gmw1082 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I just finished watching this on YouTube and thank you for making this video. I have recently realized my own atheist beliefs but have been reluctant to discard much of what I learned from the church. This video helped me understand why I was reluctant to throw away those values. 1
A4E Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Somewhat very unrelated, sorry, but I feel I have to share my thoughts. Netanyahu was addressed in a positive manner around the hour mark. This was disgusting to me, because I watched most of his speech, when he was invited by the US government to speak, which is another reason he is not to be trusted when he is allowed to speak in a very corrupt government. In his speech it was all about how Israel is a big victim and that all the other countries near Israel are bad, and that we need to be aggressive towards all the bad countries near Israel and to not give them any credibility. Basically preemptive warmongering. Also he was babbling on about a nuclear agreement I think, which is meaningless, since there is no real evidence nukes even exist. 2 2
Libertus Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 "Atheist beliefs" - there is no such thing. Atheism means you don't believe in a god. Every belief you hold, that would be the basis for any lashing out is your own problem and has nothing to do with your or anyone else's atheism.
Troubador Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Is there a difference between "I do not believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."?
shirgall Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Is there a difference between "I do not believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."? Substantial difference, pun intended.
J. D. Stembal Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Is there a difference between "I do not believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."? You can believe anything you would like, but the statement, "There is no God," is not an opinion; it's an empirical fact. As Stefan points out, it's like saying, "I believe 2+2=4." This statement makes no sense because math is not an opinion. Deep down inside, everyone knows from birth there is no such thing as a higher power, or a consciousness without matter. Children have to be traumatized by their parents from a very early age in order to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and other nonsense such as "Voting is a civic duty."
neeeel Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 You can believe anything you want, but the statement, "There is no God," is not an opinion, it's an empirical fact. No it isnt That is, it has never been proven, and, as far as I am aware, it is impossible for anyone to prove that there is no god. So therefore it cant be an empirical fact. Note, this does not mean I believe in god, just pointing out that its not a fact in any way.
shirgall Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 No it isnt That is, it has never been proven, and, as far as I am aware, it is impossible for anyone to prove that there is no god. So therefore it cant be an empirical fact. Note, this does not mean I believe in god, just pointing out that its not a fact in any way. It really depends on how "God" is defined. Most definitions of "God" (certainly all of the ones I've encountered) produce logical contradictions, similar to the idea of asserting "2+2=5". Therefore they cannot exist. That is the fact being referred to. 1
J. D. Stembal Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Note, this does not mean I believe in god, just pointing out that its not a fact in any way. Regardless of what you may accept based on the evidence, "There is no God," is a factual statement. Saying "I believe there is no God," is framing a factual statement as an opinion because beliefs are, by definition, matters of personal opinion. "Chocolate is an ice cream flavor." (Fact.) "I believe chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla." (Opinion.) If the statement, "There is a god," is impossible to prove, it self-detonates as a statement of fact and is automatically disproved. Since the affirmative cannot ever be proven to be true, "There is no god," is true by default. You can actually disprove the existence of God. I've posted my argument in several threads. I can link you to it if you wish.
jpahmad Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 It really depends on how "God" is defined. Most definitions of "God" (certainly all of the ones I've encountered) produce logical contradictions, similar to the idea of asserting "2+2=5". Therefore they cannot exist. That is the fact being referred to. right on Shirgall
shirgall Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 I would like to see your dis-proof of god, yes. At the risk of committing what Stef considers a "dick move" please provide us a complete definition of God, as you see it. For bonus points, define any terms that you use with the simplest complete definitions you can.
neeeel Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 At the risk of committing what Stef considers a "dick move" please provide us a complete definition of God, as you see it. For bonus points, define any terms that you use with the simplest complete definitions you can. Im not sure thats needed. JD claimed he could disprove god
Libertus Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 "Disprove X, but my definition of X is a secret." That's why it's important to define the term, first. I could define god as a square circle, which is a contradiction in itself - and direct contradictions don't exist. The theist will then try to attack the definition, but since he has not provided his own definition, that attack should be rejected immediately until he does. Until the theist has provided a definition, he is not part of the conversation. He has not even sat down at the table.
J. D. Stembal Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Im not sure thats needed. JD claimed he could disprove god The logic is not much different than what Stefan offers in his recorded debate on Atheism vs. Agnosticism, but I put my own touches on it and made it as concise as I could for easy digestion. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42309-what-would-convince-me-that-god-exists/#entry387688 The biblical definition of "God" cannot not logically exist because the very definition is self-detonating in every respect. God is described as a consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and ethereal. The universe is made up of matter, which has mass and volume, so God cannot be ethereal if we are to prove that he exists empirically. He can never be detected. If God existed before the universe began (LET THERE BE STUFF!), thus creating the universe, he cannot be part of the universe, by definition. He existed before anything could possibly exist. See point one. Putting point one and two aside, if we assume God really does exist in the universe with all the stuff, we have to deal with the paradox of omnipotence. Can an all-powerful deity create an impossible task, like creating a mountain that he cannot erode? If so, then he's not really omnipotent. If not, then again, he's not infinitely powerful. Omniscience, or all-knowing, is also a self-detonating concept and cannot be applied to any consciousness. For example, if God knew everything, he would also be aware of ignorance. To be aware of ignorance, you have to admit there are limits to your knowledge. Therefore, God cannot know everything and is not omniscient. In summary, if you can't apply logic, physics, or any rational definition to God, he is synonymous with non-existence. Therefore, no one can ever objectively prove God exists. No possibility of God is the default position. Believe me when I say, "Definitions are important." Indeed, Bacon is real. I have some in my freezer! (Kneels before freezer.)
Recommended Posts