Why?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>Atheism is a faith-based belief system.

... Do you think an anarchist believes in government?

Nope. Anarchist believes in no government.
That wasn't so hard now, was it?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Your rationalization does not make any sense at all.

Sorry you don't get it. Sorry you think of my post in terms of "rationalization". It takes an open mind to understand other points of view.

Quote

With out evidence you can't assume something might be there.

Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there.
- You have no proof of X?
X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not.
Pretty simple concept.

Quote

Unicorns can't be proven to not exist, so why don't you believe in unicorns?

Here we go with the BS misdirections again.
*sheesh*
OK, I'll play your silly game today.
God can't be proven to not exist so why don't you believe in God?

Quote

Could you come up with a dumber rationalization for god??!

There you go with the "rationalization" misunderstanding again, but to answer your question, Yes.

"My farts smell like roses therefore there must be a god."
How's that?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

Quote

God can't be proven to not exist so why don't you believe in God?

Do you believe there is a magical world that co-exists with ours where Harry Potter attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and fights Lord Voldermort?

If you don't believe in that reality, then why? Please provide proof it doesn't exist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

God can't be proven to not exist so why don't you believe in God?

Do you believe there is a magical world that co-exists with ours where Harry Potter attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and fights Lord Voldermort?

If you don't believe in that reality, then why? Please provide proof it doesn't exist.

Oh. so you want to play that silly-ass game too?
But to answer YOUR silly-ass question...No.

Please provide proof that you are smarter than your posts indicate.

The way your posts twists things, You'd make a good lawyer, though.

Who was talking to you, anyway? I try to avoid that as much as possible.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

It only points out the concept that;

LACK OF EVIDENCE SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST ISN'T PROOF THAT IT DOES.

It's not a "game" and it's not twisting anything.

The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim something exists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It only points out the concept that;

LACK OF EVIDENCE SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST ISN'T PROOF THAT IT DOES.

So now you are agreeing with me. So why the smart-ass shit in post 78?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jaybird18c 24]

"You Don't Honestly Believe that!

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/6632/cbmoduleid/881/default.aspx

Just read this. Good article.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Your rationalization does not make any sense at all.

Sorry you don't get it. Sorry you think of my post in terms of "rationalization". It takes an open mind to understand other points of view.

Quote

With out evidence you can't assume something might be there.

Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there.
- You have no proof of X?
X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not.
Pretty simple concept.

Quote

Unicorns can't be proven to not exist, so why don't you believe in unicorns?

Here we go with the BS misdirections again.
*sheesh*
OK, I'll play your silly game today.
God can't be proven to not exist so why don't you believe in God?

Quote

Could you come up with a dumber rationalization for god??!

There you go with the "rationalization" misunderstanding again, but to answer your question, Yes.

"My farts smell like roses therefore there must be a god."
How's that?

By your logic then God is equally as likely to exist as a unicorn.

I can agree with that.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there.
- You have no proof of X?
X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not.
Pretty simple concept.

I think this very poor logic.

Say you are standing at the front door of your home getting ready to open the door. Using your logic you could imagine all sorts of things happening or existing on the other side of that door. There could be a masked robber on the other side waiting for you to open the door so he can shoot you.

You have no proof of the robber being on the other side of that door.
The robber could be there but, on the other hand, he may not.

So do you base what you do next on the robber existing and call the police? You have no evidence of a robber being there. No broken windows, the door is intact.

As in the case of God or unicorns, no one has ever seen either and lots of things have been attributed to gods that have been proven wrong. So do you see how poor that logic is?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

By your logic then God is equally as likely to exist as a unicorn.

I can agree with that.

If you want to put it those terms, then yes.

Just to note:
My post was intended simply to point out that there is always more than one way to look at things...other points of view.

It was generated by those who stand on the concept of, "I don't believe in God because there is no proof that he does."

To those who blindly got off on the idea that I was stating a belief on God, or not, you missed the point entirely. Reading comprehension is your friend...embrace it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

By your logic then God is equally as likely to exist as a unicorn.

I can agree with that.

If you want to put it those terms, then yes.

Just to note:
My post was intended simply to point out that there is always more than one way to look at things...other points of view.

It was generated by those who stand on the concept of, "I don't believe in God because there is no proof that he does."

To those who blindly got off on the idea that I was stating a belief on God, or not, you missed the point entirely. Reading comprehension is your friend...embrace it.

