Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[tattuchu]

Flaccid science

[Seth]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

[Seth]

You know perfectly well that you, and everybody else here, positively believes that God does not exist, loathes and despises theists, and denies
being religious about deriding, demeaning and disrespecting religion, theists, God, Jesus and anybody else that doesn't toe the Atheist party line

I do not loathe or despise theists and in point of fact have lived amongst Muslims all my life. I do think however that religion should be subject to critical scrutiny just like any other philosophical position.

Why? If you are a non-(or un) believer, what's it to you what other people believe? And I believe religion has been the subject of critical philosophical scrutiny for some thousands of years, and has been the subject of scrutiny by many of the world's greatest philosophers and minds. What makes you think your conclusions are superior to theirs?

But that does not translate to the individuals who practise it just it itself. Not all atheists are anti theist anyway

No "atheist" can be anti-theist, but every Atheist I've ever encountered is distinctly and obviously anti-theist to one degree or another, usually another.

You see, as I've said before, there are only two categories of "atheists": The first are persons who are mentally incapable of understanding the concepts of theism. The second is persons who have never, ever been exposed to theistic concepts and therefore cannot weight the arguments and counter arguments and draw a conclusion.

Everyone else, and I mean everyone, who has been exposed to theistic (god) concepts has necessarily and unavoidably considered the proposition that God exists and has drawn a conclusion by weighing whatever evidence they have received in making a more or less conscious decision to either believe in the concepts or disbelieve the concepts.

All of these persons are not "atheists" because they cannot, ipso facto have "no belief" about theistic concepts. It's impossible not to have some sort of belief about theistic concepts if one has been introduced to them and has analyzed and weighed the conflicting pro and con claims and drawn any sort of conclusion at all, however weak or provisional, about the information one has received. The human mind just works that way automatically. It's unavoidable and inescapable. Therefore, it is flatly false to claim that one has "no belief" about theistic concepts because the mere fact that one understands the concepts enough to deny any belief proves that one has been exposed to sufficient information upon which to draw a conclusion and thereby form a belief.

as you seem to think and in point of fact I am proof of that because I am an apatheist - which is as far removed from an anti theist as it is possible to get while still being an atheist

But you're not an "atheist" at all because you do hold a belief about theistic concepts, which is that you don't give a damn one way or another. That's still a decision and a belief, not the "absence of belief," which as I've just explained, only occurs in two specific categories of persons, of which you are neither.

You can be an "apathist" if you like. I'm a Tolerist™ myself, but I'm certainly not an "atheist" or an "Atheist" and I don't have any problem admitting that.

[Pappa]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

And therein lies the point.

Hehe.

[Seth]

Seth, while whitness testimony is regarded as evidence in a court of law (to be weighed up for validity), it's not usually regarded as evidence in science. The sceinces that do use such self-reporting are usually regarded as "soft sciences" too.

That is as it may be, but that's entirely irrelevant. If a phenomenon is observed and reported then the burden of proving that the observation is false or erroneous falls upon the one who is disputing the observation. You may choose not to accept the observation as true if you like, without sufficient critically robust scientific evidence supporting it, but that skepticism on your part does not invalidate or impeach the probity or truth of the observation in any way.

This may seem a subtle distinction but it's an important one. You see, in science, if a researcher wants his or her observations accepted by other scientists as valid and true, then that researcher must provide the critically robust scientific evidence and proofs that allow critical review and replication of the results of an experiment for it to meet scientific standards, but failure or refusal to provide that evidence does not mean the results are invalid!

But what you refuse to understand is that there is no burden of proof on an individual who reports a phenomenon that occurred to them at all. They are reporting what happened to them and they are not required to analyze the event and provide scientific evidence. That burden lies with one who disputes the truth or probity of the event. If I say I saw the Virgin Mary appear to me floating above the earth surrounded by an aura of light and she gave me a message to impart to the world, it is up to the skeptics of the world to prove that I didn't have that experience if they wish to accurately and truthfully claim that the experience, or the generator of that experience, did not occur or does not exist.

Anyone is free to disbelieve the claim if they choose of course, but an honest intellectual will not go beyond the available evidence to draw conclusions about the veracity or probity of the claim unless that person has critically robust evidence supporting that conclusion. To do otherwise is to violate a fundamental principle of science, which is what Atheists do all the time. They draw conclusions and make positive statements about the non-existence of God based on nothing more than skepticism. They have zero scientific evidence that the reported event did not occur as described or was not caused by a deity, but they conclude that because it's unlikely to be of divine origin based only on their limited and incomplete knowledge and understanding of science, nature and theism, it must be a false claim and therefore God does not exist.

