If someone claims my God exists, rejecting the claim is not the same as claiming your god does not exist.   The rejection of the claim my God exists simply means 'not convinced your God exists - prove it'.   The rejection simply calls for the burden of proof to be met.

If someone claims my God exists, rejecting the claim is not the same as claiming your god does not exist.   The rejection of the claim my God exists simply means 'not convinced your God exists - prove it'.   The rejection simply calls for the burden of proof to be met.

Thank you for creating this thread. This is an idea that needs to be more widely understood.

Another problem is the generalization fallacy.   Where one tries to use the opinions of a few to make a general statement of truth about all.

For example, the fact that some atheists think atheism means 'there is no God' does not mean that atheists are people who make a claim that no god exists.  

Most atheists (by far) are agnostic atheists and thus do not claim 'no god exists' but rather 'I am not convinced a god exists'.   Major difference.

Unfortunately, I believe those who least understand the concept are those most invested in trying not to understand the concept.

I fully agree.   There is far too much stubborn pushing of an agenda.   No matter how clearly one makes a point, some will reject it simply because it counters what they want to be true.

Confirmation bias and the fear of losing one's comfortable belief.

Unfortunately, I believe those who least understand the concept are those most invested in trying not to understand the concept.

I am wondering if these ideas are being introduced too late in life to be effective because the religious beliefs are already set in stone.

For many that might be true.   But if you speak with atheists most seem to be individuals who have studied their childhood religion (and others) and have concluded on their own that the beliefs were not justified.

What I find interesting are those who claim to have been atheists but are now theists.   

For many that might be true.   But if you speak with atheists most seem to be individuals who have studied their childhood religion (and others) and have concluded on their own that the beliefs were not justified.

The fastest way to create an agnostic is to teach either a critical religious survey class and/or logic.  Many people catch on to the scam that is organized religion when they start to discern patterns of behavior in other religions.  Getting people to make that change is often difficult because the unknown is scary and they have been taught to fear change and others.

What I find interesting are those who claim to have been atheists but are now theists.   

I have to wonder if those people were ever really atheists or even an agnostic.

I have to wonder if those people were ever really atheists or even an agnostic

I can see someone not having given much thought to the existence of a god and then, after consideration, deciding that there must be 'something' that explains the marvels of reality.   What would be very interesting (to me) is someone who had no belief in the biblical god but who, after serious study of the Bible, actually believed that the character described by the Bible is indeed the supreme entity responsible for all of reality.

Generally, most people seem to be agnostic.   Those who believe tend to accept that their beliefs could be wrong.   Those are are not convinced in a god tend to accept that a god might actually exist.   But then there are those who adamantly insist that not only does their God exist but have specific knowledge of what their god wants, what their god is planning, and have all sorts of features and stories about their god.   Some claim to have direct connection with their god.   My only explanation is that people do tend to be inclined to believe what they want to believe.   That is, critical thinking requires discipline and work.   Especially if the evidence leads to something that is not really good news - death is final, nobody has our back, etc.

What I find interesting are those who claim to have been atheists but are now theists.   

I want to know how they went from being atheist/agnostic to being theists. Did something happen that convinced them? Did they finally get the concrete proof they needed in order to be a believer?

Me too.   The mind is a strange thing at times - sometimes our conclusions are inexplicable.   But I am intrigued by this kind of transformation.

The ones I know who were atheists and then became theists generally had something bad happen, and I guess the reality of life became too much for them.  They needed a crutch to deal with it. 

Even stranger, my sister went from being an intelligent person who understood science to being a young earther!  How do you destroy that many brain cells?  It's not like she drinks much, or does drugs.    And according to my aunt, who uses FB far more than I do, my sister apparently is also now into Breitbart and conspiracy theories.  /smh  I guess once you've thrown your logic out on one topic, it's easy to toss it out altogether.

I guess the reality of life became too much for them.  They needed a crutch to deal with it. 

That seems to be the most common case.   Lots of converts in prison too.

Lots of converts in prison too.

Well, that makes sense.  If you've murdered or raped someone, a "get out of hell free" card has a pretty strong appeal.  Especially if you pick a fundie religion where faith alone is enough - that way if they do get released, they still don't have to behave!

Plus it looks good for the parole board.

Religion is comforting.   That is good and bad, but I think for the most part the comfort is net good.

 But then there are those who adamantly insist that not only does their God exist

I have met plenty of those. But I've also met plenty of Atheists who adamantly insist that God does  not exist. 

I find both types of "true believers" to be equally obnoxious....

(Perhaps because those types, whether they're in the exists or doesn't exist camp, are so self-righteous about their views...and frequently feel the need to be extremely critical of  those with the opposing view).

I have met plenty of those. But I've also met plenty of Atheists who adamantly insist that God does  not exist. 

If I were to run across a gnostic atheist (what you call 'true') I would ask this:

Is it possible that you might be wrong and that a sentient creator of the universe might exist?

A lot of people make statements of certainty when in reality they are expressing a strong confidence rather than certainty.

Me too.   The mind is a strange thing at times - sometimes our conclusions are inexplicable.   But I am intrigued by this kind of transformation.

I recommend you examine C.S. Lewis. 

But I've also met plenty of Atheists who adamantly insist that God does  not exist. 

When it comes to Yahweh, I am one of the atheists who adamantly insist that Yahweh does not exist.

It is no different than the Yahwehist disbelief in all other gods except Yahweh.

Discussion of religion, in the US, rarely involve a god other than Yahweh.

Change the discussion to a belief in the god, Zeus, and see how many people defend the existence of god.

