Disproving the Existence of God

[flamingjimmy]

in the context of 'Religion is just as useless when it comes to spiritual truth, considering that no such a thing exists."

 

the burden of proof is on me if I wish to claim spiritual truths exist, and on you if you wish to claim they don't.

Well no, I don't have to and cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof goes the other way.

 

As your quote above is in reply to my

 

' Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post

Part of the problem is that you insist on interpreting what people say to fit with your preconceptions.

 

For example, you happily add bits into my quote which I did not say, one of which is your [for the existence of some sort of God].

 

I'm a bit confused- I pointed out that you added a bit to what i actually said and, in doing so, seemed to be thinking I was saying something that, in reality, I wasn't

I'm sorry, I assumed that you were on topic, because assuming anything else didn't make any sense in context, and since you still haven't clarified what you meant, just moaned at me for not getting it, I'm left wondering if you're not just trolling me.

 

If you weren't referring to 'rational arguments [for the existence of some sort of god]'. then what were the "rational arguments" that you were referring to for? and what do they have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

Fundamentalist atheists would no doubt like it if rational believers focused on the issue of whether God's existence can, or can not, be proven.

Firstly, 'fundamentalist atheists' lol!

Secondly of course atheists mostly focus on arguments for and against the existence of god (when discussing the existence of god), erm, isn't that kind of the whole point.

 

 

But, where many rationalist believers are concerned, that is not important, to them, their relationship to their God is of a nature to which proof is irrelevant.

Ok, so those people are completely irrelevant to this thread. And this thread is irrelevant to them.

 

 

As above- a rational believer is unlikely to enter into the game of proving their God, there's no point to it.

 

A proof of God's existence is about as likely as a proof of God's non-existence i.e. it's not going to happen.

To be honest it sounds like you're in the wrong thread, there's one running right now in general discussions that's about exactly this. The question of is there any point to proving the existence of god is a big one and could wind up taking over this thread which would be a shame, because the other thread is kind of specifically about that.

 

If you're still fixated on rationalist proof's for God's existence, perhaps you could put forward some possibilites of what would count, in your opinion, as evidence or proof for God's existence?

"Part of the problem is that you insist on interpreting what people say to fit with your preconceptions."

 

I haven't asked for proof of god's existence, so I don't see where you got that from, either you should heed your own words or you are deliberately strawmanning me.

 

I have said that I would be intrigued to see a 'rational argument' for the existence of god, which is very different to asking for proof. I was under the impression that you knew of such an argument but apparently I was wrong about that, although I still think given the context of your words and the thread it is in that it was a reasonable, even rational;) assumption.

 

Also, I'm not a big fan of how you keep on implying that I have mild psychological disorders, it's not very gentlemanly. Leave it to my doctor to tell me what I'm obsessed with and what I'm fixated on, I don't need an armchair diagnosis from someone I've never met.

[onewheeldave]

This thread ranges over many issues, so i'll decide if I'm in the right thread

 

If you recall, I came into this thread when someone posted a link to some atheist scientist moaning about religious believers which, IMO, contained numerous dubious statements, one of which was that all believers are basically irrational.

 

To which i explained that some believers are rational and could discourse rationally about the issues surrounding God and the current atheist attacks on religious belief.

 

We do seem to have established, however, that you are interested in seeing a rational argument for the existence of God, and, that the rational arguments I was talking about earlier, are not arguments for the existence of God. So, i guess we can leave it at that.

[*_ash_*]

This for me is the basic psychological dynamic that matters beyond all else. 'Know thyself'. Develop awareness. Face your shadow. Accept that your failings exist rather than denying them with horror. What we shut away in the basement grows rancid and bursts out in monstrous form. If we refuse to acknowledge what we fear and despise in ourselves we see it in others and fear and despise them instead and act accordingly. The outer world mirrors our inner state.

 

I don't actually care if anyone personally believes in a god or not, what matters is whether they understand and practice self awareness to deflate their ego and demons and lessen their distorting filters. That, in a nutshell, is the effective point of any spiritual or philosophical habit. But so many people miss the point.

 

This runs counter to the self-responsibility and awareness I've just mentioned, and is the complete opposite of what works. Whether it's Jesus or a love object or a drug or whatever, expecting or relying on an outside force to take away the bad stuff doesn't work. Only honest inventory within can do that, whether or not you do the external stuff in addition. They might help with the process, but they're not a replacement for it.

What a great post. I'd expect Karis to get it, I got it, and I thought that Grahame wouldn't. However, the first bold, if was being an excuser, I would say that some people aren't aware of the point, rather than don't understand or miss the point. Someone who is aware, but blindly avoiding the truth fits your argument (I'm not meaning you Grahame btw, before you attack my post as 'atheist ideology').

 

Second bold - wise, I agree. I don't believe that wisdom comes from a book, so god or not isn't important.

