Arguing Against the Atheists

Hitchens was cruising for a fight. Over and over, the priest expressed his sympathy and agreement.

By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 27, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Nyarlat @ 02/26/2009 7:32:53 AM

    "Submitting faith to proof is absurd. Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don't know)."
    Nope! There can´t be two realitys. They talk about things outside of spacetime. And that is a meaningless concept.
    And all those holy books are disgusting by modern standards. The don´t conform to the "Universal Declaration of Human Right" and have never said anything that proved to be measurably true. So why keep them alive. Only to build "ratchets" of course! Making Money and forcing people to do things is the goal of religions.

  • Posted By: Nosmanic @ 01/26/2009 10:53:37 PM

    I problem I've had with religion is that religist people don't really want to teach me. As Rick Warren has said Atheists don't want to be convinced. Since I've come to college I've seen alot of professors that are not interested in teaching.

  • Posted By: 771979 @ 12/20/2008 12:50:37 PM


    contd)

    As Francis Bacon is noted to have commented, ???I had rather believe all the fables in the legend, and the Talmud, and the Quran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.??? He went on to comment, ???God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.???Worthy of contemplation is the fact that even the lowest elements of God???s creation, though perhaps ordinary works in His terms, are miracles in ours. Take the example of as tiny an animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily intricate creature evolved from the filth of a gutter? Just one of these little miracles can produce up to seven different kinds of silk, some as thin as the wavelength of visible light, but stronger than steel, and chemical formulae used by a spider to produced a thread is used in the technolgy making bulllet proof vests. Silks range from the elastic, sticky strands for entrapment to the non-adhesive drag-lines and frame threads, to the silk for wrapping prey, making the egg sac, etc. The spider can on demand, not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture--self-recycling from the component elements. This universe is full of billions of scienctific miracles but only men of intelligence and wisdom beliebe in them. And yet, ignorant humans elevate themselves to the height of arrogance. A moment???s reflection should incline human hearts to humility. God being invisible and beyond all physical perception, it was necessary to have some means of contact between man and God; otherwise it would not be possible to follow the Divine will. God is the creator of not only of our bodies but also of our faculties-which are diverse and each capable of development. It is He, Who has given us intuition, the moral conscience and means we employ to guide us in the right path.

  • Posted By: 771979 @ 12/20/2008 12:33:42 PM

    contd)

    As Francis Bacon is noted to have commented, ???I had rather believe all the fables in the legend, and the Talmud, and the Quran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.??? He went on to comment, ???God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.???Worthy of contemplation is the fact that even the lowest elements of God???s creation, though perhaps ordinary works in His terms, are miracles in ours. Take the example of as tiny an animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily intricate creature evolved from the filth of a gutter? Just one of these little miracles can produce up to seven different kinds of silk, some as thin as the wavelength of visible light, but stronger than steel, and chemical formulae used by a spider to produced a thread is used in the technolgy making bulllet proof vests. Silks range from the elastic, sticky strands for entrapment to the non-adhesive drag-lines and frame threads, to the silk for wrapping prey, making the egg sac, etc. The spider can on demand, not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture--self-recycling from the component elements. This universe is full of billions of scienctific miracles but only men of intelligence and wisdom beliebe in them. And yet, ignorant humans elevate themselves to the height of arrogance. A moment???s reflection should incline human hearts to humility. God being invisible and beyond all physical perception, it was necessary to have some means of contact between man and God; otherwise it would not be possible to follow the Divine will. God is the creator of not only of our bodies but also of our faculties-which are diverse and each capable of development. It is He, Who has given us intuition, the moral conscience and means we employ to guide us in the right path.


  • Posted By: 771979 @ 12/20/2008 12:32:47 PM

    ???Life???s greatest tragedy is to lose God and not to miss him.
    ???F.W. Norwood
    If there was no God, there would have been millions of man-made gods and millions more dieteies to impress or please man???s perception.
    Atheists might assert that they do not acknowledge the existence of God, but the view of some Christians and all Muslims is that at some level even a die-hard atheist wishes for God???s presence and His hand around him. The innate but neglected awareness of God typically surfaces in Atheist consciousness only in times of severe stress, as exemplified by the World War II quote ???There are no Atheists in a fox-hole or on a battle field; there is no atheist on the hangman???s rope, there is no atheist on the electric chair and there is no atheist on a death bed suffering from an incurable disease. There is light but darkness is nothing but the absence of light; it is our perception. There is goodness but evil exits in its absence, death is absence of life but it is not a perception but an invibible reality and life- here-after is beyond man???s comprehension and out of reach of metaphysics and our five senses. An atheist would not be here in the absence of his parents. Some animals, insects, reptiles and plants can see, hear and feel beyond the five senses but we can not deny that only a visible thing exits and anything invisible to our senses is non-existent. I believe that it would be the greatest insult to human intelligence in the absence of intelligence. It is pure arrogance and ignorance to deny any thing that is beyond our comprehension or intelligence.
    Whether drowining in high seas, crushed in a car accident, surounded by wolves in a jungle, suffering from excruciating pain of cancer, agonizing in days of a lingering illness, split second of anticipating being shot in the head by a robber and when all mankind recognize the reality of human fragility and the lack of human control over destiny: who does a person cry and wish for for help in such circumstances other than who created him ? These sheer moments of helpnlessness should remind every human, froma religious scholar to the dim-hawk atheist of the dependence of mankind upon a reality far greater than our own meager human selves. A reality far greater in knowledge, power, will, majesty and glory.
    In such moments of distress, when all human efforts have failed and no element of material existence can be foreseen to provide comfort or rescue, Whom else will a person instinctively call upon? In such moments of trial, we all appeal to God vowing of lifelong fidelity and obedience of His commands?
    Even an atheist is bound to say, ???O Lord, if there is a Lord, Save my soul--if I have a soul.??? (to cont)

  • Posted By: Badjuggler @ 12/18/2008 2:53:40 PM

    "Submitting faith to proof is absurd."

    That sentence is absurd. Blindly believing something without proof of its existence is madness. Religion is madness.

  • Posted By: anothererik @ 10/15/2008 8:32:20 AM

    "Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don't know)."

    Actually, reason also defines what we don't know. The difference is that when religion defines something as "unknown" it labels it as "unknowable," "we shouldn't know that," "lets hope that we'll know that some day," or "let's beg someone to tell us that"; reason says "let's figure this out and then we'll know it."

    Besides, this statement is false on it's face. There are plenty of things that people claim to "know" based on faith alone, for starters that there is anything to be faithful IN.

  • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/14/2008 8:13:54 AM

    "It is an illusion that reason defines 'what we know' while faith defines 'what we don't.' Reason is our best tool for explaining what we know, identifying what we don't know but think we might someday know, and acknoledging that there are things which we may never know. There is no need for faith and no truely reasonable person can justify the need for irrational belief - the defintiion of faith."

    Let me start with the fact that I am an atheist and a pretty "rational and reasonable" person. That being said, the idea that no reasonable person can justify the need for faith that some believers have (and irrational belief is NOT the definition of faith) is completely false. As I have said in the past, faith can provide a comfort zone for thsoe things we do not know. There is nothing wrong or inherently invalid with that. Science and reasonprovides that for those of us who do not believe in "supernatural" explanations (and religion and deities ARE supernatual reasons).