Some people try the claim that there is only one true god that has been called various names by different cultures.  Really?  What kind of inept god doesn't introduce itself by the same name to all of its creations so they don't fight about who is worshiping the one true god?

I recommend you examine C.S. Lewis.

Per the topic of the seed, Christopher Hitchens would be more appropriate. 

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens

This is a pretty good example of why I generally ignore you. TiG expressed curiosity concerning atheists who become theists and you suggest that Hitchens would be more appropriate than Lewis? Did Hitchens go from atheism to theism? 

When it comes to Yahweh, I am one of the atheists who adamantly insist that Yahweh does not exist.

I agree.  Yahweh as defined by the Bible is a logical contradiction.   A god might indeed exist, but the biblical character Yahweh logically does not.   

This is based on the definition.  If someone defines an entity X and the definition contradicts itself then X (as defined) does not exist.

I understand why you mention Lewis.  C.S. Lewis strikes me as a confused theist who self-labeled as atheist (for a duration).  You probably disagree, but when someone speaks of being angry with God or hating God that sounds like someone who believes in God.   It does not make sense to be angry with something that you are not convinced even exists.

And I realize I am oversimplifying C.S. Lewis.   But this is simply a post - not a detailed analysis of the man.   Worse though, C.S. Lewis is not available to answer questions which makes this a game of guesswork.

As an aside, Dulay's comment was perfectly relevant and even correct.   C.S. Lewis is a good example of a person (at least in terms of labels) moving from theist to atheist and then back to theist.   So that applies to the immediate context.   Hitchens is a good example of a person who would be in keen support of the posit of this article (the topic itself).

Did Hitchens go from atheism to theism? 

Didn't Lewis go from Christian to atheist to a Christian apologist? 

As an aside, Dulay's comment was perfectly relevant and even correct.

Well of course he was. Hitchens is a perfect example of the atheist gone theist you were curious about. Don't know how I missed it. 

C.S. Lewis strikes me as a confused theist who self-labeled as atheist (for a duration).  You probably disagree, but when someone speaks of being angry with God or hating God that sounds like someone who believes in God.   It does not make sense to be angry with something that you are not convinced even exists.

Pretty much what I expected you to say. Understandable. I find your "self-labeled" confusing, though. What other way is there? It isn't something you have to apply for.

...but when someone speaks of being angry with God or hating God that sounds like someone who believes in God. It does not make sense to be angry with something that you are not convinced even exists.

Apparently, then, you must believe Katrix believes in God. It's interesting to note, however, that I've heard more times than I can remember that someone who had a religious background apparently cannot be an atheist. If they claim atheism and then become atheists, well, obviously they were never really atheist.  I have heard people claim that Stalin was a Christian because his childhood had a religious background. 

But, concerning being angry at God or hating God, you should realize that those are your words. I don't know Lewis's heart or Katrix', but it could very well be they were angry at the idea of God and hated the idea of God. It could be that Lewis believed in God all along and the 17 years he argued against it was a sort of whistling past the graveyard, so to speak. Which, incidentally, is how I view all atheists. I think everyone knows God exists on some level. 

Didn't Lewis go from Christian to atheist to a Christian apologist? 

Depends on how you define "Christian". If you mean he participated in the Christian religion as a child, then yes. As to whether he was an actual follower of Jesus Christ, I can't say. Then he became an atheist and, later, became an actual Christian. 

Well of course he was. Hitchens is a perfect example of the atheist gone theist you were curious about. Don't know how I missed it. 

You missed it because you cherry-picked rather than include my entire quote:

TiG @1.1.21 - As an aside, Dulay's comment was perfectly relevant and even correct.   C.S. Lewis is a good example of a person (at least in terms of labels) moving from theist to atheist and then back to theist.   So that applies to the immediate context.   Hitchens is a good example of a person who would be in keen support of the posit of this article (the topic itself).

Pretty clear.

Pretty much what I expected you to say. Understandable. I find your "self-labeled" confusing, though. What other way is there? It isn't something you have to apply for.

One can call oneself an atheist even if one actually believes in a god.   The self-label would be semantically wrong because an atheist, by definition, does not believe in a a god.   

Apparently, then, you must believe Katrix believes in God.

Ask katrix if she believes in the biblical God.   Her analysis of the biblical God is similar to the analysis one might give of Voldemort (Harry Potter), Darth Vader (Star Wars) or the Wicked Witch (Wizard of Oz).   It is analysis of a character.    One can provide analysis of a character without believing the character actually exists.

... I've heard more times than I can remember that someone who [was an atheist] had a religious background apparently cannot [become religious] be an atheist.  If they claim atheism and then become atheists [theists], well, obviously they were never really atheist. 

(I corrected your comment to what I think you meant to write.)   I did not make a general claim; I gave you my impression of C.S. Lewis based on what little we really know of the man.   Clearly there are atheists who 'find Jesus'.   

I have heard people claim that Stalin was a Christian because his childhood had a religious background. 

That would be theist to atheist.   Yes, certainly, that happens too.   In general there clearly are atheists who have become theists and vice-versa.   The world is a big place.    Looks like you are trying to put words in mouth.

But, concerning being angry at God or hating God, you should realize that those are your words.

Of course.  My comment clearly was my impression.  I made no claim of knowledge of the inner workings of C.S. Lewis' mind or his detailed life experiences.

I don't know Lewis's heart or Katrix', but it could very well be they were angry at the idea of God and hated the idea of God.

