If you cannot disprove the existence of God, or prove the existence of God

[Peacetrain]

Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system

[el_bryanto]

1. While I agree with you, I think you are missing the point to the Religion Forum nt

[Peacetrain]

2. Nope, just stating my belief system..

Where else would I put it ?...

[cbayer]

5. Exactly what do you see as the point of the religion forum, el bryanto?

I see it as an opportunity to discuss how religion intersects with politics, to promote religious and non-religious organizations who are fighting for the goals that we as progressives/liberals share, to spotlight the idiocy or the religious right in an attempt to defang it and to build coalitions between groups of people who may hold very different views about religion but have much more in common than they do differences.

But flame bait and really divisive OP's do tend to get the most traffic, so maybe I am completely off the mark on this.

[trotsky]

6. Bottom line is, people are going to talk about what they want to talk about.

And you don't get to control them.

[el_bryanto]

33. It depends on who you are

Different people want different things; but certainly more than a few want the chance to smack down people who think/believe differently than they do because they believe that those beliefs are hurting the nation or the Democratic Party.

Bryant

[cbayer]

40. Sure, some people most definitely want that chance.

But they are way off the mark, imo, because they never make the case that religious beliefs held by progressive/liberal people of faith are hurting the party.

Of, if they have, I haven't seen it.

So, why would we say the religion group should serve that purpose.

It's trolling, divisive and harms the causes that this site is set up to pursue, imo.

[phil89]

77. It's harmful

To be part of an oppressive institution behind so many horrible things.

[cbayer]

79. OTOH, there may be both plusses and minuses to being

part of a certain institution.

Each individual has to make up their own mind about where the scale tips and whether they would rather fight for and against the things they believe in from the outside or the inside.

Perhaps is it your goal to "save" people?

[phil89]

93. "Perhaps is it your goal to "save" people?"

If I can reduce the harm done by religion, I'm all for it.

[cbayer]

94. Hmm, that whole saving thing sounds so familiar.

[Brettongarcia]

141. So maybe atheism is ironically the latest and truest expression of God; would that be bad?

Many suggested that Karl Marx was a great Jewish prophet.

[cbayer]

148. Of all the inane things I have read in this group, this is possibly the most inane ever.

[Brettongarcia]

149. Or more politely, "paradoxical" or "ironic"?

[rug]

158. We should post a poll of them all and let the Group decide.

We can run one weekly.

[cbayer]

161. That could be really entertaining, but this particular one really takes the cake, imo.

[Brettongarcia]

182. Here's one rational explanation

If - as the Bible often warned - there are many false things in religion, even what is called Christianity? Then atheists who criticize many elements of religion, are doing all of us - even believers - a partial favor. Since many "believers" may believing the false things, after all.

[cbayer]

184. And ye shall be saved!!!

Thank god that someone is around to do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

200. I'm on a mission from god.

[Warren Stupidity]

297. it is so tough for us mundane people to meet your very lofty standards.

[trotsky]

83. Looks like that post went over your head.

You've never shown that statements by atheists on this message board are hurting the party, either.

But that hasn't stopped you from claiming it, or accusing vocal atheists of "carrying water for Republicans."

Why such a different standard for others, cbayer?

[cbayer]

3. K & big R to you Peacetrain.

Those that insist on attacking whole swaths of people based on their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs are no friends to the democratic party and the goals we share.

We are a big tent, and while we may see the world very, very differently, there is no point in alienating whole groups of people just because you don't share their perspective.

Particularly when it comes to something for which there is, and probably never will be, an answer.

[Peacetrain]

21. cbayer, I have no way of proving God exists..

cannot even begin.. futile.. yet we can all work together for the betterment of the community as a whole.. we do not have to insult each other.. that is all I am saying.. my belief system ends at the tip of my nose..

[cbayer]

48. I never engage in the existence of god debate.

I don't know and I don't care and it wouldn't change anything for me anyway.

However, I do think there is something much more evolved than us somewhere. God? Who knows.

I do, otoh, advocate for people who believe and those that don't as long as they are not using that to attack or infringe on the rights of others.

Working together for the betterment of our community and our world is a goal we should all share. If someone's reasons for doing this are religiously motivated, more power to them.

What I hate to see is progressive/liberal democrats being attacked and alienated because of what they believe or don't believe.

That serves a purpose, but it's not our purpose.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Ah, cunning deployment of Luke Russert's Equivalency Theorem...

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

No matter the severity of what is done or said, just close your eyes and repeat to yourself: BOTH SIDES DO IT.

[immoderate]

80. I just cited this post to a Libertarian friend.

I sent him a link to reports of Tea Party PACs absconding with millions. And then his reply equated fraud with politics, and contained a reference to ACORN.

I referred him to you.

--imm

[Goblinmonger]

7. I'm not trying to disprove god

That is a small subset of atheists.

Those that make extraordinary claims must provide the proof. Asking for said proof is not trying to disprove the extraordinary claim.

[Peacetrain]

16. Would never ask you too..

Because you can't.. and I cannot prove the existence of God.. no way I can do it..

[Goblinmonger]

24. Seemed like you were making those the options

Just wanted to make it clear that most non-believers are not trying to do that.

[Peacetrain]

31. Nope Gobllinmonger.. not at all

all I am saying it that it can't be done.. and that does not in any way shape or form diminish anothers' belief system.. non believers in a deity does not mean that their belief system in how to live their lives is less than or non existent.. those who believe in a deity also are not less than others.. at some point we respect each other.. and realize that we all come to this for a variety of reasons.. and then hopefully move forward..

This is a finite life we are all trying to navigate through..

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Did someone here say they were trying to, or could disprove the existence of one or many gods?

[trotsky]

11. Why yes, it was the dreaded....

STRAW MAN ATHEIST!

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Damn that guy. He's so quick, you can't even see his posts zip in and out of the thread.

[trotsky]

9. If you cannot disprove the existence of Sarah Palin's god, or prove the existence of yours...

Being dismissive of Sarah Palin's walk in life is futile. An exercise in stroking your own ego.

No point to yelling, calling her names, or accusing her of being delusional.

Neither you nor I nor the guy or gal typing the next message can prove or disprove the existence of Sarah Palin's god.

It's just her own personal belief system.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Are you now, or have you ever been, a witch?

[trotsky]

13. I cannot prove or disprove that accusation. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Which is an excellent reason to keep her the hell away from political power.

Imagine a McCarthy-ist witch hunt, LITERAL witch hunt, on the congressional floor.

It's not so fantastical as we might hope.

[Peacetrain]

12. Palin can believe she wants to.. but her beliefs stop at the end of her nose

just as mine do, and yours.. I don't care what you believe.. you just do not have a right to push your belief system down my throat.. kapish

[trotsky]

14. Quit telling others what they can or cannot do.

You have no right to push your belief system down our throats.

[Peacetrain]

17. ahhhh must have hit a nerve...

[trotsky]

19. Yes, it appears I did!

[Peacetrain]

23. trotsky it really is okay

its okay.. to be different in how we live our lives personally, as long as we do not impinge on others or cause harm .. you have the right to be who you are without someone demanding proof of value of how you believe..likewise I have that same right.. its okay

[Warren Stupidity]

32. If religion was, as you seem to think, just "beliefs that stop at your nose"

then religion wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately for your "live and let live" warm and fuzzy philosophy, religion, especially religious institutions, are messing way beyond their individual noses all over the place. And they are doing so in ways many of us find quite objectionable. Until religion stops doing that, until religion retreats into pure navel gazing, it is entirely appropriate to examine how religion affects society, and if on balance religion is a negative force, we should oppose religion as it currently exists.

[Peacetrain]

39. That is more than okay with me to point that out.. I am not saying

that we cannot have discussions and realizations that people use facts to try and prove their point of view.. and roll over others.. and that road goes both ways Warren.. I think sometimes, we all (see I put we all) want to be right.. we have reasons for our belief systems.. it works for us on a daily basis.. but if someone feels they must demean another to make their own life system work for them.. that is a problem.. can't force that on others.. not right

[TreasonousBastard]

55. You do understand that...

often as not, or at least often enough, religion is not the inciter of bad behavior, but the excuse for it.

If I hate gambling, or prostitution, or 7-11 selling beer, and I can't get a law passed with logic and justice, I'll use what I can-- and that is often religion.

We do this all the time, invoking racism, classism, and every other -ism imaginable to fan the fires and get our way. It's just what people do, and demonizing religion as the worst offender just isn't right.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Like when for example the RCC acts to promote laws that discriminate against LGBTQ people?

Or when the LDS acted as the major backer of prop-hate in CA?

No, I'm sorry, major religions incorporate hate as part of their creed, instruct their followers to hate, and act to enforce their hate through influence in government. That is not "using religion as an excuse", that is religious thoughts and beliefs being acted on by religious institutions through their leaders and their followers.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Did I say it never happens? Of course...

it happens.

But, you're talking like that's all there is.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Did I say that's all there is? No, but you are acting like that is what I said.

So we agree that religious institutions are a major negative force in society and that we should not, as the op suggests, just live and let live, right?

[TreasonousBastard]

71. Well, that brings up the question of just what do we...

do about this?

Eliminate the Catholic Church? Sounds like a huge project doomed to failure, and even if we did we have to somehow replace all those schools and charities.

All of our institutions have the capability of good and evil, (oops! there's that definition thing again-- just whose good and evil are we talking about...) guiding them down what we agree to be a proper path would be a goal. Not the only one, but one.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Stand up and clearly voice opposition to what is wrong would be a start.

From my perspective part of the problem, the deeper part, is that indoctrinating people to believe in "revealed wisdom", aka nonsense, is in itself damaging to society, and I agree there is not much I can do about that other than speak up about why it is wrong and the harm that it does.

[trotsky]

50. So totally agree, Peacetrain.

It's fine that your personal beliefs make you think you can tell others how to act. I still accept you and validate your right to have that opinion.

[Peacetrain]

59. Interesting..

I think you are trying to make a point about me telling you what to do? But it seems to me you are instructing me on how to act. But its okay..no one is trying to change you.. if you have issues with me believing that.. fine..its your right to feel that way..

My original op.. I stand by it..


"Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system"

[trotsky]

64. Again, totally agreed.

I'm not trying to change you; if it is part of your belief system that you must lecture others and tell them how to behave, that is your choice to make. It's your right to feel that way!

[Peacetrain]

66. Its okay.. it really is

[trotsky]

74. Agreed once more.

It's OK, Peacetrain. There are lots of tricky questions out there that don't have answers in the "everyone's beliefs are valid" universe - but we still need to answer them if we are to live together in a society with rules and laws.

[Peacetrain]

97. trotsky,I don't think I said

everyone's beliefs are valid.. that is not my universe.. but I did say.. everyone has a right to their beliefs to the end of their noses.. there it stops.. including mine..including yours.. no one has a right to impose their beliefs on another.. It just does not work.

You or I or anyone cannot prove or disprove how a person feels about the existence of God or not. It cannot be proved or disproved.. and that is okay with me..

Nothing tricky..just a place to start from.. demeaning other peoples beliefs never gets a person anywhere.. except dealing with a very defensive individual

[trotsky]

114. You're trying very hard to have it both ways.

You want everyone equally entitled to their beliefs but at the same time, you're imposing your belief that no one's beliefs can go past the end of their noses.

The right-wing anti-choicer would take your dogmatic statement and agree: your beliefs cannot be imposed on someone else. Therefore, abortion should be illegal since the beliefs of a pro-choice mother would be imposed on her fetus.

Again, things get tricky when we have to deal with real people here in the real world. Not so easy to get up on your soapbox and chide everyone else, is it?

[Peacetrain]

133. No trotsky.. you read what you read into something

I can't restate it any other way, because that is not what you want to hear. You have a set frame of mind.. and that is yours not mine.. can't help you.. feel a little sorry for you, but you don't need my pity I am sure. You want to berate and chide me for saying everyone has a right to their belief but not a right to impose it on others.. that is something you have to deal with. I am off today, so don't be surprised if I do not answer right away.. My Mom is have some same day surgery..

[trotsky]

142. Well, the important thing is you've found a way to feel superior.

I'm sorry that you don't want to discuss how your philosophy falls apart in the real world - which is what I was precisely doing, but at least you can sleep well knowing you're better than me.

Take care.

[rug]

159. No, she's simply calling you on mistating her position.

Once again.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Ah, but WHOSE nerve is the question...

[Peacetrain]

22. Its okay.. I never ask people to prove their belief system

its not my buisness.. its okay. it really is

[stone space]

275. All I know about Sara Palin's religion is that I don't want to be baptized into it. (nt)

[nil desperandum]

25. Yelling

While there is no point in yelling or name calling I would ask under what conditions will people accept the existence of a life-form for which they can not supply compelling evidence of existence.

The evidence that man is nothing more than the apex predator of earth is very compelling. Man routinely kills for resources, for food, and for pleasure. These actions bear a striking similarity to every other predatory life form on the planet.

Man in his arrogance assumes he is so important he must invent a reason for his existence other than accidental chemistry, as man firmly believes in his own superiority. Thus man invents a god, a god with the ability to create the universe from nothing.

This god then decides in his infinite godly wisdom that the ultimate life form worthy of his creation is a murderous, disgusting beast known as man. A filthy, exploitative, selfish animal with no species wide redeeming quality other than the ability to create tools to protect its' offspring while it murders the offspring of others and eliminates thousands of sub species planet wide on a regular basis. An animal more like a plague that lays waste to all than a noble creation visiting godly wisdom upon the planet.

When viewing humanity on a world wide scale there is zero evidence that man is anything more than a successful predatory life form that inflicts ruination upon the planet at every chance. Hardly the stuff of a godly creationism...

But that's just me, and I am obviously not in the majority who feel that god created us so he can help us enjoy sporting events by allowing his better genetic creations to score points for those who pray for wins...

If religious code helps people in their attempt to be a less disgusting species that might be a benefit, but if religious code lets you strap on a bomb to kill your neighbors who have a different god or shoot a doctor in the head for performing a medical procedure your god finds objectionable you will be hard pressed to convince me of the necessity of your god to the overall well being of the species.

[Peacetrain]

27. No one has the right to cause harm to others with their

personal belief system..

[cleanhippie]

30. Is using ones personal belief system as the basis for legislation and policy harmful?

[Peacetrain]

35. absolutely can be sometimes.. many times..most of the time

and it is more than fair to point that out.. I do it all the time.. you know I am a Christian or attempting my best to be cbayer.. and most people who claim to be Christians.. aren't.. they cherry pick here and there to try and prove a point.. while totally ignoring the religion itself (this is just me talking from my personal perspective)

Years and years ago, I had a polisci professor who said.. facts can be put into a great pile.. and people pull one here and one there.. trying to prove their point of view, while ignoring the rest..

I have never forgot that..

[cleanhippie]

37. Then you do see the problem of false equivalency in your OP's assertion?

[Peacetrain]

42. nope none at all.. no one can prove or disprove..

no point in being dismissive of others..I can't prove anything, I have no right to be dismissive of someone who has a different system than me.. and visa versa..