 

And a few posts later, this...

I don't think you can psychoanalyse yourself. I don't think it is possible to be objective or to see ourselves as others see us. We are too closely involved and cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

I totally disagree. This sounds like a cop out for an intelligent person, or alternatively, a person of emotional or functional immaturity.

You mentioned atheists again in your answer. God or not doesn't matter to this part of the debate - (it seems like there are a few different convos going on here at the mo )

You don't get what it is I'm talking about. To be honest I wasn't expecting you to.

 

The places and people I admire the most have greatly valued the cultivation of self awareness as the best protection against the negative side effects of human nature. I have found that many of the people in this part of the world, who I've mentioned it to, just don't know what self awareness means. they literally don't understand it as a concept. And sadly it shows.

 

I'd say the same again, I would say that some people aren't aware, rather than don't understand or miss the point.

 

Grahame isn't stupid. Which is why he frustrates me.

[*_ash_*]

This thread ranges over many issues, so i'll decide if I'm in the right thread

 

 

I mentioned this in my last post. It seems to be going in all directions now.

[Grahame]

Exactly right. Various religions have been peddling the idea that evil is an outside force which people either take on or reject for centuries now and it hasn't led to an improvement in huiman happiness or behaviour one iota, because not only is iot wrong, but it actually leads people away from being able to help themselves.

 

No, evil is within the heart and mind. If it was outside of you people would walk on by and ignore it, but it is an inner driving force and because it is a part of you it is accepted by you.

[Grahame]

What a great post. I'd expect Karis to get it, I got it, and I thought that Grahame wouldn't. However, the first bold, if was being an excuser, I would say that some people aren't aware of the point, rather than don't understand or miss the point. Someone who is aware, but blindly avoiding the truth fits your argument (I'm not meaning you Grahame btw, before you attack my post as 'atheist ideology').

 

Second bold - wise, I agree. I don't believe that wisdom comes from a book, so god or not isn't important.

 

And a few posts later, this...

 

 

I totally disagree. This sounds like a cop out for an intelligent person, or alternatively, a person of emotional or functional immaturity.

You mentioned atheists again in your answer. God or not doesn't matter to this part of the debate - (it seems like there are a few different convos going on here at the mo )

 

 

I'd say the same again, I would say that some people aren't aware, rather than don't understand or miss the point.

 

Grahame isn't stupid. Which is why he frustrates me.

 

Ash, I am an outward looking, giving, generous person who is interested in the happiness and welfare of other people who are more important to me than I am to myself.

 

The line of thinking you and others are taking reminds me of someone who is selfish, self centred, introverted, and only interested in themselves. This is the exact opposite of Christianity. My apologies if I misunderstand the meaning of self-awareness but "self" is an anathema to me and I hate it. To my mind love of 'self' and putting self first is responsible for most of the troubles in the world.

 

 

[quisquose]

"Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant." - 80% of Danes are members of the Danish National Church and 71% of Swedes are members of the Church of Sweden - how is that a low belief in god!?

Just thought I would pop in to pull you up on this one. I proclaim myself to be an atheist, and yet I ticked the Xtian box on the 2001 census, I was baptised into the Christian faith and I was confirmed. Am I a Christian then?

 

72% of people ticked the Xtian box on the 2001 census, and this figure is often used when churches want to justify certain privileges. (It is never quoted when churches want to claim they are being persecuted of course.) By your logic the churches must be heaving with people every Sunday ... no wonder Sainsburys is so quiet.

 

It is well known that the Scandinavian countries have the lowest religiosity of all the western countries, and producing membership figures to the state religions is meaningless. In fact I can't really believe you didn't know that when you posted your 'evidence'. The reality is that most people in Denmark and Sweden are non-religious to the point that they just don't give a toss. They don't even give a toss about the fact that they are 'members' of a church which is so liberal it might as well re-brand itself as a humanist society. I know this from speaking to people from those countries, but you don't have to take my word for it.

 

http://www.kriswager.blogspot.com/2009/03/religion-in-denmark-and-sweden.html

[redwhine]

You say that from a position of not knowing God but perhaps if you became a Christian and through prayer and Bible study you sought to know God and to seek his will then you might think differently?

 

 

wholely babble

[redwhine]

Who would look to an atheist for the "truth" when they admit they have no knowledge (are ignorant) of God.

That's a statement. (No question mark.)

 

Are you saying that Dr. Who would look to an atheist (...etc.), or that another person called Who, or the World Health Organisation is doing so?

[mj.scuba]

I heard this morning one of the freed Chilean miners saying how their belief in God had helped them. Now you might think if teh will of God can get them out, then the will of God got them there in the first place. My point is, if this guy after being stock in a hole 2000m under ground for two months still has faith in God, what purpose does trying to disprove the existance of God serve? And since it is something held by the person within them, can it ever be "disproved" anyway?