Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[sirineou]

I wonder what would be the minimum evidence required for an atheist to change his position.

Would it be a personal experience, or a peer reviewed study?

well if the laws of physics were suspended for a period of time, such as when God stopped the sun from setting for Joshua

.I would say Holly S*#T, maybe there is something to this god thing,

But if God was to honor my request, for such miracle, a little advance notice would be appreciated.

I mean Earth spins at a little over 1000 miles per Hour at the equator, if the earth was to suddenly stop spinning and Joshua was not strapped in,

as i am sure seat belt laws were not strictly enforced back then, with out divine intervention, it would had being a bad day for Joshua and his friends.

[canuckamuck]

Wow if that would be the minimum evidence you would require, I wonder if you would not just pass it off as an unusual event science has yet to understand.

[sirineou]

Wow if that would be the minimum evidence you would require, I wonder if you would not just pass it off as an unusual event science has yet to understand.

No that would be pretty convincing for me.

The Theist claim is a supernatural being with the ability to suspend the laws of physics,.

So let the suspensions begin. Perhaps arranging the stars to Spell the word "Repent" that might be a pretty good trick ,

[boomerangutang]

Kurt Vonnegut indicated, before he died, that he believed in Creationism. I don't know the exact words, but I remember the gist of it, and it surprised me to hear that. If I'm wrong, then fine.

Tigermonkey is right, he didn't mention 'soul' but I chose to throw out a few words about 'soul' in my response to his questions.

Organic molecules and compounds are what life is composed of. There isn't a white-bearded old man who 'breathes life' in to an impregnated egg.

I once had an American g.f. who believed so deeply in metaphysics, that she believed that if people (with their superior nexus of thought transference) didn't exist, the world and all its species would seize to exist. How different is that than religious belief systems? God and metaphysics are both intricate myths invented by people.

Actually, I have ideas about the beginning of the universe - which you can ask me about. And no, it doesn't involve the 'Big Bang' as we're told to believe. It's another theory (called 'Brane Theory', short for 'membrane') which doesn't necessitate the wild leaps of faith which the Big Bang requires (nothing existed before. Time didn't exist before. Particles blasted for billions of miles, many times faster than light, etc.). As for a 'creator' of the universe, well that's even more outlandish. You can file Creationism between Tinkerbell and Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Edited January 25, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

I was hypnotically regressed by a famous hypnotist once and found I lived in India in my last life, maybe why I love VDOs like the following

I love George Harrison and I love aspects of Hinduism. I resided at a rural Yogi retreat in the hills of northern California for several years. We had Swamis coming and going every week. Even before I went there, I had visions of Hindu Gods. I can separate visions/hallucinations from what I consider real. If I believed all the things I've envisioned (including dreams, both waking, sleeping and stoned) as real, then I'd be as starry-eyed as many others who believe those things.

I can enjoy and rejoice in visions, but I don't have to accept them as actual reality.

They exist in a sort-of dream world and/or 'in my mind' but is that reality? Maybe you can answer that.

Incidentally, I'm friends with an elder American man in Bkk who once told me, in all sincerity; "I believe everything" In other words, he claims to believe every conspiracy theory, every religious myth, ever paranormal claim ...... WOW, a true wonder.

[sirineou]

Mentally ill Briton accused of claiming to be Prophet Mohammad sentenced to death: Pakistan

Need I say more?

[boomerangutang]

Mentally ill Briton accused of claiming to be Prophet Mohammad sentenced to death: Pakistan

Need I say more?

In many ways, Muslim deists show how insecure they are in their belief system. If they were comfortable in their beliefs, they'd be able to laugh at, or disregard some nutty Briton claiming to be Mohammed. Maybe the Brit said he was 'like Mohammed' rather than he was actually the Prophet. Either way, that's an offense punishable by death.

There was a young man locked up in Mississippi because he claimed he was Jesus. Probably on drugs and having the sublime experience of his life. At least the MS authorities had the good sense to let him out the next day.

