The Advantage of Being an Athiest

[Jaiket]

Interesting comtemplation, if the atheist was wrong, there a number of people that could be right.

I personally hope I am wrong, and if anyone's right it is someone who believes in a truly benevolent, all knowing, creative entity. I like to think that if I'm wrong I could get the answers to questions that I missed or misunderstood.

 

[Snoopy]

Lunar hamsters are one thing; the colour red is another. And yet there are people who cannot see the colour red. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

Hi,

No, it means they are colour blind. That part of the electromagnetic spectrum called "red" still exists.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Then we have the issue of, of the vengeful G-d religions, which one do we choose as if we choose the wrong one, are we in the same position as one who didn't choose any of them?

As Homer (Simpson) said: what if we are worshipping the wrong god - every time we go to church we'll just be making him madder and madder.

s.

 

[17th Angel]

As Homer (Simpson) said: what if we are worshipping the wrong god - every time we go to church we'll just be making him madder and madder.

s.

In away that cartoon is showing light, from studying.. The little I did it shows most gods are not happy if you worship the "wrong" god.... So I feel as if maybe if you worship "none of the above" so surley you are seen as neutral and not an enemy? And if you basically haven't enough proof or evidence to confirm to yourself which is right and which is wrong. If there is a true and real god surley he would show mercy upon you when it comes to being judged?

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Hi,

No, it means they are colour blind. That part of the electromagnetic spectrum called "red" still exists.
s.

I really meant "red" (subjective) not "electromagnetic spectrum" (objective). Another example: Russians don't see blue, because in Russian light blue and dark blue are two different colours.

It is easy to dismiss an image of God if all you see is an old man on a cloud, or a violent guy hurling thunderbolts. And these metaphors have been used a lot through the ages. Few people in the West seriously believe in that sort of God now. The words we use are "transcendant" and "immanent": meaning roughly that he is both more and bigger than the universe, and also exists in every smallest part of it. So when you see any part of the universe you are seeing God. Like water to a fish, it is so much in everything that you can't see it.

Another analogy: the earth owes all its life to the sun. We have fires and electricity and gas but they all derive their energy from the sun. Now think of all beautiful, creative and creating, loving, true qualities you have known or seen in your life, and instead of seeing them as fragmented instances, see them all as being derived from a single source.

Some people call this source "The Universe" (to mean something that you can interact or have a relationship with), some call it "God" or "The Force" or "Allah" or whatever. Names are not the issue. If you know and believe in love, just that, that is enough. All the rest is dispensible.

 

[Snoopy]

Don't think so, the atheist MUST prove that god does not exist, whether it matches god as described by any of the world religions is another matter.

No, again! - see post 10. When any assertion is made the onus is on the person making the proposition to provide proof, if proof can be provided. If I claim giant pink hamsters live on the moon why should I expect anyone else to provide proof that they do not exist? It is up to me to provide the evidence that they do. Otherwise we could all claim all sorts of nonsense and say that as no-one has proven it not to be so then it all exists.

s.

 

[Caimanson]

No, again! - see post 10. When any assertion is made the onus is on the person making the proposition to provide proof, if proof can be provided. If I claim giant pink hamsters live on the moon why should I expect anyone else to provide proof that they do not exist? It is up to me to provide the evidence that they do. Otherwise we could all claim all sorts of nonsense and say that as no-one has proven it not to be so then it all exists.

s.

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

 

[Paladin]

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

This is an interesting proposition. If there is no God, then the belief in God must be a delusion of some kind , perhaps even pathological, therefore if I were an atheist it would be absurd for me to disprove what a deluded person believes to be true, the only hope would be that with some scientific process I could prove the delusion exists or at least the propensity for this condition of believing in something we can't see. Now, this puts me in a tenable position because I still have to prove a subjective experience is in effect pathological in nature.

All of this is pure conjecture on my part of course and doesn't really represent what is truly going on, but do you begin to see the absurdity of theist/atheist debate?

 

[Snoopy]

I see it differently, imo atheism is not a neutral stance regarding god.

As soon as I claim that there are no pink hamsters in the moon, I am placing a belief and responsibility in that statement.
If I don't claim anything either way, then there is nothing for me to prove or disprove.

Hi,

I can understand you saying you cannot make an assertion either way and so not feel you need to prove or disprove something. But do you not see the validity in the onus being on the person making an assertion to provide proof? (The reference to proof was made in the original post of this thread). What responsibility lies with you in saying you cannot accept there are lunar hamsters when it is me that is making the assertion? Am I clearly not making a ridiculous claim and so unless I can provide some evidence I should keep my mouth shut on the subject of lunar hamsters?

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Hi,

No I'm sorry but this isn't something that "works both ways." Let's remove the specifics of this particular argument/belief for a moment (theism/atheism) and focus on the proof principle in general.