Then I don't understand why any rational person would believe in God. If you believe in god then unicorns should be equally believable.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there.
- You have no proof of X?
X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not.
Pretty simple concept.

I think this very poor logic.

Say your are standing at the front door of your home getting ready to open the door. Using your logic you could imagine all sorts of things happening or existing on the other side of that door. There could be a masked robber on the other side waiting for you to open the door so he can shoot you.

You have no proof of the robber being on the other side of that door.
The robber could be there but, on the other hand, he may not.

Up to here, you're good to go. That's all the statement tells you. But then you had to extrapolate it out into a follow-up action and blew it.

The logic stands on its own.

Quote

So do you base what you do next ......

What you do next it up to you.
What I would do is not relevant to the statement.

But to answer your question, I'd open the freakin' door and go party...been doin' it for years.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[wmw999 2,577]

I started the article, but haven't finished. But I do think that it gets right to one crux of the discussion: You can either assume that something is right, or you can assume it's wrong (that's assuming you care -- there are many things that people just ignore).

But if you want others to believe it, then you need to show some sort of evidence if they want evidence. The usual way to develop evidence is to make an assumption, and then try to disprove it.

If you can disprove it, then your assumption is wrong. That doesn't mean that the converse is right, it just means that your assumption is wrong.

If you look for evidence that proves you're right, you might never find the piece that says it's wrong -- you're not looking for it, why would you pay attention? But that piece of evidence still exists.

Newton's theory of gravitation is still a theory; people have come up with situations in which it's wrong, and the theory has been abridged to take those into account. Since I don't travel at close to the speed of light most of them don't matter.

But faith doesn't require proof; it stands on its own. You weaken it when you try to prove it, and if someone demands proof, all you can do is lead by the example of your life, happiness, and fulfillment. If the other person doesn't take you up, then he becomes God's problem, and not yours. And just as the other person's belief in their rightness is not changed by your actions, your faith should not be changed by theirs. It's between you and God to determine.

People are coming into a discussion with different languages, different rules, and then surprised that they can't come to a consensus. It's like an artist and a programmer trying to discuss a Cobol program; one is looking at the arrangement of letters and numbers, while hte other looks at what it's supposed to do (and to the artist, that can be a valid discussion). Or like trying to translate poetry and get the truly same result (it' probably as hard as writing it in the first place).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Again, without evidence, you can't assume anything is OR isn't there.
- You have no proof of X?
X could be there but, on the other hand, it may not.
Pretty simple concept.

I think this very poor logic.

Say your are standing at the front door of your home getting ready to open the door. Using your logic you could imagine all sorts of things happening or existing on the other side of that door. There could be a masked robber on the other side waiting for you to open the door so he can shoot you.

You have no proof of the robber being on the other side of that door.
The robber could be there but, on the other hand, he may not.

Up to here, you're good to go. That's all the statement tells you. But then you had to extrapolate it out into a follow-up action and blew it.

Quote

So do you base what you do next ......

What you do next it up to you.
What I would do is not relevant to the statement.

But to answer your question, I'd open the freakin' door and go party...been doin' it for years.

Right, me too. My point is it's not realistic nor does it make sense to believe there is a god or unicorns just like it's not realistic to believe there is a robber waiting inside your home if there is not evidence support it. And in the case of God or unicorns unlike robbers there has never been any evidence they even exist anywhere.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Then I don't understand why any rational person would believe in God. If you believe in god then unicorns should be equally believable.

Depends on your definition of "rational".

Evidently, you are saying that it's irrational to believe anything that you can't prove.

That doesn't agree with my definition of "rational".

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

My point is it's not realistic nor does it make sense to believe there is a god or unicorns just like it's not realistic to believe there is a robber waiting inside your home if there is not evidence support it.

OK, I have no problem with what you believe either way.
I have no problem with your being unable to accept other's opinions and beliefs.

I simply think that there's more to the world than what I can detect with my 5 senses. The electromagnet spectrum is one good example.

I simply think that one can believe anything one wants...who am I to tell him he's wrong? I simply believe that too many people only see one side of things and refuse to consider other sides...close-minded, if you will.

Quote

And in the case of God or unicorns unlike robbers there has never been any evidence they even exist anywhere.

...and to repeat once again, there has never been any evidence they DON'T exist. God, unicorns, 11 dimensions...can;t prove any of it one way or another.