Katrix, as explained, gives analytical commentary on the biblical God as a character in a book.   I think it would be interesting to speak with someone who hated the idea of God (e.g. a loving supreme entity).   Clearly katrix does not see the biblical god as a 'loving supreme entity'.

It could be that Lewis believed in God all along and the 17 years he argued against it was a sort of whistling past the graveyard, so to speak.

Given the time in which he lived, atheism was a rarity.   It is reasonable to assume that almost everyone was a theist.   It is reasonable to assume that even today albeit not to the same degree.

Which, incidentally, is how I view all atheists. I think everyone knows God exists on some level. 

I think you do not understand the mind of an atheist.

You missed it because you cherry-picked rather than include my entire quote:

Um, nope. Just dismissed it as rationalization. You expressed curiosity concerning transition from atheism to theism. I suggested Lewis. Dulay replied to my post with a total non-relevancy. That is, unless you want to skip the rationalization and explain how Hitchens or the quote from him that Dulay provided has something to do with what I was addressing? 

Um, nope.

You did not include the entire quote.   What you quoted misrepresented my thought.

Dulay's comment was about the article itself.   Why am I explaining this extremely obvious fact to you again?    

Dulay's comment was about the article itself. Why am I explaining this extremely obvious fact to you again?

Yes, it was about the article itself. It is an extremely obvious fact.  I was not addressing the article. That is extremely obvious as well. I was addressing your stated curiosity about atheists converting to theism. I suggested an individual to examine. Another extremely obvious fact. 

Now that we have these facts, let's posit one more. If someone makes a statement and someone replies to it, is it not a fact that, should someone reply to that statement, it should have something to do with the statement? For instance, suppose you said something like...

Dulay's comment was about the article itself. Why am I explaining this extremely obvious fact to you again?

And in reply, I said...

Two opposing premises concerning a moral position cannot both be right.

…would you not be factually correct in stating that this does not address your statement? That it is in fact, a non sequitur? 

What you quoted misrepresented my thought.

Not really. Again, what it did was dismiss your rationalization. What you are attempting to do is validate Dulay's response to me on the basis that it has something to do with your topic overall while ignoring the fact that it is a total non sequitur to my post. I totally get that you think it's valid because it addresses the topic of your post. I also totally get that you know I'm right but rather than admit it you will attempt to make this about whether or not Dulay's post addresses your overall topic rather than whether it addresses my comment to you. 

Petty and pointless.   

I will wait for a (hopefully serious) response to @1.1.27

But, concerning being angry at God or hating God, you should realize that those are your words. I don't know Lewis's heart or Katrix', but it could very well be they were angry at the idea of God and hated the idea of God.

I actually like mythology and science fiction.

If the Abrahamic god DID exist, and it were as described in the bible, then yes, I'd hate it.   The biblical god is described as evil.  Just as I'd hate Sauron or Darth Vader if they actually existed.  But I can't hate a fictional character who doesn't even actually exist.

One can call oneself an atheist even if one actually believes in a god.   The self-label would be semantically wrong because an atheist, by definition, does not believe in a a god.   

You miss the point. The individual decides whether or not they are an atheist or a believer. It isn't as if you have to apply to some agency or committee for the designation. While you may, yourself, have doubts about their designation, it is up to them to decide what they are.

Ask katrix if she believes in the biblical God.

Thank you, but I already know her expressed views on the subject.

Her analysis of the biblical God is similar to the analysis one might give of Voldemort (Harry Potter), Darth Vader (Star Wars) or the Wicked Witch (Wizard of Oz). It is analysis of a character. One can provide analysis of a character without believing the character actually exists.

Perhaps, but this only serves to make my point. You said...

...but when someone speaks of being angry with God or hating God that sounds like someone who believes in God. It does not make sense to be angry with something that you are not convinced even exists.

Just because someone expresses anger or hatred of God doesn't mean that they believe that God exists. You said this because you think it expressed Lewis's attitude toward God. From what I understand, it was more like anger that God did not exist. Lewis felt, during his atheistic years, that if God existed, the world would not be the way it is. A view not dissimilar from your own, as I understand it.

(I corrected your comment to what I think you meant to write.)

I did make an error. I'll correct it, as yours is completely wrong.

It's interesting to note, however, that I've heard more times than I can remember that someone who had a religious background apparently cannot be an atheist. If they claim atheism and then become theists, well, obviously they were never really atheist. That would be theist to atheist.

Not the point. The point was that there are those (who seem to be most in here) that one cannot be truly atheist if there is any religion in one's history. 

Looks like you are trying to put words in mouth.

Or you are looking for something that isn't there. If I were putting words in your mouth I would have said something that indicated that this is what your words meant. 

Given the time in which he lived, atheism was a rarity.

I don't agree. I think what was a rarity was admitting one was an atheist. 

It is reasonable to assume that almost everyone was a theist.

It is reasonable to believe that, right now, almost everyone is a theist. That is, they believe God exists. 

It is reasonable to assume that even today albeit not to the same degree.

Perhaps, but my opinion is the degree is about the same. It's just more socially acceptable to admit it. 

I think you do not understand the mind of an atheist.

No point in arguing this as it is a matter of opinion. 

If the Abrahamic god DID exist, and it were as described in the bible, then yes, I'd hate it. 

Fine, but within the context of the discussion TiG and I are having, if one day you changed your mind and accepted that God, TiG's opinion would apparently be that you were never truly atheistic (or agnostic) to begin with. That you were just angry with who you thought He was. 