[cleanhippie]

54. Who is trying to disprove anything?

You've constructed quite the strawman here. You've had that pointed out by many others yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

It makes whatever point you're trying to make very unclear.

[Peacetrain]

56. Ahh CH... Declarative statement

Its a statement.. No strawman.. just a simple statement of belief as I view it..

Now if you have issues with all people having a right to how they view their life and live it with whatever life statement they choose.. thats a different subject..Not trying to be unclear in any way

"Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system "

[cleanhippie]

85. I really have no idea what your point is.

You've made a declarative statement, but offered no reasoning as to why anyone should care.

[trotsky]

53. Interesting.

Right-wingers could use that as an argument against reproductive choice, couldn't they?

[Peacetrain]

57. they can believe what ever they want.. and live it as they choose

You or I or anyone else cannot stop that.. but their right to live their life ends at the tip of their noses.. we do not force them to take contraceptives.. likewise they cannot deny others who view it differently.. that is why we have goverment..

We can argue the individual actors.. some powerful, some not.. We cannot call them delusional.. it gets us nowhere.. but likewise, the rest of us have our unique belief systems that do not see contraceptives as life and death as they do..

Can't stop the Duggers from populating.. but you can't force us to have 19 kids..

We can beat our heads against all walls..it is not going to change anyone..

Thats all I am trotsky..

[trotsky]

58. Again, they could argue the same thing.

No one has the right to abort a living human being - according to them. Quit forcing your beliefs on them - and more importantly, on the "unborn."

[Peacetrain]

61. Of course they can.. they have a right to believe that.. and live it

I fully respect that.. they do not have a right to force me to live their belief system.. its okay trotsky.. its okay

[trotsky]

73. So now we come to making laws.

Either abortion is legal or it's not.

Someone has to win. Someone has to lose. In your wonderful world where everyone's opinion is valid and everyone's beliefs are perfect for themselves, what becomes the law that EVERYONE has to live under?

It's okay, Peacetrain. It's okay.

[gcomeau]

26. If the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven...

...then the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and thus justifiably rejected as possessing no utility or rational basis for being asserted.

[cbayer]

28. If the existence of other life outside our planet cannot be proven or disproven...

then the hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and thus justifiably rejected.

Right?

Or should those that believe that there probably is keep looking?

[gcomeau]

34. You aren't understanding the concept of falsifiability.

The difference between not currently falsified and unfalsifiable is the difference between "haven't yet" or "cannot yet" and "cannot ever".

The manner in which God is defined as possessing limitless magical superpowers renders attaining proof of his existence or non existence not just currently difficult, but LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That is what being unfalsifiable means. That there exists no possible means of testing for the truth or falsity of the proposition. Not just that you currently lack the equipment and will need to spend some time building it or something.

The existence of extra terrestrial life is not even remotely unfalsifiable. It could easily be demonstrated by the act of going out and finding it... or it coming here and visiting. Or it could be falsified by souring the universe and establishing that... nope... nobody home. That that isn't happening right this minute is not the same thing as saying it can't happen. (Of course you would have to limit the scope of the proposition since the universe may well be infinite in size... otherwise, yes, you could formulate a proposition about alien life that would be unfalsifiable since you can't exhaustively search an infinite space... but THAT specific form of the proposition would be, again, useless.)

The idea that God exists is completely different. Even if something that was claimed to appear that people said was God, how would you demonstrate that was the truth when in order to accept the proposiotn you have to accept the existence of godlike magic superpowers? If you do that who says this entity is God and not an evil wizard pretending to be God so you'll do what he says? Etc. Or if we scour the universe and never find any sign of God? well God's using his magic powers to avoid detection of course! Because... faith... blah blah blah...

Simply introducing the various claims associated with what people generally call God invalidates all possible means of testing, and thus renders the proposition unfalsifiable.


Clear?

[cbayer]

41. I can't be expected to understand it, being dumb and all.

Clear?

[gcomeau]

44. I neither said nor implied anything of the kind.

If you want to label yourself, feel free.

[cbayer]

46. No, but you were very condescending.

So I didn't read your post at all.

Get it?

[gcomeau]

47. I'm fascinated...

...by your ability to detect condescension over the internet in words you don't read.

[cbayer]

49. Ah, more condescension. How's that working for you?

[gcomeau]

51. About as well as your mind reading powers are working for you I'd say.

If you insist on interpreting any attempt to explain an unfamiliar concept to you as condescension and insult the internet must be a very hostile place for you.

[cbayer]

52. The internet is only as hostile as those who populate it.

The only thing I can tell you is that when I perceive that someone is responding to me in a condescending fashion, they really lose their audience.

Take it or leave it, but I suspect this is true for many.

[gcomeau]

65. That would appear to be...

...as easily attributable to your perception as to others conduct.

[cbayer]

69. It certainly could be and the lack of other cues in internet communication

makes that likelihood even greater.

In that case it would behoove the other person to clarify that that is not what they intended…

if they wish to proceed with the discussion.

[gcomeau]

78. You mean...

...like telling you they neither stated nor implied any insult you appear to have perceived?

[cbayer]

81. Perhaps, or a mere "I am sorry that came across as condescending

or insulting. It was not my intent.".

It's really not that hard, and it generally leads to opening the door back to the discussion.

[cleanhippie]

165. IOW, you require an apology no matter what the other person says.

Even if they tell you that your perception was not their intent, they must apologize to you.

[trotsky]

88. You also failed to genuflect. n/t

[gcomeau]

92. :-D -eom

[Warren Stupidity]

62. Having been caught in her own gotcha, the victim mode gambit is now in play.

Good luck.

[trotsky]

95. Ha!

So true, so true.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. the question of the existence of life on other planets can be stated as a falsifiable theory

and tests can be (and are being) conducted to falsify that theory.

Your phrasing would, more honestly, be "the existence of other life outside our planet has not been proven or disproven", but then your analogy falls apart, as the existence of gods cannot be proven or disproven while the existence of life outside our planet most certainly can.

I know you think this is an enormous gotcha, but really it isn't. It is just a silly analogy fail.

[DanTex]

129. So how would one disprove the existence of ET life?

Disproving the non-existence of ET life is simple: just find an example of life on some other planet. But I don't see how to disprove the existence of ET life, given that exhaustively searching the universe is basically impossible.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. You don't, you falsify the theory that there is no life outside of our planet.

The Mars rovers are out conducting that experiment on Mars. SETI has been attempting to falsify the theory that there are no tech civs other than our own for decades. New advances in exoplanet observation are making it possible to detect the chemical composition of distant planets and we may soon be able to detect evidence of biological activity.

[DanTex]

131. So that means that only one of the two theories is falsifiable, right?

What I'm saying is that "there is no life outside of our planet" is a falsifiable theory, whereas "there is life outside of our planet" is not a falsifiable theory.

More generally, theories of the form "X exists" are not falsifiable, whereas theories of the form "X does not exist" are falsifiable. (for the most part)

[skepticscott]

132. This is why the requirement of "falsifiability" is silly and misguided

Popper notwithstanding. A theory needs to be testable to be scientifically useful. Nothing is even proven "false" in the strictest sense.

[DanTex]

134. I agree with you, to an extent.

Falsifiability is a useful concept. However, it is not the be-all-end-all, and it is certainly not synonymous with the scientific method as it is sometimes claimed, or at least implied. So, yes, making it a requirement is misguided.

More generally, attempts to pin down the scientific method to a certain specific set of procedures is misguided. Science, loosely defined, involves the systematic application of reason to the understanding of natural phenomena. That can mean falsifiable theories and repeatable experiments and so on, but it doesn't have to.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. It is the negative. Note you could try

To prove that god exists by finding evidence of god, falsifying the theory that there is no god. The problem is "evidence of god". Evidence of life doesn't have this problem. The alien life analogy just misses the point.

[DanTex]

153. Well, hypothetically, I don't see why there couldn't be "evidence of god".

Say people started getting raptured or something like that, that could qualify as "evidence of god". Or maybe if prayer experiments started yielding positive results.

[Warren Stupidity]

175. Really? How would disappeared people be evidence of god?

Prayer experiments that showed positive results might be evidence of *something*, which is why the Templeton Foundation took a risk and attempted to conduct that experiment. It still wouldn't demonstrate that the effect was "god", and the results were a dismal failure.

[Starboard Tack]

299. You got me thinking there Warren

If I prayed (not something I've done for a long time), but if I did and maybe a lot of us prayed that the trolls who post in this group would go away, and it happened, would that be proof that there is a God, after all? I think it might, but then again I'm not sure I believe in miracles.
What the heck, it's worth a try. Are you with me Warren? Are you with me? Let us pray!

[Peacetrain]

29. It doesn't matter

There are tons of religious and non religious systems that I do not believe in.. I am fascinated, love to learn about them.. but I do not have a right to try and make someone prove or disprove that life plan guide.. what ever it is.. I have my own.. It is not rational to ask someone to prove or disprove the unprovable.. that is my point..

[gcomeau]

36. Ummm...

"but I do not have a right to try and make someone prove or disprove that life plan guide."

If they're expecting you to accept their claim about it... yeah, you absolutely have the right to require they support their claim, or to reject it if they decline or fail to do so.

[Peacetrain]

43. No you are right about that.. if someone is dismissive or you

you can bat back.. you can't change them.. as long as they are not harming others you cannot or I cannot do anything about it except say something to the effect.. you have a right to your system.. you do not have the right to demean me.. nor I you..

But gcomeau.. you cannot make people change up even the goofy ones off the ether.. you have to set boundaries.. and say enough already .. that is the best any of us can do

[Peacetrain]

45. Well this was a fun thread.. and I am off to lunch..

take care..

[elias7]

68. What are you defining as god?

I don't see how we can consider something that everybody defines differently.

If you define god as a conscious entity walking with us through our lives, granting us wishes and judging us, well that is one matter for debate, but impossible to prove or disprove.

If you define god as a symbol referring to a mathematically calculable cosmic order that underlies the workings of the universe and everything that is (and isn't) is god substance or an extension or attribute thereof, then you're just calling the mystery of the universe and of your own being "god", which necessarily exists.

[Peacetrain]

70. we all have a plan we live our lives by

Some life plans embrace deity.. some life plans do not.. some are not sure.. and it really does not matter. My whole point was that.. "we" cannot demean others because they believe differently.

It is pointless..

[elias7]

89. So what do you mean by deity?

The Hindus for example believe in many gods, all inferior to the three main gods...vishnu, shiva, and brahma, but these are mere functionaries or personifications of the encompassing concept of Brahman. The gods are concrete forms that help our concrete minds, they don't come close to touching the Truth of the universe and of your being.

No one knows what that is, it is beyond imagination, conceptualization, beyond gender, beyond naming, beyond being, beyond all thought, and so on.

But whatever that is that underlies the mystery of Peacetrain's existence, that we can, by definition call God. And therefore, if you exist, then by definition, God exists, just not in the form you like to disbelieve in.

[Peacetrain]

96. :)

We are all finite beings, maneuvering as best we can in the few years we exist.. I see God in all things.. some see God in no things .. and it is okay.. we all do the best we can, coming from whatever place we start as sentient beings..

As my op originally said.. no one can prove or disprove anything.. as far as the existence of God..this being the religion forum.. that is what I am talking about..

You might find this interesting..

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1

Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2

Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

Zoroastrianism That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

[AtheistCrusader]

154. Well, this morning when I got to work, my SQL server was down, so

I'm thinking this 'plan' thing is rubbish.

[cbayer]

72. But isn't that exactly the point he is making?

If the definition varies so greatly and the number of variations comes close to equalling the number of believers (and non-believers, for that matter), then what is the point of trying to argue about who is right?

There just is no right.

[Brettongarcia]

84. It is easy to disprove many specific ideas of God.

For example? If you believe in a God that promises "all" and "whatever" we "ask"? Then simply "ask" for a giant miracle now. If it appears,then your God might be real. If it does not, then he is not.

[cbayer]

87. Oh, please. That's just simplistic hogwash.

You can spend your days trying to disprove individual ideas of god.

First of all, you won't convince them. Secondly, it's about the most utterly pointless exercise I can imagine.

It would be like someone trying to convince you there was a god.

Your crusade is doomed.

[Brettongarcia]

139. Hey? Isn't calling atheist ideas "simplistic hogwash" hurtful?

But I am tolerant, and will not object. Instead I will allow your speech, in the name of freedom of speech. Though I was recently censored by religious censors, on the Religion=delusion post.

In any case, consider the possibility that if we disprove one specific notion of God, after another? Finally the whole begins to disappear, bit by bit. Until, as Rene Salm (SP?) recently suggested, nothing is left but the smile of the Cheshire cat. While next, even the smile disappears. So perhaps it is possible to disprove God; bit by bit.

And by the way? If our belief in God is false, if there is no God, then proving it is not "pointless," but quite important. If we are wasting and often even losing/"giving" our lives to a false idea, that is a serious thing.

[cbayer]

147. Hey! That's not an "atheist idea". That's just your idea.

You weren't "censored by religious censors". You said something uncivil and rude and were censored by a random jury. I believe you said it to me, and, for the record, I was not the alerter.

"We" are not going to disprove one specific notion of god after another. There are as many ideas as there are people, both believers and non-believers.

I think you really need a new hobby.

[Brettongarcia]

151. SOME atheists do not say there is no God; they perhaps merely are disinterested in one

Other persons however, do say there isn't one.

Anyone can read what I wrote regarding negative evidence on religion, by clicking to see it; and the reasons for it? What was censored was done for clearly religious reasons; reasons moreover not relating to the comment itself. When Freud himself said "all religion is a delusion," shouldn't we be allowed to discuss that idea? Or, if we censor those who consider it, isn't the next step burning the books by Freud? Though book-burning is common in religious folks. They attempt to destroy all the evidence against them.

In our present forum? The question of whether there is a god or not, and whether we can prove it, directly pertains to the present opinion post.

Religious folks regularly censor those who disagree with them. Or burn their books. Or put them on "ignore." Or execute them for heresy. But that is beyond rude, of course.

[elias7]

90. There is no right,

But there is an answer, though we'll never know what it is.

Call that answer "god", and therefore god necessarily exists. Gods that can be named or called upon or prayed to are just anthropomorphic projections of our own psyche, but not really fact.

[cbayer]

91. Agree. There probably is an answer, but we will never know it.

So I will continue to live my life the same way, god or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. We could know.

If there was a god, and it wanted us to know it, and it hopped its happy ass on down here to show us it existed, then we'd know, right?

The potential to know is there. We don't know because either said gods don't exist, or, they do not desire to reveal it/their selves to us.

[cbayer]

160. Someone posted something here the other day that I found very intriguing.

They said:

Maybe it's not the deity's job to show himself/herself/itself to YOU.

Maybe it's YOUR job to show YOURSELF to the deity.

-Common Sense Party

Now, I'm not a believer, as you know, but I find this argument that god should just "hop it's happy ass on down here to show us it existed" pretty silly.

If there is a god, why in the world would you think it had any thought, let alone obligation, to prove itself to you.

