"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[Lovely Charm]

Tama. BUT, as I explained to him burden of proof and negative proof already, wala gihapon cya kasabot. hahai.

Illogical nga mangayo cyag negative proof for something nga walai scope element. The burden of proof lies on the positive claim.

notice that that I don't say that god does not exist. I am only saying that I don't believe that god exists.

I make no claims. I only assert my disbelief. Nothing to prove.

so your disbelief og god's existence sir schmuck is coming from where? coming from the non empirical evidence of god believers?
moreover, can you clarify to me you first statement " idont say that god does not exist" & the other one "I am only saying that i dont believe that god exist" whats the difference?

is it possible also that you dont know if god exist or not sir?

[Traditz]

It is not the job for the atheist to prove his existence.

Of course, it's the theist's job.

But this god, is an omniscient, primordial and eternal who created man in his own image and therefore posseses a digestive system, sense organs, limbs and other attributes that would be useless to an immortal being.

When we say that God created man in his own image and likeness, I think that means he created us with qualities like self-awareness and free will that he himself possesses.

If god came first, what would he eat or walk upon? Why would he have those five senses if nothing to sense yet existed?

He would be invisible because after all he's a spirit or a mind, not a physical being.

And if he has 'always' been here, how long did he sit around doing nothing until he decided to invent the Universe? And why? And if he hadn't yet invented the universe, what exactly was he sitting on? Where is he going to exist if there is nothing to exist in?

Those are very interesting questions.

And what is wrong with the idea that we all just expire and disintegrate and rot?

If it's true that death is the end of everything, then we have nothing to worry about. After all, nothing survives death, includiing our achievements and hopes as a race. Everything ends in the "heat death" of the universe.

But on second thought, if all that is true, then isn't there reason for us to be disturbed, since our actions and achievements in life all end for naught? It would seem that everything we do is simply an exercise in vanity because ultimately nothing matters since death ends everything.

[schmuck]

so your disbelief og god's existence sir schmuck is coming from where? coming from the non empirical evidence of god believers?
moreover, can you clarify to me you first statement " idont say that god does not exist" & the other one "I am only saying that i dont believe that god exist" whats the difference?

is it possible also that you dont know if god exist or not sir?

firstly, please drop the 'sir'

correct, I don't believe due to lack of empirical evidence.

god does not exist <- is a claim, albeit a negative claim that can not be proven via negative proof.
I don't believe that god exists. <- is not a claim, it is the rejection of the claim 'god exists'

That's why I can say that I make no claims.

It is not possible to know if god exists or not.

1. X exists because its non-existence has not been proven, or
2. X does not exist because its existence has not been proven
Which do you think is more reasonable, 1 or 2?

Feel free to substitute X with the following: god, fairies, vampires, elves, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster

[tokidoki]

OT: Hoy manny! Niyabo naka diri sa S&O hap! Dili na baya ni politics diri! daghan lawgaw diri nga tao. (undecided pako unsa ko na klase na lawgaw)

[baliguat]

Murag daghan jud.

[tokidoki]

It is not possible to know if god exists or not.

1. X exists because its non-existence has not been proven, or
2. X does not exist because its existence has not been proven
Which do you think is more reasonable, 1 or 2?

Feel free to substitute X with the following: god, fairies, vampires, elves, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster

The reason why most people cannot swallow that pre is that most of us here are either double standard or try to see sh*t as gray area.

The correct reasoning would be If it is NOT TRUE then it is FALSE. IF it is NOT FALSE then it is TRUE. People try to weasel out of our arguments because they end it with a "maybe" or "it depends", which in my humble opinion is BS.

So to apply what I have just said. X does not exist because what we know about it to be TRUE is otherwise. Hence, God does not exist because our TRUE claims about his character shows us a different view in the real world: God is good, bla bla... but Wars, famine, disease, suffering, death... Ergo God must NOT exist because what we claim about him is NOT TRUE. Hence, FALSE. i.e. Pigs fly is NOT TRUE because they don't have wings and they are not designed for flight so it is FALSE.

Of course, my personal stand about the issue is that most of the religious halfwits in this forum look at God by THEIR definition instead of what he really is, which is something we don't REALLY know.