Petty and pointless.    I will wait for a (hopefully serious) response to @1.1.27

Cogently argued, Sir! I submit to your superior critical thinking. 

You miss the point. The individual decides whether or not they are an atheist or a believer. It isn't as if you have to apply to some agency or committee for the designation. While you may, yourself, have doubts about their designation, it is up to them to decide what they are.

That is complete nonsense Drakk.   An atheist is one who does not believe in a god.   If you believe in a god then you are ipso facto NOT an atheist.   The individual does not get to decide the meaning of words.   All the individual can do is use the word or misuse the word.    So if someone who believes in a god self-labels as 'atheist' that person is misusing the word.    A theist deciding that s/he is an atheist is a confused theist.

Just because someone expresses anger or hatred of God doesn't mean that they believe that God exists.

Correct.   But to be precise, they are not actually emotionally angry at something they do not believe exists.   It is analytical, not emotional.   I do not hate Darth Vader, for example, because he is a character of fiction. 

You said this because you think it expressed Lewis's attitude toward God. From what I understand, it was more like anger that God did not exist. Lewis felt, during his atheistic years, that if God existed, the world would not be the way it is. A view not dissimilar from your own, as I understand it.

If God existed the world would no doubt be different.   Whether that would be an improvement on not depends upon the definition of 'God'.  If by 'God' we are referring to the biblical God then I would submit reality would be far worse than it is.

It's interesting to note, however, that I've heard more times than I can remember that someone who had a religious background apparently cannot be an atheist.

Where on Earth did you hear that?   Most atheists come from a religious background.   

If they claim atheism and then become theists, well, obviously they were never really atheist. That would be theist to atheist.

Again, atheists become theists and vice-versa.   It is a big world and people do all sorts of things.   Nobody has claimed that it is impossible for an atheist to become a theist.   This is a strawman.

The point was that there are those (who seem to be most in here) that one cannot be truly atheist if there is any religion in one's history. 

Then take it up with the individuals you have in mind.  Since I never made that claim your vague allegation takes us nowhere.

I don't agree. I think what was a rarity was admitting one was an atheist. 

That too.   The point is that the social pressure was clearly heavily on being a theist.

It is reasonable to believe that, right now, almost everyone is a theist. That is, they believe God exists.

Correct.   I stated that.   The vast majority of the world are theists - believe that their god exists.

No point in arguing this as it is a matter of opinion. 

True, but you are dead wrong when you claim @1.1.24:  "I think everyone knows God exists on some level."   Demonstrably, you do not understand atheism.

Then he became an atheist

It depends on how you define 'atheist'. As TiG said, Lewis was pissed off at God. He blamed God for everything from his mother's death to the horrors of war.

Atheists, by definition, don't blame an entity they don't believe exists. 

TiG's opinion would apparently be that you were never truly atheistic (or agnostic) to begin with. That you were just angry with who you thought He was. 

Why do you resort to putting incorrect words in my mouth?    If you cannot debate with intellectual honesty then what is the point?

 Most atheists come from a religious background

I certainly did - I was a Christian for years before I became an atheist. 

Now, I've been told by quite a few Christians back on NV that therefore I was never a "real" Christian ... which is bull.  But it was the only way they could reconcile the fact that a former Christian is now an atheist. 

After the Holocaust, some Jews who survived the camps became atheists.  It was apparently realizing that the reason God didn't help them wasn't because He was a jerk - it was because he doesn't exist - that led to their enlightenment.

That is complete nonsense Drakk…

I see. Then...

Lewis strikes me as a confused theist who self-labeled as atheist (for a duration).

… was not merely an opinion but, rather, a fact you wish to put forth? That an individual doesn't decide if they are an atheist but, rather, has to meet some sort of peer review on the subject?

Correct. But to be precise, they are not actually emotionally angry at something they do not believe exists.

Uh, yeah. You've obviously not paid attention to what people say here. They are quite angry, even though they don't believe God may exist. 

It is analytical, not emotional. I do not hate Darth Vader, for example, because he is a character of fiction.

Ah, so you've determined that God doesn't exist and therefore can be relegated to the category of "imaginary characters?" Regardless, if you expect me to believe there is no emotional component for some people, Katrix for example, then you'd do poorly as a car salesman. 

If God existed the world would no doubt be different.

That may be your opinion, but my view is this world is exactly what I would expect. 

If by 'God' we are referring to the biblical God then I would submit reality would be far worse than it is.

Why?

Where on Earth did you hear that? Most atheists come from a religious background.

I already told you, but I'll say it again. I have been in conversations, ones that you participated in, where people claimed that Stalin was a Christian simply because religion factored in his past. 

Again, atheists become theists and vice-versa. It is a big world and people do all sorts of things. Nobody has claimed that it is impossible for an atheist to become a theist. This is a strawman.

I see. So, my stating that some claim that someone who had a religious background when they were younger, claimed atheism for a period and then later became theists were actually theists all along is a strawman argument? I think you need to update yourself on what constitutes a strawman argument. A strawman argument would be if I took something you said and made it seem to say something else and argued on that basis would be a strawman. 

Then take it up with the individuals you have in mind. Since I never made that claim your vague allegation takes us nowhere.

No, I guess not. Not as long as you think this is about you. Hint. It's not.

True, but you are dead wrong when you claim @1.1.24: "I think everyone knows God exists on some level." Demonstrably, you do not understand atheism.

Like I said, no point in arguing this.

It depends on how you define 'atheist'. As TiG said, Lewis was pissed off at God. He blamed God for everything from his mother's death to the horrors of war.