We may not know because it is something we are just plain incapable of knowing. The two options you put forward are very limited.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. Many (I would risk saying 'most') caricatures of gods demand some form of allegiance or faith.

Since its existence isn't readily apparent, it would make no logical sense for it to do otherwise.

And it would make no logical sense for it to create me, as parsimonious/skeptical/incredulous as I am, and then demand such a leap of faith from me, as I am incapable of it. It would suggest a sadistic creator, that would design us sick, and command us to be well.


Often the counter-argument I hear is 'it would take away my free will to choose to follow that god or not', but that doesn't follow from awareness. I still choose allegiance or not. I still evaluate the morality/claims/edicts of such a god if it revealed itself to me. Allegiance is not automatic, predicated upon perception of existence. (I realize you did not use this argument, just putting that out there)

[cbayer]

167. Well, that's what the faith part is all about, isn't it.

No one or thing demands anything of you. You have painted your own very narrow picture of god. It's a very negative image and I am not surprised that you would then reject that.

[AtheistCrusader]

170. Well, I am mostly speaking to the abrahamic traditions.

Such tradition has claimed historical precedent of god revealing itself directly to humanity. Granted, this is limited to the abrahamic god.

I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation.
But I am incapable of faith. Literally incapable. I need something. Some shred of evidence that I can test. And this applies to all things, not just religious faith. Engineering, flight, electrical systems, structural things, sociology, there is no limit to what I do not advance, unverified, some element of faith without critical examination.

Character flaw perhaps? But the implication is that I was created. If I was created, I was created in that manner. This is what I am, not what I choose to be. So if such a being created me so, AND withholds critical evidence for its existence, it cannot hope me to extend it credit, unless it is attempting to torture me for some purpose.

[cbayer]

172. I believe that you are incapable of faith.

In the same vein, I have come to believe that some people are incapable of having a lack of faith. It is just who they are.

It is those that feel that their way is the one way and that they must convince others they are wrong and somehow "save" them that I object to.

It smells so much like the way GLBT were treated for so long.

Again, I don't think anyone or anything expects you to extend it credit. You don't believe and that's just fine.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. Totally agree.

I fully acknowledge, not just some people, but MOST people are predisposed to faith. (I think that may be changing over time though, bears further study.)

I find the LGBT correlation compelling. I fully believe my friends when they describe their sexuality in that manner; it is their nature, not a conscious choice. My inability to extend faith is a perfect mirror of that balance of choice/nature.

I find that highly interesting as a means of, for instance, falsifying the entire abrahamic faith, as all of the old testament source documentation speaks to same-sex relations as being sinful. Which would imply, as with me on my 'I cannot change my nature, I cannot advance faith without verification, therefore I am doomed', so too for my friends, who cannot deny their sexual nature, and thus are similarly (according to same old-testament/torah/all three abrahamic faiths doctrine) doomed.

Created sick, commanded to be well. That's a horrible proposition. Sadistic. I would call it evil.


I simply cannot believe a creator, that would bother creating us at all, is sadistic enough to engineer such a situation. That we could be doomed for our nature, as created.

I would, if I had to flip a mental coin, assume that such a being simply didn't exist, apply Ockham's razor and assume the specifications in that source documentation are wholesale fabrication by humans with an agenda, sooner than I would accept the premise of a god that intentionally engineers us 'unwell'/doomed, and denies us any tools to salvage that fate.


There is of course a third option; a god as supposed above that cares enough to create us, but doesn't actually desire a personal relationship, and the concepts of hell, and sin as specified in the OT are corruptions, invented by humans without god's assistance, consent, approval, etc.

[cbayer]

176. Meh, I don't think the bible should ever be taken literally and reject

attempts to use it to "falsify the entire abrahamic faith".

I don't care what it says, GLBT rights are civil rights, and most people of faith think that no matter what interpretation of the bible others spout.

You seem so intent on defining and describing this thing that you don't believe in. What's with that?

[AtheistCrusader]

177. Becasue I want to know if it exists.

So many people insist it does, I have a burning curiosity to discover the truth. In all things, but this issue particularly because it is so contentious and does impact my life as others do things, for instance at the legislative level, for religious reasons. Abortion. Physician assisted suicide. Family planning. Social safety nets. So many things hinge on how individuals arrive at a conclusion on this issue.

The abrahamic faiths are built upon the bible. If the source documentation can be proven to be fabrication, wholesale human invention... what then of the faith itself?

Seems to me it would follow that that specific faith might be chucked out. Now, I don't think that means the people invested in it would suddenly become atheists. History suggests such believers would find a new anchor for their faith.

[cbayer]

178. But you will never know, imo.

You may be able to discuss with others what they base their belief and faith on. You may be able to persuasively argue with some people who's opinions you disagree with, even when those opinions are religiously based.

But you will never know.

This need to falsify religion is folly and serves no purpose. It can't be done.

That's why I really like this OP.

FWIW, and I have probably said this to you before, I don't know if there is a god and I don't care. If it were to be proven or disproven tomorrow, it would change nothing about my life.

[AtheistCrusader]

179. Certain religions make very precise claims about the nature of the universe.

Those claims often can be falsified.

I think the 'homosexuality is a sin' one is, on its face, blatantly false. That seems, to me, a great gaping wound in the side of every single religion that purports to claim homosexuality is a sin. The claim does not appear to be true. The nature of not just humanity, but untold other species indicates it simply isn't true. There are even sociological concepts that suggest it is wholly beneficial to our species.


When you start pulling bricks out of the foundation for a religion, it seems to me, that at some point, it must collapse.

[cbayer]

180. Why are you so intent on causing the collapse of religion?

Why are you not just content to not believe?

Certainly those who condemn homosexuality or do not support full civil rights should be challenged at every opportunity, but it makes no difference to me where those beliefs come from. They are just wrong.

Just as surely the ideas I grew up with about civil rights, social justice, peace and taking care of the most marginalized among us were all presented to me in a religious context. In no way do I want to see that kind of religious ideology "collapsed".

This crusade of yours really begins to feel evangelical. Perhaps it has more to do with your personal battles than those outside of you.

I guess that if you could falsify religious belief in general, then you would be right and that would be a good thing. Since you can't, you are left wondering if you are right or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

181. Because their faith doesn't stay with them.

They seek to use it as a means to force or control my behavior.

I'd care a lot less if they didn't do that.
For instance, I have had occasion to authorize the destruction of 7 fertilized multi-celled blastocysts as part of an IVF cycle. There is an enormous bloc of Christians in this country that call what I did 'murder' and seek to ban it with force of law. And they've nearly done so.

That effort to ban is predicated on their faith, which tells them those fertilized ovums are people, with metaphysical soul thingies, and etc.

I'm mostly seeking to protect myself here. If believers just kept their stuff to themselves, for instance, by admonishing people who have electively become members of their faith not to do such things, and leave me alone, that would be another matter. If people could just do that, we'd have no disagreement. But they seek to control *me*. To extend their morality to *me*.

That's a problem. A problem I seek to eliminate.

You don't see me railing about UU's or Pantheists or Pagans in here, do you? Not because they are numerically inferior, but rather, because they don't assert control over my behavior. I don't believe in their faith, just as hard as I don't believe in the catholic abstraction of God, yet, you don't see me flipping over their tables and getting in arguments with them, do you? There is a reason for that.

[cbayer]

183. Well certainly you are well within your rights to object to anyone

who uses their faith to force or control your behavior.

But I would suggest you can do that without causing the collapse of religion.

The power is in the politics. Your example about the blastocysts really shows that the politics are working. They aren't winning this, no matter what they believe.

Are you not just as much a "botherer" as they are? You seek to impose your beliefs on them when you talk about eliminating, collapsing, falsifying.

If all you really care about is that their beliefs don't impact on you personally, then why not limit your crusade to that issue? Why broaden it to something that really is not achievable anyway?

It's good that you can separate out those groups and institutions that you do not have an issue with. However, I would suggest that your net is still much too large and that you include many people in the "bad" group that really don't belong there.

They would be your run of the mill believers who do not wish to control you in any way. That would be most christians, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. I don't think there's any equivalency there at all.

On the political side, it's a numbers game. They are seeking to increase their numbers. Constantly. It's actually a tenet of their faith to do so. Numbers means votes. They get enough, they win. The wins we had politically in the 00's, are directly attributable to a decline in evangelicalism in this country, and a rise in secularism overall. That trend can be reversed. 70 years ago, evangelicals had no mass block of political power at all.

"You seek to impose your beliefs on them when you talk about eliminating, collapsing, falsifying."

Um, no I specified I have no expectation they will become atheists as a result. Nor is pointing out flaws in their claimed faith in any way equivalent to say, passing a law, forcing something upon them. You'd have to compare that to people like me passing a law banning the existence of, say, churches. Or banning the print of certain religious texts. Something I don't seek to do.

[cbayer]

189. The religious right is losing ground, imo. edited to avoid starting another subthread.

We allowed them to progress much too far, but I think the electorate in general is sick to death of them. I would predict that their numbers are waning, not growing and that the republican party as a whole is going to start distancing themselves.

They were not politically active until about 30 years ago when they were recruited and convinced that political activism was an essential part of their belief system. They were promised that GLBT rights would be tightly limited and that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Although they made some worrisome inroads in some areas, they really have not achieved any of those promised goals.

Do you really consider an equivalence between passing a law based on a religious tenet, and me

pointing out XYZ tenet of their faith, and then showing evidence that suggests or in some cases, proves that it cannot be true?

Are those really equivalent? Force of law, versus me engaging in dialogue, employing reason, highlighting evidence?

These are the same, to you?

No, these are not the same to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

190. Oh no. Much longer ago than that.

Evangelicals are what happened when the Republican Party went totally berserk at the end of the 50's, beginning of the 60's, culminating in the mass-shift after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Before 1950, the republican party supported suffrage. Opposed slavery. Hell, going into the vote on the 1964 CRA, republicans voted for its passage in much higher numbers than democrats did. In the 50's, leading republicans like Goldwater publicly supported legislation that fought discrimination against people for their sexuality. All easily accessible historical record.


During that period, the Republican Party suffered an influx of evangelicals, seeking to gain political dominance. We're suffering the fallout from that today.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." "

- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.

Goldwater lost. The CRA passed. The dixiecrats jumped to the republican party. All fucking hell broke loose.

And today, we suffer.

There used to be compromise. We used to have (what we call progressive today) progressive allies in the republican party. That party used to stand up for civil rights.



I do agree that currently the religious right is losing ground, but that is at risk, every single election. They can come back. They have managed to hold the House through craft and gerrymandering. I'm somewhat optimistic about the mid-terms and the next election, but nothing is guaranteed. Every single election remains an existential fight that we MUST win.

They haven't overturned RvW, but they've nibbled away at abortion just the same.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/28/mississippis_lone_abortion_clinic_fights_to_stay_open_while_the_fate_of_legal_abortion_in_the_south_hangs_in_the_balance/


This fight is still on, and still desperate.

[cbayer]

192. Ok, I think we are talking about two different waves.

But the religious left played critical roles in the AA civil rights movement and the anti-VN war movement, so there was some counter-balance.

Today I see them coming back and I welcome them with open arms.

The fight will always be on, AC. I think we win it politically though, and not by fighting their religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Do you really consider an equivalence between passing a law based on a religious tenet, and me

pointing out XYZ tenet of their faith, and then showing evidence that suggests or in some cases, proves that it cannot be true?

Are those really equivalent? Force of law, versus me engaging in dialogue, employing reason, highlighting evidence?

These are the same, to you?

[Brettongarcia]

203. But if God exists, and wanted us to believe in him? Just showing himself would do it.

So why doesn't he just do that? Why doesn't God just show us himself, to prove he exists; and in that way all but guarantee we follow him? Why all the elaborate arguments and Bibles to convince us ... when all he really has to do is ... show up?

This allegedly silly question is a logical one.

And it is a major question in the Bible itself. Where it is unanswered, it seems to many. (cf. "faith&quot .

[AtheistCrusader]

155. If there IS a supernatural god

and it is correctly perceived by at least some believers, then there would be a 'right' one, then, wouldn't there?


And if their isn't one...

[cbayer]

157. I don't necessarily know if that's true.

What if this entity, should it exist, presents itself differently to different people. That might lead one person to describe something that is entirely different than what someone else describes.

The question is not answerable, imo, and that is why there is no point in arguing it.

[AtheistCrusader]

164. Said being could make it clear to us that it has many forms.

Most claim exclusivity. Or, the idea of that god is relayed as such.


This borders on the oft-claim 'god is unknowable to us' which actually implies a limitation on a being that is purported to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Such a being, by it's very definition, could make itself knowable to us, without limitation, if it desired to. It can, by definition, do anything.

[cbayer]

168. Why might it even bother. You may be no more than an ant in an ant pile.

Believers do believe that god has sent messages and messengers. They feel that is adequate.

You seem to want some kind of personal recognition.

That's probably not going to happen, even if there is a god.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. Most of those claims of evidence/messengers occured long before I was born.

Evidence I cannot critically evaluate. Evidence that does not impress me. Evidence that could justify not just my previous example of an abrahamic god, but other mutually exclusive polytheism, naturalism, pantheism, etc.

As hrmjustin pointed out yesterday, many of those believers believe that 'phase' is over, that god will not reveal itself any further. That seems pretty arbitrary and convenient, since such evidence is now withheld, as humanity has developed tools that could actually verify the claim.

It should bother, if it bothered to create me as I am. If it cares at all. If it doesn't care, if I am of such little interest, why then would it care that I worship or not? That I believe or not? The abrahamic tradition indicates it cares very much. So much so that some sects (not all) of that tradition claim I will be tortured horribly for eternity if I fail to advance that faith.

[Peregrine]

76. I whole heartedly disagree with the premise

that we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god.

I used to accept that, but listening to Krauss I changed. Anything that interacts with nature must leave evidence, and there is no evidence.

[edhopper]

86. Yes this

If you tell me your God does not a and never has had an impact on the physical Universe, then I would say no evidence would exist. But if you say you God has impacted the physical Universe, than I would ask for evidence of this.
Of course a God that does nothing might not be a God.

[gcomeau]

126. Ahem

The response could just be "God... using his unfathomable and limitless magic superpowers, erased all the evidence so that people could find Him by faith"


Try countering that line of crazy using any rational attempt at disproving it. THAT is why God can't be proven or disproven, because even allowing the hypothesis yo be entertained trashes all rules of logic and evidence one would appeal to for proof or disproof. Once you bring magic powers into the discussion rational analysis packs it in and goes home.

[Brettongarcia]

143. But their vague God is demonstrably not the Biblical one. Who constantly demands "proof"s of himself

The God of the Bible constantly asserted that we would know him, and those who follow him, by their concrete, physical, material results. Their physical "fruits," "works," "signs," "deeds," and "proofs."

So as for those who try to assert that God does not need to give material evidence for his existence? They are not Christians; they are not following the Bible at all. To be sure, such people could next simply agree that they are simply, admittedly, not following the Bible, or its God; and they could simply say that they are not Christian.