While it is rational and logical to be skeptical about an unsupported claim, it is irrational and illogical to go beyond the actual evidence before you in drawing a conclusion about something you simply have no knowledge or understanding of. Therefore, the only rational response to such a claim, absent any critically robust scientific evidence to the contrary (not simply a lack of evidence, which cannot rationally be viewed as proof that evidence does not exist), is "I don't know."

I really don't understand what's so hard to understand here. Saying "I don't know" is the rational and logical truth and the mark of an honest intellect. Everything else is purely anti-theistic, which is entirely unscientific and irrational.

[Animavore]

Poll needs more aliens.

[klr]

All that's missing is a tinfoil hat.

[Svartalf]

problem with the babble is that the truth and probity of what's in there is in grave doubt, for all we know the books in there were purely written as propaganda without regard for most facts... other 'holy books' like the mormon thing don't even leave any room for doubt, they are forgeries through and through.

[klr]

problem with the babble is that the truth and probity of what's in there is in grave doubt, for all we know the books in there were purely written as propaganda without regard for most facts... other 'holy books' like the mormon thing don't even leave any room for doubt, they are forgeries through and through.

There was a very good 2-part series on the BBC about this a few months ago. The people who set out to prove the authenticity of the bible texts ended up doing the exact reverse, as they came across so many revisions, inconsistencies and omissions. Oh, and proof that they were usually written a long time after the supposed event(s).

[Seth]

All that's missing is a tinfoil hat.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

[Animavore]

Many scholars no longer take the Bible literally. I've a book, The Bible Unearthed, which goes into a lot of detail about the history of the Bible. It is reckoned the OT is 7th century BC propaganda under King Josiah who wanted to lead his people under one God. Many of the stories are folk legend, not unlike stories in the Celtic tradition, Fionn McCuhaill and the like. People like Moses don't seem to have ever existed.

This book is written by Jewish archeaologists and has glowing endorsments from bishops, priests, theologians and skeptics alike. I'm not sure how theists square the circle, but that was not the scope of the book. It was purely an historical/archeaological piece. Most of the work done on uncovering Biblical history the last couple of centuries was done by theists, not by atheists or skeptics trying to debunk anything. Early on they thought they would find evidence that the Bible stories were true, and it led them to examine the evidence completely wrongly for a long time. After a while, as many pieces weren't fitting with the evidence, they started asking if maybe some of these stories weren't true. It was only after this they could begin to construct a more coherent history.

I highly recommend that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

[Svartalf]

problem with the babble is that the truth and probity of what's in there is in grave doubt, for all we know the books in there were purely written as propaganda without regard for most facts... other 'holy books' like the mormon thing don't even leave any room for doubt, they are forgeries through and through.

There was a very good 2-part series on the BBC about this a few months ago. The people who set out to prove the authenticity of the bible texts ended up doing the exact reverse, as they came across so many revisions, inconsistencies and omissions. Oh, and proof that they were usually written a long time after the supposed event(s).

A miracle some royal names and that of Pontius Pilatus were correct.

[Animavore]

problem with the babble is that the truth and probity of what's in there is in grave doubt, for all we know the books in there were purely written as propaganda without regard for most facts... other 'holy books' like the mormon thing don't even leave any room for doubt, they are forgeries through and through.

There was a very good 2-part series on the BBC about this a few months ago. The people who set out to prove the authenticity of the bible texts ended up doing the exact reverse, as they came across so many revisions, inconsistencies and omissions. Oh, and proof that they were usually written a long time after the supposed event(s).

A miracle some royal names and that of Pontius Pilatus were correct.

Pontius Pilatus is well documented. Not that surprising.

[pErvinalia]

He knows there are people here that aren't anti-theist he just loves trolling by lumping everyone into the same group and representing us as a big mean atheist mob.

Sort of like people here like trolling theists and non-atheists by lumping everyone into the same group and representing them as a big mean theist mob.

Interesting how that works, isn't it? You all can dish it out, but you can't take it.

So you admit you are erecting strawmen? Well done.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth, while whitness testimony is regarded as evidence in a court of law (to be weighed up for validity), it's not usually regarded as evidence in science. The sceinces that do use such self-reporting are usually regarded as "soft sciences" too.

And when the witness testimonies are as contradictory as in this case, their validity is called even further into dispute.

In addition, scientific tests are normally required to be repeatable and falsifiable. This "event" fails totally on the first condition (unless any of the 3 girls are still alive and willing to recreate their miracle under lab conditions) and thus also lacks the possibility of the second, due to no acceptable criterium being agreed prior to the original event.