    Are there believers who exhiit "irrational belief"? Absolutely. Those who insist in the beleif, even in the presence of substantial scientific evidence, that a literal interpretation of the bible is in any way intelligent, logical or valid. This includes that idea that, among other things, strict creationism (the earth being no more than several thousand years old) is anything other than a load of garbage.

    That being said, the idea that there is no need for faith (for individuals) is not sustainable. Now It can be logically and validly argued that there is no UNIVERSAL need for faith, or that a specific faith is the ONLY valid belief. In my opinion, THOSE arguements (a universal need for faith or a single valid faith), no intelligent or reasonable person can make.

  • Posted By: frankwayne @ 10/13/2008 11:07:26 PM

    It is an illusion that reason defines 'what we know' while faith defines 'what we don't.' Reason is our best tool for explaining what we know, identifying what we don't know but think we might someday know, and acknoledging that there are things which we may never know. There is no need for faith and no truely reasonable person can justify the need for irrational belief - the defintiion of faith.

  • Posted By: sparkslarry @ 10/11/2008 9:27:41 AM

    Comment: not silly but refusing to give credit, for our accomplishments, as human beings, to something that's of the mind. Feel good but sill dehumanizing. Thus leading to all earthly violations. Giving life to all that is evil cant have one with out the other thus the incompetence of your creator. Eumanist sparkslarry@att.com

  • Posted By: sparkslarry @ 10/11/2008 9:26:49 AM

    not silly but refusing to give credit, for our accomplishments, as human beings, to something that's of the mind. Feel good but sill dehumanizing. Thus leading to all earthly violations. Giving life to all that is evil cant have one with out the other thus the incompetence of your creator. Ehumanist sparkslarry@att.com

  • Posted By: Exordium @ 10/07/2008 11:22:50 AM

    Why does it seem impossible - and mutually exclusive - for an atheist to understand and accept that other people believe in the existence of God? I've been an atheist for many years, but I believe that the faith and love expressed by many decent, peaceful practitioners of this or that religion is a beautiful thing. God is not for delusional idiots; He is for those who need Him. I feel no such need, and do not believe. But plenty of people do, and that's not wrong, or silly, or simple, or weak-minded. Faith is a wonderful thing. If only more people had it in each other.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/08/2008 11:52:50 AM

      Thanks for looking down from your purch on those who you deem lower than you..... your attempt at being rational only shows your pride and arrogance

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/08/2008 2:01:07 PM

        Bojack,

        You owe Exordium an apology. Nothing in his/her post would lead an intelligent and logical person ti conclude that anyone is "looking down from your purch" or that he/she looks at belivers as "those who you deem lower than you." It is not there.

        And you claim that "your attempt at being rational only shows your pride and arrogance" has even less basis in reality or common sense. You are so off base on this one that it is amazing.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/10/2008 12:40:19 PM

          Ghostmasseur,

          "God is not for delusional idiots; He is for those who need Him. I feel no such need, and do not believe."

          This statement alone is offensive and to me it shows pride in one who thinks that they have reached a level of self existence through their own intellect and says that those who haven't reached this level are beneath him.... No matter what you say... I for one find this offensive and it is my perception of the tone of this statement that counts not yours! If Exordium wants to explain this then he should be the one who challenge me not you.... since it is his statements and only he or she can explain the meaning behind such statement.... But until then I let him or her know that I found it offensive and full of pride to even think in such a manner....

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/10/2008 3:15:37 PM

            You are correct. It is ONLY YOUR OPINION, not fact.

            But I would still argue that it is not an intellectually or logically sustainable one. It seems more an paranoic opinion, or one from someone who is looking for something to be offended at. But that is my opinion.

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/03/2008 2:06:08 PM

    I just want to post this saying that I have..."When does the truth become the truth? When you find out it is true or has it been true all along? ..... one day there will be no more arguments on this matter... that one day may come sooner to others (through death) .... is that the time you want to find out if what you hold dear to you is false or would you want to know right now.... If everyone would check their own foundations and there own proofs or convictions in this matter they would be alot better off.... just my opinion

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/03/2008 5:07:07 PM

      I know my own foundation and that is why I am far better off now as an atheist then when I was as a believer in deity and religion. That is MY way. I would never say that it is the best way for everyone. For some, believing in their deity (s) and/or religion is far better for them as it gives them what they need.

      And I do not waste my time worrying about what will happen after I die.

      IF by some chance there really is a God (and if there were it would have to be one as Judaism views it) , then being a just and loving deity it would not condemn a person who treated their fellow and the planwt well and helped those in need, just because said person did not believe in him. It would welcome said person as a good person and one deserving of reward. Such a deity would be willing to let the person's soul (if there is such a thing) admit to its errors and accept a heartfelt apology for same. Anything else would be a thuggish deity not worthy or worship, belief or respect.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/06/2008 10:28:38 AM

        IF by some chance there really is a God (and if there were it would have to be one as Judaism views it) , then being a just and loving deity it would not condemn a person who treated their fellow and the planet well and helped those in need, just because said person did not believe in him. It would welcome said person as a good person and one deserving of reward. Such a deity would be willing to let the person's soul (if there is such a thing) admit to its errors and accept a heartfelt apology for same. Anything else would be a thuggish deity not worthy or worship, belief or respect.
        If by chance???..okay there is an opening that you view the God of Israel as the only one whose standards you say are just and loving deity???.. I would say that you don???t know the character of God??? you only pick and choose what qualities you can accept but you ignore the characteristics that God destroyed those who rejected Him???. Now you are saying God is unjust because he will not condemn the wicked who do not believe in Him and he gives them the same reward as the just who do believe in Him and do according to his words???One thing you discount is that you admitting to your errors by apologizing heartedly will excuse you of rejecting God???s teaching???. So you reject what God says and then when you find out your wrong (when judgment is imminent) then you offer what you call a heartfelt apology for your errors (sin)???this doesn???t excuse you from being guilty it only makes you the more guilty because you still didn???t say you accepted God???s way to salvation (Christ Jesus) and therefore you insult God by thinking that your own righteousness is enough to enter into His kingdom???then you last statement goes to show your pride in saying if God is worthy to be worship according to his acceptance of your disrespectful view toward how He should act in response to your sinfulness???here is a scripture for you to meditate on???
        Job.40
        [7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
        [8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/09/2008 10:49:44 AM

          YAWWN.

          Since there is no god who really cares.

          BTW, Judaism has ALWAYS known that their god (or at least since they were the first one's to create that deity they understand what it is all about better than ohers) rejects the idea of eternal punishment and grants reprieves even after death. THAT s the only view of said deity that is worth anything.

          But this is really moot since there really is no god after all.

      • Posted By: romel @ 10/04/2008 1:16:43 AM

        Just maintain the goodness you have within you. It doesn't mean you have to be perfect. Life is a process. Don't you know that the Pope also confesses his sin to his chosen confessor? This only means that even though his decision on doctrinal issues is believed to be infallible (Roman Catholic Doctrine), yet in his own personal existence as human being he can also commit a mistake like us. When I see homeless children seeling biscuits and candies on the streets, sometimes I cannot help myself but pull over and buy from them. One thing empressed me is their desire to earn an honest living. Although they are not my children but their determination to exist, even though the rest of the world refuse to recogniize them, deeply moved me. The same thing will happen when God judges the people of this world. Those who are branded by many as spiritually homeless will find favor from
        God through their good deeds. If we human beings who are imperfect know how to appriciate the honesty exibited our fellowmen even though they are not members of our family then how much more God whom they believe to be All-knowing, All-powerfull, All-present and All-loving. I'm a Christian. But I stick to the teachings of the Good Samaritan. Ghostmasseur, just believe in your capacity to do good. I salute you.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/06/2008 10:51:25 AM

          Comment: Just maintain the goodness you have within you. It doesn't mean you have to be perfect.

