Strong Atheism starts from faith

[chatpilot]

tavarish said: "I'm giving it the credit that it's due. It the most widely circulated book in history, and a very important piece of literature."

Just because a majority of our species have been convinced that that piece of garbage you choose to call literature is the word of god does not make it the most important book in history. You are forgetting how that book got to be so popular, hundreds of years of beating it into the conscious minds of the people via torture and murder courtesy of the Catholic empire throughout the dark ages. Adolph Hitler in my opinion said it best, here are two of my favorite quotes from him which I relate to religious beliefs:

1.It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
2.Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

Disclaimer: I am not nor never will be a supporter of Hitlers nazism but I must admit the son of a bitch was right about some things. Sorry about the misquote on the first quote there Tavarish it was pretty early in the morning.

[fr0d0]

Whilst my claim cannot be proven I don't agree that he isn't present in this reality. Likewise you cannot prove that he doesn't. Of course the effects are real... Christians acting on their belief will have a discern-able impact. But why does god have to fit 'real'? Temporal entities don't exactly fit into the category, which highlights the fallacial nature of your premise.

It's not a fallacy. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of existence for making such a claim. I can either accept or reject your claim based on the evidence provided. You say there can be no evidence, therefore I reject the claim. It's really rudimentary stuff, man.

Read it again, I made no positive claim. I've told you several time now that looking for validatable proof is fallacial. If you claim that you require evidence of that which by definition cannot have validatable evidence I'd like to see your reasoning for such apparent illogic.

There are no modified rules of logic for God. You say he is present in this reality, but he cannot be measured, tested, or observed. I call bullshit on your claim until you can provide evidence to the contrary.

You lose.

He can be measured, tested and observed, but not transferably. If you could 'know' for sure that God existed, then there would be no reason for religion or faith. Are you seriously suggesting anyone should accept such a brainless suggestion?

You're repeating yourself. Let me reciprocate: Religion is abused for power... that isn't people acting in a Christ like manner; that's people being people and abusing power. Not only religion is marred by this; although religion is a prime target in that it's so easy to manipulate people using it. I'm not shying away from anything here... gross atrocities have been committed in it's name.

It's good that we're on the same page. I just wish that you understood the implications of supporting such a group.

I understand fully the implications. I also understand what does and does not apply when following my faith. You apparently like to apply serious illogic and discriminate unfairly.

Your sources are wrong.

Only in fairyland are Mormonism and JW denominations of Christianity. You seriously need to check your facts.

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses establish themselves firmly as believers of Jesus Christ. They call themselves a denomination of Christianity, although there has been opposition from Orthodox Christianity. Is that better?

No. JW's don't follow Christ. They don't believe he is God. It doesn't get any clearer. Christians accept the Nicene creed. that's pretty much the rule of thumb.. no matter what you decide it is.

You're drawing illogical conclusions. God is everywhere and in everything in this universe.. that's standard theology.

It's also a scientific question, in which the answer has no logical or factual basis. From this, I can conclude that no conclusion can be made either way, refuting your positive claim. This is not an illogical way of thinking.

Asserting that "God is everywhere and in everything" without having anything to back it up is purely and simply MAKING SHIT UP TO FIT A BELIEF. It's not hard to admit.

It is never a scientific question! You can test, feel, experience the reality of everything around you. That God is in it is a theological consideration. Yes, a conclusion can't be validated either way... as I said.

Your logic is fallacial.

We cannot prove this transfer-ably and that is consistent with Gods' nature.The Bible isn't a metaphor - you keep repeating that and getting it denied... but it seems stuck in your head.

Consistent with God's nature - a nature described in your Holy book? You said none of the bible should be taken literally. How else can you digest information in a book, if not figuratively and metaphorically? In what sense should the bible be taken?

How do take fables or Hitch hikers Guide?

God is transcendent ...his existence is irrelevant to this reality.

How is it irrelevant if you believe he performs miracles and has the power to intervene? Seriously, sometimes your arguments just take a dive right off a cliff.

You're getting confused and conflating ideas out of their context. 'Exist' is not relevant to God's relationship with our physical universe. He is transcendent.

Read this and take it in this time:

Your insistence on empirical reasoning is in fact a logical fallacy. if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

Exactly. By my standards, which is reality, we can assess that God, at least your interpretation of God, is not and CANNOT be real, since he resides outside of reality, and his existence would be irrelevant in any case. I thoroughly reject your claim using logic. I haven't begged the question, nor have I used any unreasonable standard of measuring what is REAL.

I'm not an idiot. I know you can't measure supernatural forces in the natural world. For that reason alone, I will conclude that we cannot make the claim that there are any supernatural forces in reality, much less forces that can intervene in the lived of people because there IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

I say good day to you, sir.

You lose.

You say you will not consider it more like. Your logic is fallacious and you can't fight your way out of that particular paper bag. I lose yet you fail to make one logical point why that should be so. It appears logic isn't your strong point.