Many do this. But I suspect that most who argue for the God who needs and offers no proofs, will be cautious about explicitly crossing the Bible; most still think or say they are Christians.

Therefore, quoting the Bible and its demand for "proofs" of Gods existence, still carries some weight among a billion believers or so. Noting that the God that demands or offers no physical evidence, is not Christian, will slow down a few. Who want to still appear to be Christian. (In order to survive the next CHristian purge?).

[gcomeau]

146. There is *always* an excuse.

"It is said, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'"


Or the infinitely abusable "God works in mysterious ways" dodge. If the mind of God is beyond human comprehension then you can claim any behavior you want is in character... just for reasons us poor feeble humans don't get.

[Brettongarcia]

152. Then God says "Put me to the test" in Mal. 3.10; "test everything" (1 THess. 5.21?)

The fact is that there's a whole series of books showing that the Bible finally endorses scientific testing of religion, to see if it is true or false. The "not put God to the test" quote turns out to merely mean we should not "test" - or better translated elsewhere, "tempt" - his patience, by doing rash things. While the rest of the Bible over and over asserts that a real God, should be able to prove his existence; by presenting great material "fruits," "works," "signs," "deeds," and "proofs." As "observe"ed and verified, by real "science" (Dan. 1.4-15 KJE).

As for the "God works in mysterious ways" dodge/apologetic? Note that this necessarily denies much of the Bible itself. So anyone who claims this idea of God, has abandoned Christianity. Which many of those who use this excuse, do not really want to openly do.

Yes, there are thousands of excuses; whole books full of what we call "apologetics." But many of us are disproving them all; one by one. LIke this one.

The "God" who is allegedly beyond all proofs, who does not need to offer material proof of his own existence, is a concept liberal preachers sold us in church, to try to counter objections to Christianity. But this concept fails for reasons we need to make clear; and is simply one more sophistry itself.

[gcomeau]

162. Uh huh.

And I return to you "God works in mysterious ways"!

And that pathetic little line can be trotted out for *any possible observation you could ever make*.


The point here is that logical analysis of a ridiculous magical fairytale creature can;t be performed, which makes establishing a proof or disproof impossible if you even bother accepting the premise that this thing might exist in the first place.


The proper grounds on which to reject the claim is thus it's unfalsifiablility.

[Brettongarcia]

185. But 1) there is much in God that seems clearly outlined; things not so "mysterious"

As for example when Jesus is shown walking on water. And then we are promised "all" and "whatever" we "ask"; all the works that Jesus did, and "greater things than these." (John 14.11 ff). Here and in hundreds of parts of the Bible, God is for the moment not so mysterious; but is making large, clear, physical, material promises. Promises that can simply be tested ... and found true, or false.

Most importantly: the exact testing procedure moreover, is very, very clearly and unambiguously outlined in say, Dan. 1.4-15; 1 Kings 18.20-40; Mal. 3.10 ff. etc.

Indeed, 2) if God is so COMPLETELY "mysterious"? Then preachers and their sermons and commandments should be impossible to clearly make. And yet they are dogmatically proclaiming things constantly. For all the world as if indeed, though some things God does are "mysterious," many other things are not.

If God is so mysterious always, then preachers should never make any clear statements at all.

3) To be sure, you make an important point. Falsifiability is a great standard. Unfortunately, people who follow the Bible and nothing much else, won't pay much attention to it. For that reason, I write all my positions using biblical arguments, primarily; arguments that Bible Christians will listen too. Though this seems hopeless at first, and through counter-arguments seems endless? As it turns out some new inroads are being made even in this genre. By now we have hundreds of strictly biblical responses, to common Christian "biblical" apologetics.

Both approaches therefore remain useful.

Yes, there are hundreds, even thousands of apologetics responses. But we are answering them all today; collectively and individually too. In part, simply by noting the parts of the Bible they contradict.

[gcomeau]

187. Well sure, there are hundreds of things

...people clearly outline about God. Much of them mutually contradictory.

But try to pin own any one, try to show any observation that contradicts it... any evidence that refutes it... and it's an instant trip to "no man can know the mind of God, God can do whatever he feels like".


It's a bullshit copout response, and yes the second they're done using it they'll go right back to acting like they know the mind of God just fine on anything they want to claim he wants... but that doesn't matter. As long as it fits in the general characteristics ascribed to God, which it does, it's a universal get out of evidence free card.

[Brettongarcia]

191. Pointing that out to them, just the way you have done here, is one very useful thing to do.

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 09:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Sure, the arguments go on and on. But with a million atheists and ex-preachers helping? We can cover a million arguments in a single day.

We've just started with two good counterarguments, here and now.

Thanks for your help; good luck!

ADDENDUM:

Suppose we ask why God does not prove that he exists - just by showing up in person. God showing us, by his miraculous appearance, and other huge miracles, that he is real, and powerful. This would seem to be an obvious solution to our doubts. But preachers don't want us to ask this. And one of the many sermons used by preachers to try to “answer” this, is their idea that God does not show himself in the world in any obvious way - because he is “mysterious.”

God does not obviously show himself, because God is “MYSTERIOUS”? Jesus told his followers to be “wise as serpents”; or as we might translate this, “sly as snakes.” This is curious; since normally snakes are associated with the devil. But in any case? The preachers who claim to follow the Bible are indeed, quite sly and snake-like in their arguments; their sermons. Which all turn out to be based merely on sophistical or dishonest logic. For example: does the “mysterious” sermon really hold up?

Here as usual our preachers have found PARTS of the Bible to work from; but they do not really honor ALL of the Bible, or see it all. To be sure, PARTS of the Bible do mention the mystery of God. And PARTS seem to show God hiding himself, being “mysterious,” and not obvious, visible. But? Hundreds of OTHER parts show God being rather obvious. And just showing up, visibly, and in person. To show himself, and talk to us; to work giant miracles. And in this way simply prove that he is real. Adam and Eve, Noah, and many others, see God live and in person. Other parts of the Bible to be sure, contradict that; other parts say that no one has ever seen God himself. But this just shows that the Bible is at best, contradictory on this subject, even in the New Testament. Again and again in the Bible, God does show up, live and in person and working huge miracles; to help convince us he is real. In the BULK of the Bible in fact, God is not so obscure or mysterious or “invisible”; not at all.

And are the people like Adam and Noah convinced by that? Yes, they are.

So the “God is mysterious” sermon or homily is not honest, or true to the entire Bible itself. And as we will see, neither are the dozens of other sermons that try to excuse God not showing himself on other grounds. Like the “faith” sermon, etc.. Nor, likewise, the other sermon: the one that next insists that people might not be convinced even if God did show up, working huge wonders or “signs” in our own time today. The fact is that when God himself showed up, he convinced.

Preachers to be sure have, will come back at us, with a thousand sly objections. To as the Bible said “whitewash” the failure of their earlier sermons, their religion.

But suppose we begin answering their sly responses. One by one.

[ladjf]

82. One thing you can do is to realize that objective proof of God existence or non-existence

is not available to us so quit worrying about it. nt

[Brettongarcia]

307. Seems we CAN prove the non-existence of God. In "What if God's Existence Were Proven," recentDU post

There we are presenting several widely-influential arguments that show that not just the God of the Bible, but any all-good, all-powerful God, could not exist.

Some of the better-known arguments of this kind include "The Problem of Evil," especially. But there are several others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=128247

[demwing]

98. Answer two questions -

1. What is the source of life?

2. What is the source of consciousness?

If anyone can answer both question, I'd be willing to bet a nickel that the content of those answers would supply the basis for a reasonable case supporting the existence of non-mythological God.

Any takers?

[Peacetrain]

99. I for one will be really interested in watching this thread

source of life.. wow.. that is a loaded one.. human life .. plant life.. microbial life.. a hiccup in the universe.. and consciousness.. many used to say, that was an awareness of ones own mortality..elephants mourn their dead. they are aware..

two very good questions.. I certainly do not know..

[demwing]

100. A hiccup?

Maybe, and maybe the default state. Regardless, both exist. Where did they originate?

[edhopper]

101. That is assuming that consciousness

Is something other than the result of how the brain functions.
Does it exist outside the biology of the brain? Is it more than the result of the evolution of a thinking brain.
At what stage in human development did self awareness come in, and does it occur in other animals.
Perhaps it is a question that has nothing to do with a higher power of any kind?

[Warren Stupidity]

104. tests for self awareness in non humans have been passed by a surprising variety of animals.

For example the mirror test has been passed by all great apes, elephants, dolphins, and magpies. Other tests have been passed by additional non humans. All of which points to consciousness being an evolved emergent property of brain functions.

[demwing]

106. Excellent.

Which brain functions?

[Warren Stupidity]

109. what deity is required?

Not having a complete explanation of something does not prove that "therefore god". It just means that we don't know all the pieces of the puzzle yet.

[demwing]

112. That's true, and has nothing to do with my post

and neither do deities, for that matter.

Can we pursue your earlier statement? What brain functions result in the property of consciousness?

[Warren Stupidity]

123. ok, then your post is gibberish.

[demwing]

128. Did that make you feel better?

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Your ego is in the way. Why not follow your statement about consciousness being a product of brain functions? Does it occur in all brains, or only higher brains? Would consciousness occur in a sufficiently complex brain simulation?

[demwing]

105. Perhaps it's an unfair question

scientists and philosophers have engaged in infinite debate over the definition. Are there varieties of consciousness? If it means "awareness of the body" then animals are conscious, maybe even plants.

But what is it's source? What combination of events must be in play for consciousness to exist?

[edhopper]

110. We don't have a complete answer

Obviously. But there is also no evidence that consciousness comes from anything beyond biology and neurology.
You question seems to imply that there is something more to it simply because we haven't pinpointed the exact location and process in the brain.
That is just a God of the Gaps argument.
So I don't see why these are the vital questions for this thread.

[demwing]

111. You're right, that's a God of the Gaps argument

but it isn't my argument.

And if you don't see the relevance of the questions, feel 100% free to not answer them

However, I think you're correct that consciousness is a product either biology or neurology, or perhaps both. Warren Stupidity is making a similar case in the thread, and I'd like to encourage that train of thought.

[edhopper]

116. Okay

I guess I don't get what your meaning was when you posted those 2 question?

Why is the answer a case for the existence of a God?

[merrily]

140. "And if you don't see the relevance of the questions, feel 100% free to not answer them "

[Warren Stupidity]

124. awareness of the body is not self awareness

the mirror test is interesting not because it evidences "awareness of body" but because it evidences a "theory of mind", a minimal level of self awareness. You should at least get acquainted with the basics if you are going to discuss consciousness.

[demwing]

196. Well, that depends on who is writing the definition

but if you read my post more carefully, you'll see I never stated that it was my belief that awareness of the body is synonymous for/with self awareness. I never even defined what was meant by "awareness of the body," and ever so carefully left the phrase in quotes so that it would be clear that I was using someone else's words.

Now, if you want to criticize me for not following APA format in the citation and referencing of my sources, then I accept your criticism.

I am guilty as charged.

[cbayer]

102. I think the source of life on this planet can be satisfactorily explained by evolution.

But consciousness is a whole different issue and makes me scratch my head.

How can evolution account for the apparently great leaps in consciousness that are in evidence, particularly in the ways that it seems to offer no evolutionary advantage?

[Warren Stupidity]

107. Well that is a common misconception. Evolution does not provide an explanation for the origin

of life. Doesn't cover abiogenisis at all.

[demwing]

108. I don't think evolution explains the source of life at all

just the diversity. If I'm not mistaken, NDT said something similar on an early episode of Cosmos. I'm of the opinion that life did not begin on Earth, but permeates the Universe.

Your question on evolution and consciousness is very nice.

I'll counter with another: Is self-awareness a strength?

[cbayer]

113. Your question is very interesting to me.

There have been times in my life when I wished I was less self-aware. It seemed to cause more angst than answers.

I've also had times when I wished I was more mediocre and that would mean less demand on me to be successful.

There is a bliss in being simple that I fear that I have not had. I have tried to simplify my life to a great extent, but I am still plagued by self-awareness and the need to achieve.

So, I'm not convinced it is a strength. Maybe better to be a porpoise…. though they may have a level of self-awareness as well.

[demwing]

115. Have you seen this video?

Is this dolphin is self-aware?

[cbayer]

118. I can't currently watch videos.

But having been around a lot of dolphins, I think they have a certain degree of self-awareness.

Just not as much as most humans seem to have.

[demwing]

121. Sorry - here's a quick breakdown

A team of divers are watching a school of manta rays. A wild dolphin approaches them, lingering around the divers. It approaches on diver, and roll on its side, revealing a tangle of fishing wire and hook. The dolphin patiently allows the diver to cut away the wire, takes a break for a breath of air, and returns so the diver can complete the task.

The dolphin is aware of the injury, and responds by seeking assistance from the only things in the water that can help. Fear is overcome by reason. Not only do I see self-awareness there, but I see an example of an evolutionary advantage. Self-awareness opens the door for self-preservation.

[cbayer]

145. Sounds very cool and I will put it aside to watch later.

Have you ever heard the radio lab story about the whale who is cut loose by some divers. He returns and stares intently at each diver individually. Was he saying thank you? He could have just as soon killed them.

Self awareness opens the door for self-preservation? I'm not so sure. Roaches scatter when you turn on the light. Are they self aware or is it just instinctual?

[trotsky]

122. "I've also had times when I wished I was more mediocre"

I'm sorry for your burden of being so superior, cbayer. That must be tough for you.

[Heddi]

193. Oh, Trots, you have no idea the BURDEN of PERFECTION

that cbayer must carry with her at all times. How absolutely horrible it is to be the most interesting person in the room...You haven't the slightest idea how isolating it is to be the most perfect, self-aware, un-mundane person in the world. IN THE UNIVERSE, EVEN. Then again, maybe you *would* understand if you weren't so mundane

[Goblinmonger]

194. It's tough being you.

From what you have all posted, I'm sure you, your husband, and your father all get together on the yacht you live on and commiserate about how hard it is to be so god damned awesome.

[trotsky]

117. Ah, the argument from personal incredulity.

Always a strong one.

[demwing]

119. Ok, time for me to do some school work

I'll check back tonight or tomorrow morning, and if no one has answered both questions, then I will, and I'll open the answers to the group's criticisms.

Afterward, I'll make my arguments in support of a non-mythological God.

Thanks!

[Jim__]

136. When we talk about the source of life, we have to limit the talk to the life that we know ...

... that is life on earth. The source of that life appears to be the chemical elements present on the primordial earth and the energy pouring onto the surface of the earth; mostly from the sun, but also from the interior of the earth. That energy allows those chemicals to interact in long-term stable processes that can change in response to changes in the environment. Over time, some of those processes are able to isolate themselves from the environment, and spin-off child processes - that is, over time, at least one of those processes will meet our definition of life.

The source of consciousness appears to be complex communication networks of living cells. These communication networks can detect both conditions in the external environment and conditions across the organism that contains the network. Of course, consciousness is not fully understood and so there are many aspects of consciousness that we have not yet been able to explain. It may be that after continued study we come to a good understanding of consciousness; or, it may be that a good understanding of consciousness is beyond our capabilities.