Um, not according to what I have read, but I'm willing to look at your source. From what I understand, Lewis was pissed because he believed if there was a God (incorrectly) then these things wouldn't have happened. That is, because these things happened, he believed there must be no God. He wasn't pissed at God, he was pissed because there wasn't.

… was not merely an opinion but, rather, a fact you wish to put forth? That an individual doesn't decide if they are an atheist but, rather, has to meet some sort of peer review on the subject?

No, it was and remains my opinion.   Read what I write rather than invent words for me.  Here, I will make it easy for you, this is what I wrote upfront:

TiG @1.1.21 -

I understand why you mention Lewis.  C.S. Lewis strikes me as a confused theist who self-labeled as atheist (for a duration).  You probably disagree, but when someone speaks of being angry with God or hating God that sounds like someone who believes in God.   It does not make sense to be angry with something that you are not convinced even exists. And I realize I am oversimplifying C.S. Lewis.   But this is simply a post - not a detailed analysis of the man.   Worse though, C.S. Lewis is not available to answer questions which makes this a game of guesswork.

How can you possibly not realize the above is me expressing an opinion with some rather obvious qualification?   

What is the point of you making these nonsense strawman arguments?   Do you think others are too stupid to see what you are doing?

You've obviously not paid attention to what people say here. They are quite angry, even though they don't believe God may exist. 

Judging from your misrepresentation of what I am writing, your testimony of what you have read from others has little credibility with me at the moment.

Ah, so you've determined that God doesn't exist and therefore can be relegated to the category of "imaginary characters?"

Yes, I have concluded that the biblical God is simply a character in a book.   If there is a god, I have concluded that it is not the biblical God.

Regardless, if you expect me to believe there is no emotional component for some people, Katrix for example, then you'd do poorly as a car salesman. 

Katrix herself just told you that you are wrong.   Hello?

That may be your opinion, but my view is this world is exactly what I would expect. 

Understood.   We all have opinions.

Why?

Start with the obvious:  we would all be ruled by an emotional master who demands we worship and obey it.

I have been in conversations, ones that you participated in, where people claimed that Stalin was a Christian simply because religion factored in his past. 

So what?   An example of a theist turning atheist or an atheist turning theist is totally non-information-bearing.   We know this occurs.   You cannot generalize anything of value from that.   Most atheists come from a religious background.   Right?  So if you have someone who claims that this is false, bring them here and I will be happy to debate them.   If not, this is entirely pointless.

I see. So, my stating that some claim that someone who had a religious background when they were younger, claimed atheism for a period and then later became theists were actually theists all along is a strawman argument?

No.   Read what I wrote.  

Like I said, no point in arguing this.

Agreed.  You are dead wrong when you claim  @ 1.1.24 : "I think everyone knows God exists on some level." 

Regardless, if you expect me to believe there is no emotional component for some people, Katrix for example, then you'd do poorly as a car salesman. 

What emotional component?  If I were to discuss what Cersei did in Game of Thrones, maybe it would sound emotional to you, because she is clearly a monster.  When she used the wildfire to murder all those people, she made it clear just how evil she is.   She's probably the single worst person in all of Westeros.  Her own son committed suicide when she burned up the Great Sept, for crying out loud!

She's still just a fictional character in a book, as are gods.  Using strong adjectives to describe evil in books of fiction is hardly the same as talking about Dahmer or someone real.

Um, nope. Just dismissed it as rationalization. You expressed curiosity concerning transition from atheism to theism. I suggested Lewis.

Yet Lewis doesn't fit the bill. TiG stated: 

What would be very interesting (to me) is someone who had no belief in the biblical god but who, after serious study of the Bible, actually believed that the character described by the Bible is indeed the supreme entity responsible for all of reality.

Lewis's grandfather was a Church of Ireland priest and matriarchal line was DEEPLY Christian. Since you insist that we examine Lewis, his book 'Pilgrim's Progress' is about rejecting faith and then regaining it. His autobiographies flesh that fact out quite clearly. 

Lewis therefore isn't an example of someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical god and then became a believer. 

Dulay replied to my post with a total non-relevancy. That is, unless you want to skip the rationalization and explain how Hitchens or the quote from him that Dulay provided has something to do with what I was addressing? 

I posit that my Hitchens' quote is more relevant to TiG's stated interest than anything Lewis could contribute. 

No, it was and remains my opinion.

Okay, but then you say...

An atheist is one who does not believe in a god. If you believe in a god then you are ipso facto NOT an atheist. The individual does not get to decide the meaning of words. All the individual can do is use the word or misuse the word. So if someone who believes in a god self-labels as 'atheist' that person is misusing the word. A theist deciding that s/he is an atheist is a confused theist.

Remember, what I am talking about regarding this is your use of "self-labeled". I questioned it's meaning and this is what you responded with. Rather than say "perhaps" you respond with this. I totally understand that "perhaps" Lewis believed in God all along, although I personally doubt it. You, on the other hand, seem not able to recognize that Lewis may have indeed been an atheist.

Do you think others are too stupid to see what you are doing?

Honestly? I think Romans 1:21 applies. 

She's probably the single worst person in all of Westeros.  Her own son committed suicide when she burned up the Great Sept, for crying out loud!

You do not think this is an emotional response? Why, then, the exclamation point? 

Do you know more about katrix than she?   It is easy to see how you could read others wrong given what you are demonstrating here.

Why, then, the exclamation point? 

What part of 'for crying out loud!' was unclear? 

You, on the other hand, seem not able to recognize that Lewis may have indeed been an atheist.