(Kallend, the mathmatics doesn't prove 11 dimensions actually exist. You gotta couple the math with observation.)

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Oh hell...gotta go...late for the 7pm ballgame.

Please pray for me that I don't get a speeding ticket.


Rats. I'd never make in time for the first pitch and hauling ass, taking a chance on a ticket, is not something I want to do...I'll just catch tomorrow's 1pm game.

Besides, I didn't see any prayers for my well-being.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

My point is it's not realistic nor does it make sense to believe there is a god or unicorns just like it's not realistic to believe there is a robber waiting inside your home if there is not evidence support it.

OK, I have no problem with what you believe either way.
I have no problem with your being unable to accept other's opinions and beliefs.

I simply think that there's more to the world than what I can detect with my 5 senses. The electromagnet spectrum is one good example.

I simply think that one can believe anything one wants...who am I to tell him he's wrong? I simply believe that too many people only see one side of things and refuse to consider other sides...close-minded, if you will.

Quote

And in the case of God or unicorns unlike robbers there has never been any evidence they even exist anywhere.

...and to repeat once again, there has never been any evidence they DON'T exist. God, unicorns, 11 dimensions...can;t prove any of it one way or another.

(Kallend, the mathmatics doesn't prove 11 dimensions actually exist. You gotta couple the math with observation.)

OK, Can you give me an example of evidence of something not existing?

Why do you think there needs to be evidence of the non existence of something?

You're being irrational with this.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I subscribe to the theory (again, just looking for a sociological explanation before a divine one, not asserting anything) that religious texts that form the basis for organized religion are simply man's attempt to snapshot the moral code as it had evolved up to the time of the writing and explain it from the reference frame of what we knew of the world at that time.

Some things change over time and some don't. So if we could wipe our memory clear of religious texts and we sat down today to write something akin to the bible based on what we think works well as a society and what we know of the world today, we might come up with a lot of the same moral code, but there would probably be quite a few additions and omissions. I imagine the fables, stories, and explanations of natural phenomenon would look a lot different too.

I follow this belief in how it all came about. I sits well with atheists and agnostics also. I'm fall in the latter category.

However, it has nothing to do with the idea of 'faith'.


All that said, isn't this same old, tired, worn out, for the only purpose of antagonism, type thread just getting REALLY old? there's nothing new here, just a 'slightly' lower level of condescension than usual - but not much

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[popsjumper 2]

OK, you're trolling now. Thanks for playing.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

All that said, isn't this same old, tired, worn out, for the only purpose of antagonism, type thread just getting REALLY old? there's nothing new here, just a 'slightly' lower level of condescension than usual - but not much

Why yes, yes, it is.
I do sincerely hope that you don't think I was being condescending in any way. That was certainly not my intent. If you do, I'd appreciate input on how so that I can be aware of it and hopefully avoid it in the future when I'm not intending it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[beowulf 1]

I asked sincere questions.

Can you give me an example of evidence of something not existing? Your argument is that to dismiss god there must first be evidence that god does not exist. So I need an example of evidence of something not existing.

Why do you think there is a need for evidence of something not existing to conclusively say it doesn't exist?

I am using your logic.

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Can you give me an example of evidence of something not existing?

How about the expanding universe, matter, energy, space/time, governing laws of physics, electromagnetism, etc. Just prior to them coming into existence (ex nihilo)? Evidence seems to indicate that there was a starting point. We just disagree on what started it. A prime mover or just random chance. All that stuff didn't exist prior..but now it does. But I guess, by definition, that isn't tangible evidence of non-existence (that doesn't even make sense but it was fun to say. ) However, all this stuff points to it all not existing at some point...right? Is that evidence...of a sort? I guess the logical argument itself might serve as a form of evidence that something didn't exist in the past. Yeah...I'm sticking with that.

Quote

Your argument is that to dismiss god there must first be evidence that god does not exist. So I need an example of evidence of something not existing.

Not sure about all that but all this stuff does seem to indicate that it came from somewhere. Its complexity and order seem to indicate information and design. So it existing might be proof of a designer since information has to come from somewhere other than matter itsitself.

[champu 1]

Quote

All that said, isn't this same old, tired, worn out, for the only purpose of antagonism, type thread just getting REALLY old? there's nothing new here, just a 'slightly' lower level of condescension than usual - but not much

Well, page 4 of this thread has been an excellent demonstration of champu's law...

[jaybird18c 24]

There's nothing new under the sun.