I was at a party once, when 19 years old. I was playing blues guitar with a band. We all did mescaline that night. I got so high, people would come up to me and tell me I was glowing. I had middle aged women trying to corner me in various parts of the house, and tell me their most intimate spiritual secrets. Really. At least 3 drunk elder women wound up crying right in my face, and their mascara was running down like Tammy Baker. It's not easy being Jesus, let me tell you. As soon as you reveal your enlightenment (usually by getting eye contact with someone), everybody wants a piece of you. Then the press corps comes out, and it's like a Halloween party with Lada Gaga and Madonna co-hosting.

I'll bet there were hundreds, maybe thousands of people who got as spiritually high as Jesus, but chose to keep it quiet. Even the Buddha had a choice, after he attained enlightenment under the Bo tree, to keep it to himself, or broadcast it, and become a celebrity. As for Muhammed: I've read about his life, and I don't think he was any more enlightened than any of dozens of Haight Ashbury hippies I've known. He was, however, a dynamic man, and a compelling leader (and loved sex). He led raiding parties in the desert for awhile. He could put that on his resume.

[notmyself]

Wow if that would be the minimum evidence you would require, I wonder if you would not just pass it off as an unusual event science has yet to understand.

That would be my position. Let's sat there was found to be a Jebu$ character who was born of a virgin and later in life died and was resurrected. It would not prove his divinity not that a god exists.

[sirineou]

That would be my position. Let's sat there was found to be a Jebu$ character who was born of a virgin and later in life died and was resurrected. It would not prove his divinity not that a god exists.

Some one born of a virgin , would be an extraordinary event, and if after he died was resurrected, it would be even more extraordinary.

Even though not conclusive evidence of divinity , certainly as strong as the inconclusive evidence we have that there is no divinity.

And though it would have to be looked at carefully to make sure there are no other factors involved.

If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death.

[notmyself]

That would be my position. Let's sat there was found to be a Jebu$ character who was born of a virgin and later in life died and was resurrected. It would not prove his divinity not that a god exists.

Some one born of a virgin , would be an extraordinary event, and if after he died was resurrected, it would be even more extraordinary.

Even though not conclusive evidence of divinity , certainly as strong as the inconclusive evidence we have that there is no divinity.

And though it would have to be looked at carefully to make sure there are no other factors involved.

If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death.

There would be a bit of self referral in that mate. You would be using the supposed attributes of something unproven to prove the very same thing exists.

[sirineou]

That would be my position. Let's sat there was found to be a Jebu$ character who was born of a virgin and later in life died and was resurrected. It would not prove his divinity not that a god exists.

Some one born of a virgin , would be an extraordinary event, and if after he died was resurrected, it would be even more extraordinary.

Even though not conclusive evidence of divinity , certainly as strong as the inconclusive evidence we have that there is no divinity.

And though it would have to be looked at carefully to make sure there are no other factors involved.

If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death.

There would be a bit of self referral in that mate. You would be using the supposed attributes of something unproven to prove the very same thing exists.

No , not at all,

I did not say that it would be proof, I said that there is a "a strong possibility" two different things.

​Only two things exist ,Possibilities, and Probabilities.

We should use the same criteria for existence as we do for non-existence.

You might not be able to positively prove or disprove anything, but a some point you can have a reasonable probability that it does or does not.

And I believe I said "If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death."

​I did not say proof of divinity, I said strong possibility of divine abilities as it pertains to the issues at hand. (parthenogenesis, resurrection).

One might also want to consider that if such person has abilities such as described above,

such person might also possess other abilities, , and such person warrants further examination.

We need to be intellectually honest and apply the same proof in both sides of the equation

[thailiketoo]

Kurt Vonnegut indicated, before he died, that he believed in Creationism. I don't know the exact words, but I remember the gist of it, and it surprised me to hear that. If I'm wrong, then fine.

Tigermonkey is right, he didn't mention 'soul' but I chose to throw out a few words about 'soul' in my response to his questions.

Organic molecules and compounds are what life is composed of. There isn't a white-bearded old man who 'breathes life' in to an impregnated egg.

I once had an American g.f. who believed so deeply in metaphysics, that she believed that if people (with their superior nexus of thought transference) didn't exist, the world and all its species would seize to exist. How different is that than religious belief systems? God and metaphysics are both intricate myths invented by people.

Actually, I have ideas about the beginning of the universe - which you can ask me about. And no, it doesn't involve the 'Big Bang' as we're told to believe. It's another theory (called 'Brane Theory', short for 'membrane') which doesn't necessitate the wild leaps of faith which the Big Bang requires (nothing existed before. Time didn't exist before. Particles blasted for billions of miles, many times faster than light, etc.). As for a 'creator' of the universe, well that's even more outlandish. You can file Creationism between Tinkerbell and Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Vonnegut described himself variously as a skeptic,freethinker, humanist, Unitarian Universalist, agnostic, and atheist. He disbelieved in the supernatural, considered religious doctrine to be "so much arbitrary, clearly invented balderdash," and believed people were motivated to join religions out of loneliness.He rejected the divinity of Jesus,

http://en.wikipedia....i/Kurt_Vonnegut

Wasn't Cat's Cradle his most popular book? Really all one had to do was read that. Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either.

Edited January 25, 2014 by thailiketoo

[notmyself]

No , not at all,

I did not say that it would be proof, I said that there is a "a strong possibility" two different things.

​Only two things exist ,Possibilities, and Probabilities.

We should use the same criteria for existence as we do for non-existence.

You might not be able to positively prove or disprove anything, but a some point you can have a reasonable probability that it does or does not.

And I believe I said "If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death."

​I did not say proof of divinity, I said strong possibility of divine abilities as it pertains to the issues at hand. (parthenogenesis, resurrection).

One might also want to consider that if such person has abilities such as described above,

such person might also possess other abilities, , and such person warrants further examination.

We need to be intellectually honest and apply the same proof in both sides of the equation

That would be fair if atheism was a claim.

What you have is a 'therefore God did it' or may have done it, increased possibility / probability did it. No reason to choose that over ANY other claim such as aliens, fairies or the FSM.

[sirineou]

No , not at all,

I did not say that it would be proof, I said that there is a "a strong possibility" two different things.

​Only two things exist ,Possibilities, and Probabilities.

We should use the same criteria for existence as we do for non-existence.

You might not be able to positively prove or disprove anything, but a some point you can have a reasonable probability that it does or does not.

And I believe I said "If after examination was found that we could not find any other explanation for such events,One would have to conclude that there is a very strong possibility, that at the very least, that person has god like abilities over birth and death."

​I did not say proof of divinity, I said strong possibility of divine abilities as it pertains to the issues at hand. (parthenogenesis, resurrection).

One might also want to consider that if such person has abilities such as described above,

such person might also possess other abilities, , and such person warrants further examination.

We need to be intellectually honest and apply the same proof in both sides of the equation

That would be fair if atheism was a claim.

What you have is a 'therefore God did it' or may have done it, increased possibility / probability did it. No reason to choose that over ANY other claim such as aliens, fairies or the FSM.

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

Ps: the same applies to Fairies, aliens, or the FSM

Edited January 25, 2014 by sirineou

[notmyself]

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

[sirineou]

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Not at all,

The Jury analogy, if I understand it correctly is not apropos

A claim is made, you require supporting evidence before you accept such claim .

evidence is presented. You examine the evidence and then make a counter claim that the evidence is insufficient.

Just because you claim the evidence is insufficient it does not make it so, much in the same way that just just claiming there is a god , does not make it so. It might be insufficient for you. but you are not the final arbitrator .

You also made a claim in regard to the evidence.

In this instance both sides are making a claim. Side A that there is a God. and side B that the evidence is insufficient.

The question was, what would be sufficient evidence? a valid question, and equally applicable to both sides.

If you say no evidence is sufficient , then in my opinion you are being just as dogmatic.

[notmyself]

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Not at all,

The Jury analogy, if I understand it correctly is not apropos

A claim is made, you require supporting evidence before you accept such claim .

evidence is presented. You examine the evidence and then make a counter claim that the evidence is insufficient.

Just because you claim the evidence is insufficient it does not make it so, much in the same way that just just claiming there is a god , does not make it so. It might be insufficient for you. but you are not the final arbitrator .

You also made a claim in regard to the evidence.

In this instance both sides are making a claim. Side A that there is a God. and side B that the evidence is insufficient.

The question was, what would be sufficient evidence? a valid question, and equally applicable to both sides.

If you say no evidence is sufficient , then in my opinion you are being just as dogmatic.

I understand where you are going with this and understand what you are saying.

The problem with this line is that since we cannot prove our own existence, one is inextricably led to there being no truth which would lead us to logically do nothing for any reason. We have to insert a belief at some point in order to mentally function so why not from the base? I accept I exist as a belief.

In your summation. I would have to accept literally everything as being potentially valid such as the FSM et. al.

Edited January 25, 2014 by notmyself

[notmyself]

What you are suggesting is along the lines of computer chess programs.

Deep Thought was a computer designed to play chess. Deep Thought was initially developed at Carnegie Mellon University and later at IBM.[1] It was second in the line of chess computers developed by Feng-hsiung Hsu, starting with ChipTest and culminating in Deep Blue. In addition to Hsu, the Deep Thought team included Thomas Anantharaman, Mike Browne, Murray Campbell and Andreas Nowatzyk.[2] Deep Thought was easily defeated in both games of a two-game match with Garry Kasparov in 1989 as well as in a correspondence match with Michael Valvo.

It was named after Deep Thought, a fictional computer in Douglas Adams' series, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The naming of chess computers has continued in this vein with Deep Blue, Deep Fritz, Deep Junior, etc.

Deep Thought won the North American Computer Chess Championship in 1988 and the World Computer Chess Championship in the year 1989, and its rating, according to the USCF was 2551.[2] In 1994, Deep Thought 2 won the North American Computer Chess Championship for the fifth time, with its rating estimated at around 2600. It was sponsored by IBM. Some engineers who designed Deep Thought also worked in the design of Deep Thought 2. Its algorithms were quite simple evaluation functions, but it could examine half a billion chess positions per move in tournament games, which is sufficient to reach depth of 10 or 11 moves ahead in complex positions. Despite that, using the technique of singular extensions it could also follow lines of forced moves that reach even further, which is how it once found a checkmate in 37 moves.[

It was raw power that allowed it to beat human players rather than knowledge. When it is raining outside we grab an umbrella, what you suggest is that we consider every singly other alternative such as hiding in the wardrobe, eating a pizza as we leave and any one of trillions upon trillions of options before making a choice. We are finite beings so we use knowledge to dispel huge branches of considerations.

Edited January 25, 2014 by notmyself

[sirineou]

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Not at all,

The Jury analogy, if I understand it correctly is not apropos

A claim is made, you require supporting evidence before you accept such claim .

evidence is presented. You examine the evidence and then make a counter claim that the evidence is insufficient.

Just because you claim the evidence is insufficient it does not make it so, much in the same way that just just claiming there is a god , does not make it so. It might be insufficient for you. but you are not the final arbitrator .

You also made a claim in regard to the evidence.

In this instance both sides are making a claim. Side A that there is a God. and side B that the evidence is insufficient.

The question was, what would be sufficient evidence? a valid question, and equally applicable to both sides.

If you say no evidence is sufficient , then in my opinion you are being just as dogmatic.

I understand where you are going with this and understand what you are saying.

The problem with this line is that since we cannot prove our own existence, one is inextricably led to there being no truth which would lead us to logically do nothing for any reason. We have to insert a belief at some point in order to mentally function so why not from the base? I accept I exist as a belief.

Not that you accept that you exist,

but that you assert that there is reasonable evidence that you exist

In a realm of infinite possibilities, probability is all you have to go on.

But that assertion does not apply only to you.

It is certainly possible, however improbable based on present evidence,

that a God exists

the function of this improbability is reduced as additional supporting evidence is produced.

In certain cases the improbability function is reduced to such extend that is almost certain that it's true

These are things we say we know with a high probability of certainty.

So the question remains, what evidence will reduce the improbability function sufficiently for you to accept the probability? I would guess that it would be different for every one, but a threshold must exist. where the weight of the evidence would tip the scale .

[notmyself]

Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded (unofficially nicknamed "Deeper Blue")[11] and played Kasparov again in May 1997, winning the six-game rematch 3½2½, ending on May 11. Deep Blue won the deciding game six after Kasparov made a mistake in the opening, becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls.

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program was written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer according to the TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS on the High-Performance LINPACK benchmark.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

You have belief for a reason, belief for no reason and shear raw power.

Saying a rejection of a claim is a claim does not work in real life not does it work logically.

You say you are going to play a game of chess in the park for a 1km high pink elephant and I say I don't believe you. That's it, all I have done. No claim, no nothing.

[notmyself]

Not that you accept that you exist, but that you assert that there is reasonable evidence that you exist

There's none.

So the question remains, what evidence will reduce the improbability function sufficiently for you to accept the probability? I would guess that it would be different for every one, but a threshold must exist. where the weight of the evidence would tip the scale .

Anything which can be shown to be true in the natural world we live in. This is a theistic god we are talking about so if prayer were shown to have any effect that would sway me big time.

[sirineou]

What you are suggesting is along the lines of computer chess programs.

Deep Thought was a computer designed to play chess. Deep Thought was initially developed at Carnegie Mellon University and later at IBM.[1] It was second in the line of chess computers developed by Feng-hsiung Hsu, starting with ChipTest and culminating in Deep Blue. In addition to Hsu, the Deep Thought team included Thomas Anantharaman, Mike Browne, Murray Campbell and Andreas Nowatzyk.[2] Deep Thought was easily defeated in both games of a two-game match with Garry Kasparov in 1989 as well as in a correspondence match with Michael Valvo.

It was named after Deep Thought, a fictional computer in Douglas Adams' series, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The naming of chess computers has continued in this vein with Deep Blue, Deep Fritz, Deep Junior, etc.

Deep Thought won the North American Computer Chess Championship in 1988 and the World Computer Chess Championship in the year 1989, and its rating, according to the USCF was 2551.[2] In 1994, Deep Thought 2 won the North American Computer Chess Championship for the fifth time, with its rating estimated at around 2600. It was sponsored by IBM. Some engineers who designed Deep Thought also worked in the design of Deep Thought 2. Its algorithms were quite simple evaluation functions, but it could examine half a billion chess positions per move in tournament games, which is sufficient to reach depth of 10 or 11 moves ahead in complex positions. Despite that, using the technique of singular extensions it could also follow lines of forced moves that reach even further, which is how it once found a checkmate in 37 moves.[

It was raw power that allowed it to beat human players rather than knowledge. When it is raining outside we grab an umbrella, what you suggest is that we consider every singly other alternative such as hiding in the wardrobe, eating a pizza as we leave and any one of trillions upon trillions of options before making a choice. We are finite beings so we use knowledge to dispel huge branches of considerations.

No not the " Paralysis of analysis " but the consideration of viable options, Such as umbrella, rain coat , or wet.

Assign a desirability value to each options and choose the one you think would have the best desirable outcome.

But that's not what I was talking about.

​with in the context of religiosity before you are convinced, you require evidence,

​Don't you think that this request is disingenuous, if from the beginning you were not willing to accept any evidence?

Before you go anywhere else please answer that.

[sirineou]

Deep Blue was then heavily upgraded (unofficially nicknamed "Deeper Blue")[11] and played Kasparov again in May 1997, winning the six-game rematch 3½2½, ending on May 11. Deep Blue won the deciding game six after Kasparov made a mistake in the opening, becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls.

The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. It was a massively parallel, RS/6000 SP Thin P2SC-based system with 30 nodes, with each node containing a 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor for a total of 30, enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess chips. Its chess playing program was written in C and ran under the AIX operating system. It was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second, twice as fast as the 1996 version. In June 1997, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer according to the TOP500 list, achieving 11.38 GFLOPS on the High-Performance LINPACK benchmark.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)

You have belief for a reason, belief for no reason and shear raw power.

Saying a rejection of a claim is a claim does not work in real life not does it work logically.

You say you are going to play a game of chess in the park for a 1km high pink elephant and I say I don't believe you. That's it, all I have done. No claim, no nothing.

If you did that and walked away, it would have being true, but that is not what you did is it?

You asked for evidence, You asked me questions about my pink elephant, you argues with my answers.

If you had walked away this thread would had being over for you a long time ago.

in fact it would had lasted one reply,

Yet there is still one huge white elephant in the room.

What evidence will you accept.

[sirineou]

Not that you accept that you exist, but that you assert that there is reasonable evidence that you exist

There's none.

So the question remains, what evidence will reduce the improbability function sufficiently for you to accept the probability? I would guess that it would be different for every one, but a threshold must exist. where the weight of the evidence would tip the scale .

Anything which can be shown to be true in the natural world we live in. This is a theistic god we are talking about so if prayer were shown to have any effect that would sway me big time.

Cogito ergo sum is plenty of evidence for me that I exist, the only problem I have is with your existence

I think you are, there fore you are what I think

"if prayer were shown to have any effect that would sway me big time."

Ok so there we are , back to my initial condition, convincing observable evidence. .

Edited January 25, 2014 by sirineou

[notmyself]

Cogito ergo sum is plenty of evidence for me that I exist

I think therefore I am is a belief, not knowledge (evidence). This was cracked out many hundreds of years ago between Descartes and Kant and has not until this day been superseded. The words 'I think therefore I am' have been shown to be wrong as a proof of one's own existence yet hundreds of years later they are still being said/ used as if it were true. In a shorter timespan you have such classics as 'there are no transitional fossils' and 'radiometric dating has never been shown to accurate'. Some such as being able to see the great wall of China from space are labelled urban myths but in all honestly, all of them should be.

Another absolute cracker is 'evolution is only a theory'. Leaving aside the meaning of theory.... No, evolution is a fact but the reason behind it (natural selection) is a theory. Gravity is a fact but the theory behind it (theory of gravity) is a theory.

[sirineou]

Cogito ergo sum is plenty of evidence for me that I exist

I think therefore I am is a belief, not knowledge (evidence). This was cracked out many hundreds of years ago between Descartes and Kant and has not until this day been superseded. The words 'I think therefore I am' have been shown to be wrong as a proof of one's own existence yet hundreds of years later they are still being said/ used as if it were true. In a shorter timespan you have such classics as 'there are no transitional fossils' and 'radiometric dating has never been shown to accurate'. Some such as being able to see the great wall of China from space are labelled urban myths but in all honestly, all of them should be.

Another absolute cracker is 'evolution is only a theory'. Leaving aside the meaning of theory.... No, evolution is a fact but the reason behind it (natural selection) is a theory. Gravity is a fact but the theory behind it (theory of gravity) is a theory.

You said a lot there chicken man. Most of what I agree with

But tell me do you really think "I think there for I am" is a belief??

Because if you Think It is a Belief, then you mast be thinking, there fore you are.

How could you think if you were not?

But tell me how do you think the statement was shown to be wrong??

Can some one not be and think?

[boomerangutang]

Belief in God and/or or paranormal and/or metaphysics and/or alien sightings - all largely rely upon concepts that purposefully cannot be proven.

Homeopathy is nearly in the same ballpark. Homeopathy claims that 'water has memory' and therefore has therapeutic qualities when ingested. Both French and British research teams, working independently, showed that water did have memory. However, a world-renown skeptic, James Randi, was later called in to check the results. With a team of scientific experts, he oversaw a new series of experiments which were even more scientifically strict than the experiments done by the French and British teams. It so happens, the more precise measurements of Randi's team were able to overturn the results of the French and British scientists, and the losers conceded their results were flawed. Water, of course, has no 'memory' - but don't try telling that to the millions who still pay money for Homeopathic remedies. They're buying pure water, but they're also experiencing the placebo effect, so perhaps it's worthwhile for them. Certainly, Homeopathic potion sellers love the income.

Similarly, people who make money from the occult sciences are happy that so many of the general public readily believe in hocus pocus. Just in Thailand, there are thousands who make money from hocus pocus (trinkets, metaphysical readings, banishing ghosts, etc.) Plus, people employed by religious organizations - love the money their chosen fields generates for them. Indeed, much of that money gets channeled to entice Thai Hill Tribers in believing in Jesus - or risk burning in the eternal damnation when they die. Where I reside, in northern Thailand, nearly all Hill Tribers are Baptist-style Christians.

Beliefs in God or paranormal or metaphysics - are all crafted (usually by old men) to avoid scientific scrutiny. They're very crafty. Here are some of the thousand reasons why belief in God can never be challenged scientifically: God is everything. He can change moods and shapes in the wink of an eye. He is everywhere. He is omniscient, but doesn't have a brain that we can locate. God oversees the child singing a nursery rhyme, and God oversees the most destructive hurricanes and all in between. God created roses and God created the HIV virus and all other species. Quantifying God would be like quantifying Casper the Friendly Ghost. It's a bit like trying to appease your girlfriend when she's upset about something. She acts angry. You say "what's wrong dear?" She says; "Nothing, everything is fine." You say: "It appears as though you're upset. You just threw the frying pan out the kitchen window." "No" She says, "it's nothing. I'm fine. Mind your own business."

Another example of trying to pin down what God is: Let's say you're invited to a rich friend's house to play tennis. You start playing, but the friend hits a ball out, but then immediately changes the size of the court - so the ball is actually in. The opposite happens: You hit a ball in, but your friend lessens the size of the court - so your ball actually falls out of bounds. Your friend does the same with the net height/width, and with the size of the racquets and the ball itself. In sum: believers in God keep changing the parameters of what God is, so they can never be pinned down and, (God Forbid!) be shown that God is an elaborately embellished man-made myth.

Edited January 26, 2014 by boomerangutang

[DualSportBiker]

Rejecting the claim that 'there is a god', or 'the earth was made in 6 days' does not constitute a claim in itself; you'd need a counter-claim for that.

I hope we can agree that the overriding claim we are discussing here is that which states there is a higher being as typically justified by the sum of other 'sub-claims', such as the bible/koran are the words of the creator, the earth was made in 6 days, all animals were created in their current form, or evolution was guided by said higher power, and so on... There are also those who believe because they consider a universe without purpose wrong in some sense, a claim which to them requires the counter-claim that its purpose is crafted by a higher power.

These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence, and I posit they can be rejected individually, and in aggregate form, without the requirement for a counter-claim, unless of course the extraordinary evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. It seems reasonable to me to accept not to understand over accepting the extraordinary without compelling evidence.

There are other types of claim that do require counter-claim such as being told you were somewhere when you were not, or that the waitress had green earrings, not blue...

Speaking only from personal experience, I find many, but not all, religious people expect their claims to be treated as ordinary claims, requiring definitive counter-claim, yet expect their beliefs to be treated specially and beyond reproach.

To recap, if I were to tell you to your face that your blue shirt was green, you could furnish the evidence to correct me. But, if I told you that you wore that blue shirt because an invisible being influenced your decision to do so, you could rightly reject my claim without having to resort to the patently obvious; that you wore blue because you chose to/were told to by your other half

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Sent - how is not that important...

[notmyself]

You said a lot there chicken man. Most of what I agree with

But tell me do you really think "I think there for I am" is a belief??

