Disproving the Existence of God

[redwhine]

The first four are about idol worship such as money and power etc. Some tribes still sacrifice their children, you wouldn't seriously want people to do that would you which is what idol worship is. The first four commandments are actually very good advise.

 

The last one is about coveting your neighbours possessions which today would be his Porsche or his wife.

 

You have been deceived by Dawkins and what is worse you have allowed yourself to be deceived and you enjoy the deception.

...and you have been deceived by satan into thinking he is god, and you enjoy the deception.

 

(It's very easy to make unsubtantiated statements, Grahame, is it not?)

[Grahame]

...and you have been deceived by satan into thinking he is god, and you enjoy the deception.

 

(It's very easy to make unsubtantiated statements, Grahame, is it not?)

 

I said, "You have been deceived by Dawkins and what is worse you have allowed yourself to be deceived and you enjoy the deception."

 

There is nothing unsubstantiated about it. You misquote me (see above) and you plainly do not understand the Ten Commandments which you deceitfully pass off as something else.

 

 

[redwhine]

The first four are about idol worship such as money and power etc. Some tribes still sacrifice their children, you wouldn't seriously want people to do that would you which is what idol worship is. The first four commandments are actually very good advise.

 

The last one is about coveting your neighbours possessions which today would be his Porsche or his wife.

 

You have been deceived by Dawkins and what is worse you have allowed yourself to be deceived and you enjoy the deception.

 

...and you have been deceived by satan into thinking he is god, and you enjoy the deception.

 

(It's very easy to make unsubtantiated statements, Grahame, is it not?)

 

I said, "You have been deceived by Dawkins and what is worse you have allowed yourself to be deceived and you enjoy the deception."

 

There is nothing unsubstantiated about it. You misquote me (see above)...

Where's the misquote, Grahame? The posts are there for all to see. Apologise and retract the slur. (I'll not hold my breath; I'm still waiting to hear how the girls that Huntley murdered were to blame.)

 

And your allegation is unsubstantiated. Are you able to provide evidence that I have been deceived by Dawkins, have allowed myself to be deceived by Dawkins, and that I enjoy such? If so, then do so. Until you do, it wil remain unsubstantiated.

 

There's as much evidence that you have been deceived by the devil, allowed yourself to be, and enjoy it.

 

...and you plainly do not understand the Ten Commandments which you deceitfully pass off as something else.

Because my interpretation is not the same as yours? Perhaps it's you that does not understand them, and deceitfully pass them off as something else.

[Grahame]

Where's the misquote, Grahame? The posts are there for all to see. Apologise and retract the slur. (I'll not hold my breath; I'm still waiting to hear how the girls that Huntley murdered were to blame.)

 

And your allegation is unsubstantiated. Are you able to provide evidence that I have been deceived by Dawkins, have allowed myself to be deceived by Dawkins, and that I enjoy such? If so, then do so. Until you do, it wil remain unsubstantiated.

 

There's as much evidence that you have been deceived by the devil, allowed yourself to be, and enjoy it.

 

 

Because my interpretation is not the same as yours? Perhaps it's you that does not understand them, and deceitfully pass them off as something else.

 

 

Here you are misquoting me. And I require an apology from you.

 

The first four are about idol worship such as money and power etc. Some tribes still sacrifice their children, you wouldn't seriously want people to do that would you which is what idol worship is. The first four commandments are actually very good advise.

 

The last one is about coveting your neighbours possessions which today would be his Porsche or his wife.

 

You have been deceived by Dawkins and what is worse you have allowed yourself to be deceived and you enjoy the deception.

 

 

...and you have been deceived by satan into thinking he is god, and you enjoy the deception.

 

(It's very easy to make unsubtantiated statements, Grahame, is it not?)

[Hairyloon]

They say that Dawkins' main gripe with religion is that the post of God is already taken.

[Smithster]

Oh dear Grahame. We try to help you out, really we do, but still you cannot see the utter hypocrisy in everything you project towards atheism.

 

I have read a bit of Dawkins, and I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what he puts forward because he uses reasoning and logic to arrive at his conclusions. Never does he use soundbites at all. For the ultimate masterclass in soundbites and one-liners, read the bible. This surely is the definitive collection of cryptic messages that can be interpreted in a hundred different ways but can never be questioned. This is exactly the opposite of what Dawkins tries to argue.

 

To claim that anyone who has read and agreed with Dawkins has been deceived and enjoys being deceived, is possibly the most moronic thing I have ever seen you post. How can you possibly throw that label at atheists while completely ignoring the obviousness of the 'deception' of the bible and the institutions which claim to uphold its values? It reminds me of something that was sent to me at work last week...

 

http://i.imgur.com/6dVVh.png

 

The hypocrisy and contradiction of those people 'who have allowed themselves to be deceived and enjoy the deception' by the bible really does know no limits.

[blanco]

The title of the thread is "Disproving the Existence of God".

 

Since god is a crazy, fungible and fluid (annoyingly) concept, it isnt going to be easy to disprove it. Only when we know everything about everything, everywhere, will we be able to prove there is no room for god in the universe, except in some people's imagination. Until that time we should apply more fundamental logic concepts, that we must necessarily apply to all other aspects of our life to prosper: (not my own words)

 

Philosophic burden of proof

The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.

 

When unnecessary

For claims outside the realm of logical possibility, especially within the realm of debate, the burden of proof need not be invoked. If a claim contains an absurd or illogical concept such as the claim of a square circle, the entire claim can be dismissed on the grounds of logical incoherence without any need to invoke burden of proof.

 

The fallacy of argument from ignorance

The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion. Russell's teapot is a response to this fallacy.

 

 

Instead of asking if god exists, we should ask why otherwise normal people believe god exists.

[blanco]

Love the link Smithster. I lol'ed too

[ZR600]

The trajectory of this thread rather proves my point- it's degenerated into people throwing insults at each other. You're far more likely to have a reasoned debate face to face. People would at least realise when sitting down with someone that the human being facing them has genuine beliefs, concerns, or opinions, regardless of if they are right or wrong.

 

For example

To most Christians, the bible is like a software agreement, they don't actually read it they just scroll to the bottom and click 'I agree'.

makes no sense to me. It certainly doesn't apply to me and all the Christians that I know, so I don'y know what that statement is based upon, if not simple prejudice or misunderstanding. Most of us came to faith after wrestling with the idea for many years. We continue to question our faith and the Bible, not to denigrate it, but to get to grips with the underlying meanings and principles. To misquote C.S.Lewis, if Christianity is wrong, I certainly want to know what the truth is, but ever since I came to believe in the existence of God, no one has offered me an alternative that makes sense.

[sccsux]

You mean when people read books written by Dawkins

 

I've never read anything by him.

 

The last one is about coveting your neighbours possessions which today would be his Porsche or his wife.

 

So a wife is a possession is she?

 

Hmmm... Glad I'm a little more open minded in my approach to life.

 

Here you are misquoting me. And I require an apology from you.

 

That's not a misquote you plank; it's a re-interpretation of your quote (something you have done in the past, so we - yet again - see your hipocrisy shine through). At no point does redwhine say your said such things.