The burden is equally on the shoudiers of the atheist's claimant.
You don't have to prove a negative. We don't simply assume that the Loch Ness monster exists until someone disproves it. Same with Bigfoot, and the Yeti. So too, with your god.
Also, atheists are not claiming that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Kinda sounds just as silly as Xenu when you really think about it, doesn't it?
Let's pretend for a moment that the burden of proof DID fall on the atheist. You've just increased your workload by a LOT. Instead of proving ONE god (even if he does suffer from multiple-personality disorder), you now have to DISPROVE thousands of them. Odin, Thor, Loki, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Ra, Set, Bast, Azathoth, Nyarlathotep, Shub-Niggurath, Yog-Sothoth, and thousands more. They all have to be disproved. Might wanna get started on that.
Oh, and Xenu too. But don't tell Tom, he's had enough bad news lately.
Einstein did not believe in a personal god.He may have leaned toward pantheism..he certainly beleived in a intelligent designed cosmos. An intelligent designed cosmos may very well be from a creator whom many would define as God the Universal Supreme Being God who goes by a multitude of names.. ..not just GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAH as interpreted in the scripture or hadiths.
No. He didn't simply believe in your God, just by another name.
Quote:
With regard to Divine command theory, Einstein stated, "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own—a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."[27] "A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."[28]
On the importance of ethics he wrote, "The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."[29] "I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others."[30] "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God."[31]
That's not God/Allah/Jehovah by another name. That is a complete rejection of those Gods. Not atheism, just a rejection of your God.
And you keep trying to turn this argument around. The argument was this: you say that anyone who does not believe in a supernatural creator is illogical. I ask you to provide a logical proof of that. You fail to do so because you don't understand what logic is. Instead you simply list the reasons why you believe a supernatural creator must exist. I pick those reasons apart. You, in an effort to avoid admitting defeat, try to spin things off in different directions by asking tangential questions lie "prove the universe was formed by random chance" and "why does random chance make more sense than intelligent design?"
So I will say it again. Can you provide a logical proof for how non-belief in an unprovable supernatural thing is illogical?
Let me give you a little help. A logical proof would be something along the lines of: Statements factually showing why non-belief in an unprovable supernatural thing is illogical. Therefore, non-belief in an unprovable supernatural being is illogical.
Let me give you a little help. A logical proof would be something along the lines of: Statements factually showing why non-belief in an unprovable supernatural thing is illogical. Therefore, non-belief in an unprovable supernatural being is illogical.
Umm...trees am pretty. Me am find concept of no god uncomfortable. If no external force to give meaning to life, me am unsatisfied. Therefore, GOD AM!
Regardless of how you feel about certain people, there is still, let us not lose sight of it, no proof, nor the potential of said proof, of a god.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Originally Posted By: foobar456
That's the opinion of logical people everywhere. Non-belief in an unprovable supernatural thing is not illogical.
Again that is your opinion.
Presumably.
However, If you're implying that because it is an opinion it is either wrong or illogical this is false. Also, this would mean your opinions are false as well.
Or if you're implying that only your opinions are undeniably correct whereas everyone else's are undeniably wrong, there is no reason for this to be true.
It is my opinion that 2+2=4, it is also true.
Your belief that there is a god is not given, while the opposite of that belief does by, definition, contradict it.
If you mean something else by illogical, I don't know what you mean.
If you simply reference the effect, according to the common definition, that a statement being 'illogical' would result in, in the particular that it is necessarily wrong, there is no reason for this to be true.
Well, actually, if by 'illogical,' you mean 'that which does not comfort me,' or 'that which disturbs me,' as per an earlier post, this is not surprising. It does also not make a thing false, that it bothers you so.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Originally Posted By: Kthulhu
1oldminer, you seem to think that LOGIC somehow involves COMFORT and SATISFACTION. You are wrong. End of story.
And by that argument people like you who deny the existence of a creator because the idea of some god/judge/parent/control freak of the cosmos is unpalatable.
You disliked your parents oftimes how they raised you? Perhaps you might have deemed them strict because surely they probably have set down many rules that you thought was unfair as a child/teen..even though it looking back on it..you realized that they did it because they loved and cared about you and those rules were for your own good and protection? I know I did...
And that how God works..he is the Father of us all and we are his spirit-children..and like any loving parent he has given guidelines and boundaries for our protection and good nevertheless he gave us our agency to choose for ourselves as beings of free will.