          Gen.17
          1. [1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
          Deut.18
          1. [13] Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
          1Kgs.8
          1. [61] Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day.
          Matt.5
          1. [48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
          Rev.3
          [1] And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
          [2] Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.


          The same thing will happen when God judges the people of this world. Those who are branded by many as spiritually homeless will find favor from
          God through their good deeds.
          Ezek.33
          [12] Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
          [13] When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.


          If we human beings who are imperfect know how to appriciate the honesty exibited our fellowmen even though they are not members of our family then how much more God whom they believe to be All-knowing, All-powerfull, All-present and All-loving. I'm a Christian. But I stick to the teachings of the Good Samaritan.

          I have a problem with this above statement you have stated four thing about God and only three are true??? God is indeed Omniscience, Omnipotent and Omnipresent but where in the bible that it says God is all loving???. Your statement gives the indication that God accepts sin and doesn???t require one to repent and turn away from their sins???. God requires that you be perfect because He is perfect and to walk uprightly before Him???. God is love and defines this through his word not according to what you say he should do???. You claimed to be a Christian and yet deny the scriptures requiring a person to be perfect??? you give your own thoughts and do not provide one scripture to back up what you claim???.you are a pseudo Christian to say the least???..read the bible and get a clue before you spout off about a God that you obviously don???t know anything about???..

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/04/2008 4:11:34 PM

          romel,

          "Ghostmasseur, just believe in your capacity to do good. I salute you. "

          Thank you. I salute you too.

  • Posted By: bzjpsbqf @ 10/08/2008 11:39:59 AM

    Faith for faith's sake is a ridiculous argument. "You can't argue with faith, that's why its faith." Wrong. You can argue with faith. If I said I had faith in a being who told me to kill people, most would agree that you could argue with faith as being irrational and ridiculous. Just because someone's faith doesn't tell them to kill people or something, or is more temperate than that shouldn't subject it to less scrutiny. It's still an irrational belief. This is a circular argument; "You can't argue with faith because you can't prove we're wrong" get us nowhere. If you woke up from surgery and a doctor had improperly removed your arm because he had faith, would we let him/her be a doctor anymore? Certainly not. We most certainly can and should question people's faith.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/08/2008 2:12:40 PM

      ???You can argue with faith."
      You cannot argue with faith. You can argue with how people use their faith to justify their actions especially when those actions are detrimental to society and harm others.

      ???We most certainly can and should question people's faith."
      Again, we should question what they claim their faith makes them do. Not necessarily the faith itself. Some people have, do, and will continue to use their faith as an excuse for doing things that harm others and the planet. They will use their faith as an excuse for hatred and bigotry. The problem is that there are other people who lay claim to either the same faith or other branches of the same belief structure who do the exact opposite and whose basically same faith inspires them (or acts as a catalyst) for them to engage in actions that are beneficial to society and the planet. Therefore it is not the faith itself but how the individual uses or acts on it.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/08/2008 2:11:25 PM

      ???You can argue with faith."
      You cannot argue with faith. You can argue with how people use their faith to justify their actions especially when those actions are detrimental to society and harm others.

      ???We most certainly can and should question people's faith."
      Again, we should question what they claim their faith makes them do. Not necessarily the faith itself. Some people have, do, and will continue to use their faith as an excuse for doing things that harm others and the planet. They will use their faith as an excuse for hatred and bigotry. The problem is that there are other people who lay claim to either the same faith or other branches of the same belief structure who do the exact opposite and whose basically same faith inspires them (or acts as a catalyst) for them to engage in actions that are beneficial to society and the planet. Therefore it is not the faith itself but how the individual uses or acts on it.

  • Posted By: King Of All Men @ 10/07/2008 10:19:20 AM

    God is sooooo irrelevant to my life. Who gives two craps? God for for delusional idiots who can't face the harsh realities of life with clear eyes.

  • Posted By: JamesChristenson @ 10/07/2008 8:03:57 AM

    But Christianity IS all about a God who has intervened in human affairs. In fact, if he had not...and did not...we would undoubtedly have destroyed ourselves long ago. After all, as we speak, atheistic scientists (Richard Dawkins claims most scientists, especially the ones working for the government, are atheists) are working day and night to provide the most effective wms...chemical, biological, and nuclear...to the governments of the world.

    They don't have any room to criticize believers.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/07/2008 8:49:58 AM

      "But Christianity IS all about a God who has intervened in human affairs."
      You are correct that is what Christianity is about but not morals.

      "In fact, if he had not...and did not...we would undoubtedly have destroyed ourselves long ago."
      That is only an opinion not a fact. IT is just as probable that were it not for simple common sense, not divine intervention, we would have done so.

      "After all, as we speak, atheistic scientists (Richard Dawkins claims most scientists, especially the ones working for the government, are atheists) are working day and night to provide the most effective wms...chemical, biological, and nuclear...to the governments of the world."

      Dawkins is a fool in his comment. Using him as a basis for facts about how many people are atheist is just as foolish as relying on Pentacostals to ask about intelligent knowledge of science. Many scientists who work for the government are just as much believers as the citizenry.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/07/2008 8:52:26 AM

        My comment "You are correct that is what Christianity is about but not morals. " was NOT saying that Christianity does not have morals, it was saying that god (or religion) is not REQUIRED for morals.

  • Posted By: Eric Reitan @ 10/06/2008 11:28:05 AM

    In this essay, Miller identifies the chief value of books responding to the recent spate of "angry atheist" bestsellers in the following terms: "The value of these books lies in their unique and demanding arguments and the way those arguments resonate with the faithful. They may provoke in believers a better, or deeper faith, but the number of converts they???or the atheists???can claim is undoubtedly small."

    This strikes me as one important function of these responses. But as the author of one of the forthcoming books she mentions ("Is God a Delusion?"), I find myself prompted by Ms. Miller's comment to reflect on what I was hoping to achieve in writing such a book. Let me say that I only speak for myself. Authors have different purposes. But a main goal of my book was to demonstrate that reasonable and morally sensitive people can disagree about fundamental questions. This is not to say that any old view is reasonable. It certainly doesn't mean that any possible way of being religious is in tune with reason and our moral obligations. Rather, it is to say that there are parameters that reason and morality impose on all of us when we form our worldviews. My aim was to show that theistic religion can fall within those parameters. So can atheism. But on both sides of the atheistic/theistic divide, one can also find irrational and morally pernicious systems of belief.

    To be blunt, I am frustrated with the tendency to identify the good/evil and rational/irrational divides with the religious/nonreligious or theistic/atheistic distinctions. It is far too simple to equate being either religious or non-religious with being bad or intellectually irresponsible. Part of what I hope my book will do is challenge the tendency to do this--and if my book succeeds in that aim, I will view it as a success regardless of whether or not anyone's faith is deepened.