If a person posits the existence of something (anything at all) then the ONUS is on this person to provide proof of its existence, if indeed the person feels that it is possible. The onus is NOT on anybody else to demonstrate that the thing does not exist. Any other approach is irrational and would mean the entire world's population could live in a fantasy world divorced from reality. I could, for example, claim that there are giant pink hamsters living on the moon. It is up to me to provide evidence of their existence. Every one else may say they do not exist but the onus is not on them to provide evidence that they do not exist since it is me that is making the claim for their existence and so it is up to me to provide the objectively assessable evidence. This is simple sound logic which applies to any proposition, whether it is for my lunar hamsters, gravity, evolution, deities, nirvana, salmon, Santa Claus, blue cheese, black swans or hell.

s.

Assuming that something doesn't exist without even attempting to open your eyes for it can lead to a great deal of embarassment down the road...

I can understand you saying you cannot make an assertion either way and so not feel you need to prove or disprove something. But do you not see the validity in the onus being on the person making an assertion to provide proof? (The reference to proof was made in the original post of this thread). What responsibility lies with you in saying you cannot accept there are lunar hamsters when it is me that is making the assertion? Am I clearly not making a ridiculous claim and so unless I can provide some evidence I should keep my mouth shut on the subject of lunar hamsters?

The moral of the story: make sure your eyes are open before making the assertion of the non-existance of something...

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Here's another moral. The very reason I put black swans as one of my examples is EXACTLY because it is a famous example cited when discussing philosophy.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just going to move on to the idea of falsifiability and post this very link (which refers to white and black swans) so in fact you've anticipated me! If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

I was not saying "black swans" do or do not exist, I was pointing out where the onus of responsibility lies.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Hi,

Here's another moral. The very reason I put black swans as one of my examples is EXACTLY because it is a famous example cited when discussing philosophy.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just going to move on to the idea of falsifiability and post this very link (which refers to white and black swans) so in fact you've anticipated me! If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

I was not saying "black swans" do or do not exist, I was pointing out where the onus of responsibility lies.

s.

Well, there is one other responsibility to consider:
Those who adamantly deny the existence of salmon should not take it personally when someone slaps them acrossed the face with one!

 

[Snoopy]

sg,

You've given me a slap with a fish once before, I seem to recall. Do you have some sort of fish fetish?

s.

 

[seattlegal]

sg,

You've given me a slap with a fish once before, I seem to recall. Do you have some sort of fish fetish?

s.

Nope. The onus is upon you to prove it, if you can.

If someone wishes to assert the existence of black swans {or fish fetishes} it is up to that person to provide proof to support their claim. If they can, fine they exist, if they can't....

 

[Snoopy]

Strangely enough, my piscine-infatuated friend, I did attempt to provide the appropriate link to provide such evidence but have discovered that GuL appears to be defunkt. (At least when I try to access the site). Any news?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

I really meant "red" (subjective) not "electromagnetic spectrum" (objective).

I think this is at the crux of what I am trying to say!

Objective matters can be investigated and claims asserted, investigated, proof sought and possibly discovered and so on. So for example I can claim that pink swans exist. This is something that is open to investigation, proof sought and possibly found or not…

Subjective matters are not ones that are open to investigation to provide proof to support them. They are, by definition, experiential and personal. So my experience of the “pinkness” of the swans I claim to have seen cannot be tested, proven or disproven.

The difficulty is when in matters of belief, it is claimed the truth of the beliefs is proven by whatever means is cited. I don’t mean believing if Jesus, the Buddha or Mohammed lived or not, I mean metaphysical issues. These surely are subjective and cannot be proven or disproven. It is not to invalidate them, merely to put them in the appropriate arena of dialogue. We may all have such beliefs (some religious, some irrational, some maybe even sensible) but they are not the stuff of proving. They are unfalsifiable.

To give one final, non-religious example, it can be proven that Bartok wrote a number of string quartets but when I say the sixth one is the best this can be neither proven nor disproven because it is a personal, experiential statement. It is valid, and it may be a factual statement of my honest opinion but the world does not accept it as a proven fact that his sixth was his best.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Strangely enough, my piscine-infatuated friend, I did attempt to provide the appropriate link to provide such evidence but have discovered that GuL appears to be defunkt. (At least when I try to access the site). Any news?

s.

I'm sure there must be a rational explaination. {It would be difficult to believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up any evidence of my having a possible fish-fetish.}

In order to spare you any possible madness and/or vexation that might arise due to your inability to provide supporting evidence for your theory of my having a fish-fetish, I assure you that I will keep a diligent watch out for any signs that I might be repressing a fish-fetish, and thank you for opening my mind to the possibility.

 

[Snoopy]

yes, but what about GuL?

 

[wil]

I'm sure there must be a rational explaination. {It would be difficult to believe that there is a conspiracy to cover up any evidence of my having a possible fish-fetish.}

In order to spare you any possible madness and/or vexation that might arise due to your inability to provide supporting evidence for your theory of my having a fish-fetish, I assure you that I will keep a diligent watch out for any signs that I might be repressing a fish-fetish, and thank you for opening my mind to the possibility.

vWe HaV fOtos oV U @ pIkE PlACe 4 a pHEe

 

[seattlegal]

vWe HaV fOtos oV U @ pIkE PlACe 4 a pHEe

{rollingonfloorlaughing-gasp-tryingdesperatelytocatchmybreath-
-gasp-beforeIcompletelypassout-gasp-}