Nice talking to you.

[tavarish]

Read it again, I made no positive claim. I've told you several time now that looking for validatable proof is fallacial. If you claim that you require evidence of that which by definition cannot have validatable evidence I'd like to see your reasoning for such apparent illogic.

You fail to see my argument, that I've repeated many times over:

Here it is, please digest it.

Something that can have no valid evidence and is irrefutable by nature is not a logical argument. You make the positive claim that God exists and he interferes with our lives. That is a positive claim.

I'll make it easy for you:

Find evidence for me (any that you want, doesn't have to be empirical) that you would consider evidence of God's existence, that would show me that he exists, without me having to first assume he already exists.

What is your personal subjective evidence? I want to see how you first came up with the notion, then I'll decide for myself. Fair enough?

He can be measured, tested and observed, but not transferably. If you could 'know' for sure that God existed, then there would be no reason for religion or faith. Are you seriously suggesting anyone should accept such a brainless suggestion?

In what context was God measured and tested? If it isn't transferable, what good is it to anyone else? Why even make such a weak argument?

If God made his presence known, it would be your choice to follow him or not to follow him, it would not negate the free will argument. The Bible has lots of instances where he does this. The 10 commandments states that no one should follow any other Gods or false prophets. I would think a direct influence on his creation, which have deductive reasoning and logic, would clear up a LOT of issues in the world. It's not brainless in the least. If the existence of God was knowledge instead of blind faith, we'd have a lot less problems in the world. But of course God doesn't work like that, unless he's doing personal miracles and appearing in toast and making statues cry blood.

I understand fully the implications. I also understand what does and does not apply when following my faith. You apparently like to apply serious illogic and discriminate unfairly.

Unfairly? Most of the politicians in this country are Christian, who in turn push legislation that is in line with their ideology and gets skewed into racist and bigoted hatred, making real problems for real people. My point is religion is a dividing force for humanity which, in the 21st century, is all but obsolete.

No. JW's don't follow Christ. They don't believe he is God. It doesn't get any clearer. Christians accept the Nicene creed. that's pretty much the rule of thumb.. no matter what you decide it is.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was Jehovah's first and only direct creation,[144] that Jehovah then created everything else by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's 'only-begotten Son'.[145][146] Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humankind.[147] They believe that Jesus died on a single upright torture stake rather than the traditional cross.[148] They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael, Apollyon (a.k.a. Abaddon), and the Word all refer to Jesus.[149][150][151]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s...sus_Christ

It is never a scientific question! You can test, feel, experience the reality of everything around you. That God is in it is a theological consideration. Yes, a conclusion can't be validated either way... as I said.

Your logic is fallacial.

Subjective evidence is not objective evidence. There are no personal truths or personal logic. Either it is true or it isn't. Our method of distinguishing fact from fantasy is logic, reason and the scientific method.

If it cannot be validated either way, guess what, the question falls into the category of "inconclusive", and you positive claim that a God exists in reality is unfounded and illogical.

Understand this:
You're making a statement that God exists for ALL PEOPLE. He intervenes in the lives of ALL PEOPLE. Yet all you have to go on is subjective experiences. Without any kind of objective verification, you CANNOT make such a claim.

Can anyone else chime in here? It feels like I'm talking to someone who doesn't understand that an apple is an apple.

How do take fables or Hitch hikers Guide?

Metaphorically, just as i would any work of fiction. Thanks for clearing that one up.

You're getting confused and conflating ideas out of their context. 'Exist' is not relevant to God's relationship with our physical universe. He is transcendent.

He lives in and out of our reality and universe, he exists and does not exist. He is everything around us. Am I getting this right?

Can you understand how this can work only as a concept and have no logical basis in reality?

You say you will not consider it more like. Your logic is fallacious and you can't fight your way out of that particular paper bag. I lose yet you fail to make one logical point why that should be so. It appears logic isn't your strong point.

Nice talking to you.

You keep struggling to understand that reality is not something that exists solely in your head. We don't have subjective reality. Reality is reality. Any deviation from that is delusion and illogical thinking coupled with psychological defense mechanisms.

Here's our argument in a nuthshell:

you: There is a god
me: There is no evidence to support such a claim
you: God doesn't need evidence, he is everywhere and all things
me: Your argument has no basis and cannot be refuted, therefore it is moot.
you: you can't use science to prove God, we need faith.
me: that doesn't make any sense, if he was in reality, his existence would be abundantly apparent
you: his existence is irrelevant, he is transcendent.
me: That doesn't explain anything. You're basically saying anything you say can't be refuted as is doesn't use logic or reason behind it. That is illogical and a void argument.
you: You have a logical fallacy because my unfounded and unprovable phenomenon can't be proved. I win LOLZ.