  • Posted By: panda69 @ 10/04/2008 9:59:08 PM

    I'm an atheist with close Christian friends. Some people get hung up defining things, but my friends and I care more about what we do, asking ourselves whether our actions are constructive. Hitchens enjoys being belligerent, but that's Hitchens, not atheism.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/05/2008 9:43:47 AM

      panda69,

      EXACTLY!

      Hitchens only represents Hitchens (I am pretty sure I laready made that point but it is good to see someone else reiterating it.)

      You are like me and all the atheists I know. We have friend who do believe in deity (s) (I have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Pagan, etc. and I have been to both family and community events for them and ALWAYS treat thier beliefs and religions with respect. One does nto have to believe in something to be respectful of it and its adherents.) We all respect each other and realize that although our beliefs may guide or inspire us, deep down they are not what makes us good people. I have sung Christmas songs with Christains friends and helped them decorate their Christmas trees for years (even when I was religiously Jewish.) The only songs I would not sing were the ones that specifically defined Jesus as deity or saviour (silent night and Come All Ye faithful come to mind.) My friends always understood that although I helped them celebrate I was not going to be hypocritical and acknowledge his status as anything other than a human being. In fact I imagine that I will be joining some friends this year as well. They have told me that they look forward to my warm eggnog (with lots of rum).

  • Posted By: romel @ 10/04/2008 1:40:13 AM

    Just maintain the goodness you have within you. It doesn't mean you have to be perfect. Life is a process. Don't you know that the Pope also confesses his sin to his chosen confessor? This only means that even though his decision on doctrinal issues is believed to be infallible (Roman Catholic Doctrine), yet in his own personal existence as human being he can also commit a mistake like us. When I see homeless children selling biscuits and candies on the streets, sometimes I cannot help myself but pull over and buy from them. One thing empressed me is their desire to earn an honest living. Although they are not my children but their determination to exist, even though the rest of the world refuse to recogniize them, deeply moved me. The same thing will happen when God judges the people of this world. Those who are branded by many as spiritually homeless will find favor from
    God through their good deeds. If we human beings who are imperfect know how to appriciate the honesty exibited our fellowmen even though they are not members of our family then how much more God whom they believe to be All-knowing, All-powerfull, All-present and All-loving. I'm a Christian. But I stick to the teachings of the Good Samaritan. Ghostmasseur, just believe in your capacity to do good. I salute you.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/04/2008 4:12:40 PM

      Romel,

      "Ghostmasseur, just believe in your capacity to do good. I salute you. "

      Thank you. I salute you too.

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/30/2008 10:08:35 AM

    Here we go again with this discussion of is their a God.... notice I said God not god .... the difference is that God is the creator and god is created by man..... Now no arguments in whether you believe in either one.... but let's look at the consequences of not believing.... to not believe in a god... doesn't bring anyone to accountability... but not believing in God brings with it accountability.... NO... not by religious people but by God himself.... now for those who don't believe then they are saying I will either take my chances or there is no chance that I'm taking therefore there is no consequence.... and for those who do believe take appropriate actions to avoid the consequences of unbelief....

    So who is right? Can you convince the other that your point is right? Or does it matter who is right? The last question is can you live with your decision the rest of eternity? Well that question might not resonate with those who don't believe in eternity....

    The purpose of my posting is not to debate but clearly define both sides.... tell me what you think.... my hope and prayer is that all will believe as I do..... that all will search for the truth and find peace with their decision.... and that there foundation is layed according to knowledge and not the lack there of..... Selah!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/30/2008 12:03:14 PM

      bojack,

      I my opinion, there is no difference between God and god. Many of us refuse to capitalize that name because of our belief that there is not such thing. Also, since there are so many gods out there (and I mean deities that thier believers attribute powers to just like the one you believe in) that the one you believe in is therefore not entitled to have it's title (god is a title not a real name) made special. Now if you want to refer to it as the "Abrahamic God" (therefore limiting it to a specifc deity), as Jews do, use HaShem (meaning "the name") or even the Heavenly Father God, I would have no problem, capitalizing that type of name. But otherwise I will use a lower case g to refer to the deity you believe in, out of respect to other religions.

      And yes, since, in my view, there is no "eternal life", to worry about what happens after we die (since we jsut decay and decompose and nothing else) is a waste of time.

      As for accountability, your arguement is flawed. It is part Pascal's Wager which has been debunked time and time again.

      Like many before me I have done extensive reasearch and am just as sure that what I belive is the truth as you do in what you believe.

      I am not trying to convince you I am correct. If your belief in your deity inspires you to treat you fellow human and the planet with repsect and dignity then you should continute to believe as you do. And If you belief also brings you solice and comfort in bad times and joy in good times, then I am happy for you. Your belief serves a beneficial purpose for you and that is good.

      But it serves no such purpose for me. I get solice and comfort from my friends in bad times, and they both bring and share my joy during good times. I treat my fellow and the planet well (unless my fellow tries to harm me or others or tries to deny me my right to believe as I do) and I do my best to help those less fortunate than I am. I expect no reward (or even thanks) for what I do. And when asked how they can thank me or pay me back I have always told them to pass it along to the next person. (And this was long before the movie "Pay It Forward" ever came out.)

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/30/2008 12:54:44 PM

        Hi ghost,

        Well thanks for answering my post.... now here is a question for you... since you don't believe in Hashem and I think you believe that all other gods are made up..... What is the purpose of suffering, evil, injustice, and life? In your view does all of these things go un-notice and we just fade out light a light bulb? Then your existence is futile .... much like an animal (non-human)...

        I don't know about Pascal's Wager.... and I'm not trying to debate who is right or wrong what I'm trying to get at is what is the reason people have arrived at such a decision that (in my opinion) will effect their eternal destiny..... and why they have such apathy towards a loving Hashem?.......

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/30/2008 3:21:42 PM

          To adress the last part of your post.

          "what I'm trying to get at is what is the reason people have arrived at such a decision that (in my opinion) will effect their eternal destiny"

          For some, like myself, it is because we do not believe there is an "eternal desitny". I am not afraid of dying. I may not want to do it right now because there is a lot more I want to do and see. And I am havng a good time all in all. But once my body gives out and it goes through its natural downturn, I will be ready to die. Since I have been a teacher (both formally and informally) I know that my students will pass along some of what I have tried to teach them and that will continue generations on ( I know it because I already know that some of my students have become teachers themselves and told me about some fo their students becoming teachers and passing on the ideas and methods I have taught them.). That is all the eternal destiny I think about.

          "..... and why they have such apathy towards a loving Hashem?....... "

          I am not sure it is apathy. It is more likely that they have no need for a "loving HaShem". In other ways they have never seen proof that there is one. Nothing that I have ever seen attributed to HaShem could not have been simply human beings becoming more tolerant, educated, civilized and self-aware. Also a realization that we are not the center of the universe. That we are just one more part of this planet and galaxy. That it is up to us to make the changes that need to occur and making those changes.

          I do not love HaSHem, fear HaShem, or need HaShem because I have seen no proof of HaShem. From what I have seen even this planet's existence is not proof of that entity.And when I say "seen" i am not being literal, although even in the literal sense I have not seen or heard of anything that irrefutalbly proves HaShem.

          I think that if religion were to disappear and the idea of HaShem (or other deities) were to be proven false today, that most people, after a period of adjustment, would get on with their lives no worse for wear. They would find new reasons to do good and live fulfilling and lives. Some might even do better than they are now ( I know that my live is far better now that I am an atheist). Some might not, but that is way things go.