The reason God gave us the commandments...is not to make us unto obedient robotic sheep...but to help us grow and overcome the idols and vain things of the world that chain us down emotionaly and spiritually and keep us from spiritually progessing..and to return one day to the prescence of our Maker.
People by nature are rebellious..we like to believe we can simply do what we please without regard for personal accountabilty...even if we believe that as long as we don't hurt others there is nothing morally wrong.
No God..no problem...
That is the logic and appeal of atheism.
This is, apart from various implications, uses of words, which, while they have purely descriptive synonyms, themselves have negative connnations, simply a series of largely unrelated descriptive statements.
If I were to read into it, however, that you don't like some people, and characterize them in some manner, who do not believe in a god does not mean there is a god.
Nor does, assuming that by saying that these other people do not think something, people which, or your conception of, you have expressed dislike towards, you reference that the reason you like the idea of a god is because you desire what you think they do not, that the idea appeals to you in some way mean it exists.
Every single other person in the world could be entirely ignorant of any facts which might lend support to the idea of there being a god, and dismiss it on the basis of how it feels alone, and this would still not mean there was a god.
You could be accepting it largely because of the opposite, and this would still not mean it existed.
And, as before: "if by God, you mean, the entity, the being, then: The phrasing of your statement implies that you believe it exists, however: There is no proof of any kind of godly being, nor even the potential of said proof, keep in mind. More interesting and more fundamental, however, is that which leads to the lack of proof (or evidence). The definition of god, at least the most common one of which I am aware is so vague and insubstantial that you can't even see what the proof of it would look like, much less actually demonstrate it. For example, If I had, after Newton had published his Mathematica Principia, seen his formula for force of gravity between planets, I could have told anyone who asked, what might prove the claim (that the planets move according to this formula), what would be evidence for it, and what would contradict it. If you have a detailed and precise enough description of a claim, you can manipulate that data to see what might prove it, what would be evidence for it, and what would contradict it. So it's not just that there's no proof, it's you can't even tell what it would look like. Now, I'm not saying I know everything, and I'm not saying I'm telepathic, it's possible somewhere in your head lies key ingredients of said proof, or somewhere out in the world, or perhaps just a way to frame these questions, or something else of substance, but I'm not aware of it. But feel free to enlighten me."
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
when some scientists point out the intricate detail and complexity of DNA the language of life as evidence for God/Intelligent Designer it is not enough to convince the un-believer.
Literally, as before (as before), just a descriptive statement. It establishes nothing. Indeed, it is a stereotype. I can understand how it would please you to put these 'unbelievers' in a box, so to speak, and to apply various judgements like these, but this, like many things, does not make it true, even if you did care to list who exactly you refer to and how you know this about them. Precisely, that is.
If you mean to imply that there is a god because some object surpasses an arbitrary standard of complexity, this is false.
Now, this is not to say I don't understand, as well as with Newton, and his (I believe this is what you refer to) his statements such as, as regards the stability of the solar system, in which he confesses himself unable to comprehend how, given the nature of gravity, the planets could have remained as stable as they are for so long (or however long they thought the solar system had existed back then, why someone says such a thing. (You may refer to another statement of his, but this is the only thing that comes to mind)
It is perhaps pleasing in some way to attribute unknowns unto a god, or at least, it releases the burden one might feel, as regards the knowledge of the thing which is relatively unknown. However, as before, this does not make it true.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Wow. Crazy thread. To the OP, the video is a typical false dilemma presented by creationists. Nothing has objectively good or bad qualities; it simply has qualities that we believe to be good or bad based on our subjective conceptions of good and bad.
For example, torture: Many believe torture is bad because it is inhumane, regardless of what information it might provide. Others believe that while inhumane, it is necessary, as the information obtained may save countless lives.
The only way for objective morality to exist, there must be some ultimate authority with the capacity to define the qualities within an item as inherently good or bad. Of course, you also have to allow the very definition of the word "good" to be defined by this authority so as to avoid one's own subjective view of goodness to clash with it.
Of course, since we have no evidence of such an arbiter, (nor of anything inherently good or bad) we are left with philosophies, and the will of those who would make their ethics and morality status quo. But that doesn't mean I can't argue the superiority of my philosophy to yours. And it doesn't mean that, failing some kind of agreement, I can't enforce my moral code by eliminating any opposition to it. Subjective doesn't mean insubstantial.
Previous Topic
Index