I can't prove either of those claims. Those claims represent my understanding of the current state of knowledge with respect to your questions. And, of course, those claims don't account for the existence of the energy, the matter, or the way they interact - but, we have to draw some line around our explanation.

[demwing]

197. These are great answers, Jim_

and I understand that you acknowledge that you can't prove either claim, but I'm not here to try to prove you wrong.

With that, let's take your 1st answer and summarize:

In an open system, given enough time and the proper resources, multiple long-term stable chemical processes will eventually occur. After sufficient iterations, at least one of these processes will meet an acceptable definition of life.

Is that correct?


Let's do the same with the 2nd answer:

Based on your first answer, life is a complex chemical process, or a system of such processes.

When that system of processes reaches a sufficient level of complexity, an equally complex sensitivity to external and internal stimuli is created, resulting in what we call consciousness. Highly refined consciousness is what we refer to as self-awareness.

Is this also correct?

[edhopper]

198. I though you were going to

Give the answers for us to agree with or criticize?

[demwing]

202. What I wrote in post 119:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126722#post119

"I'll check back tonight or tomorrow morning, and if no one has answered both questions, then I will, and I'll open the answers to the group's criticisms."

Someone answered.

[edhopper]

224. Oh

you agree with Jim?

[Jim__]

199. The only thing I would disagree with is that I don't know that there is any inevitability about ...

... the process.

The claim is based on an analysis of what currently exists on earth. We know essentially what elements are necessary to form a cell. It appears that the necessary molecules could be formed, over time, in the primordial environment - although the exact path that process followed is not known. It appears to have happened; I don't think anyone can estimate the probability that, given the environment, it would have happened. But, yes, life is essentially a specific set of complex chemical processes.

Similarly for consciousness, it's more than just a sufficient level of complexity. For instance, some plants have an extremely high level of complexity, but they don't appear to be conscious nor do they appear to be on a path to consciousness - i.e. they don't appear to be developing anything like a brain. But, in the case of animals, it does seem that centralized communication networks based on certain cell types did develop and became more specific and more sophisticated in their functioning over time. Animals with complex brains, at least certain types of complex brains, exhibit behaviors that reflect consciousness. And, at least in humans, consciousness includes self-awareness.

[demwing]

268. Improbability

First, sorry for the delay. "Crappy health" and finals for Spring Term ran smack dab into each other...

As to the probability of abiogenesis happening, let me quote molecular biologist Eugene V. Koonin, writing in the Journal Biology Direct:

"The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/

So, under the correct circumstances, abiogenesis is not improbable (as the Creationists say), nor merely "probable." In an open system, given sufficient time and resources (as exists in an infinite Universe), abiogenesis is an inevitability.

As to consciousness, you seem to making the case that the phenomenon is an extension of neurology, rather than biology. I'm fine with that, but is consciousness relegated to the living? Can a robot, supplied with all the sensory tools needed to hear, taste, touch, smell, and see, endowed with a CPU that approaches the computational power and speed of a complex brain, and operating under the system rules of an advanced AI, achieve consciousness?

Thanks for your patience, we're getting closer to my original goal.

[Jim__]

270. Sorry to hear that you are having health problems. I hope everything is alright now.

I agree that if the universe has an eternal past, then any event that has a probability greater than 0, has to have happened. A paper came out in 2011 that said the universe cannot have an eternal past - the paper does explicitly consider the case of eternal inflation. An excerpt:

One of the most basic questions in cosmology is whether the universe had a
beginning or has simply existed forever. It was addressed in the singularity
theorems of Penrose and Hawking [1], with the conclusion that the initial sin-
gularity is not avoidable. These theorems rely on the strong energy condition
and on certain assumptions about the global structure of spacetime.

There are, however, three popular scenarios which circumvent these theo-
rems: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and an "emergent" universe which
exists for eternity as a static seed before expanding. Here we shall argue that
none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.

Inflation violates the strong energy condition, so the singularity theorems
of Penrose and Hawking do not apply. Indeed, quantum fluctuations during
inflation violate even the weak energy condition, so that singularity theorems
assuming only the weak energy condition [2] do not apply either. A more general
incompleteness theorem was proved recently [3] that does not rely on energy
conditions or Einstein's equations. Instead, it states simply that past geodesics
are incomplete provided that the expansion rate averaged along the geodesic is
positive: H_av > 0. This is a much weaker condition, and should certainly apply
to the past of any inflating region of spacetime. Therefore, although inflation
may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended be extended indefinitely to the past.

I believe that your questions about consciousness are currently unresolved. There definitely appears to be a relationship between a complex brain and consciousness - we don't know of any consciousness outside of organisms with brains. However, no one can explain the emergence of consciousness from complex neural structures, so, no one can limit the possibility of consciousness to organisms with brains. Whether or not AI can lead to conscious machines remains an open question.

I hope you are feeling better.

[demwing]

273. No need for an eternal past

just a present multiverse, infinite in universal iteration.

Thanks for the good wishes. I had a pulmonary embolism last week and ended up in the hospital. Damn near killed me, and yet...

[Jim__]

293. OK. I don't believe we have established that life is inevitable.

I think we agree that there are conditions that could exist that would make life in our universe inevitable. We do know that life does exist in our universe; but I don't believe we know yet whether life was inevitable.

I am sorry to hear that your illness was life threatening. I hope that you are past any serious threats.

[demwing]

305. I'm not sure we need to

So talk to me about where you see life falling on the probability scale?

[Jim__]

309. Given that we are not sure of the path taken to the origin of life on earth ...

... any attempt to assign a probability would be pure speculation. After science defines a viable path, it may be able to assign probabilities. But, I'm not sure that it is just the probability of life that you are interested in; but rather the probability of complex life. In 2010, a paper was published that said the evolution of complex life would probably be extremely rare. Here is an excerpt from an article on that paper:

To become more complex, cells need more genes and more proteins – and so they need to get bigger. As the volume of any object increases, however, its relative surface area falls: an elephant has less surface area per unit of volume than a mouse, for instance. This is a major problem because simple cells generate the energy they need using the membrane that encloses them.

Lane and Martin calculate that if a bacterium grew to the size of a complex cell, it would run out of juice. It might have space for lots of genes, but it would have barely enough energy to make proteins from them.

In theory, there is an easy answer to the energy problem: create lots of folds in the cell membrane to increase its surface area, which in turn will increase the amount of energy the membrane can produce. Indeed, many bacteria have such folds. But this leads to another problem as they get larger.

Producing energy by "burning" food is playing with fire. If the energy-producing machinery straddling the membrane is not constantly fine-tuned, it produces highly reactive molecules that can destroy cells. Yet fine-tuning a larger membrane is problematic because detecting and fixing problems takes longer.

Obviously, I can't say whether or not that paper is correct; but it does raise some thought provoking questions.

[Niceguy1]

103. when a personis dismissive

And condescending to those who is religous I immediately tune them out....thier hate contaminates their credibility.

[rug]

120. +1

[cbayer]

150. I might make an attempt to challenge and/or educate them as to why this constitutes

intolerance or bigotry, but I might just tune them out or walk away.

I do the same when I encounter people who clearly have prejudices against people of color or GLBT people.

Their hate contaminates their credibility - very well stated.

[Flying Squirrel]

125. First come up with a definition of "God" that we can all agree upon...

Then we can talk about proving or disproving its existence.

[Peacetrain]

137. Well FS that is impossible..

that is why trying to disprove or prove something in not even possible in my opinion.

[Kablooie]

328. Anyone can tailor the definition of God to fit the outcome they want.

I define God as being the statue of Zeus in my backyard, therefore I can prove God exists by showing it to you.

[merrily]

127. The fact that no one has proven anything either way does not weigh evenly on both sides.

No one can prove any negative. It's impossible. So no one can prove that God does not exist and never did.

It is, however, possible to prove someone or something exists or once existed.

I am not saying that God does not exist and never did. I am saying only exactly what I said (a concept that should be self evident, but, for some reason, seems hard for some readers to accept). If anything, I believe more in some higher power of some kind than in nothing. And I tend to refer to that higher power as God.


I don't care what anyone believes or disbelieves, though. I've known some damn fine people of many beliefs and also some damn fine atheistsl

It's when people do things like shun and shame their own child for being gay and maybe cause a teen suicide that I care. And it's not only that issue, but a host of others.

I don't know of any indication that God require any of use to play God. The exception is enforcing the sabbath in Israel, where Jews are supposed to make sure everyone honors the sabbath, including the "stranger" inside the gates.

Other than that, the commandments tell you how to behave. Nowhere else that I know of are you asked, let along deputized, to enforce your view of the Bible on your neighbor, let alone everyone in the U.S. And, in the New Testament, you are directed to stop looking at the alleged misdeeds of others and work on perfecting yourself.

The current meme is that God needs humans to work on earth because he has no way of so doing. Really? You think he's an ominipotent God and also think he can't do anything on earth without your help? No one can prove any negative. It's impossible. If he wanted or expected your help, your Bible would say so. You're not God's right hand man or woman on earth. Indeed that belief would be hubris. Get over yourself. For the love of God, get over yourself.

[Peacetrain]

135. I guess you are talking to me..

the thread is getting a little long, and I am not sure who is responding to who now.. so

"The current meme is that God needs humans to work on earth because he has no way of so doing. Really? You think he's an ominipotent God and also think he can't do anything on earth without your help? No one can prove any negative. It's impossible. If he wanted or expected your help, your Bible would say so. You're not God's right hand man or woman on earth. Indeed that belief would be hubris. Get over yourself. For the love of God, get over yourself."

Never said I was anyone's right hand person.. (I am a woman by the way).. what I said is, there is no way to disprove or prove so berating someone for their beliefs in that matter in pointless..

My op

"Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system

[merrily]

138. I responded with my general thoughts on the OP, but I was not

necessarily aiming them at you or disagreeing with you. I certainly was not telling you to get over yourself.

I thought my post was pretty clear about what behavior I was objecting to, not a religious belief as such, but invoking God to hurt and browbeat others, maybe even driving your own teen to suicide.

If that description does not fit you then my comments on people who engage in that behavior were not aimed at you.

[stone space]

271. Actually, this is not true. I prove so-called "negatives" all the time.

No one can prove any negative. It's impossible.

As near as I can tell from how the word is used in practice, a "negative" is the negation of an existential statement, that is (in Classical Logic, anyway), a "negative" seems to refer to a universial statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

272. There is not a full-sized elephant in my pocket.

Ta-da, I just proved a negative. (Anyone can look at me and clearly not see an elephant in my pocket.

[AtheistCrusader]

274. People prove negatives all the time.

Also, hilariously paradoxical.


"No one can prove any negative. It's impossible."

You are, right there, stating a negative as an absolute claim.
It's as much of a paradox as 'there are no absolutes'. A claim that is wrong one of two ways; if it is true, it's an absolute, and thus paradoxically wrong. If it's false, then it doesn't support the speaker's position after all.

Your statement is similarly flawed.

[edhopper]

278. How much is A-2A?

did i just prove a negative?

[RedRoses323]

163. Wicked Awesome....

[Iggo]

169. I dsimiss your premise.

[cbayer]

173. Do you mean by that that you think you can prove or disprove god?

[Brettongarcia]

204. "Act of Reparation?" notes that if you can't prove God ... then believers are wrong too.

When believers assert strongly that God exists, they are wrong; they are asserting something improvable.

Looks like this is a double-edged sword

[cbayer]

210. Er, yeah. That's the whole point of the OP, imo.

[Brettongarcia]

215. Now worded a little more unequivocally though: firm believers in God are simply wrong

If no one can say whether God exists, or not? Then we might need to make this clear for some: it is not just 1) atheists who are wrong for saying anything definitive against God; 2) also believers who firmly assert God exists. They are also wrong.

Yes, most people will see the double-edged side of this "no one knows" argument. But we might need first of all to spell it out, for some: this argument does not just work against atheists. It works against firm believers as well.

[cbayer]

218. Firm disbelievers are equally wrong.

So what? Since it can't be resolved, let's just put it aside and agree that everyone holds a different POV on this unanswerable question.

This argument works against no one but "antis". There is really no need to spell it out further.

[Brettongarcia]

237. But 1) many people here object to the premise: that God cannot be proved, or disproved.

There are many things that are said about gods that seem easy to disprove; like promises of giant miracles whenever we ask for them. Here we can simply ask for a miracle ... and quickly see they don't show up as regularly as advertised. Or consider a God who is promised to appear visibly before us every day - but we don't see him in our lives today. To the extent that any given god is identified with or composed of such disprovable attributes, that god might be said to be "disproven" if those attributes are obviously false.

The 2) other problem might be that there seems to be some kind of subtle squeeze play here against anti-theists.

It is often said on this blog that "a-theism" just means not necessarily disbelieving in God; just expressing no interest. This position is said in some circles to be better than "anti-theism"; actively saying there is no God.

3) We've had a fair discussion based on simply assuming the premise.

4) However? We should not let it slip by or forget that the premise itself is ... suspect. It produces a sort of bias or invisible limitation in the discussion.

In that way, this allegedly "objective" or neutral discussion is actually subtly manipulative and prejudicial.

[phil89]

352. Atheism doesn't claim there is no god

only that the case has not been made due to there not being enough evidence to prove a god claim. Two completely different things.

[DrewFlorida]

195. You also cannot disprove the existence of god in the form of a monkey, or in the form of a pig, or

a tree. You also cannot disprove the existence of fifty gods at odds with each other, or any other cockamamie ego driven belief. Quite simply, a belief is nothing more and nothing less than a belief. No proof is asked and no proof is needed.
However; one thing which can justify dismissiveness of other people's beliefs, is when their behaviors are not inline with their stated beliefs. When a person's behaviors do not align with their stated beliefs, that person is a fraud, a con-artist, a liar, and a fool. This is the case with almost every Christian I have ever met, and therefore, my dismissiveness of them is justified and appropriate!

[Peacetrain]

206. Interesting..ahhh..

there you go.. that sort of ends the discussion, because everyone who does not agree with you is a liar, fraud, con-artist and a fool.

I will not be dismissive of you though, because you make an excellent point.. most people who claim to be Christians are not.. I do my best to attempt to be one.. but it does not always work.. but I keep trying..

[AtheistCrusader]

201. How in the hell did such a blindingly obvious logical fallacy get to 200 posts?

I don't adntastanda.

[el_bryanto]

205. Maybe it has appeal based on what people would like to believe

rather than how things really are. Some people would like to believe that tolerance and mutual understanding between believers and atheists is a good and noble goal; they don't realize how pointless it is to attempt that.

Bryant

[Peacetrain]

208. Do we ignore each other?

Do we live in separate communities and refuse to associate with one another?. Do we force our own belief system on another to make them walk in lock step with us?


I can only speak for myself.. and you can only speak for yourself Bryant.. is everything we say so colored by our beliefs systems that we cannot tolerate one another?

[el_bryanto]

209. You have to look at it from an Atheist point of view - or the point of view of some Atheists

at any rate. In their opinion belief/religious practice is something that is causing long term problems in our democracy, as religionists try and impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society.