          But as things go now, may your beliefs bring you as much joy, peace and comfort as mine do for me. May be both know peace, happiness and love from whatever source we find it.

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/30/2008 4:59:20 PM

            Well for myself I believe the opposite (you know this already) and the thought of having one person miss out on living eternally in God???s presence compels me to reach out and reason with them. The existence of your teachings will come to an end one day because we never know what tomorrow will bring in this world???. A war could break out and the U.S.A could be destroyed and then where are your teachings? I would rather believe the creator of the universe that the relationships (friends) that I have could live forever with me in heaven and we could always learn of the teachings of HaShem???..

            To say one has no need of HaShem is to truly know that that person has no understanding of HaShem??? and the very things that you say we are apart of He has created (universe) and HaShem even tells us to judge we know that He exist by his creation???. And yet you haven???t come into this knowledge yet???.

            As far as proof???. Most people set their own standards of belief??? if one chooses not to believe no matter what is presented to them they would not believe???. The real question is have they real sought HaShem? There is that saying you cannot see the forest for the trees???. Have you gone to the extent to really search all things or has all things search you? To be a Jack of all trades and yet a Master of none is not the desired point on wants to reach in life???. I hear most people say that they have tried God (HaShem) as though He was a garment to be tried on to see if He would fit into their lives??? the real tragedy is that we are the garments that must fit into His life not the other way around???

            There is no way to prove that HaShem is false or doesn???t exist???. Those who have claim that He doesn???t exist only deceive themselves (in my opinion)???. That is why I ask them to explain to me how they have come to such conclusions ???.. is it through knowledge or a lack their of and if it is knowledge then share that knowledge with others???.. if they have come to this conclusion based on a disappointing experience in life then let???s revisit that experience??????.
            I once remember watching a debate between Alan Keyes and a Jewish Rabbi who didn???t believe in HaShem and had written a book claiming that there aren???t any absolute truths???. I found the Rabbi to be a joke???. For one he claimed to be a Rabbi (teacher of Jewish Law) an didn???t believe in the one who had given the law???. I think this dis-qualified him for even identifying himself as a teacher in the religious sense???. Then next claim that there aren???t any absolute truths was simply ridiculous???. And easy refuted by simply asking him is he absolutely sure on that... in which he answered yes???. Un-believable???.

            I also don???t believe that your state of mind brings you joy or peace in your spirit???. Just my opinion???..

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/30/2008 6:02:48 PM

              The problem is that everything you say is part of man-made books that were written to justify a belief in HaShem. They prove nothing and can easily be dismissed as propaganda.

              I have studied and mediatated enough to have reached a very educated and reasoned decision that HaShem doe snto exist outside of the minds of belivers. There is not way to prove otherwise.

              And yes, one can very easily understand what HaShem supposed said and then through other open-minded studying and intellect come to relization that you had missed the obvious. That is is man-made stuff. As for the earth ending and my teachings disappearing. I have no problems with that. Once humanity no longer exists it does not matter. And most atheists that I have met have carefully examined the trees as well as examined how those trees fit into the forest.

              And many of us are Masters of several trades, and experienced in many others.

              We do not have to prove that HaShem does not exist. Without irrefutalbe proof of his existance our position hold strong.

              As for the Rabbi you spoke of, I do not care what you think of him, (and I do not know who he is.) His views may or may not make sense. But you are wrong. One can be a teacher of Jewish law without believing in HaShem if one realizes that those laws were written by man and not by HaShem. Now I am not sure that he identified himself as a teacher in the religous sense or not. But what he did or did not do does not matter. He is but one person.

              Believe what you want. I know that I have joy and peace of mind.

              • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/01/2008 11:06:37 AM

                Here is the problem that I have with your way of thinking.... you say something doesn't exist and provide no evidence and when someone says that it does exist you refute that evidence as being meaningless but provide no evidence to support your claims.....

                So your evidence is to deny the evidence presented to you as being man-made or irrational thinking yet when proded to provide evidence you come up with excuses.... You say that I'm missing the obvious while you cannot present the obvious point in your argument ..... I expected more from one who is well versed in Torah Laws and no doubt a well educated person.... I challenge you to lay out step by step why you don't believe in HaShem and let it be examined and I will lay out step by step why I believe in HaShem and let you examine my belief....

                I find the foundation of ones belief is where they either stand strong or fall when challenged.... you are smarter than not to believe in HaShem..... I find that most people who say they don't believe have (1). unrealistic expectations of life (2). have been dissappointed in HaShem through loss of a love one (3). attempt to judge HaShem to justify themselves (meaning that they look at life and begin to ask questions of why does HaShem allow ....... etc) when the answer has already been given (4) they don't get beyond the point of WHY to the point of WHAT NOW! (5) Secretly they hope that there is no HaShem in order to justify their feelings of hopelssness because they have no hope without having HaShem in their life (just my opinion)...... Selah!

                • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/01/2008 7:01:10 PM

                  "Here is the problem that I have with your way of thinking.... you say something doesn't exist and provide no evidence and when someone says that it does exist you refute that evidence as being meaningless but provide no evidence to support your claims.....

                  So your evidence is to deny the evidence presented to you as being man-made or irrational thinking yet when proded to provide evidence you come up with excuses.... You say that I'm missing the obvious while you cannot present the obvious point in your argument ..... I expected more from one who is well versed in Torah Laws and no doubt a well educated person.... I challenge you to lay out step by step why you don't believe in HaShem and let it be examined and I will lay out step by step why I believe in HaShem and let you examine my belief....

                  Sorry bojack, but according to scientific methodlogy (and I have had this confirmed by over 100 scientists who DO believe in some version of your deity, all of whom agreed taht three is no way to prove god's existance, that is it soley a matter of faith) the burden of proof lies with the affirmative statement. And the affirmative statement in this issue is that god exists. Since there is not irrefutable independent proof of said existance outside of the words in the bible (which cannot be used as proof since its only purpose is to say that god exists), the default position is non-existance. I am not willing to acknowledge that something as important as a deitiy's existance is true solely on faith.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/02/2008 1:07:57 PM

                    Sorry bojack, but according to scientific methodlogy (and I have had this confirmed by over 100 scientists who DO believe in some version of your deity, all of whom agreed taht three is no way to prove god's existance, that is it soley a matter of faith) the burden of proof lies with the affirmative statement. And the affirmative statement in this issue is that god exists. Since there is not irrefutable independent proof of said existance outside of the words in the bible (which cannot be used as proof since its only purpose is to say that god exists), the default position is non-existance. I am not willing to acknowledge that something as important as a deitiy's existance is true solely on faith.


                    It doesn???t matter if you confirmed with those who have limited beliefs in in my so-called deity???. It is just like saying that I have confirmed with those who have a different opinion about God (HaShem) than you do???. Is it a surprise to you when they have the same opinion as yourself? The affirmative in this article is that atheist attacks those who believe in God and dismiss them as being silly???. So the burden of proof lies on those who suggest a new theory of beliefs ??? not on the one whom they are attacking???

                    You and others are coming on here attacking the existence of God and have not given in evidence showing that He doesn???t exist???. And you throw the burden back on those whom you have attacked???.

                    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/04/2008 4:09:21 PM

                      "It doesn???t matter if you confirmed with those who have limited beliefs in in my so-called deity???."
                      It is only your OPINIUON that they have limited beliefs. You are in no position to make such an accusation.