[fr0d0]

I draughted a response but your post was so purile it seems pointless. I've made my point and you choose to ignore it. Hopefully this will help:-

you: There is a god NO - I believe in God
me: There is no (empirical) evidence to support such a claim YES
you: God doesn't need evidence, he is everywhere and all things There can only be personal evidence
me: Your argument has no basis and cannot be refuted, therefore it is moot. Question begging logical fallacy
you: you can't use science to prove God. we need faith.
me: that doesn't make any sense, if he was in reality, his existence would be abundantly apparent Repeat Question begging logical fallacy
you: his existence is irrelevant, he is transcendent.
me: That doesn't explain anything. You're basically saying anything you say can't be refuted as is doesn't use logic or reason behind it. That is illogical and a void argument. NO. there is logic behind it - just not scientific proof - but you want to limit logic to scientific proof, which is inadequate.
you: You have a logical fallacy because my unfounded and unprovable phenomenon can't be proved. Nope. See above

[Purple Rabbit]

Ohhh just belief?

Than what can be asserted without proof, for instance pink unicorns, orbital teapots and the like, can be dismissed without proof.

Next please.

[tavarish]

I draughted a response but your post was so purile it seems pointless. I've made my point and you choose to ignore it. Hopefully this will help:-

I shall put it in the clearest terms possible:

What separates your God from being a figment of your imagination?

What separates him from being any different than a magical deity I believe in?

Answer these two questions please. There are no loaded questions or logical fallacies here.

[fr0d0]

A little intellectual honesty might help with your confusion tavarish

A figment of my imagination would suggest a random idea without logical base or structure, both of which my concept of God is rich with. A magical deity is far from the Christian notion of God. To make such a statement you would need to be very ignorant of the Christian faith.

[tavarish]

A little intellectual honesty might help with your confusion tavarish

A figment of my imagination would suggest a random idea without logical base or structure, both of which my concept of God is rich with. A magical deity is far from the Christian notion of God. To make such a statement you would need to be very ignorant of the Christian faith.

Yes, because the first thing that I think of when the term "God" arises is logical and structured.

Here's an example.

I hold a belief that a celestial mongoose began the universe and intervenes with the lives of humans. I have his magical works written in a book, I even have people to attest to his existence and mystical power. I have absolutely no factual basis for forming this, but I feel it in my heart that it's the right way to interpret the visions that I have experienced. I follow this belief for a very long time, and amass quite a following. I then tell my pupils that the entire thing was a figment of my imagination and fabricated. People who are devoted to it still believe that the mongoose's works are indeed real, and dismiss my claims.

What makes you different than the ones who still believe my celestial mongoose story in lieu of evidence that show the entire story was a fabrication?

What would you say if I said my celestial mongoose came to me in a dream and said he created your god and that the Bible didn't include him because it was a massive cover up by the snakes? Would that be a valid assertion? How about if it was in 2000 year old writing?

Please don't dance around the issue. I have an intimate knowledge of Christianity, Christian doctrine and its various interpretations (although not all, experiences are subjective).

[fr0d0]

What makes you different than the ones who still believe my celestial mongoose story in lieu of evidence that show the entire story was a fabrication?

What makes _Christianity_ different is that there is no evidence to show that it is fabrication. It still holds true.

What would you say if I said my celestial mongoose came to me in a dream and said he created your god and that the Bible didn't include him because it was a massive cover up by the snakes? Would that be a valid assertion? How about if it was in 2000 year old writing?

I would require corroborating evidence and logical proofs to counter those of the Christian tradition. If it was true I would abandon my logical position.

Please don't dance around the issue. I have an intimate knowledge of Christianity, Christian doctrine and its various interpretations (although not all, experiences are subjective).

I am a Christian, and I can tell you where you are wrong, which so far, has been quite a lot.

[tavarish]

What makes you different than the ones who still believe my celestial mongoose story in lieu of evidence that show the entire story was a fabrication?

What makes _Christianity_ different is that there is no evidence to show that it is fabrication. It still holds true.

So absolutely nothing then. It's one thing to believe a fairy tale, it's another to think that the fairy tale has no evidence to show it's a fairy tale. How can I know Hansel and Gretel isn't based on a true story? Why would I NEED to prove that?

You need to know where the burden of proof is.

This is confirmation bias. Plain and simple.

I would require corroborating evidence and logical proofs to counter those of the Christian tradition. If it was true I would abandon my logical position.

Your logical position to assume a claim is true, then find subjective interpretations to fit your belief.

Very logical, I sure hope you find the corroborating evidence to counter Christianity, like, you know, common sense.

I am a Christian, and I can tell you where you are wrong, which so far, has been quite a lot.

Ask any other Christians if they believe the entire Bible should be taken literally. Then give them your definition of God and see it you aren't faced with varied and opposing attitudes.

Actually, go to http://www.christianforums.com, if you don't already have an account there, and post up some of your views. See how many people wholeheartedly see your views an unadulterated truth.