Religion is also unnecessary - all of the advantages that believers receive from religion could be received in other ways. They could be received from secular sources, which would be more healthy.

So religion/belief is something that causes harm to society as a whole and is unnecessary. So they don't feel that they can just sit back and say "Well you think your way and I'll think mine." It's inherent in the philosophy that they need to attack religious practice/belief.

Bryant

[Peacetrain]

212. I see what you are saying.

I have huge disagreements in life with people of different faiths and no faith.. but I cannot force how I view the world on them.. it seems to me, at some point in time.. beating another person over the head because you disagree with how they as individuals view this world.. walk through their finite lives as best they can.. is pointless.

The only thing I have ever seen come out of such attempts is usually the bastardization of whatever belief system a person has, to try and use that power to control others.

[AtheistCrusader]

217. Disagreeing with, or arguing with someone, even sans decorum, is not *force*.

Nobody here is forcing anyone to believe anything or view the world in a different way. It's actually quite impossible through the power of hypertext.

Any textual basis for force that one could imagine would be grounds for a hide, if not outright PPR from this forum. (For instance, threatening someone.)

[Peacetrain]

222. No one is saying do not argue, or press your point if different

but belittling people for their beliefs or lack of beliefs in anything only gets you
very defensive positions that go no where except possibly that momentary "getting that one and letting them know how I feel"



Its pointless.. that is my whole thing.. its just pointless.. My op
______________________________________________________________________
Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system
__________________________________________________________________________
But something about me saying that struck some nerves pretty deeply, I am not sure why that is..

[AtheistCrusader]

223. That's because it is not intellectually honest to weight proving and disproving god the same.

They are not equal weight positions. They do not carry equal burden of proof.

(Unless you have an anti-theist on your hands that is also a gnostic, and claims to be able to prove there is no god. That fool has a burden on his hands all right.)

[Peacetrain]

227. AC you keep missing my point.. you want to

debate the existence of God, we can debate it.. we are not going to get anywhere, because in the end you cannot disprove or can I prove in any logical fashion the existence of God.

My whole point it should not rock someones boat, its is futile to belittle another person because they cannot see the point that you or I or they are locked on.

I am beginning to think its more an issue of community for many. How someone fits into a community. Its interesting. I am fascinated by it.

[cbayer]

228. You bring up a really important point that I have been mulling over the last 2 days.

I think it is often about community. It comes down to tribalism.

Tribes provide very important things - community, support, guidance, a sense of belonging, identity. They are critical to our survival.

And even when they circle the wagons and point all their guns outward, there is likely purpose in that as well.

They can be particularly important when a group feels isolated, misunderstood or persecuted.

But, if they start victimizing other people merely because those individuals do not belong to their tribe, that's no longer ok, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. There is no 'atheist tribe'. If there is, I am not aware of it, and did not recieve my invitation.

[cbayer]

235. Duck!!

[AtheistCrusader]

236. Without a tribe to identify with, your point is meaningless. Try again.

I am not the one who 'missed the point'.

[Peacetrain]

232. We must have been on the same wave length today

I am sitting with friends at lunch.. and sort of lost in my own thoughts..I look around the table, and it hit me.. community.

[cbayer]

233. That's a nice thought, because I hold you in high regard,

and being on your wavelength makes me happy.

[Peacetrain]

238. cbayer, have you ever read Vonneguts Cats Cradle.

I know there is a lot of debate about the line I' m a hoosier, your a hoosier.. (can't remember the line exactly) but it strikes me as people trying to find the smallest group they can possibly find to commune with.

Community is such a complex idea. When we traveled overseas.. Americans always would identify American, what state, then what city, neighborhood.. school.. looking for that smallest number commonality (using that same I'm a hoosier your a hoosier process)

Probably is a degree of tribalism in that. In everything we do. We are looking for people with commonalities to share ideas with..

The fear of the other, certainly plays into that.

My guess is for all of us..no matter what our philosophical approach to life is.. we compartmentalize the "other"

Just thinking out loud

[cbayer]

239. I read it long, long ago and may need to read it again.

I am having a similar experience in Mexico with ex-pats hanging with ex-pats.

We just took a road trip across Mexico and I liked it best when we saw only a few english speakers. It provided a much better opportunity to speak in spanish and find out about the people who lived in different regions.

Perhaps the less an environment has in common with your own experiences, the more you begin to see the commonalities and not the differences.

We are all parts of different communities, aren't we.

Boaters are a fascinating community, but among us there are still divisions. Cruisers vs. those that sit in slips. Power boats vs. sail boats. Monohulls vs. multihulls.

I have to to actively monitor my identifications because, as you point out, they can lead to prejudice against the "other".

[Peacetrain]

241. Its been a very long time for me also since I read his works

The whole fear of the other, just permeates our entire society and culture..

That was an excellent point about the less an environment has in common with your own experiences, the more you begin to see the commonalities not the differences..

That statement is profound.

The inability to get past a preconceived notion is very difficult for anyone. I know it is for me.

I fly fish.. (well lets say I more or less try to do it ) and you have these I'm a hoosier set ups in the fishing community. And the longer you do something the more obstacles seem to be set up for those coming into a group to prove their worth.

[cbayer]

243. Fear of the other - that's exactly it.

When I tell people about my adventures in Mexico, both alone and accompanied, they are often aghast.

Some really believe that there is a high likelihood that I will be kidnapped or killed.

At this point, I have traversed a significant part of the country and not felt threatened once.

I am sure there are dangerous people here, but when it comes down to it, they are far and away just people.

Just like me.

Your fly fishing experience is much like boating. Every time someone new enters an anchorage, people come out to gaze critically at them and assess their skills, lol.

[Peacetrain]

245. My guess is cbayer that is where hazing has its beginnings

We humans have these need to complicate not simplify things.

So each new group coming into a fraternity has to go through hoops previous canidates did not to prove their worth to be a part of that community.

Churches have done the same thing when you think about it. The original Christian service was a baptism to be a part of the group and a meal before or after temple.

And over the course of 2,000 years we have people going through confirmations etc etc and traditions.

cbayer you are a brave person.. I admire that. There are always those who are dangerous. If one lives in fear, one does not live, that is for sure.

[cbayer]

249. Some of that is hazing and some of it is more like a loyalty oath.

My own baptism was more like a loyalty oath.

My fear of others decreases as my exposure to them increases. When I first got here, I was fearful.

Now it has almost completely dissipated. But I am more curious than brave.

Living in fear is not way to live, on that I totally agree.

So what is your next adventure?

[Peacetrain]

251. A lot of it is loyalty oath

Well I would love to go to Newfoundland .. I have never fly fished for salmon. I do catch and release. That is my next trip I think.

[cbayer]

261. Ah, some of my Canadian friends tell great stories about "Newfies".

I've never had the opportunity to go there, but I understand it's beautiful and the people are rather interesting.

Make it happen, Peacetrain!

[Peacetrain]

263. Keep your fingers crossed!

I am hoping to get there next year

[cbayer]

265. I will, and I wish you many travels in your future

and many fish.

[Peacetrain]

266. I guess I need to get going

been having a great time posting with people today.. Ahh but time for me to get some late lunch.. take care cbayer

[AtheistCrusader]

229. I don't need to disprove god.

You keep missing my point. The burden of proof is a one-way street. It rests with those that assert something exists.

It is only a 'futile debate' if the side which has the burden of proof fails to prove it, and doesn't care, and continues to assert anyway.

[Peacetrain]

231. I do not have to prove anything

There is nothing to prove or disprove. There is no burden of proof on me or you. Its not a one way street. There is no street. Its not provable one way or another.

[AtheistCrusader]

234. Hey, welcome to the club. I see you are an athiest too!

Your position appears blissfully unaware of legislative efforts predicated on religious morals. Opposition to abortion because those teeny tiny fertilized ovums have a 'soul' and are thus sacred people, even though they haven't even differentiated into brain cells yet, let alone spinal cords.

Legislative efforts to assign separate but equal legal status to same-sex partners, obviating their basic human civil rights.

All this shit comes from somewhere. Some ideology, and that ideology demands respect.
If you want my respect, you need to prove your ideology isn't a fucking made-up hoax.

[Peacetrain]

240. You have a tendency to broad brush the religious communities..

I can't help you with that, I am sure you have to come to that decision for reasons that are valid to you.. Those are your perceptions.. all people who are religious walk in some strange lock step apparently???, or at least that has been what I am getting from your posts.... but be that as it may, it still is not the point of the entire op..

You cannot prove or disprove God. No matter how hard you or I try.. it is not a possibility.


Your previous posts stating it was my position to prove there was a God.. reminds me so much of those in Texas who are hell bent on trying to put creationism in science classes because they have this belief that the world is only 6000 years old.. Their religious texts go back only 6000 years but that has nothing to do with the world.. its the religious texts.

Amazes me that they want to put their belief system to the test of scientific theory, whose whole purpose is to find the errors in any theory. But they are adamant that there is no other way

Belief systems as in religious belief systems or philosophical life plans and science applications such as scientific theory are two separate venues, , . I respect both for their places in how we understand the world.

There is nothing for me to prove, or for you to prove.. they are different things.. and calling my ideology (which you do not know) a f@@king hoax.. is your issue.. I can't help you..

[AtheistCrusader]

244. You are wrong on so many counts.

For starters, I didn't broad-brush any religious communities. A religion is an idea, not a person, let alone a collection of people. A group of people can share a religion, but that's not the same thing. I am not 'broad brushing' that community when I criticize some aspect they hold as part of their faith.


"You cannot prove or disprove God. No matter how hard you or I try.. it is not a possibility."

I don't need to disprove god. Not perceiving the existence of a god is the default position when people seeking to claim there is a god, fail to prove it.

And who are you to place limits on god? What do you mean, it's impossible to prove the existence of god? Are you seriously suggesting a supernatural omnipotent being couldn't make him/her/itself known to us, if it chose to?


"Your previous posts stating it was my position to prove there was a God.. reminds me so much of those in Texas who are hell bent on trying to put creationism in science classes because they have this belief that the world is only 6000 years old.. Their religious texts go back only 6000 years but that has nothing to do with the world.. its the religious texts. "

Nice false equivalency. I'm not seeking to put 'there is no god' in science books. It's a non-issue in that aspect. So I really don't know what you're trying to say here, beyond desperately trying to flip some utter nonsense by some religious people around as a utterly false characterization of my position.

"I respect both for their places in how we understand the world."

Religious faith has so far told us not a damn thing about the world, the universe, or our place in it. Not one thing.
Until a religion actually proves its claims about origins of life/universe/creator/etc, it has no place in helping us understand the world, because it reveals no truth whatsoever about the world. None.

"There is nothing for me to prove, or for you to prove.. they are different things.. and calling my ideology (which you do not know) a f@@king hoax.. is your issue.. I can't help you.. "

THEN BY ALL MEANS, keep it to yourself. Don't legislate/lobby/pass laws based on religious nonsense. Then you and I and the rest of the people that believe in whatever, never even have to speak to one another.

Certain religious groups in this country lobby to deny my fellow humans basic civil rights. People who aren't even members of those religious groups. They lobby to deny emergency contraceptive access, abortion, and other family planning issues. Try to interfere with laws, in MY IVF CYCLE, attempting to control how many eggs I and my wife choose to fertilize or implant. They lobby to control many aspects of MY LIFE, so don't pretend RELIGIOUS HORSESHIT is OFF THE TABLE AND CANNOT BE CRITICIZED OR TALKED ABOUT.

I get to talk about and criticize THINGS THAT ARE BEING JAMMED UP MY ASS VIA THE COURTS AND LEGISLATURE.

[Peacetrain]

246. laws being passed good and bad have nothing to do with

proving or not proving the existence of God.

Just doesn't.

And you prove my point time and time again.

[AtheistCrusader]

248. Yeah, keep your fingers in your ears and chanting NANANANANAAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

That's working out super good for you so far.


When catholics band together, based on their RELIGIOUS MORALS and lobby to REMOVE ACCESS TO OTC EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES, it follows that they need to prove the actual existence of their invisible security camera in the sky, as it is the MORAL AUTHORITY AND BASIS FOR THEIR CLAIM.

Why is this hard for you to understand?

Never mind, I know why it's hard for you to understand. Because it's indefensible. It cannot BE defended, and thus, you must reject that line of logic entirely, without basis by claiming it is 'off limits' or outside the discussion.


When you tell me I CANNOT DO (X) because YOUR RELIGIOUS TENET (Y) forbids it, you just put the whole kit and caboodle on the table for analysis. Not me.

[Peacetrain]

252. I have never said anything, but everyone has a right to believe as they choose

They just do not have the right to impose it on others.

[AtheistCrusader]

253. So we have no argument then.

Nothing I have posted here seeks to 'impose' anything on others.

I seek to STOP them from imposing shit on others.
For instance, I seek to stop the RCC from lobbying to impose their view of marriage on society. That's all. If the RCC doesn't want to perform marriages of a same-sex nature themselves, whatever. It's the lobbying effort that draws my ire, because they are SEEKING TO IMPOSE their faith based morals on others.

In other words, they are promoting intolerance and bigotry.
Fighting them, and working to stop them from doing it, isn't 'imposing' anything on them. Any more than telling someone who is hitting me in the face to stop isn't 'imposing' peace on them.

[Peacetrain]

256. I can't help you.. I am not Catholic

But don't make the mistake of confusing how all Catholics view the world as some unified perception. That is about the best I can tell you. I have many disagreements with different faith bodies in their administration. Be a good op for you to start and see if anyone with in that community had information or ideas or how they view the world. If you are actually interested in how they view the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

258. Did I say you are catholic?

I gave a concrete example. That's all.

Try again.

[cbayer]

213. Those aren't atheists. Those are anti-theists.

And many of them are on a mission that will prohibit them from participating in the way peace train suggests.

I suggest they be sidelined, marginalized and ignored, just as I would if we had a group of people who wished to crush atheists.

Do you agree with them that religious belief is something that causes harm to society? Or are you, unlike them, able to see the differences in religious beliefs and actions and make thoughtful, nuanced decisions about where religions is doing good and where it is doing bad?

[AtheistCrusader]

216. No. No. No. And I can tolerate *you*.

We do not live in separate communities now, though the various forum safe havens are a path to that sort of thing. So 'No' on the first question.
We are all here, together, posting in a common forum, so no to the second half of that question.
And no, nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything here, and it is disingenuous to suggest the activity that has been occurring here is such. So no on the third question.


I can tolerate people. I can tolerate you. But don't ask me to blindly tolerate some of your beliefs, if they fall afoul of any number of issues, many of which directly related to the political nature of this board.

[Peacetrain]

254. Interesting, I missed this posts

"I can tolerate people. I can tolerate you. But don't ask me to blindly tolerate some of your beliefs, if they fall afoul of any number of issues, many of which directly related to the political nature of this board. "


I have never told you what I believe.


And you are the second person, who has said my beliefs don't belong in the DU community.