                      " Is it a surprise to you when they have the same opinion as yourself?"
                      Actually I was very shocked that ALL of them (especially the ones who are religious, including fairly devout Christians and Jews) agreed with me that in this instance the affirmative claim is that there is irrefutable proof that God exists, and that from a purely scientific perspective the burden of proof lies solely with those who make said claim.


                      "The affirmative in this article is that atheist attacks those who believe in God and dismiss them as being silly???. "

                      Yo arre talking abut ONE (or a small nmumber of ) athesits, not ALL atheists. Neither I nor the overwhelming majority of atheists that I know (well over 100) make said statement. And many of them agree with me that there can be found great vale in religion whenit inspires those who believe to do good things.

                      "So the burden of proof lies on those who suggest a new theory of beliefs ??? not on the one whom they are attacking??? "

                      Not according to science. It is nto a new theory of beiefs. It is finally demanding that the existing paradigm be held to higher standards than it has been until recently.

                      "You and others are coming on here attacking the existence of God and have not given in evidence showing that He doesn???t exist???."

                      I am not attacking anyone. I am stating that I have not seen any scientifically valid or sustainable proof that said deity exists. And if that is the case, then any book attributed to him must also be man-made. It is nto an attaack. have alwasy said that anyone who belives is well within thier right to belive and they if thier belirf helps them then they should not stop believing. But that as long as they do not try to force their belierffs on me or US law and government then i have no problem with their beliefs.

                      "And you throw the burden back on those whom you have attacked???. "
                      That is bull. Since no one was attacked.

                • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/01/2008 7:01:27 PM

                  " find the foundation of ones belief is where they either stand strong or fall when challenged.... you are smarter than not to believe in HaShem..... I find that most people who say they don't believe have (1). unrealistic expectations of life (2). have been dissappointed in HaShem through loss of a love one (3). attempt to judge HaShem to justify themselves (meaning that they look at life and begin to ask questions of why does HaShem allow ....... etc) when the answer has already been given (4) they don't get beyond the point of WHY to the point of WHAT NOW! (5) Secretly they hope that there is no HaShem in order to justify their feelings of hopelssness because they have no hope without having HaShem in their life (just my opinion)...... Selah!"

                  None of what you said is vaild. I stand on the deault position. Sans valid scientific proof of something so important, there is no HaShem. If there is no HaSHem then the books about him cannot be written by him, and therefore are man-made. The theological aspects of them canb be dismissed. I have made this point to many well educated scientists, both atheist and beliefs as well as several theolgicans. ALL of them agreed that the burden of proof lies with those who claim existence AND that if one relies on scientific method that ONLY faith can justify beliving in HaShem. Also that faith is purely private and that all of your so-called reasons for no faith (as well as several others) are not the main reasons that most atheists do not believe.

                  You assumption that most atheists have feelings of hopelessness is wrong. You assume that without a deity that one cannot have hope. I wwould argue that almost all atheists that I have met have far more hope once they gave up thier belief in deity. That has been my experience. and the experince of hundreds of atheists that I know or have known in my life.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/02/2008 12:57:39 PM

                    Okay then since you are standing on the scientific aspect of proof that there is no HaShem then the burden of proof lies with you since you are making the bold claim that HaShem doesn???t exist outside of one???s faith or the bible..
                    Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.



                    Once again give me a valid reason or a step by step explanation of why you don???t believe and we will see if your opinion is base on knowledge or a lack there of??? so if there is no tangible evidence that has lead you to the conclusion that HaShem doesn???t exist then you are without merit and are fraudulent in you claim of HaShem???s non-existence???.

                    You assumption that most atheists have feelings of hopelessness is wrong. You assume that without a deity that one cannot have hope. I wwould argue that almost all atheists that I have met have far more hope once they gave up thier belief in deity. That has been my experience. and the experince of hundreds of atheists that I know or have known in my life.
                    If you are claim that you and other atheist have hope then you are taking up something that you disclaim for others ???Faith??? in believing something better will come about in this life???. So your faith should be far greater than mine since you have hope or faith in something that has given no evidence of coming true???. The real question is ??????What are you hoping for? So is your hope in vain or is it something that you have control over? If it is the latter then it is not hope at all???

                    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/03/2008 8:42:04 AM

                      "Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven."

                      You are wrong about this. As I have in the past. I have had many many sceintists (some fairly well-known) confrim my assertion that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and that regarding HaShem, the affirmative statement is that he exists and therefore the burden of proof lies solely with those who claim that he exists. And they have failed to do so in any valid scientific manner.

                    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/03/2008 8:39:03 AM

                      "Once again give me a valid reason or a step by step explanation of why you don???t believe and we will see if your opinion is base on knowledge or a lack there of??? so if there is no tangible evidence that has lead you to the conclusion that HaShem doesn???t exist then you are without merit and are fraudulent in you claim of HaShem???s non-existence???."

                      With all due respect, your opinion of the validity of why atheists do not believe has not worth to me. I have never said that you are not entitled to believe as you do. I have never said that you should change your beliefs. I have never asked you to prove HaShem's existence. Others may have but ask them, not me. I frankly feel no need to explain myself to you or anyone on a web board. I have had these conversations with skilled theologians (and they take far too much time and speace to adequately do here) and I am not in the habit of explaining myself to anonymous people. I have read your and other people's supposed proofs and they too are without merit from a scientific viewpoint.


                      You assumption that most atheists have feelings of hopelessness is wrong. You assume that without a deity that one cannot have hope. I wwould argue that almost all atheists that I have met have far more hope once they gave up thier belief in deity. That has been my experience. and the experince of hundreds of atheists that I know or have known in my life.

                      "If you are claim that you and other atheist have hope then you are taking up something that you disclaim for others ???Faith??? in believing something better will come about in this life???. So your faith should be far greater than mine since you have hope or faith in something that has given no evidence of coming true???. The real question is ??????What are you hoping for? So is your hope in vain or is it something that you have control over? If it is the latter then it is not hope at all???"

                      Hope and faith are not the same thing. Faith is tied to a belief in something from the past that may not be provable. I never said that it is bad or wrong for people to have faith. You are making the exact sme mistake that other religious folk have. That without a deity or without faith, that there can be no hope. The hope I speak of is that with education and work, that we can make the world a better place. It rests solely on humans to do. The idea that today and in the future we can make things better for even one person, help one person, or even on animal. That medicine will work to help a freind or that said friend if terminal dies peacefully. They are all hope, and have nothing to do with belief in a deity or faith. And it is not fiath in medicine. It is knowing that medicine has its limit, but that medical knowledge and technology increases throuhg human research and work every day. It is also knowing that the human mind has amazing healing powers of its own.

                • Posted By: spinozist @ 10/01/2008 12:52:50 PM

                  Here's the issue: what's at stake here is figuring out whether or not something actually exists (in this case, God). So, you'd agree with me in saying that your points (1)-(5) don't address this issue as they are more about the people who hold a certain belief, and don't affect whether or not something actually exists, right? So how do we go about figuring out whether or not something exists? If I were to tell you that magic leprechauns or undetectable yet very power fairies exist, you would quite rightly be skeptical. So, what I'm getting at, is that when it comes to questions of existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the existential claim. It would be ridiculous for me to think that other people have to prove that there are no magic fairies before they should deny that magic fairies exist. So, of course atheists don't have proof that God does not exist, but it's nearly impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

                  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/01/2008 3:00:15 PM

                    So how do we go about figuring out whether or not something exists? If I were to tell you that magic leprechauns or undetectable yet very power fairies exist, you would quite rightly be skeptical.

