Disproof Atheism Society

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The guy from the society is very much opposed to the common notion that "you can't disprove the existence of God".

I guess it does depend on what definition of god you're using. I am of the mind that the christian god, and other gods that have been thought to 'dabble in human affairs' could be debunked.

It can. The theist can always redefine God but it was pointed out at the discussion that there are only so many ways you can define God without it turning into something else. All theists I gather would agree that God is at least the "greatest possible being".

[fr0d0]

The guy from the society is very much opposed to the common notion that "you can't disprove the existence of God".

So he thought you could prove it?

I know Christians who state the opposite of course. Also through intellectual posturing. Funny I guess that both think they're doing the world a favour.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The guy from the society is very much opposed to the common notion that "you can't disprove the existence of God".

So he thought you could prove it?

I know Christians who state the opposite of course. Also through intellectual posturing. Funny I guess that both think they're doing the world a favour.

Well, by you being a theist, there must be at something that you consider proves the existence of God to you, otherwise you couldn't hold a belief in the existence of God.

[fr0d0]

I don't understand fully the arguments. To me, positivity as modeled in Christianity convinces me that it is the best world view.

---

Proof alone isn't enough. Even though I'm convinced by the evidence, that wouldn't be enough to believe. I chose to believe.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I don't understand fully the arguments. To me, positivity as modeled in Christianity convinces me that it is the best world view.

---

Proof alone isn't enough. Even though I'm convinced by the evidence, that wouldn't be enough to believe. I chose to believe.

So you are saying that these sentences can be coherently understood?

"x is true but I choose not to believe x."

"x is false but I choose to believe x."

[Napoléon]

I think fr0d0 would call that a false dichotomy, there should be another sentence:

"x cannot be proven or disproved but I choose to believe x"

Then again I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf, but I imagine that's what a xtian's response would be.

[fr0d0]

I guess there's a point where you can't resist doing what you think is right. I don't think dissonance is possible.

There also the fact that you can never know beyond doubt. There are all sorts of reasons I would think, that would prevent a person from doing what they feel to be right. Or are those just excuses? I've heard people say that they won't believe (in God) because they're not good enough, because they can't give up smoking, or sex.

---

I think fr0d0 would call that a false dichotomy, there should be another sentence:

"x cannot be proven or disproved but I choose to believe x"

Then again I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf, but I imagine that's what a xtian's response would be.

Kinda. Yeah.

[Mr Greene]

Proving a negative (ie; god) is impossible.
However suppose we proved that the Jews lied, that the OT is a pile of lies from the start. The archaeological evidence is rather conclusive though you'll always get the wing-nuts who sit there with their fingers in their ears. You'll also get a whole slew of people with 'allegorical' interpretations but the vast majority of 'christians' simply never think of the whole thing in the first place.

Primarily the objective of the exercise is to deal with wannabe proselytizers.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

No one has to prove that some dummy's favorite deity doesn't exist. It's up to the dummy's favorite deity to prove that it exists. Guess what? Since humans have been creating deities not one deity of any kind has ever popped up and done anything godly. Do we have to go through the list and prove that all of these gods don't exist or should at least one of the imaginary entities prove its own existence?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgo...fgods.html

The Biblical God character was simply the reigning Assyrian/Babylonian Emperor at the time. He croaked when the Babylonian Empire collapsed. He isn't coming back.

The Jesus character established a method for proving that he exists. Just do greater miracles than he did without using any scientific apparatus. Go outside and tell the nearest tree to levitate itself. Then go down to nearest hospital and cure everyone by simply touching them with your hands. Go to the ocean and create a column of water a mile in diameter and 20,000 feet tall. You can do that if you really believe in Jesus and if he is real. If you can't then Jesus lied and isn't a god or you don't believe in him. Since no one has ever done those things the conclusion must be that he doesn't exist.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think fr0d0 would call that a false dichotomy, there should be another sentence:

"x cannot be proven or disproved but I choose to believe x"

Then again I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf, but I imagine that's what a xtian's response would be.

Having an unknown doesn't make the idea of "choosing" a belief any less absurd.

"x is true but I choose to not believe x."
"x is false but I choose to believe x."
"x is unknown but I choose to believe x."

The "x is true/false/unknown" part is itself a belief so you're basically saying you believe in a contradiction.