Besides the fact that I op'ed that you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, and that everyone has a right to believe how ever they choose, BUT they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Feel free to ignore me.

I had no intentions of upsetting anyone. Just a statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

257. Boy, you just 'read' shit that other people don't say all the time don't you?

What's it like in my head? I've only ever known the interior of my own mind, so I'm curious what an outsider sees when they look around in here.


I said IF. IF. Nor did I enumerate specific beliefs and attribute them to you. So I don't know what you thought you just read, but it wasn't what I actually typed.

That was an open-ended, all encompassing, non-specific statement. It applies to you, to anyone, to any superset of beliefs that run counter to this board that you or anyone else may or may not hold. Whether you hold any noxious beliefs or not.


If you stated a belief that runs counter to the nature of DU (politically), you'd fucking know it, because I'd be very specific about my attack.

[Peacetrain]

260. Maybe we are posting at cross purposes...

And if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

[AtheistCrusader]

262. A misunderstanding would explain a great many things.

I'm not sure precisely where or how, reading back up through this thread.

[Peacetrain]

264. I think it is the nature of discussion boards

One persons thought process is going right and the other is going left.. so to speak..

[AtheistCrusader]

214. Broaching the subject with people who by and large, base their worldview in reason, with a logical f

allacy, is not a great icebreaker on the subject.

Not believing in XYZ supernatural whatever, is not an extraordinary claim. It has no burden of proof. The burden of proof must needs lie with the people making a claim; 'XYZ exists'.

Particularly since your run of the mill monotheist ALSO declines to believe in the claims of tens of thousands of deities, in favor of the ONE that they have selected out of myriad claims.

There is no reasonable expectation that an atheist disprove the existence of god. It is dishonest to imply that the inability to prove the existence of a deity, and the inability to DISprove the existence of a deity, have equal weight.

When diplomatically reaching your hand out to another group, you don't insult them, if you mean that offer of positive discourse.

[el_bryanto]

221. How would you suggest it be phrased then - to communicate that idea without

insulting atheists?

My personal take is that it can't really be done, because belief and particularly religious practice are intrinsically offensive to some, based on the argument above. But assuming it could be done, what approach should be taken?

Bryant

[Peacetrain]

207. Maybe it is something that interests people

[cbayer]

211. What do you find wrong with it?

Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

He is asking for peace, tolerance and understanding.

You know, things generally embraced by liberals and progressives.



edited - I've decided to step away from you. Hope you are feeling better.

[AtheistCrusader]

219. Wrapped in a logical fallacy.

Belief and disbelief are not of equal weight. It is disingenuous to assert they are equal in any way.

It's actually highly insulting.

[cbayer]

220. I edited my response to you here.

See ya.

[edhopper]

225. Do N-Rays exist?

Or the Ether that Light travels through?

No they were shown to not exist because what they were suppose to do under observation didn't happen.

Now you can decide to call this proving they don't exist or not.

But if someone could give an example of how God interacts with the physical Universe, we could find out that as well.

If god does not, nor never has interacted with the physical Universe, well there is nothing to disprove.

[Peacetrain]

242. They are different things Ed

Science by its very nature given time and input from people who take a theory and add or prove by other means things exist or don't...its the whole point of science.. to either prove or disprove a theory.

Belief in God is not a scientific theory. It is neither provable or unprovable. It is a personal belief system.

There is no point to denigrating others because they either have a belief system that includes God or have a belief or life plan system that does not include God.

[Act_of_Reparation]

247. Special pleading...

...you has it.

Existence is measurable, ergo claims of existence are scientific claims. This is but one of the many examples where religion simply can't help but dip its toes into the pool of science.

[Peacetrain]

250. That is my point

These are separate things..

And trying to overlay one with another is futile. Just gets everyone defensive. And once people become defensive, they get angry.. And trying to cut through the anger is almost impossible.

We can be religious and non religious people and have the same values of humanity.

[AtheistCrusader]

259. ?!

Dafuq

[Act_of_Reparation]

267. O_O

I think I'll pour myself a drink...

[edhopper]

269. Well belief in god is easily proven

I am certain to a high probability that many, many people believe in God.
This has no bearing on God actually existing, but their is belief does.

My point about evidence for God still stands.
You OP did not ask if we should let people alone in their beliefs, that is a question of social and cultural behavior.
You started with the premise that we cannot prove or disprove God, my post rebutted this. You were not making a statement about social interaction, your were making a claim about the validation of God.
I also think it interesting that you think by just questioning another's belief in God and pointing out the problems with the claims it is some how denigrating.

[Peacetrain]

289. Once again here we go

My OP ( for reference)

Being dismissive of others walk in life in futile.. is an exercise in stroking ones own ego.

No point to yelling, no point to calling others names, and accusing them of being delusional.

You or I or the guy or gal typing the next message cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

It is your own personal belief system

There is nothing that I said there, that stops interaction between people about their belief systems.. I stated, restated, stated till I am blue in the face (which is not the best color on me by the way that denigrating people for how they choose to believe or not believe, philosophy of life etc.. does nothing but set up defense systems.. People can criticize and question anything and anyone and call them every name in the book.. accuse them of eating little children for breakfast.. it is just not productive

[edhopper]

290. I understand you point about belief

I don't accept you premise that the existence of God should not be challenged.

[Peacetrain]

292. Ed show me where I ever said that..

And I will apologize to the entire DU community for making such a stupid statement.

Denigrating people and challenging people are two separate things.

No one can prove or disprove God..but that does not mean we cannot have wonderful and instructive discussions on the subject. Or express our opinions send out ideas for solutions etc etc

I have seen atheists accused of not having a moral compass because they do not go to church.. that is denigrating someone. And setting up defenses that "usually" not one can get past.

I have seen believers called delusional.. advised not to post in DU.. etc etc.. its not productive, and usually gets lost in a side issue of challenge words used.. instead of ideas

My husband and I will be celebrating 40 years of marriage this year.. and this is to his credit.. when we first married he and I had this long conversation on how to deal with disagreements.. the one caveat was never ever call the other person a name, or denigrate them for how they personally feel about something.

A person can apologize till the cows come home.. but thirty years later the disagreement will have been 29 years forgotten, but being called something that identifies you as a less than in another's eyes will never be forgotten.

Again, just show me where I ever stated anyone should not have the freedom to question anyone else, or question a philosophical or religious or cultural idea.

[edhopper]

295. I thought that was what you meant by

denigrating beliefs.
Obvious it wasn't, so my post was replying to my reading of yours, and can be disregarded on that point.

[Peacetrain]

296. Have a good one Ed

Something on a side note.. our potatoes have broken ground and the rhubarb is just about ready to start pulling.. after the endless, ceaseless winter we had.. I was beginning to have some doubts Good Spring to you

[edhopper]

298. I love Rhubarb

will have to look at the vegetable stand for some.

[stone space]

314. Me, too!

[enki23]

226. Religious beliefs have content.

Some of the content is nice. Virtually none of the nice parts are unique to any religion, or even to supernatural beliefs in general. Most of the content is shit. It probably won't harm you, directly, but it tends to be distracting. Sometimes distraction is harmful, even lethal. Some of it is outright pathogenic. People make decisions based on the content, even the shitty parts. Decisions based on the shitty, pathogenic parts can be perfectly rational, perfectly sound within their own systems. You often can't argue with their reasoning within their own systems. It's impossible. It is the content, and the systems themselves that are fucked.

You cannot counter that without countering the religion. The content is the religion. But don't worry. The people will remain, even without it. With plenty of their goodness, and nastiness intact. Just with fewer excuses. No more hiding behind the shitty content, to pretend they aren't shitty people.

[Lordquinton]

255. The religious privilege in this thread is rife and unchecked

The OP is flawed in many ways, like claiming Atheism is a belief, along with the typical false equivalency. If this was directed at Theists, which I'm going with not (shot in the dark here), then it would have merit.

Only Theists make one of the claims above, Atheists (with few exceptions) don't claim to disprove deitys, we point out that you have no proof, just like we would in math class, no proof, false equation.

Community was brought up before, and that is a good point. The internet provides Atheists with a community that has never been there for us before as we don't have government subsidized clubhouses every few blocks, so we gather in the ether and can find other people who share this common bond.

Edit: Forgot a point on the second paragraph: Atheists are very easily converted, just prove there is a god (any god) and it's done, doesn't work the other way.

[stone space]

294. I know very few Theists who claim to have a proof of the existence of God.

And as an Atheist, I don't believe in God, but don't claim to be in possession of a proof of my own beliefs in that regard, either.

Only Theists make one of the claims above, Atheists (with few exceptions) don't claim to disprove deitys, we point out that you have no proof, just like we would in math class, no proof, false equation.

I see no reason to expect any proofs coming from either side in this.

[Lordquinton]

300. Really? Because there are several Theists on this board

who claim to know god, in their own way of course, and it's a one sided argument that has been framed to be equal, teach the controversy and all that, only one side needs to put up proof.

I don't claim there is no god, I reject theists notion there is one due to a complete lack of evidence, but my opinion could be changed in an instant.

[stone space]

301. Claiming to know God is not an offer of proof. Hell, my wife might qualify for that, but she's...

...never offered to prove God's existence to me.

I don't claim there is no god

I do.

That's why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

I most certainly do not claim to have a proof for my beliefs, however.

And I will vehemently reject out of hand anybody who claims that I own him or her a proof, as I have promised none, and wouldn't even know how to even begin in constructing a proof.

[Lordquinton]

303. Claiming there is a god means you have some sort of reason to

a feeling or something means that you feel there is proof somewhere, somehow, otherwise there would be no claim.

As an Atheist you don't need to offer any proof because you're simply asking for any in the first place, that's how it works. We don't have to prove anything doesn't exist, the proof is that it does. That's the scientific method, someone offers a hypotheses and it gets it's evidence looked at, if it holds up it goes on to theory, if it doesn't it gets discarded. The god hypotheses has never been tested because there is never any proof given.

[stone space]

304. Where do you get this from? I keep seeing people say things like this.

We don't have to prove anything doesn't exist, the proof is that it does.

I'm a Mathematical Logician by profession.

I once claimed that there does not exist a monochromatic triangle free edge coloring on the complete graph on 62 vertices.

That claim in and of itself did not require proof.

But I went further, and claimed to be able to prove the non-existence, because I wanted to convince others.

That did require a proof, and it took 116 pages of rather dense mathematical reasoning to prove it.

At this point, nobody can doubt it because I did in fact publish a proof.

I keep reading people talk about how one doesn't need to prove nonexistence, but this is simply false.

If you claim that something does not exist, and actually want to convince others of your claim, then yes, you do need to prove it.

That's what I did, and that's what you need to do if you really want to convince somebody that something doesn't exist.

Now, if you don't care about convincing others (as I don't when it comes to the non-existence of God) and don't want to claim a proof, then you can make the claim without proof, just like the other guy can.

But it isn't one sided.

Both sides operate under the same set of rules.

There are no free passes for atheists, as pleasant as it might be to have one.

[trotsky]

308. Your reasoning is terribly faulty.

What you disproved was precisely defined.

Present such a definition for a god, and it too can be disproved.

[stone space]

310. You are expecting theists to prove existence.

But you don't have the same expectation for atheists.

I don't understand the double standard.

I don't expect a proof from either one, unless of course they claim to be in possession of a proof.

Present such a definition for a god, and it too can be disproved

Why do you believe this?

Do you have a proof?

I've done some work in questions of definability/undefinability and provability/unprovability, so I have some idea of what it takes to work with and reason about such concepts.

I can tell you that in general definability does not imply provability.

[trotsky]

311. Do I need to disprove Zeus to not believe in him?

Unicorns?

Leprechauns?

Disproving something is indeed possible under some circumstances. One of those circumstances is when you have a complete and well-stated definition, as you did with your math problem. So it's a terribly piss-poor analogy when you go and try to say that's the same thing as being able to disprove gods.

[stone space]

312. No you don't.

Do I need to disprove Zeus to not believe in him?

I believe that I have been very clear that no proof is required unless you actually claim to be in possession of a proof.

You are the one who is arguing that people can't make claims without incurring the obligation to prove those claims, not me.

And then you are pleading for some kind of special dispensation releasing you and me from that obligation you put on others simply because we are atheists.

That's just silly.

[trotsky]

313. Yeah, something's silly here alright.

I figure it'll sort itself out soon enough.

[Lordquinton]

317. It is one sided

The rules are laid out for the atheist, but the Theist gets a pass, why is that?

You can't prove a negative, you can prove someone wrong when they've supplied improper evidence, like in your example which had solid facts and something to work with, but theists will, once cornered, move the goalposts and fall back on their privilege to get them out of actually being confronted.

[stone space]

318. I prove negatives all the time.

You can't prove a negative

[Lordquinton]

319. lrn2science

You can prove someone wrong, but you can't prove something doesn't exist. You can show that there isn't sufficient evidence that something is true, but when something is unfalsafiable, then it's inherently flawed and can thusly be discarded.

[stone space]

320. Of course you can. I do it all the time.

but you can't prove something doesn't exist.

[Lordquinton]

321. Mathematically?

or scientifically? Because you're now claiming absolute knowledge and that you could prove god doesn't exist, which I thought we had agreed couldn't be done.

[stone space]

322. Mathematically. I'm pretty sure that we didn't agree that it couldn't be done.

Because you're now claiming absolute knowledge and that you could prove god doesn't exist, which I thought we had agreed couldn't be done.

Do you have a specific post in mind?

[Lordquinton]

324. Several

You said that you can prove a negative, which may be used in a different context in math than in other sciences. If you claim you can prove a negative then maybe write to the Nobel committee for a prize, because you just said it's possible to prove there is no god, among other things.

[stone space]

325. Links make more sense than your paraphrasings.

And what is this Nobel thingie all about?

You really aren't making any sense here.

[Lordquinton]

327. Want links?

Check your post history.

And tell me you know about the Nobel prize...

[stone space]

330. I don't recall posting anything about any Nobel prize.

Again, a link might help.

[Lordquinton]

336. It was a joke

kinda. You made the claim that you can prove a negative, so I told you that you should send that in to the Nobel prize committee to win a million dollars for doing something that was held as impossible. Like how we often tell creationists to send their disproof of evolution to them. You should know the jokes if you're gonna be an atheist.

[stone space]

338. Usually what people seem to mean by a "negative" is a universally quantified statement.

I prove so-called "negatives" all the time.

It's an everyday activity that has no connection to anything regarding Nobel prizes or whatnot.

It's just proving stuff. Stuff that happens to have a universal quantifier in front of it. (At least in classical logic. You do need De Morgan to freely pass negation symbols through quantifiers.)

I guess that the joke is that you seem to think that proving so-called "negatives" is something of a big deal, something extraordinary, if I understand you correctly.

It's not.

People do it every day.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better...ha-ha.

[Lordquinton]

341. We're using the same words

but not the same meanings. Not Math here. You can't prove Faries, or Leprechauns, or God don't exist. They are unfalsafiable, therefore anyone trying to prove a way for them to exist would need some form of evidence, and thus some way to prove them wrong.