He might have been an atheist.   My impression is that he was a confused theist.   We do not know, and as I noted, the man is long dead and unable to answer questions.

Lewis's grandfather was a Church of Ireland priest and matriarchal line was DEEPLY Christian.

Which says nothing about what Lewis himself though. 

Since you insist that we examine Lewis, his book 'Pilgrim's Progress' is about rejecting faith and then regaining it.

I didn't insist. I suggested. Also, Lewis didn't write "Pilgrim's Progress". That was written by John Bunyan. It was a book about someone finding faith in God, not about someone who had faith, lost it and then, subsequently, regained it. I think what you are referring to is "Pilgrim's Regress". It should be obvious, however, that this was written after his conversion to Christianity. The fact that he wrote this has no bearing as to whether he was genuinely an atheist during the years he claims to be so. 

Lewis therefore isn't an example of someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical god and then became a believer.

Unfortunately for you, nothing in what you've said here supports your assertion. If you want to do that, state something he did or said while he claimed to be an atheist that contradicts the claim. 

I posit that my Hitchens' quote is more relevant to TiG's stated interest than anything Lewis could contribute.

Okay. I'm willing to hear you out. How does what you posted regarding my suggestion that TiG examine Lewis prove more relevant than your quote of what Hitchen's said. How does what you quoted address TiG's curiosity as to why an atheist would turn theist?

What part of 'for crying out loud!' was unclear?

Absolutely nothing. Totally clear. As usual, though, you are attempting to misdirect. The issue isn't the meaning of the sentence. The issue is whether or not the sentence carries emotional content. Is that unclear to you???

He might have been an atheist.   My impression is that he was a confused theist.   We do not know, and as I noted, the man is long dead and unable to answer questions.

Then what is the purpose of your continued debate on this subject? I recognized that your view was understandable. 

I have no idea why you keep this going.   I stated my opinion in my original comment.   You, however, have continued this by putting words in my mouth.

There is nothing to be gained by trying to turn my comments into an argument that 'no atheist could become a theist' (among other things):

Drakk @1.1.24 -  Apparently, then, you must believe Katrix believes in God. It's interesting to note, however, that I've heard more times than I can remember that someone who had a religious background apparently cannot be an atheist. If they claim atheism and then become atheists, well, obviously they were never really atheist.  

Drakk @1.1.34 - if one day you changed your mind and accepted that God, TiG's opinion would apparently be that you were never truly atheistic (or agnostic) to begin with. That you were just angry with who you thought He was. 

The fact that he wrote this has no bearing as to whether he was genuinely an atheist during the years he claims to be so. 

OUR discussion is about whether Lewis qualifies as someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical God PROIR to becoming a theist.

Pilgrim's REGRESS, which is autobiographical, infers that he rejected God and then regained his belief. Again, his autobiography bolster that. 

Unfortunately for you, nothing in what you've said here supports your assertion. If you want to do that, state something he did or said while he claimed to be an atheist that contradicts the claim.

You seem to accept that Lewis stated that he BECAME an atheist at 15. That alone connotes that he was a THEIST until he was 15. 

You should follow your own 'suggestion' and examine Lewis. 

In his book, Surprise of Joy, Lewis wrote: 

Wyvern itself healed my quarrel with England. The great blue plain below us and, behind, those green, peaked hills, so mountainous in form and yet so manageably small in size, became almost at once my delight. And Wyvern Priory was the first building that I ever perceived to be beautiful. And at Chartres I made my first real friends. But there, too, something far more important happened to me: I ceased to be a Christian.

The issue is whether or not the sentence carries emotional content. Is that unclear to you???

Yes it IS unclear because you ORIGINALLY claimed that the use of an EXCLAMATION POINT infers emotion. It can ALSO connote 'crying out loud!'. Look it up...

OUR discussion is about whether Lewis qualifies as someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical God PROIR to becoming a theist.

Okay, fine. Demonstrate that he believed in God while claiming to be atheist. That should be easy, right?

Pilgrim's REGRESS, which is autobiographical, infers that he rejected God and then regained his belief. Again, his autobiography bolster that.

Um, yeah. No argument there. What you are apparently trying to do is claim that Pilgrim's Regress is evidence after the fact. That is, that he wrote this after converting to theism is proof that he was never atheist. 

You seem to accept that Lewis stated that he BECAME an atheist at 15. That alone connotes that he was a THEIST until he was 15.

No, hence my distinguishing between someone who was in a religious system as opposed to an actual follower of Christ. Since I'm nearly certain you will not understand that, I'll try to expand on this. 

In order to be a real Christian, one must follow Christ. What this means is to do what Christ did for the reasons Christ did them. Anything less is not Christianity. As to whether Lewis was a real Christian in his adolescence is not my place to say definitively, however, it is my opinion that had Lewis understood Christianity and Christ, he would never have claimed atheism. Since he claimed atheism, it indicates to me that he was not a real Christian at that time. 

Regardless, what you are attempting to do is definitively claim that Lewis believed in God the whole time. That is fine as an opinion. It is not as fact. 

Demonstrate that he believed in God while claiming to be atheist.

Why devolve to a strawman Drak? 

That is, that he wrote this after converting to theism is proof that he was never atheist.

No Drak. You seem to be conflating two discussions and therebe confusing yourself. Again, let's try this on more time: 

OUR discussion is about whether Lewis qualifies as someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical God PROIR to becoming a theist.

