How Many Has God Killed?

[Skipper]

If you look honestly at any debate, both sides have to prove their points. How selfish of some of you to throw the burden of proof exclusively on me.

You and your religion are the ones making claims that something exists. So the burden of proof IS exclusively on you. Of course there is no way of proving or disproving god exists in the same way there is no way to disprove or prove the existence of unicorns and elves, however, logically we all assume these not to exist because if there is no proof of somethings existence most people would take the stance that it dosen't exist. It seems only when we as a species start talking about a higher being we throw all these rules that we follow in every other part of our lives out the window and replace logic and reason with faith and belief that we have a special connection that proves something exists. If I claimed I had made a personal connection, like you claim to have with god, with a talking flying teapot you would rightly laugh in my face. It's only because your version of the talking flying teapot has been spoken of through the ages by billions of people world wide that it has any legitimacy, if I had the same conviction about my teapot (that has the exact same amount of actual proof for its existence as your god(that is zero)) that you and many of your followers share for your god I would be seen as insane and possibly locked up. So yea, society has given you free reign to believe whatever bullshit mumbo jumbo religion you choose to, but don't ever think any burden of proof is on us....it will forever be entirely on the ones making the claims of somethings existence.

[reverendjeremiah]

My argument (which is not an argument for the existence of God, but an argument that the demand for a proof of God's existence that does not presuppose God's existence begs the question) will work for any being that both necessarily exists and upon whose existence everything else depends. So if there are any gods on that list that satisfy those criteria, then sure, the argument holds for those gods as well. But what is the problem with that?

So let me get this right. We atheists cannot ask you to give us proof of gods existence without us presupposing that your god exists?

[Eleazar]

So let me get this right. We atheists cannot ask you to give us proof of gods existence without us presupposing that your god exists?

...how do you manage to interpret me as saying this? I am saying that if there is such a thing as a proof that exists independently of God's existence, then not everything that exists depends on God's existence. Ergo, if the atheist demands such a proof, she is presupposing the contrary to what she is asking to be proved. (For example, the atheist might demand a proof that requires a) application of laws of logic in the argument and b) does not God's existence is not presupposed in the argument. Well, for the theist, the existence of laws of logic presupposes God's existence, so the theist cannot meet the atheists demand without conceding her own position. The atheist demand for such a proof begs the question by assuming that the laws of logic exist independently of God's existence.)

[Anomalocaris]

If there is a god, he would have made me so charitable that I would try to help even a fool such as he who made the post above. I spit with contempt on the notion of wasting my time helping that fool, therefore there is no god.

[Minimalist]

...how do you manage to interpret me as saying this?

That's actually a pretty reasonable interpretation of what you said. I don't know what you might have meant but there is no more evidence for your god than there is for Odin or Osiris or Quetzlcoatl. See the problem?

You may find it inconvenient that we rationalists insist on things being real before considering them but that's what you get when you hang out at an atheist forum.

[Welsh cake]

It would be redundant for me to list God's kill count in the "holy" scriptures, since the Atheist Experience already tallied in detail how many lives this loving deity snuffed out.

Part 1
http://youtu.be/IABptlAhyJw

Part 2
http://youtu.be/WWHzB6H718w

[reverendjeremiah]

...how do you manage to interpret me as saying this?

Calm down... Im trying to figure out exactly what you are trying to put forth.

I am saying that if there is such a thing as a proof that exists independently of God's existence, then not everything that exists depends on God's existence.

So if something exists that is independent of god that can be used to prove gods existence, then there are some things that exist that do not depend on gods existence? In other words, everything is proof of gods existence?

Ergo, if the atheist demands such a proof, she is presupposing the contrary to what she is asking to be proved.

So if I demand a proof of gods existence, then I am presupposing the opposite of god existence

(For example, the atheist might demand a proof that requires a) application of laws of logic in the argument and b) does not God's existence is not presupposed in the argument.
This is a HORRIBLE list of examples that run onto each other. Example B doesnt make a coherent sentence.
[quote='Eleazar' pid='132069' dateline='1303933356']Well, for the theist, the existence of laws of logic presupposes God's existence, so the theist cannot meet the atheists demand without conceding her own position.

So you think the laws of logic presupposes gods existence, and since it is "inside" gods existence, it should be presupposed that Logic is a proof of god.

The atheist demand for such a proof begs the question by assuming that the laws of logic exist independently of God's existence.)

So you are saying that unless we atheists presuppose the existence of god in everything, such as the laws of logic, then we will force theists to give up their position by asking them for something such as "Show me logical proof that god exists". In other words, the theist would say; "Logic IS proof that god exists.", so therefore atheists are asking theists to reliquish what they consider to be an obvious evidence for gods existence in the name of using that existence to prove god exists?

[Anomalocaris]

Let us suppose that Eleazar is mistaken in his believe, for the sake of argument. That despite his belief that everything that exists, or can be called into existence by the smarts of man, such as a proof, can not exist but for god, in fact something can exist without god. How theoretically in his world view can this fact be revealed to him?

If he answer is there is no way that can be revealed to him, then we can dismiss his opinion utterly because he would have said "I believe there must be god because even if there isn't a god, I could never change my belief that there is a god".

In otherwords, his view comes from a coincidence of his extraordinary handicap, not from any worthwhile ability to detect facts as they really are.

If that is the case, then whether he is right or wrong, his words are of zero value.

[reverendjeremiah]

Eleazars argument looks like these verses:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

..and..

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Am I correct Eleazar? Is that what you are trying to say?

[RDK]

Ib me ub. So basically the brain is involved when faith or belief is demonstrated. That's a wonderful deducton. Who writes some of this crap. It sounds real wordy and intelligent, but never actually says anything. Trying to demonstrate intelligence so that someone less taught will feel intimidated is really faulty reasoning. I'm not impressed with someones intelligence if it is used to make complicated something so simple as knowing that God exists. You can't disprove my experiences. They are not just real to me. Most of the time, the things that happen to me happen right in front of others. People are shocked when they see miracles happen in front of them. My experiences get witnessed. If you can't trust the words of another person, it is because you have never been rewarded for trusting anyone else in the past. You are afraid to admit the possibility that something might exist that you can not explain. When your reality closes the door to any other person, you cut off the possibility of learning something new. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see. The lingo doesn't have to be complex. The answers are baby like simple. All it takes is a willingness to explore the unknown with the curiosity of a child. If science had the answers to everything, we all could have stopped looking. Everything would have already been revealed. We have not even approached the threshold of knowledge. The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.