[stone space]

345. I claimed that God doesn't exist, but I didn't claim that I had a proof that God doesn't exist.

So I'm under no obligation to prove that God doesn't exist, despite the fact that I made the claim.

Now, you claimed that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but you didn't claim to have a proof that I can't prove that God doesn't exist. So you are also under no obligation to prove that I can't prove that God doesn't exist.

We've both merely expressed beliefs, and neither of us has claimed to be in possession of a proof of our respective beliefs.

I'm happy.

Are you happy?

Or would you like to go further and assert that you can proof that I can't prove that God exist? Think carefully before doing that, because if you do, then I will feel I am quite within my rights to demand that you produce said proof.

But until and unless you do that, I am in no position to demand a proof from you, just like you are in no position to demand a proof from me.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[cbayer]

306. I think this is where your argument falls apart.

Claiming there is a god means you have some sort of reason to a feeling or something means that you feel there is proof somewhere, somehow, otherwise there would be no claim.

This is exactly what faith is not and is not true for most believers, imo.

They do not feel that there is proof somewhere, somehow. They believe the "proof" will be revealed after they die. Most do not wish to or claim to be able to offer any proof and recognize there is none to offer.

This puts believers and non-believers on the same footing, neither being able to offer anything to counter the position of the other.

[Lordquinton]

316. No, it doesn't put them on the same footing

You can't disprove something that hasn't been proved ever, not once, no shred of evidence that has ever been brought forth has stood up to scrutiny. The exchange goes like this "God exists" "Prove it" "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE DOESN'T"

You are correct that Atheists can't offer something to counter most theists position because most theists won't offer a solid position. If a believer laid out a solid, honest, definable position on such things then we can talk. I can tell you though, every time that happens the believer's position doesn't fare well.

[cbayer]

333. This whole argument about who has to prove or disprove

something that can not be either proven or disproven is ridiculous.

It goes like this:

"The burden is on you to prove it, not me to disprove it. And since you can't, I win."

So what? Does that party really win?

No.

What are looking for when you ask for a solid, honest, definable position? On what?

If people tell you they believe and they have faith, but not proof, why would you feel you deserve any more than that?

Of course, you can insist on it, knowing that you can't be given it.

Aha, you win again!

But you really don't.

[Lordquinton]

334. The whole argument has been framed in favor of the religionists

The mere fact that we can look at this one issue and think it's ok to make grand claims and build billion dollar entities on something that cannot be proven, and by their own claims will never be proven is sick.

Moving away from the personal aspect (because religionists love to appeal to emotion) You think Fred Phelps and Billy Graham all have equally valid beliefs? That the Crusades and Jihads were justified? That executing Homosexuals in Africa is righteous? Because thoes are all under the same umbrella of Religion, so what makes them different?

Seriously what makes them wrong and you right? if it's about Faith and belief and they are protected than anyone can do anything by claiming religion. And people often do.

[cbayer]

337. You behave as if there is a war going on here.

Why?

There is not "favor" because it is not an argument that can be won.

So many believers and non-believers walk around with these huge chips on their shoulders behaving as if they are always at battle with the "other side" and feeling endlessly persecuted by everyone who is not one of "them".

While pushing back against those that actually discriminate, judge, persecute or otherwise show intolerance towards a group or individuals based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs is certainly called for, this wholesale we vs. them is really unproductive. While fighting back against groups that want to deny people their civil rights or enact laws that are socially unjust are goals we all supposedly share here, attacking religious people who share these goals is not only uncalled for, it's the height of political stupidity.

I don't support Fred Phelps or Billy Graham because they hold specific beliefs that they have tried to foist on others against their will. I don't know where you got the idea that I would support jihadists and those that execute homosexuals. Frankly, that's a pretty despicable insinuation. I don't support lots of people and organizations whose beliefs or agendas I don't agree with, whether those are based on their religion or not.

You want to put me in a corner by accusing me of supporting extremists and fundamentalists? Why? Just because I support and defend people with religious beliefs that I feel are furthering causes I believe in?

[Lordquinton]

340. I'm saying your arguments lead to that line of thinking

that many religionists follow down that path.

By the way, you got that sample conversation wrong it's more like:
*knock knock*
"Who's there?"
"Have you heard of our lord and savior Jesus Christ?"
"I'm an Atheist"
"Why is that?"
"Because there isn't sufficient proof of any god's existence"
"Well, can you prove he doesn't exist?"
"No."
"Checkmate atheist, we win! Now let's talk about how great God is."

pushing back against those that actually discriminate, judge, persecute or otherwise show intolerance towards a group or individuals based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs is certainly called for,

We fully agree on this point. Which is why we call out the Pope on his misogyny, and homophobia. Which is why we call out Fred Phelps. Which is why we call out people who want to put up the ten commandments at court houses. Which is why we are afraid when the Supreme Court declares that it's ok for town halls to force prayer before a meeting.

The Us vs. Them is from the religion side, they are the ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats, and don't take this down to a personal level, we're talking about organised religions who are doing this, buying up hospitals, enforcing their abortion laws across the US, killing homosexuals in Africa.

Those are all facts and if that bothers you, or any other believer maybe you should re-evaluate your positions. Yea, I'm mad about this, the real question is why aren't you? Why do you spend your time defending the "good believers" instead of hoisting the bad ones up a flagpole to expose their diabolical works instead of giving them cover?

[cbayer]

343. You are right. "We" do those things.

And by "we" I mean progressives and liberals, be they believers or non-believers.

There is a common enemy here. It is the religious right, conservatives and the republican party.

No one here is forcing their beliefs down your throat. In fact, there is strong support for separation and cheers when the religious right loses a battle.

Your enemies are not here.

And, by the way, I'm not a believer and I hoist up the bad ones on pretty much a daily basis.

Accusing me of giving them cover is another really uncalled for accusation.

You apparently just read selectively. And personally I think you make a critical error in judgement when you insist on lumping all believers into one big bucket.

It's lazy.

[Lordquinton]

358. Just recently someone here posted that

Homosexuals will get tortured by their god. Actually said that. Like, Gay people will go to hell for existing. I didn't see you there, so I have to wonder what you really consider bad.

[cbayer]

359. Link please.

[Turbineguy]

276. No, but the argument goes something like this:

If you live your life as if God exists and he doesn't, it won't matter anyway. If on the other hand, you live your life as if God does not exist, and he does, then you will find you have made a terrible error.

So no matter how it turns out it's best to live a good life, do good for others and the planet, be a decent person.

[edhopper]

277. Unfortunately

that is not how most who believe God exists live their lives.
Ask the fundies or the Taliban.

Actually Satre' had better reasons for living a good life and it didn't include a big part of your life wasting time praying and occupying yourself with an imaginary deity.

There is a lot written on how foolish Pascal's wager is, if you care to read up on it.

[cbayer]

280. See, you just said "most" then brought up fundies and the taliban as your examples.

The taliban? Really?

These don't groups don't represent most believers in god. Not even close.

I think it's exactly how most god believers live their lives…. and most non-believers as well.

[edhopper]

281. True

My response wasn't as explanatory as it could have been.
I was first showing that living as if God exists doesn't necessarily mean what he said, and I gave examples. I could have said almost all Republican politicians. The point is valid.

I also brought up the immense amount of time tht people spend in there religion that is a waste if God doesn't exist.
Do you think a Priest devoting most of his life to prayer and services is worthwhile if there is no God. And yes they can do good work, but they can do that wiothout God and have a more rounsded life as well.

[cbayer]

283. I know that you were mostly making an argument about Pascal's wager,

but you know how I am when things get generalized.

I do not agree with you about the time people spend in their religion. For many, the time they spend is about community, reflection, trying to live better lives. I was raised in a church that was very progressive, even radically activist at times. I do not feel the time I spent there was wasted at all. It doesn't matter if god exists or not.

Those priests and monks who choose lives of silence or solitude or unending prayer may do so for very personal reasons. Perhaps they are not able to related outside of those confines. Perhaps it gives them the solace and asylum they can't find anywhere else. Perhaps they need to have a concept of god to get it.

[AtheistCrusader]

288. Evangelicals in the US are fundamentalists in a sense.

Certainly within certain political subjects that place them at loggerheads with political progressives.
I think bringing up the Taliban was a distraction though. That was unfortunate. They are in no way equivalent.

[edhopper]

291. But they do live their lives as if God existed

Wh6 not include everyone who does as an example of why this philosophy is terribly flawed.

[Turbineguy]

284. Thanks for the education!

I did not know it was called "Pascal's wager".

[edhopper]

285. Well,

you were giving a more humanist idea about living a good life, while I think Pascal was talking about being pious. So there is a difference.

[cbayer]

279. Or just live like it doesn't matter.

Be good. Treat others well. Reflect on your self and make changes when necessary.

Etc.

I really don't believe much would change for me personally if I knew for certain either way.

[edhopper]

282. That is the best way to

think about it IMO.

[AtheistCrusader]

287. Some people live thier lives believing that god exists and has precepts they must accept, and impose

on others. So living as if god exists even if it doesn't, is not cost-free to society.


Examples: RCC opposition to physician assisted suicide. RCC opposition to tax-payer funded abortion, contraceptives. RCC opposition to civil rights for same-sex couples, from marriage to anti-discrimination protections.


Living as if any particular god exists usually has consequences beyond the individual believer.


Also, Pascal's wager is morally bankrupt, i'm sure an omniscient god that knows your thoughts will super-appreciate that you believe in him/her/it out of sheer fear.

[Oakenshield]

286. Live and let live, sure.

It's a decent enough sentiment. As for deciding what's literally true or not...asking for someone to disprove the existence of god is an argument from ignorance otherwise known as an appeal to ignorance. It's a fallacy.

[darkangel218]

302. K&R.

[skepticscott]

315. Since no one else seems to have asked

Do you even have a clear concept of exactly what you mean by "prove" or "disprove"? If not, then your assertion doesn't carry much weight.

[stone space]

323. I have a pretty good idea of what it means to prove something. That's probably why I seldom...

...claim to be able to prove things (unless I'm pretty damn sure of myself), and why I rather quickly jump in to object to demands for such proofs.

[Lordquinton]

326. Don't youmean maybe you don't jump to claim things you can't prove?

Or are you in the habit of just accepting things people claim without asking for evidence?

I wouldn't make a big claim without big evidence to back it up first because, as you say, proof is hard, and harder after the fact because if you claim without backing it up you lose credibility and can't get a do over.

[stone space]

331. No, what I mean is that I try very hard not to claim to be able to prove things that...

...I am unable to prove.

That's much different from expressing my beliefs about something. I do that all the time.

There's nothing wrong with expressing beliefs without proof. If I am not claiming to have a proof, nobody has any reason to expect a proof from me to be forthcoming.

If I express the belief that there exists a good edge coloring on the complete graph on 62 vertices using 4 colors, nobody in their right mind expects me to supply them with a proof.

Likewise, if I express the belief that there does not exists a good edge coloring on the complete graph on 62 vertices using 4 colors, nobody in their right mind expects me to supply them with a proof.

(And honestly, my beliefs have gone back and forth on this question more than once.)

It's only when I claim to have a proof one way or the other that anybody expects me to be able to back up my belief with a proof. Even then, I could be mistaken, and the proof might fall through upon writeup, of course. But my point here is that nobody would expect a proof of anything from me unless I actually claim to have a proof. That would be quite an unreasonable expectation for anybody to have.

[Lordquinton]

335. SO when someone makes a claim

any claim, even "I believe that X is Y" or "I believe that Abortion is wrong" you never say "Oh yea? Prove it" because that's common in everyday discussions (well, until they learn that they actually have to back up their claims) A belief is a claim, and if I were in your field and knew what you were talking about (Need to catch up on the Doctor, apparently) I'd probably ask why you thought that, and push you for proof.

But we're not talking about some obscure, night impossible math equation, we're talking about a very common claim made by the majority of the population of this planet, and for some reason we're not allowed to question it, or ask for any proof at all.

All we're doing it pointing out the Emperor has no clothes.

[stone space]

339. That's fine, but you're doing it while naked.

All we're doing it pointing out the Emperor has no clothes.

So I really don't understand the whole point of the exercise.

[Lordquinton]

342. Um, what?

I mean, I am in the comfort of my own home, but that doesn't apply to the metaphor.

[skepticscott]

329. This was really intended for the OP

But I'll take that as a "no" from you.

[stone space]

332. Actually, if I understand your question correctly, you should probably take it as a "yes" from me.

[skepticscott]

344. No, since you failed to show

that you have a clear concept of what you mean by "prove" or "disprove", it's a "no". Saying that you sorta kinda know what you mean doesn't qualify.

[stone space]

346. I don't think that you understand what mathematicians do for a living. (nt)

[skepticscott]

347. In fact, I do

Do you understand the fundamental difference between mathematical proof and inductive, scientific "proof"? Do you understand what kind of "proof" the OP was talking about?

And please, don't weary my ears with more passive aggressive crap.

[stone space]

348. Feel free to show me what a proof of the existence of God or the non-existence of God looks like.

(Your choice. I'm easy.)

We're actually not talking about a mathematical proof of a mathematical statement or a scientific proof of a scientific statement here.

We're taking about a religious proof of a religious statement.

[skepticscott]

349. As noted, and now confirmed, you have no clue what you even mean by "proof"

There is no such thing as a "religious proof".

That you would even phrase things in such a way makes me wonder about your motives for being here.

[stone space]

350. When all else fails, question motives.

Get back to me when you have one of those proofs, ok?

I'd really like to see it.

[skepticscott]

355. Yes, when all else fails to get a straight, non-passive aggressive answer

I do question motives..and other things. Like why you would inject yourself into a question directed at someone else that you had no intention of actually answering, if not just to be a disruptor.

And since I never claimed to be offering a "proof" of god or anything else, I have no idea what you mean by "those proofs". In any case, a conception of what is meant by "proof" is necessary for such a discussion, and you obviously have none.

We're done here.

[stone space]

356. You chould try email. It works better for private conversations that posting in a public forum.

I do question motives..and other things. Like why you would inject yourself into a question directed at someone else that you had no intention of actually answering, if not just to be a disruptor.

That way you can avoid lashing out in misdirected anger at random people who might dare to respond to and answer your posts.

I'm not sure what other advice I can give to help you.

[randys1]

351. I promised not to post in this forum again, but one last time

I cant disprove the existence of Leprechauns either, but pretty sure they dont exist

or Peter Pan and so on...

[phil89]

354. True. People focus a lot on the western religions

many of us grew up with. What about Zeus? What about non-belief in Santa Clause? It's exactly the same thing to reject those claims and there's just as much "evidence" they are real.

[stone space]

357. And nobody should belittle you for that.

I cant disprove the existence of Leprechauns either, but pretty sure they dont exist

Yelling at you, calling you names, accusing you of dishonesty, or being delusional, simply because of your beliefs would be wrong.

You are entitled to your beliefs just like anybody else.

[mindwalker_i]

353. Also, nobody can prove or disprove that a giant moon

made of crunchy tacos exists.

Or whether it's covered in nacho cheese.