

Nonsense. I'm talking directly to you.

Provide evidence that your god exists and we can move on from there. If you cannot provide evidence, that we all have as much reason to agree with Taq re: you being unable to provide evidence.

I say I can fly around the earth in 2 seconds akin to that of superman. I don't provide evidence for it, but we get into discussions about how you not being able to refute my claim leads you to have no argument against my proposition. Absurd, no?

I find it ironic that you would post a WIKI link on an argument from ignorance as well...

Bullshit. I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

Here's the argument I'm criticizing:

"You cannot provide a shred of proof to support the existence of God."

You fucking liar.

The argument you are bleating at is this:

"You cannot provide a shred of EVIDENCE to support your claim of the existence of your fairy tale monster".

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nonsense. I'm talking directly to you.

Provide evidence that your god exists and we can move on from there. If you cannot provide evidence, that we all have as much reason to agree with Taq re: you being unable to provide evidence.

I say I can fly around the earth in 2 seconds akin to that of superman. I don't provide evidence for it, but we get into discussions about how you not being able to refute my claim leads you to have no argument against my proposition. Absurd, no?

I find it ironic that you would post a WIKI link on an argument from ignorance as well...

Bullshit. I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

Here's the argument I'm criticizing:

"You cannot provide a shred of proof to support the existence of God."

Here's my counter:

"How do you know that's true? What is your support for your claim?"

Here's your counter to my counter:

"Provide your proof and we'll know that his claim was false."

Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:

You claim god exists.

We ask for evidence.

You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)

So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.

When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:

1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.

Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.

All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.

[CliveStaples]

INCORRECT. I am pointing out your abject failure to meet your burden of proof.

Having made no claims, I have no burden of proof. You have claimed "X is true", where X = "It is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." You have so far refused to support this claim.

If that's the style of argument that's promoted here, then I could merely claim "It is possible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." And my claim would have just as much support as yours does.

I point out that you have failed to meet your burden of proof, to wit, you have not provided a shred of evidence. That is a "black swan" argument that you can destroy by providing a single bit of evidence. Now trot your fairy tale monster over to CNN and show the world, or shut the fuck up.

I haven't made any claims. In particular, I haven't made any claims that require evidence. You're asking me to support claims that I have never made; I'm asking you to support claims that you've made in this very thread.

Far better than you, little girl.

You're the one with an unsupported claim, Nancy.

We know a hysterical with nothing else to argue but "The adults are swearing, boo hoo!!!!" when we see one.

Uh, I give zero fucks about swearing. In fact, I love it. You're just bad at it.

Yes, it means whatever you make it up to be. That is because it is the product of every x-tard's pathological lying.

Well, in the context of theism generally, I use it to mean "An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good entity", or in a specifically Christian context, I use it to mean the God of the Bible.

"You cannot provide a shred of EVIDENCE to support your claim of the existence of your fairy tale monster".

Yes, this is the claim that has zero support. Ironic that a bunch of atheists are insisting that their claim is true because the theist can't prove it to be false. Well, well, well, how the turntables...turn.

---

Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:

You claim god exists.

We ask for evidence.

You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)

So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.

When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:

1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.

Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.

All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.

Uh, nope, I haven't claimed that God exists. I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists. Since I'm interested in whether this claim is true, I wanted to see some support for it--reasons to believe that it's true.

Instead, people started shouting at me to prove him wrong by providing the evidence he was talking about. But my inability to provide evidence doesn't tell me whether his claim is true; maybe it is possible to provide evidence, but I just don't have it.

If you're going to claim that something is impossible, you need to explain why or how it is impossible. Otherwise, you're just making a bald assertion. And any asshole can do that. It's exactly what is supposedly so frustrating to you guys about theists.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Here's my counter:

"How do you know that's true? What is your support for your claim?"

Here's your counter to my counter:

"Provide your proof and we'll know that his claim was false."


Here's what an argument from ignorance is (from the wiki link):

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).

If you claim that X is true, I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to support your claim. This is Atheism 101.

Lovely straw man. It goes up your ass too. I didn't say "PROOF". I said "EVIDENCE". figures you don't know what the fucking difference is.

If we're going to accept bald assertions of fact without support--like "You cannot provide a shred of evidence that God exists",

That is not a bald assertion without support. That is pointing out that you and every other christard in the history of the world has failed to meet your burden of proof.

or "You cannot rationally deny that God exists", or "Santa Claus exists"--then I will simply assert the negation of Taq's claim, "I can provide a shred of evidence that God exists". Since my claim and his claim have equal support at this point--zero--our conclusions have equal weight, and we are left at an impasse. That's why it's unproductive to accept bald assertions.

You are wearing out the wheels on your goalpost there, Miss Priss.

---

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='305676' dateline='1341417569']If your pansy ass can't handle adult language, I suggest you avoid web sites and forums where adults are present.

"Adult language"? This is high school crap. Hitchens insulted with adult language. You're more like Jersey Shore.

And yet it gets your little panties all in a bunch anyway. Back to the Kiddie Pool, Miss Priss.

[quote]Did I claim to subscribe to Harris' vision of a "moral landscape" Stuff yoru straw man up your ass and light it on fire.

I never said that you subscribed to Harris's vision of a "moral landscape". Where are you getting this??? I was just telling you that I didn't see where Harris addressed the KCA, and gave what I thought were enough details to show that I actually bothered to watch some of the video.[/quote]

DILLIGAF?

[quote]i watched it the day it came out, fuckwit. All anyone needs to point out about kalaam is that it is built entirely upon a special pleading fallacy.

...so you don't know where Harris addresses the KCA, then? Guess we can just dispose of your claim, then.[/quoet]


Go ahead, if you like. I note your attempt to dodge the inherent special pleading fallacy in the kalaam.

[quote]i have known it for quite some time. It is interesting and amusing to see you bleat about it like some prissy schoolgirl.

It's not that I'm offended by it. Well, actually I am, but not because it's obscene. It's because it's boring. And really, really lazy.[/quote]

I find it lovely. Again you have nothing else to argue with, so you cry like a scalded bitch over colorful language. How fucking puerile.

[quote]If you had a shred of evidence you would have already trotted it out in front of the cameras at fucking CNN.

That I lack evidence does not imply that it is impossible to provide such evidence. Don't you guys know about logical fallacies? How can you be atheists and be this ignorant?[/quote]

You christards HAVE NOT provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. We know all about logical fallacies. And we know a fucktard xtian trying to play a shell game and dodge its burden of proof when we see one.

[quote]Correction: because I can see through your pack of lies.

Clearly. That must be why you are unwilling to support any of your claims. That piercing insight.[/quote]

What we are unwilling to do is to allow you to shift your burden of proof.

[quote]You can show it to be a cheap rhetorical trick by trotting your fairy tale monster over to my house for a firsthand visit. Bring CNN.

...what?

It would be still be a cheap rhetorical trick even if its content were true. Saying "You should think that 1+1=2 because otherwise you hate America" is bullshit emotional manipulation, regardless of the fact that 1+1 really does equal 2.[/quote]


Look, asshole. You claim your sky fairy exists. Show it to us and make believers of us Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up.

[quote]Glad you finally got that figured out. Now run along back to the kiddie pool, little girl, the adults are having a conversation here.

Yeah, a conversation where you don't support any of your assertions. Less of a 'conversation' and more of a circle-jerk.
[/quote]

My assertion is that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Show me where you have and you shut me up for good.

Good luck with that.


Oh, yeah -- you already admitted you have no evidence.

/thread

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='305295' dateline='1341335876']

I do not believe that there are extraterrestrials, although I think it is likely because we have the example of ourselves.

However to establish a belief position on the subject I would want proof.

I like to have evidence for what I believe.

Saying that you do not believe that there are extraterrestrials but you think it is likely that there are extraterrestrials seems like a contradiction to me. What I imagine you are is agnostic about the existence of extraterrestrials. If so, we seem to have have proof that you do not consider something to be false simply because there is no evidence for it, as you do not consider the existence of extraterrestrials false though you have no evidence for their existence.

But there is a certain amount of evidence that points to the existence of life on other worlds.
The fact that there is life on this one.

Theists seem to work in the reverse direction when it comes to their impossible delusion.

Their stance is "I will believe in this stupid unprovable thing until some one proves definitively that the great pumpkin will never visit the pumpkin patch"

You are asserting that God is a stupid idea. By your own standard of only believing things that you have evidence for, you ought to present your evidence for this claim… and this is the reason that I created this thread, for such evidence to be presented. Also, the experience of God can be evidence for his existence for one who experiences Him even if one has no argument for God. (not that I am granting the latter)

---

So a vague feeling of something can be evidence for it.

How about voices in the head.

Googling "god told me to kill" gets 46000000 hits.

Define "god"

How about the uncreated creator of the universe…or the all powerful creator of the universe, or the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe?

How does that work then?
uncreated creator! what a fucking joke.
"Everything needs a beginning ....oh except"

[FallentoReason]

If you're going to claim that something is impossible, you need to explain why or how it is impossible. Otherwise, you're just making a bald assertion. And any asshole can do that. It's exactly what is supposedly so frustrating to you guys about theists.

God is supposed to be immaterial, right? Well, we live in the material world where we're only concerned with real and tangible things. I'm assuming that you believe God has power over the affairs of this world. Well then, that would mean physical evidence would exist. Do you have any?