You replied, OK, fine. So WE are discussing THAT question. MY posit, based on Lewis' own writing,  is that Lewis believed in a biblical God PRIOR to becoming an atheist and therefore does NOT qualify under the standard set by TiG's query. Try to stay focused and address MY posit. 

In order to be a real Christian, one must follow Christ. What this means is to do what Christ did for the reasons Christ did them. Anything less is not Christianity.

Those three sentences are perfect examples of claims that carry the 'burden of proof'. 

Please proceed to provide such. 

As to whether Lewis was a real Christian in his adolescence is not my place to say definitively, however, it is my opinion that had Lewis understood Christianity and Christ, he would never have claimed atheism.

Wait WHAT? You said: 

… was not merely an opinion but, rather, a fact you wish to put forth? That an individual doesn't decide if they are an atheist but, rather, has to meet some sort of peer review on the subject?

Does an individual decide if they are a Christian or do they have to meet some sort of peer review on the subject Drak? 

Since he claimed atheism, it indicates to me that he was not a real Christian at that time.

Since he claimed to be a Christian until he was about 15, it indicates to me that he WAS a real Christian until he was about 15. 

Regardless, what you are attempting to do is definitively claim that Lewis believed in God the whole time. That is fine as an opinion. It is not as fact.

NO Drak. That is NOT what OUR discussion is about and it is NOT a claim that I have made. Try to stay focused...

Why devolve to a strawman Drak? 

Dunno. Why not describe what the strawman is. That way, maybe I could answer your question.

OUR discussion is about whether Lewis qualifies as someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical God PROIR to becoming a theist.

Fair enough.

You replied, OK, fine. So WE are discussing THAT question. MY posit, based on Lewis' own writing, is that Lewis believed in a biblical God PRIOR to becoming an atheist and therefore does NOT qualify under the standard set by TiG's query. Try to stay focused and address MY posit.

So, again, I say, fine. What you need to do is present evidence that, while claiming to be an atheist, he actually believed in God. Still waiting. 

Those three sentences are perfect examples of claims that carry the 'burden of proof'.

Sure. The meaning of the word "Christian" is one who follows Christ. Are you suggesting that it means something different?

Does an individual decide if they are a Christian or do they have to meet some sort of peer review on the subject Drak?

No, peer review isn't what determines who is a Christian or not. But, neither does one claiming one is a Christian. That is, declaring oneself to be a Christian doesn't make one a Christian. As I said, a Christian is one who does what Christ did for the reasons Christ did them. "Christian literally means "follower of Christ". 

Since he claimed to be a Christian until he was about 15, it indicates to me that he WAS a real Christian until he was about 15

Understood. People like yourself think that all that is necessary for being a Christian is being associated with Christianity in some fashion. If one's parents were Christian and they took their children to church, their children were therefore Christian. If you believe that you must believe that all people in America are capitalists. 

NO Drak. That is NOT what OUR discussion is about and it is NOT a claim that I have made. Try to stay focused..

Okay, then refocus me. What is this discussion about?

What you need to do is present evidence that, while claiming to be an atheist, he actually believed in God.

What YOU need to do is to CAREFULLY review MY comments in this thread and copy and paste the comment that I posted that makes THAT assertion.

Do THAT in your next reply. 

Until you DO, your comment is just blathering...

The meaning of the word "Christian" is one who follows Christ. 

Your burden of proof wasn't about a definition. 

So your posit is that you don't believe Lewis, even though he 'self-labeled' as a Christian until he was 15 but you DO believe him when he self-labeled' as a Christian later in life, even though he made both claims in the SAME book. Got ya. 

That is, declaring oneself to be a Christian doesn't make one a Christian.

Why not? 

Oh and BTW, you argue that claiming oneself to be an atheist definitely makes on an atheist. Why? 

Okay, then refocus me.

I'm not sure that's possible or worth the effort.

What is this discussion about?

I've repeated it verbatim more than once and you've agreed to it more than once. 

What YOU need to do is to CAREFULLY review MY comments in this thread and copy and paste the comment that I posted that makes THAT assertion. Do THAT in your next reply.

Okay. You stated...

OUR discussion is about whether Lewis qualifies as someone who was WITHOUT a belief in a biblical God PROIR to becoming a theist.

And...

You replied, OK, fine. So WE are discussing THAT question. MY posit, based on Lewis' own writing, is that Lewis believed in a biblical God PRIOR to becoming an atheist and therefore does NOT qualify under the standard set by TiG's query. Try to stay focused and address MY posit.

Problem is, you haven't demonstrated that Lewis believed in a Biblical God prior to becoming an atheist. You assume that, because he was raised by Christian parents that he himself was a person of faith at that time. I asked you to provide the proof of your claim that Lewis's own writing proves a belief in a Biblical God but you have failed to do so. I think the truth is that, like any child, he had the "faith" of a child because of his parents, but as he grew older and was able to think for himself, Lewis realized that this was all it was. Around the age of 15 he decided that he did not in fact believe there was a God. 

My bet is that your source for Lewis is Wikipedia. According to that, Lewis's own words on his childhood religion was...

He became an atheist at age 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "angry with God for not existing".

and...

His early separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and a duty;

It seems clear to me that the young Lewis realized that the only reason for whatever "faith" in God he had was because he was raised that way. That is, it was something he had because his parents had it, not because he himself believed it. If it were otherwise, why would he have claimed atheism when he was 15? When he said that he was "angry with God for not existing" it was a statement made in retrospect. That is, it was the older Lewis commenting on the younger Lewis. 