                    I would ask you to show me proof of their existence then I would refute their existence and let you examine my flaws or correct analysis of my study.

                    So, what I'm getting at, is that when it comes to questions of existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the existential claim.

                    Your actually wrong on assuming that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.. it is up to the person who disbelieves the person making the claim to show that (through scientific investigation) their belief is not valid. Now take into account that the vast majority of the earth believe in God, a god or their higher form of deity???. And those that don???t are in the minority??? so to say you don???t believe is in accordance of being abnormal in society??? and how one has come to this point is the question at stake??? either they have examined all the beliefs themselves and found the rest of society lacking common sense or they themselves lack the proof to dispel the beliefs of the majority and are living in denial??? to offer no proof of their non-belief in a deity is not a valid argument???.
                    For those who believe in God offer many proofs???. Intelligent design, astronomy, DNA, worldwide accounts of a massive flood, Calendar changes during the time of Christ, prophecy being fulfilled in the Old and New Testament, Bible being the most historical accurate data collected in the world

                    It would be ridiculous for me to think that other people have to prove that there are no magic fairies before they should deny that magic fairies exist.

                    Science doesn???t think that this is ridiculous even during the times of Moses when he went in and challenge the Pharaoh???s magicians??? the scientist (magi) in his times disclaim that some of the miracles saying that they could have been caused by natural acts of nature???. Yet when it came to others they had no explanation but to acknowledge it was the act of God???.

                    So, of course atheists don't have proof that God does not exist, but it's nearly impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

                    You have defeated yourself with this statement ???. Of course you don???t have proof and you cannot even justify your un-belief ???. It is possible to disprove the existence of things only thing you have to do is examine the evidence that is presented to you???. And you can say that the evidence did not provide proof need to claim the existence of such and such exist??? because of the following facts ???. Point A???. Point B???.. so you haven???t made any logical refutes concerning the existence of God but only illogical ramblings on why you cannot disprove the existence of God or refute the evidence of the existence of God???

                    • Posted By: spinozist @ 10/01/2008 4:49:28 PM

                      First, attacking the messenger is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the message; so let's try to cool it with personal characterizations and stick to the argument itself.
                      Second, I'll try to make the "burden or proof" point again: Firstly, you agree that if I told you that there were magical pixies, you would demand that I should present evidence; this is equivalent to recognizing that I have the burden of proof here. Otherwise, I can just say "well, you can't prove that these magic pixies don't exist." But of course, you don???t have to prove that magic pixies are fictional; for a claim that is this fantastical we recognize in our lives that we can (and should) withhold belief until sufficient evidence has been presented. Presumably you don???t believe in magic pixies, or Zeus, or Shiva, or the Tooth Fairy- and certainly you haven???t spent time ???proving??? that these things are fictional: rather it???s just that there is no good evidence to support their existence. So, if an existential claim is being made, the burden is on he who makes such a claim.

                      Next, and more importantly, it is nearly impossible to disprove any universal claim (e.g. there are magic pixies); this is just how science works: we don't "disprove" that phlogiston was extant, but instead we come to see that the evidence points in a different direction. Let me repeat that: science rarely ???disproves??? the existence of things. It???s a point of scientific principle: to prove that ???x??? does not exist, would require that we are capable of checking every corner of the universe- which of course we can???t do. But, even if there is no definitive proof that something does not exist, that in no way implies that disbelief is inappropriate.
                      You say that by ???examining the evidence??? we can ???disprove the existence??? of something. But how would you actually go about doing the disproving? Consider the claim: ???magic pixies exist.??? To literally disprove this claim, you would have to be able to look everywhere, using every method- which is of course not possible. So, you never going to disprove this claim, you???re just going to find more places where magic pixies aren???t. But of course, that???s no reason to believe in magic pixies.

                      Finally, the number of people who belief something is not relevant to establishing whether or not it is true. People may believe something because it is true, but widespread belief does not indicate that something is true. This point is pretty obvious: people used to think the earth was flat, or that the sun went around the earth- both widespread, both false.

                      So when I said that atheists don???t have ???proof??? that God doesn???t exist, I meant it in the same way that we don???t have proof that magic pixies don???t exist. In the same way that we don???t have proof that dragons, or Santa Claus, or elves or Thor or Ra doesn???t exist, atheists don???t have proof that God doesn???t exist. But

                      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/01/2008 6:04:14 PM

                        Are you referring to me saying that it is abnormal? Look up the word and then get back with me???. I didn???t use it in a negative sense???. Remember you jump into the middle of this conversation that I was having with Ghost???.

                        Second, I'll try to make the "burden or proof" point again: Firstly, you agree that if I told you that there were magical pixies, you would demand that I should present evidence; this is equivalent to recognizing that I have the burden of proof here. Otherwise, I can just say "well, you can't prove that these magic pixies don't exist." But of course, you don???t have to prove that magic pixies are fictional; for a claim that is this fantastical we recognize in our lives that we can (and should) withhold belief until sufficient evidence has been presented.

                        I asked you for proof so that I can examine the evidence to myself and not believe according to your imagination??? when I say that God exist I give you examples to investigate for yourself??? I???m not telling you to believe by faith but to examine the evidence and you are telling me to believe by faith without having evidence to support what you believe??? you would scream to the top of your lungs if a Christian would tell you to have faith in something that you don???t believe in and yet you are telling me to do what you cannot do yourself??? I simply asked you why do you believe in magical pixies and you haven???t said anything in regards to (experience, testimony, tangible evidence, or artifacts).
                        Belief???is the acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty???. So there lies your problem being that you don???t believe in the spiritual the certainty of what you hold to be true is tainted???.

                        Presumably you don???t believe in magic pixies, or Zeus, or Shiva, or the Tooth Fairy- and certainly you haven???t spent time ???proving??? that these things are fictional: rather it???s just that there is no good evidence to support their existence. So, if an existential claim is being made, the burden is on he who makes such a claim.
                        If I tell you to give me an inform background on each one of these ??? could you? Tooth Fairy??? come on easy to discard???. Your knowledge of what you believe should hold some value in the believability of the subject matter???. And what these characters claim is another way of examining their existence???. You have provide nothing in which to steer me in the direction to believe in their existence???.

                        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/01/2008 6:07:41 PM

                          There is a way to disprove universal claims by ensuring that universal laws go through the (laws of logic, laws of mathematics, laws of science, absolute moral laws and the three elements of The Nature of Laws) I will explain this later???.

                          You say that by ???examining the evidence??? we can ???disprove the existence??? of something. But how would you actually go about doing the disproving? Consider the claim: ???magic pixies exist.??? To literally disprove this claim, you would have to be able to look everywhere, using every method- which is of course not possible.
                          No I wouldn???t have to look everywhere I would only have to look where you claimed that they existed??? either in your mind, fables, folklores and the evidence of there existence would leave a trail of un-explainable occurrences, un-solved mysteries, and current practices in today???s society of worship???. Look up the word Pixie they are variously described in folklore and fiction ??? so your pint is mute on the pixie debate???

