Quote:
Originally Posted by 27AllIn
I would claim that god doesn't exist because there's no evidence for one. You might say "but a painting requires an artist", yet this argument brings up the question of "who created god?".
Fine there's a minuscule chance that god exists, around the probability of us living in the matrix, or there being a flying spaghetti monster. So what if there's a chance that god exists? That doesn't lend you any more credibility than a crazy homeless man ranting that he was anal probed by aliens.
I would claim the same. Maybe you've not seen my other posts but I'm an atheist as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 27AllIn
Let me ask you a question blackchilli. I was raised without religion, I didn't even understand what religion was despite celebrating christmas and easter as a child. I came out as a non-religious in the end. Were you bought up as a Christian? Don't you think that being raised in a Christian household had something to do with what you believe in as an adult, and if you were raised in a household that worshiped a different religion, then that's what you would believe in? Our child brains mold into what we are taught.
Raised a Muslim, became a Christian and then I became an atheist at 12-13 through my own decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Personally I have no problems stating God does not exist, I find it problematic to state god does not exist. This to me is unproblematic. Why should I give unknowns value?
Elaborate please. Why do you find it problematic to state god does not exist? Pretend I'm a theist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker
The conclusion doesn't follow the premise
Yes, exactly. That is the problem. Krauss/You/Any atheist, is discussing the issue with someone who does not understand simple logic. YET the atheists continue to press on a completely irrelevant point that they cannot prove god does not exist.
The standard reply to that would be "lol scientists can't prove god doesn't exist. I could be right. Boom headshot."
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
If you are sure there is no god but you accept that you are unable to prove there is no God then it seems some are refraining from denying the existence of God where they would deny the existence of other things they had a similar lack of confidence in.
This is pretty much what I mean except you said it much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piers
The problem is that the term God is not well defined.
It does not matter. The Christian would say "you as a scientist cannot prove god does not exist. Therefore I am not wrong for believing in one."
Quote:
Originally Posted by heehaww
It is impossible to prove Green Unicorns don't exist. This means they exist! (Logical fallacies 101)
How does admitting a .000...1% chance of being wrong weaken one's position?
Do you mean claim with 100% certainty? Well that's impossible because no one can be certain.
From a Christian's perspective
100% certainty = a scientist told me that god does not exist
99.9999999999% = a scientist told me that god does not exist, but he could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heehaww
To claim certainty without possessing it is to be an idiot.
That is what I mean. You are treating theists as rational people who understand the true meaning of 100% certainty.
By trying to correctly explain that a scientist can only be 99.99999999% right, you are undermining your position because.... there is a
tiny chance you could be wrong. Theists will jump all over this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
To which the answer is 'no one, he's god'. Checkmate theists. Boom headshot.
That is how they see it probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Besides, to the theist, the evidence of the existence of god is overwhelming, or they wouldn't believe. Pascal's wager may be persuasive but I seriously doubt any theists believe simply because it could be true.
This is the problem that many people don't seem to see. A theist thinks evidence is overwhelming. From their perspective Richard Dawkins says he's 6.9 of 7 that god does not exist. Therefore Richard Dawkins could be wrong and he is BELIEVING that god does not exist. A believer in something has no right to tell me what to believe in. I will therefore continue to believe in Jesus.
After all, the fancy schmancy scientists are not 100% sure. They could be wrong so I (I'm pretending to be a theist) could be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
In any case, we both know that the OP is a version of the argument from ignorance.
I should have made this a bit clearer. I think most people assumed I was a theist.
Last edited by blackchilli; 08-22-2013 at 02:17 PM.