Disproving the Existence of God

[onewheeldave]

Absolutely milquetoast. There are so many fallacies in the above nonsense that to respond to it would be like admitting that you accept onewheeldave's fallacious arguments. He keeps talking about 'rational believers', which is an oxymoron if ever I've heard one, without actually stating what his understanding of rational is.

This is the kind of 'poetic language' that Rowan Williams was using in his interview with Dawkins that I linked to earlier. I have a saying.....'theology, the art of making nonsense sound important whilst solving nothing'.

 

'Rational believers' is not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory words.

 

It's clearly possible to be a rational person (one who can think and debate rationally) who also believes in God.

[six45ive]

This seems to be a central tenet to Dawkins and many other atheists argument.

It is wrong.

The Greeks, Romans, Norse and Hindu all believe(d) in a pantheon of gods, none of which were omnipotent.

 

Clearly if you choose to define "God" as something that cannot possibly exist, then it should be easy to show that it does not.

 

You're obviously new to this thread and probably haven't read most of it but we're talking mainly about a theistic god.

 

You are right, I haven't. But theistic is not the same as omnipotent. The point still applies.

 

What point is that then?

[milquetoast1]

My dictionary does indeed have only the quote I posted earlier-

 

atheism is 'a belief that there is no God'

 

Really?

 

What publisher and edition?

 

It must be American, but if not I'll write to the editors.

 

Edit: Forget it the Collins: English Dictionary Definition has the incomplete definition.

[six45ive]

'Rational believers' is not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is a combination of contradictory words.

 

It's clearly possible to be a rational person (one who can think and debate rationally) who also believes in God.

 

Of course, but you were specifically talking about a rational believer (as opposed to a rational person that you've changed in your statement above) and in the context of using a rational line of thought to try and back up the belief in a god.

In that context a rational believer is an oxymoron because to follow the line of rationality can only lead to one outcome.....a disbelief in god.

[six45ive]

Well, my quote was-

> fallacies snipped <

 

This may give you some idea as to why some atheists are angry.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

[onewheeldave]

Really?

 

What publisher and edition?

 

It must be American, but if not I'll write to the editors.

 

Edit: Forget it the Collins: English Dictionary Definition has the incomplete definition.

 

Longman Pocket dictionary 1993, English, not American.

[onewheeldave]

Of course, but you were specifically talking about a rational believer (as opposed to a rational person that you've changed in your statement above) and in the context of using a rational line of thought to try and back up the belief in a god.

In that context a rational believer is an oxymoron because to follow the line of rationality can only lead to one outcome.....a disbelief in god.

 

I was talking about a religious believer yes- but certainly not in the context of using a rational line of thought to back up the belief in a God.

 

Although that depends on what you mean by 'back up a belief in God'- I wish some of you rationalist atheists would define your terms and phrases so they're not so ambiguous, it leads to a lot of confusion

 

If you mean using rational arguments to argue for the existence of God, then that is not what i meant, as as been made clear in my reply to the other poster who misunderstood that post.

 

The context was, a rational person who believes in God (a rational believer) who uses rational arguments, not to try and proove God exists, but to debate some of the issues that lie around that question- one of which could be using rational argument to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief (as I have covered in great detail in multiple previous posts).

 

So, in that context 'rational believer' is not an oxymoron

[six45ive]

The context was, a rational person who believes in God (a rational believer) who uses rational arguments, not to try and proove God exists, but to debate some of the issues that lie around that question- one of which could be using rational argument to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief.

 

So, in that context 'rational believer' is not an oxymoron

 

Well actually yes it is still an oxymoron because the above argument is clearly not rational so let me rewrite the above for you in a rational way.

 

'The context was, a rational person who believes in God who uses arguments, not to try and proove God exists, but to debate some of the issues that lie around that question- one of which could be using arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief.'

 

So this begs the question, what are the arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief?

[onewheeldave]

Well actually yes it is still an oxymoron because the above argument is clearly not rational so let me rewrite the above for you in a rational way.

 

'The context was, a rational person who believes in God who uses arguments, not to try and proove God exists, but to debate some of the issues that lie around that question- one of which could be using arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief.'

 

 

Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends purely on whether it contains contradictory elements. It doesn't, therefore it's not an oxymoron.

 

I'm unsure as to exactly what changes you've made to my argument to make it rational.

 

 

So this begs the question, what are the arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief?

 

Best thing is to read over my recent previous posts on this thread and the other current 'God thread' (I'll post a link to the other thread if you're not aware of it) as I've written several hundred words on some of those arguments- clearly there's no point me rewriting them when you can simply go over those posts.

 

If you dissagree with any of them, feel free to quote them here and I'll offer comment- I'd appreciate it, if, in doing so, you could just use the 'quote' function to post them as I actually wrote them, rather than altering them to fit you own ideas of what you think i should mean or trying to make them rational etc, etc

[evildrneil]

My bold.

It's not quite as simple as that. People use the terms fact and belief and opinion interchangeably, but they are all very different. A fact is indisputably the case – something no one can argue against. A belief is an acceptance that something is true or something exists. An opinion is a view or judgement formed about something that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge but simply on personal preference.

As for the link that you claim doesn't work I've just checked it and it's fine so please watch and let me know your opinion (as opposed to belief).

 

Some people do use them interchangably yes - but I specified a definition and used that definition so there shouldn't be any problem with semantic confusion.

 

OK opinions on the video:

 

1. I reject his notion of agnostic as to do with "knowledge" - he seems to have gnosis and epistemiology confused.

 

2. I don't believe that beliefs need any sort of validation - actions and facts require evidence and validation but not beliefs.

 

3. I do believe that to state "there is no god" is a position of faith as your making a statement of belief not of fact.

 

And isn't that just the perfect way to shut down conversation or criticism? "If you can't think like me then you can't possibly understand me", without realising that most scientists know exactly how religious people think which is why they make the arguments they do against theists and always come out on top leading the theist into the dark corner of desperation that the above statement is. That exact same excuse has been used for centuries by all kinds of charlatans desperate to hang onto their illusions of power and influence.....and then you wonder why so many atheists are angry.

 

I thinkit's perfectly accurate for a theist to state that an atheist will not understand how they think - and vice versa. You obviously had a lot of trouble understanding how people would pray to a non interventionist god but the do. It's by no means a "dark corner of desparation" but a fairly self evident fact I would have thought?

 

Further I seriously reject your conflation of scientist and atheist - I'm a scientist and in no way an atheist.

 

Until you read the opening post

 

Perhaps you should have used a more meaningfull title then?

 

You keep on talking of 'rational believers' and 'rational arguments [for the existence of some sort of god]'. I would be intrigued to see one, it would be a first for me.

 

I would have said that a rational believer (or atheist) is one who says "I believe X but I know that I can not prove it's veracity but it works for me so I'm happy in that belief" where an irrational beleiver (or atheist) is one who will state a belief as hard fact.

 

Burden of proof is on you bro!

 

Surely the burden of proof lies with whoever makes a claim of obsolute fact?