                          Finally, the number of people who belief something is not relevant to establishing whether or not it is true. People may believe something because it is true, but widespread belief does not indicate that something is true. This point is pretty obvious: people used to think the earth was flat, or that the sun went around the earth- both widespread, both false.

                          True that the number of people believing in something is not relevant???. Even the bible tells you that people will gather themselves to fight against God in the last days ???. Being willfully ignorant to the destruction of the earth by the flood???. Oh by the way there is evidence of a worldwide flood in every culture on earth???.

                          What you said about pixies doesn???t pertain to what is said about God being that the evidence for God is more overwhelming than the non-evidence of all other claims that you have made??? your rationalizing is illogical to say the least???. Just my opinion???..

                          • Posted By: spinozist @ 10/01/2008 7:00:40 PM

                            The only point I'm trying to establish is that the burden of proof for existential claims is on the person making the claim: I think you're almost willing to grant that, but let me just try one last time to see if I can't make it clearer. Example: I make the existential claim: "only Earth has intelligent life." The only way to "disprove" this claim is to find an example of intelligent life somewhere other than Earth. But failure to disprove something does not mean that it is epistemologically suspect to disbelieve it. Agreed?

                            So, my point in all this is that in discussions involving the existence of God, the burden of proof is on the person making such an existential claim. Now, these people may be able to meet that burden (with historical evidence, or logical argument, or whatever) but that doesn't change the fact that it is their burden to meet, and that the default epistemological stance is one of skepticism in these matters. One further implication of this is that it is now somewhat strange to think that an atheist needs to offer conclusive, evidence of God's non-existence. We don't expect anyone to have such evidence with regards to dragons or witches or Ra; rather, we recognize that the default stance in these matters is one of skepticism. Now of course, the atheist will have to pay heed to whatever arguments are offered by the person claiming that God exists, and the atheist will have to answer these arguments if possible. But the point remains: the burden of proof in this case (as in almost all cases) lies with the person making the existential claim, and not with the person denying the claim. Asking for evidence of something's non-existence doesn't even cross our minds when dealing with other fantastical claims: existence of witches, dragons, talking animals, a person who claims to have time-traveled, Ares, Horus- for all of these, the default stance is skepticism. But again, the only point I want to establish is that the burden is on the theist (whether or not they can meet that burden is for a different day).

                            • Posted By: bojack27 @ 10/02/2008 12:17:29 PM

                              The point that I???m making is that ???I??? didn???t ???First Claim??? that GOD exist???. So your argument isn???t with me but with God.

                              Burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

                              Remember that in this article it is the atheist is the one who is complaining and the burden of proof lies with him???Every Atheist argument is with God not those who believe in Him???

                              I believe that he exist and know that He is whom He says that he is??? now what I???m saying to you or what I???m asking to you is this. What amount of evidence or what evidence is acceptable to you to believe in the existence of God? If you cannot give me that answer then you are being bias towards God and no amount of evidence provided would suffice your acceptance of His existence???

                              Stay focus on the subject??? we are not talking about dragons or witches or Ra???. We are talking about the God of the bible??? we have been going back and forth over this subject and you still are missing the point??? You and other atheist are standing in opposition to the existence of God (of the Bible) making you the complainant???. So no matter how you spin this it is you and others who are in opposition towards the teaching of the bible and just consider them to be man-made and hold no relevance in the functions of society???. When I say you I???m including Ghost as well???

                              Now if we look at the burden of proof in a scientific manner then you would still be wrong since you are the one who is bringing a new theory without evidence to back of your claims???.

                              Science and other uses
                              Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/30/2008 3:00:02 PM

          "What is the purpose of suffering, evil, injustice?"
          There is no purpose for them. They simply exist. Because they have no purpose they are hard to fight when humans exhibit them. They do harm society and that is why they should be fought.

          As for the purpose of life. The purpose is to live it and hopefully learn something that we can pass on to future generations. Maybe as we live ....see the answer to the next part ofyour question...

          "In your view does all of these things go un-notice and we just fade out light a light bulb?"
          They (evil and injsutice) do not go un-noticed. WE notice them and WE try to fight them. That can be part of our lives and our living. I am not saying that they will ever go away, but our job is to fight the fight we are given. Maybe we can lessen them. Maybe we can educate enough people so that some injustices will cease. Maybe we caneducater enough people so that future generations (or if lucky our own) will eradicate one evil, one injustice then we have made a difference. But part of evil and injutice is very much part of us being a high-functioning animal. Most evil people are trying to be Alpha dog. They are trying to make themselves feel more important than everyone else. But because huamns have evovled into creatures that use tools in ways that other animals do not, (science, techinology, medicine and the like) it sometimes takes far more "creative" ways to be top dog. And THAT is where our concept of EVIL and INJUSTICE have developed. Humans do not just use brute physical strength to be top dog. We create gas chambers and torture chambers. We develop societal castes and make rules that make certain people "lessers". Unfortuantely religion has helped a lot with that, just as those who fight evil and injustice have used religion to help fight it.

          "Then your existence is futile .... much like an animal (non-human)."
          Not at all. Even living and loving family and friends makes life worthwhile and rewarding. And fighting evil and injustice (and we have stopped some injustices and some evils) makes it fulfilling. But one a more basic note, I reject the notion that other animals have futile lives. They build families and exhibit love and caring. And some even bond with us and become part of our families, both giving and receiving love and caring. Not at all futile.

          To paraphrase the ending line of the 1901 Robin Williams/Dustim Hoffman film "Hook" ..."Life is an adventure".

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/30/2008 5:17:49 PM

            If there is no purpose of those things and they simply exist then why make laws that try to eliminate them? And who gave mankind the morality to fight against them and say that they are wrong? What standard are they using to judge these things? Is it from experience or something that was design in the very make-up of mankind? To have no purpose is to simply just exist and is meaningless??? are you saying that life has no meaning?

            They (evil and injsutice) do not go un-noticed. WE notice them and WE try to fight them. That can be part of our lives and our living. I am not saying that they will ever go away, but our job is to fight the fight we are given. Maybe we can lessen them. Maybe we can educate enough people so that some injustices will cease. Maybe we caneducater enough people so that future generations (or if lucky our own) will eradicate one evil, one injustice then we have made a difference. But part of evil and injutice is very much part of us being a high-functioning animal. Most evil people are trying to be Alpha dog. They are trying to make themselves feel more important than everyone else. But because huamns have evovled into creatures that use tools in ways that other animals do not, (science, techinology, medicine and the like) it sometimes takes far more "creative" ways to be top dog. And THAT is where our concept of EVIL and INJUSTICE have developed. Humans do not just use brute physical strength to be top dog. We create gas chambers and torture chambers. We develop societal castes and make rules that make certain people "lessers". Unfortuantely religion has helped a lot with that, just as those who fight evil and injustice have used religion to help fight it.

            Evil is not physical it is a spirit and to fight a spirit in the natural is futile itself???. Evil will be only dealt with from one who is pure and that is Jesus the Christ???. Mankind will continue to become more evil and will event ways of doing evil??? and once this world is engulfed in sin (evil) and injustice then people will blame HaShem??? but they don???t even realize that this is the world that they asked for since they didn???t want anything to do with Him??? as far as religion??? James says that
            Jas.1
            [26] If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. [27] Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

            But one a more basic note, I reject the notion that other animals have futile lives. They build families and exhibit love and caring. And some even bond with us and become part of our families, both giving and receiving love and caring. Not at all futile.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse