Are theists by nature simply insecure?

[Kyuuketsuki]

But there is evidence that there may be a why. And evidence that there may be no why at all. So the choice to believe is not for lack of evidence

I was under the impression that there was no evidence at all for a reason why the universe exists (I suppose that's what we're talking about here) ... what evidence are you aware of that indicates the existence of a god? Obviously when I refer to "evidence" I mean evidence that is validatable and cannot be more reasonably interpreted otherwise or as an open question.

Kyu

[Pippy]

But I maintain that I absolutely cannot convince you that the things I see as evidence for the existence of god are actually such. I don't claim to be able to prove god. I have no evidence I can share with you here.

That's why I ask you guys to prove Atheism. You seem to always swing back with the "burden of proof" trap, but I am doing it to try to show that there is no way you can show me conclusive evidence that there is not god. Especially by only typing across the Atlantic. We could both say that the other won't understand the evidence that seems undeniable to ourselves because they are just raging stupids... But that is still circular.

So in an attempt to agree to disagree, and knowing that it would be a long and pointless conversation, I am trying to avoid shoving proof of god down your throats, knowing it won't get anywhere. Buy you keep asking for it.

Me and Evie are having this same issue right now.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

But I maintain that I absolutely cannot convince you that the things I see as evidence for the existence of god are actually such. I don't claim to be able to prove god. I have no evidence I can share with you here.

So nothing but wishful thinking then!

That's why I ask you guys to prove Atheism. You seem to always swing back with the "burden of proof" trap, but I am doing it to try to show that there is no way you can show me conclusive evidence that there is not god. Especially by only typing across the Atlantic. We could both say that the other won't understand the evidence that seems undeniable to ourselves because they are just raging stupids... But that is still circular.

Atheism makes no claims so there's nothing to prove.

You're right ... there is no way we can prove there is no god but LIKEWISE there is no way you can prove there is no cream cake at the centre of the Earth (and yes, claims to the existence of deity are exactly on that level of stupidity)!

So in an attempt to agree to disagree, and knowing that it would be a long and pointless conversation, I am trying to avoid shoving proof of god down your throats, knowing it won't get anywhere. Buy you keep asking for it.

Because we tend to be humanists and that's what humanists do. Given that NOTHING has ever been proven by religious beliefs and that the only accepted explanations (by accepted I mean by scientific, theological and general academics ... IOW people capable of raising a decent intelligent argument) have been scientific/mathematical I consider that to be the correct manner to approach your claims.

Me and Evie are having this same issue right now.

And he is absolutely correct to do so.

Kyu

[Pippy]

So nothing but wishful thinking then!

Are you even listening, or do you just see that I posted and assume you know what I must have said w/o reading it? I am trying to explain why I feel no need or ability to prove god to the self proclaimed Angry Atheist, and you're just sitting there "La la la, wishful thinking". I say, no I think it is more complex than that, that is an oversimplification of my faith. And you respond with "La la la, wishful thinking". Think that I am exercising wishful thinking, I disagree.

I don't feel like I can prove god to you. If that means that I am failing as a theist, or that you feel that I have mental issues because of that, so be it. I disagree.

Thank you for sharing,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

Burden or proof is not a "trap". If someone makes a claim, they have to prove it. If the world worked by people accepting claims without evidence, we'd be in a state of turmoil.

To give you an example: "Pippy, give me all your money and I will double it within a week". If you accept this claim without evidence (such as my investment plan, what guarantee I have in place, etc, then you are risking all your money in the hands of a stranger.

If you say to me, "No Adrian, I don't believe you", then you are rejecting my claim since I have not provided any evidence.

For me to then say "Ok then, prove that I won't" is shifting the burden of proof from me (the claimant) to you (the disbeliever). It is not your responsibility to prove the negative of an argument, and it is a fallacious statement anyway because you cannot prove a negative. Even if you were to find details of my investment plan, there is no stopping me from just running off with your money.

If you make a claim, you have to prove it. Some atheists do walk into their own burden of proof when they claim "there is no god" rather than "I don't believe in god". "There is no god" is a claim, and a negative one at that, thus the burden of proof falls on them to prove the negative, which is impossible.

[Pippy]

"There is no god" is a claim, and a negative one at that, thus the burden of proof falls on them to prove the negative, which is impossible.

True, and very well put. We both know that to claim god is almost as impossible, only that it is not a negative. You explained the inevitable fallacy in "proving a negative" well before that.

I just don't know what to say when some people say "prove god to me, a devout, almost militant atheist, through the internet, even though I've already decided I don't agree with anything you say". And I can't. Nor am I very moved to even try. I am much happier agreeing to disagree. I think there is a god. You don't. That's fine. I don't want to prove god to you, and I don't want you to prove not-god to me. I will respect your "right" to believe (or not believe) what you want, if only that I should get the same respect.

So I say, "well you prove there isn't a god", knowing how stupid it sounds. I hope to try to show you how it sounds to me when you guys repeatedly demand I prove god. That I just can't.

In the sense that you can say "There probably is not a god", I say "There probably is". I don't want to argue about it too much, a point I have been repeating since I got here.

I am sorry for rambling. I have been trying to be more aware of staying on topic, and not being too disruptive. I appreciate you guys letting me hang out with you, and thank you for the little bits of time you have spent on me.

The,
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

If you do have evidence though, why won't you display it?

And if you don't how can you rationally believe? When if there's actually a valid reason to believe something actually exists - that shows its existence to be probable in some way - then that therefore... does=Evidence?

You say you don't want to get into an argument about it...and you prefer to agree to disagree - but what's to fear? And how can you expect to discuss matters or religion here on an atheist forum, without that coming into question? And being one of the main issues for that matter.

EvF

[Tiberius]

"prove god to me, a devout, almost militant atheist, through the internet, even though I've already decided I don't agree with anything you say"

Here's the thing Pippy. I doubt any of us are like that, despite what you may think. I decide whether I agree with something when it has been said, not in advance. To do otherwise would be dishonest and stupid. If you say something that I agree with, I'm not going to disagree with you for the sake of looking "good" in front of an atheist crowd.

In the sense that you can say "There probably is not a god", I say "There probably is". I don't want to argue about it too much, a point I have been repeating since I got here.

It strikes me as a little odd as to why you are here, given that you don't want to prove anything. What is the point of coming to an atheist forum as a theist if you don't want to discuss things like this?

[Pippy]

Hey,

I am happy to discuss, for it's own sake, but I don't want to convert or be converted. Because I may be wrong in my beliefs, I can't justify trying to make you guys see it my way. To be asked to provide evidence of god to atheists is to ask to be convinced, therefore converted (if your beliefs do change as your reality does). I can't do that, nor do I think it is the right thing to do.

I don't at all think you would disagree with me on principle, but there are assuredly people here who do.

I am here to take part, because I value different opinions and views. If the whole world believed what I did, I would find it boring. Assuring, but boring.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

Hey,

I am happy to discuss, for it's own sake, but I don't want to convert or be converted. Because I may be wrong in my beliefs, I can't justify trying to make you guys see it my way.

From your point of view you might be wrong, and from my point of view I might be wrong. So what's wrong with some discussion about it? What's the harm in trying? What's to fear?

I like disagreements because the problem with agreements is, as enjoyable as they are - they're kind of just reinforcing what you, well, already agree wtih! So I do like some disagreements too. Rational discussion is important to me, I don't like giving up either - if a discussion is having trouble being resolved, that not only doesn't mean ti will never be: But who says it has to? If it's not completely resolved it doesn't mean there can be no progress made whatsoever, and that nothing can be learnt from the experience.

EvF