[Lovely Charm]

[quote=schmuck;4891158]firstly, please drop the 'sir'

correct, I don't believe due to lack of empirical evidence.

god does not exist <- is a claim, albeit a negative claim that can not be proven via negative proof.
I don't believe that god exists. <- is not a claim, it is the rejection of the claim 'god exists'

That's why I can say that I make no claims.

It is not possible to know if god exists or not.

1. X exists because its non-existence has not been proven, or
2. X does not exist because its existence has not been proven
Which do you think is more reasonable, 1 or 2?

ok tnx, so its the absence of empirical of evidence w/c brings about your disbelief.
regarding the 2 statements, i think number two is better, specially if the no. 1 statement is refering to the anthropomorphic god of most christians.

follow up question, you said "It is not possible to know if god exist or not" so its something beyond knowing or at least our human capacity to fathom "it". then if you dont know sir, why do you reject? di ba rejection is a form of a preference of something you have known to be true to you?

[schmuck]

firstly, please drop the 'sir'

correct, I don't believe due to lack of empirical evidence.

god does not exist <- is a claim, albeit a negative claim that can not be proven via negative proof.
I don't believe that god exists. <- is not a claim, it is the rejection of the claim 'god exists'

That's why I can say that I make no claims.

It is not possible to know if god exists or not.

1. X exists because its non-existence has not been proven, or
2. X does not exist because its existence has not been proven
Which do you think is more reasonable, 1 or 2?

ok tnx, so its the absence of empirical of evidence w/c brings about your disbelief.
regarding the 2 statements, i think number two is better, specially if the no. 1 statement is refering to the anthropomorphic god of most christians.

follow up question, you said "It is not possible to know if god exist or not" so its something beyond knowing or at least our human capacity to fathom "it". then if you dont know sir, why do you reject? di ba rejection is a form of a preference of something you have known to be true to you?

See following statements after the first sentence.
My answer is implied in me asking you which is the reasonable stance?
I reject the idea of god because point 1 is unreasonable.

Would you believe me if I told you that trolls exist. Given that you don't/can't know if they really exist or not. What is the reasonable reaction? Believe or not believe me?

Sure ko dili ka uto-uto, so I'd expect you to reject my claim unless I presented you with evidence. Dili ba?

[Lovely Charm]

See following statements after the first sentence.
My answer is implied in me asking you which is the reasonable stance?
I reject the idea of god because point 1 is unreasonable.

Would you believe me I told you that trolls exist. Given that you don't/can't know if they really exist or not. What is the reasonable reaction? Believe or not believe me?

Sure ko dili ka uto-uto, so I'd expect you to reject my claim unless I presented you with evidence. Dili ba?

if you ask me that question? & granting i know nothing, i will not ACCEPT nor REJECT immediately, i will inquire FIRST into the truth of the matter. Thats my reasonable reaction. And if there is not much evidence either to prove or disprove a thing or a god, my reasonable reaction is I DONT KNOW,
i dont know if im making myself clear, you seem to be very logical person, & if i may repeat or elucidate my inquiry: whats the reason of your rejection of gods existence? there must be a reason, to my understanding when you reject something its because of "something" w/c you prefer to be acceptable, can you share that something?

What do you mean by "My answer is implied in me..w/c is the reasonable stance" what is that answer exactly?
or shall i conclude that your rejection of gods existence is under the category of faith?

[schmuck]

if you ask me that question? & granting i know nothing, i will not ACCEPT nor REJECT immediately, i will inquire FIRST into the truth of the matter. Thats my reasonable reaction. And if there is not much evidence either to prove or disprove a thing or a god, my reasonable reaction is I DONT KNOW,
i dont know if im making myself clear, you seem to be very logical person, & if i may repeat or elucidate my inquiry: whats the reason of your rejection of gods existence? there must be a reason, to my understanding when you reject something its because of "something" w/c you prefer to be acceptable, can you share that something?

What do you mean by "My answer is implied in me..w/c is the reasonable stance" what is that answer exactly?
or shall i conclude that your rejection of gods existence is under the category of faith?

Let me rephrase my answer, I reject the idea of god existing because there is no evidence to support god's existence.
And to believe something just because the opposite has not been proven is unreasonable.
To not believe in something because there is no evidence for it is reasonable.
That is my criteria for something to be acceptable. Reasonableness and evidence.

I don't know is an acceptable answer to the question "do trolls exist?"
But what is your answer to "do you believe that trolls exist?"
Would you answer, "I don't know if I believe or not"? If so, have you considered agnosticism?