Because if you Think It is a Belief, then you mast be thinking, there fore you are.

How could you think if you were not?

But tell me how do you think the statement was shown to be wrong??

Can some one not be and think?

Too long ago dear Sir for me to remember exactly where to go to dig out all the bits and pieces from more places than I care to remember. Also, very rarely ever comes up so it doesn't stay fresh in the mind. It did come up a couple of years back as I remember but only in passing. Previous to that must be 20+ years. It's not like a formula or paper was presented but a long discussion over some time. A couple of people have tackled it quite seriously but not for quite some time. 200 years at a guess but maybe it is 300. You cannot prove you exist so you have to accept that you do, that's a belief. Just to go back a tad... One of the reasons it is never really brought up is because we are all in the same boat with regard to it so/ and the knowledge itself is of no intrinsic value. Should I ever happen to speak of it again in my life it will most likely be exactly the aspect we have spoken about it. This is no doubt why people never hear about it, nobody is taught it outside of universities and there is no value in knowing it insofar as using it to gain other knowledge.

[canuckamuck]

Rejecting the claim that 'there is a god', or 'the earth was made in 6 days' does not constitute a claim in itself; you'd need a counter-claim for that.

I hope we can agree that the overriding claim we are discussing here is that which states there is a higher being as typically justified by the sum of other 'sub-claims', such as the bible/koran are the words of the creator, the earth was made in 6 days, all animals were created in their current form, or evolution was guided by said higher power, and so on... There are also those who believe because they consider a universe without purpose wrong in some sense, a claim which to them requires the counter-claim that its purpose is crafted by a higher power.

These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence, and I posit they can be rejected individually, and in aggregate form, without the requirement for a counter-claim, unless of course the extraordinary evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. It seems reasonable to me to accept not to understand over accepting the extraordinary without compelling evidence.

There are other types of claim that do require counter-claim such as being told you were somewhere when you were not, or that the waitress had green earrings, not blue...

Speaking only from personal experience, I find many, but not all, religious people expect their claims to be treated as ordinary claims, requiring definitive counter-claim, yet expect their beliefs to be treated specially and beyond reproach.

To recap, if I were to tell you to your face that your blue shirt was green, you could furnish the evidence to correct me. But, if I told you that you wore that blue shirt because an invisible being influenced your decision to do so, you could rightly reject my claim without having to resort to the patently obvious; that you wore blue because you chose to/were told to by your other half

Atheism is a claim

A claim of insufficient evidence, if sufficient evidence is produced then the claim has to be adjusted.

If that were true then you would have the burden of proof to show your claim of disbelief to be true.

I've posted an example of this earlier in the thread but it will be no doubt quicker to retype than search 50 pages of posts.

Fella is taken to court charged with 'x'. Prosecution claim the fella is guilty of doing 'x' and a jury is there to decide if the claim of the prosecution is true (beyond reasonable doubt anyway). So that would be guilty or not guilty which in turn would equate to guilty or aguilty. What you describe is a claim of innocent which is another question entirely. Saying I do not believe you is not a claim in itself.

Sent - how is not that important...

How does one reject the claim there is a God? They say no there is no God. Which is a counter claim. Two sides of an argument. One side is not right and the other wrong based on plausibility.

If you had said in 1955 Obama, a socialist black man with hardly any achievements,would become president, would win a Nobel prize for simply being popular, run up the debt to 17 trillion, and following that,the next president would be a woman, the wife of a former president that cheated on her in office creating a very public scandal but no one will make anything of it. (OK the second part hasn't happened yet, but I am going for extraordinary claims).

By your logic someone could just say that could never happen, and they would be right because your claim is too extraordinary and does not need to be refuted.

It doesn't matter how extraordinary the claim. if you say something doesn't exist and you can't prove it neither can anyone disprove it. you just have to disagree. you don't get to be right because the other side is too crazy to believe.

For many, the counter claim, there is no God is the extreme and crazy side of the debate.