You won't find God in the dictionary.

Homepage Forums Atheism You won't find God in the dictionary.

This topic contains 171 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 1 year, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 172 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #27365

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Glen

    It is you who are claiming you can prove the existence of god.

    Um….no. That’s not at ALL what I said. You continue to twist around my words

     

    It is not up to me to disprove your claim. The burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim .

    I backed up my claim with evidence. Where is yours?

     

    “Now YOU’RE the one talking about “PROOF.” I challenge you to skim my words and see if there is ANY claim ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I say that claims to have “Proof” for anything”

    Now you’re being disingenuous.

    Go back and read exactly what I said. Then come back and tell me I’m being disingenuous.

    #27366

    Ivy
    Participant

    @robert

    I agree. I don’t know. I am totally agnostic about gods and I am a practical atheist concerning all particular and specific god beliefs. Based on what you said perhaps you are not so different?

    I think I’m probably really different LOL… I go to church on Sunday. I use the Bible as a teaching tool for my son, and the church as a place to socialize and meet new people. It has been tremendously helpful for me and my son in both of our recovery.

    Whether or not it’s “true” (Whatever that means) I have no idea. But I do know that it’s not nothing. I tried living like an atheist and it just didn’t work for me. It was too lonely. And I had no context for explaining difficult things to my son. Really difficult things. So I don’t really label myself. I can’t really say I’m not a Christian. But then I can’t really say that I am. I’m just a mom trying to raise her kid right. I don’t say this lightly…..but my son has psychopathic tendencies. He has exhibited an ongoing pattern of becoming violent towards other people, and becoming a danger to himself and others. He is in a school that is a very highly restrictive environment. The only thing above what he has currently would be institutionalization. Being involved in church has been incredibly useful in helping him integrate back into normal society. I don’t know what I would have done without the support of my church and all the love that they have shown him. And me. Almost 2 years ago my son was hospitalized twice back to back for mental health reasons. We have both come along way since then. And I can honestly tell you a lot of it has to do with our involvement in church. We pray out loud every night before bed. I have seen that exercise greatly help my son. It has helped him get through some very difficult times. It has reduced his anxiety with nothing else could. It has helped him become more compassionate and think of others….so no….I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I’m in an agnostic. Am I a Christian? I don’t know. I’m just a mom.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Ivy.
    #27368

    Davis
    Moderator

    Raping children and torturing animals provide no benefit to man kind. If anything they are total detriments to reproduction. A raped girl may be less emotionally equipped to raise her children. The later guilt that comes from torturing animals is toxic and can also possibly lead to pointless torturing of other humans (not in respect of dominating another tribe but sick perverse pleasures). Addictions to gambling or substances do absolutely not promote survival. It’s toxic, can bring economic instability and early death. These qualities are found everywhere. Pervasive. They are the bipoducts or even random results of otherwise useful (or not even useful) emergent traits through natural selection. Agression and defending yourself and taking resources from others is useful to surviving and passing on genes. Obviously the same with sex. Raping children and torturing animals are bipoducts of these emergent traits. They are not helpful yet humanity kept replicating their genes despite this (because the accumulative benefits of other forces allowed it). So is religion. It is the bipoduct of communities having shared world views (useful) shared moral codes (useful) and shared expansions of things that cannoyet be expained (useful) and invented narratives (useful). The supernatural unchanging dogmatic toxicity of religion is a bipoduct of it. We survived despite having difficult to erase religious rituals that required no consuming a well available animal, burning albinos as witches, halting innovation or ideas against dogma. A shared world view? Very useful. It’s even necesary amongst intelligent social animals. Dogmatic pan-generational sky God worship is a toxic bipoduct of this. Just because a feature is prvasive dosnt make it an advantage to human evolution (mental problems, the appendix, pycopathy, genocide, suicide, child rape, our ability to easily choke, addictions etc.). All toxic and unecesary bipoducts of other advantages and even useless randomness (surviving despite the disadvantage). And so is religion. A toxic bipoduct. The link between religion and evolutionary advantage is highly theoretical/speculative and the evidence is very weak, ignoring alternative explanations and making tons of assumptions. They have a LOT more work to do before their claim is a confident one.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Davis.
    #27370

    Davis
    Moderator

    With respect Ivy, you ‘know’ no such thing. I accept that you have that belief. Making such a claim means you have burden of proof. Believe what you like ,by all means, but expect to be challenged if you make truth claims.

    That’s asking too much of many people. First they engage with reason and evidence when thier arguments can stand upto scrutiny but becomes evasive post modern “there is no truth” and not defining things when their ability to support their claims are wanting or impossible. Our famed Jordan Peterson is a professional at this and a lot of young students copy this charlatan bullshit artist. “Why should I give evidence for a claim I just made. Prove I’m wrong” is the typical intellectual fraud that comes along with it. I wish they would pick a mode and stick to it. Even if they went the postmodernist route consistently I could respect them. But they want to eat their cakes yet still have leftovers.

