Disproving God

[adherent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, there are only 2 possibilities about a God:
1) There is a God
2) There isn't a God
Could anybody out there prove that there isn't a God. And, by the way, please don't answer this post with another question, like: "Well... can you prove to me there IS a God?"

[QED]

Cephus> Harvey was trying to show you how to tackle Bill's argument without resorting to demeaning his views. The use of "desperate attempt" is obviously the phrase that is causing annoyance. If was told that my opinion was born out of a desperate attempt to show something I would be a little annoyed too!

[Cephus]

You might not like that fact but that's the way reality falls.

Oh brother.

Funny, that's what I usually think when I read your posts.

[Cephus]

Cephus> Harvey was trying to show you how to tackle Bill's argument without resorting to demeaning his views. The use of "desperate attempt" is obviously the phrase that is causing annoyance. If was told that my opinion was born out of a desperate attempt to show something I would be a little annoyed too!

Honestly, that's what it is. They demand that a particular view is the truth, whether it's borne out by the evidence or not, and if they can't have the view that's best supported, they tend to twist the evidence, intentionally or not, to make their view look more feasible.

If people would just go where the evidence led instead of picking their position and then looking for evidence to support it, then the world would be a better place.

[harvey1]

Funny, that's what I usually think when I read your posts.

Except the difference is Cephus that I provide reasons for my views and not rhetoric. I can't say the same about you. If you look at QED and Bugmaster, they are giving reasons for atheism.

[Cephus]

If you look at QED and Bugmaster, they are giving reasons for atheism.

The only reason for atheism, IMO, is that there isn't a shred of evidence for religion. I'm not interested in feelings or reasons, I'm interested in fact. If God doesn't factually exist, I'm not going to believe it. This whole "I'm religious because it makes me feel better" is ludicrous IMO.

[harvey1]

The only reason for atheism, IMO, is that there isn't a shred of evidence for religion. I'm not interested in feelings or reasons, I'm interested in fact. If God doesn't factually exist, I'm not going to believe it. This whole "I'm religious because it makes me feel better" is ludicrous IMO.

Again, you aren't pressing forward with reasons, just unsubstantiated opinions. You have to assume your belief system in order to agree with you. That's not the way to argue on a debate site. I'm not saying this because you are an atheist, I would say the same thing to a theist who also spouts their presuppositions as an argument. I'm not telling you anything that QED wouldn't tell you.

[Cephus]

Again, you aren't pressing forward with reasons, just unsubstantiated opinions. You have to assume your belief system in order to agree with you. That's not the way to argue on a debate site. I'm not saying this because you are an atheist, I would say the same thing to a theist who also spouts their presuppositions as an argument. I'm not telling you anything that QED wouldn't tell you.

Again, you misunderstand atheism. Atheism is the LACK of theism. Therefore, if there is no reason to believe in any form of theism, then one is an atheist by default. The only reason one is an atheist is because they have no reason to be anything else.

[harvey1]

Again, you misunderstand atheism. Atheism is the LACK of theism. Therefore, if there is no reason to believe in any form of theism, then one is an atheist by default. The only reason one is an atheist is because they have no reason to be anything else.

This is just not true. This is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic.

This is the position of the philosophical community on the subject. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

[Cephus]

This is just not true. This is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic.

This is the position of the philosophical community on the subject. End of story as far as I'm concerned.

Goody for it, you're still arguing a straw man, as has been pointed out to you many, many times. But sure, if you'd like to define atheism out of existence, feel free and have a good time.

[harvey1]

Goody for it, you're still arguing a straw man, as has been pointed out to you many, many times. But sure, if you'd like to define atheism out of existence, feel free and have a good time.

See Cephus, you simply won't argue with reason. Instead of citing some reason to believe that I am wrong in my definition, you just give me a line that I'm sure sounds good to you. However, that's not reasoning.