    #27371

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Simon, Dawkins book is not a guide to anything.

    But this is a valid criticism of atheism.  It doesn’t say a lot about anything, and if it is to criticise religion, it kind of does have a duty to supply an alternative.

    #27372

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    “Why should I give evidence for a claim I just made. Prove I’m wrong”

    You have to admit, this is the standard atheist line of argument.  “The burden of proof is on you”.  After a while, it doesn’t wash.

    #27373

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    I don’t even know where to start. First of all: That laundry list of “horrible things” (I’m guessing that you blame religion for? I’m not sure but that’s the standard practice around here: (bad shit happening = it’s because of religion) Everything you listed has to be examined individually if you want to have any sort of intelligent discussion about it. I’ll provide two examples. Child rape? That’s been happening WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY before we were able to write (hence way before ANY book like the Bible was even written.

    And why did you bring up addictions in your list? Were you just trying to prove a point that random loosely related shit that happens isn’t something that aids human survival? Am I understanding that correctly?

    You (generic you) always say the “burden of proof” in “onus” But get utterly FAIL (epic fail) to even consider any evidence that is provided. That ABSOLUTELY is another reason I find that argument completely dishonest. You “say” that you aren’t trying to duck and evade the actual discussion….but not one person I’m betting even READ the source I provided. Same with other discussions I’ve been engaged in. So….we go around in this circle. Over. And over. It has me wondering if YOU might be a little scared that YOU might be wrong.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Ivy.
    #27375

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    Prove I’m wrong” is the typical intellectual fraud that comes along with it.

    Are you passive aggressively calling me a fraud?

    What did you think of my article Davis?

    #27376

    Davis
    Moderator

    Simon at this point you should be able to tell the difference between making a positive claim and providing the bloody evidence… vs. refuting a claim others make. Simply pointing out there is no evidence is enough for the doubter. If you still don’t get it then we can illustrate it this way.

    If Ivy comes along and claims Santa Claus is actually real…our answer is: where is the proof. If the response is “there’s tons of proof now prove me wrong” the reasonable response is “show us your evidence or stop wasting my time”. The burden is all on her. Here we are minding our business with no position at all on a real Santa Claus and someone comes along and puts it out there that Santa is real…I don’t have to do jack shit. Evidence of Santa’s existence please.

    However if I make the claim “we have no reason to believe Santa is real” I don’t need to do anything more if I’ve properly refuted claims the actual Santa believer made (either pointing out no evidence, fallacies or flaws).

    We atheists don’t have to provide evidence God isn’t real any more than we have to provide evidence that an invisible unicorn isn’t real. We are responding to crazy people making a truth claim about something absurd. They started it. We take a negative position. The burden off proof lies entirely on the person making the claim…not those who don’t believe it because of a lack of evidence. Do you finally get this now? Should I try to explain this again in another way?

    #27377

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    If Ivy comes along and claims Santa Claus is actually real…our answer is: where is the proof. If the response is “there’s tons of proof now prove me wrong” the reasonable response is “show us your evidence or stop wasting my time”.

    Wow. More passive aggressive ducking and evading my ACTUAL point and ACTUAL words.

    What did you think about my article Davis? And what I ACTUALLY said. Not what you imagined I said…or can you read?

    #27378

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    If you don’t start addressing the actual points that I making based on my actual words instead of this passive aggressive bullshit, I’m going to assume you either have a problem with reading comprehension, or you’re not really serious about having this conversation you just want to make me look stupid. Either way it’s not gonna work and I’m gonna call you out on your bullshit.

    #27379

    Ivy
    Participant

    @davis

    And you continue to prove my point by the way… You claim that the burden of proof is on us… But when even a sliver of an idea the points in the direction that you disagree with your duck evade, mock, twist around words, and NEVER actually address the real points being made. That tells me you’ve made up your mind and nobody’s going to change it. So when you try to say that you’re really open-minded and all about critical thinking and logic… That’s complete bullshit too. Just as close minded as a brainwashed cult follower. You are no different.

    #27381

    As I said, the god of their belief is not the god of their argument.

    #27382

    Ivy
    Participant

    As I said, the god of their belief is not the god of their argument.

    What does that mean?

    Are those cute little phrases all you’ve got?

     

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by  Ivy.
    #27384

    You earlier stated that you did not know what or who God is. You then said you “knew that there was nothing” which is a knowledge based claim. You automatically put the onus of proof upon yourself by doing so.

    Then you go on to explain how beneficial religion is in your life. I have no problem with that in itself. The social side of it has advantages for people and strong community bonds can be formed that help everyone. There are plenty of people who just “believe in belief” (is that cute enough for you :-)) who attend only for the social interactions and who gain from the ritual aspects of religion while only paying lip-service to the faith based beliefs.

    None of that provides evidence or justification for the existence of or the belief in a deity.

    You seem to have a vague concept of what your God might be but you are arguing for the benefits of religion in your life.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 172 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.