In short, what you are attempting to do, without any evidence, is assert that because the younger Lewis was raised in the Christian faith he is therefore not qualified as an atheist turned theist. You claim, without evidence, that Lewis's own words support your claim, while ignoring the fact that Lewis claimed that he was an atheist. 

Your burden of proof wasn't about a definition.

Oh, that's nice! You insert TiG's overall theme for this post and think you make a point. Apparently though, you ignore the point that the definition of a word matters. 

So your posit is that you don't believe Lewis, even though he 'self-labeled' as a Christian until he was 15 but you DO believe him when he self-labeled' as a Christian later in life, even though he made both claims in the SAME book. Got ya.

No, I believe Lewis. It is apparent, though, that you do not. In order for your reasoning to stand, you have to provide evidence that the post atheist Lewis's faith was the same sort as the pre atheist Lewis's faith. As I said before, if you believe differently, it should be easy for you to prove. Why not provide that evidence? Apparently there is some book you refer to that is able to do this. 

Why not?

I already explained this but I will do so again. While simply declaring oneself a Christian may be good enough for you, it isn't for God. The literal meaning of "Christian" isn't one who claims to be Christian. The literal meaning is "one who follows Christ". One can identify as "Christian" their entire life without actually following Christ. Simply going to church doesn't make one a Christian, although I understand that it is commonly believed to be so. But this is true only because, commonly, people do not understand Christ. 

Every single moment of Jesus' life, everything he ever did, everything he ever said, was a direct and intimate result in his faith in his Father. He completely dismissed the concerns of the world. For him, reality was God, not the everyday concerns we consider the world. 

A true Christian seeks to do the same. Unless you can prove that the younger Lewis had the same attitude, the same belief that the older Lewis had, then your claim that Lewis is disqualified as an atheist is empty. You accuse me of not taking Lewis at his word, while you yourself ignore that he himself claimed he was an atheist. How do you do that and expect that someone take you seriously? 

Oh and BTW, you argue that claiming oneself to be an atheist definitely makes on an atheist. Why?

Where have I done this? The only reason I can fathom for you to state this is that I take Lewis at his word that he was an atheist. 

I've repeated it verbatim more than once and you've agreed to it more than once.

Then it should be easy for you to restate it.

I asked you to provide the proof of your claim that Lewis's own writing proves a belief in a Biblical God but you have failed to do so.

Oh but I DID Drak. I quoted from his book 'Surprise of Joy' in which he stated that he 'ceased to be a Christian'. Later in the SAME book, he stated that he was AGAIN a Christian.

I note that YOU haven't supplied any evidence. from his own writing, that his early Christianity was any less based on a belief in a biblical God that his later Christianity was. 

Are you able to meet your own standard Drak? I DID. 

My bet is that your source for Lewis is Wikipedia. According to that, Lewis's own words on his childhood religion was...

You lost Drak. I am an unrecovered bibliophile. I OWN hundreds of books, ALL of which I have READ at least once. My quote, and Lewis' age come from MY COPY of his book 'Surprise of Joy'. 

Remember YOU were the one who 'suggested' that we examine Lewis. It seems that I have done so more thoroughly than you. 

He became an atheist at age 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "angry with God for not existing".
and...
His early separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and a duty;
It seems clear to me

It IS clear to me that you aren't quoting MY comment and are instead copying and pasting from an unreferenced source. You've gone right off the rails Drak…

No, I believe Lewis. It is apparent, though, that you do not. In order for your reasoning to stand, you have to provide evidence that the post atheist Lewis's faith was the same sort as the pre atheist Lewis's faith. As I said before, if you believe differently, it should be easy for you to prove. Why not provide that evidence? Apparently there is some book you refer to that is able to do this.

If you believe Lewis, why not believe his own statements?

BTFW, NO ONES faith remains constant and unchanged during their lifetime, especially so for a man like Lewis who studied philosophy for so long. The faith of a teenager is unlikely to be like their faith as a  parent or a senior. It is enough for me that Lewis 'self-labeled' as a Christian early and later in life. If you believe Lewis, it should be enough for you too. 

While simply declaring oneself a Christian may be good enough for you, it isn't for God.

So you DON'T believe Lewis. Or maybe you do but you only believe him when he is saying what YOU want to hear. 

The only reason I can fathom for you to state this is that I take Lewis at his word that he was an atheist.

Perhaps YOU can explain why YOU take Lewis at his word that he was an atheist. You don't take him at his word that he 'ceased being a Christian' as a teenager...

Seems selective to me. 

Then it should be easy for you to restate it.

It should be easy for you to re-read it. It seems that you're incapable of focusing on it though. 

You do not think this is an emotional response? Why, then, the exclamation point?

Exclamation points are used for emphasis.  They do not necessarily connote emotions.  I can't seriously get emotional about the actions of someone who does not exist. 

If someone claims that there is a supernatural, that is a claim of truth.   It bears the burden of proof.   

The supernatural claimer cannot turn this around and demand that the one rejecting the claim must prove the inverse - that there is no supernatural.

Mere rejection of the claim 'supernatural exists' is not a claim that 'supernatural does not exist'.   It is a demand to meet the burden of proof for the claim.  There is no burden of proof for rejecting a claim.

The supernatural claimer cannot turn this around and demand that the one rejecting the claim must prove the inverse - that there is no supernatural.

Gee, I can think of certain individuals who do that.

It is a demand to meet the burden of proof for the claim. There is no burden of proof for rejecting a claim.

I think that is what many people do not understand. They think the rejection of their claim means the other must automatically prove the rejection. 

Gee, I can think of certain individuals who do that.

Mr Giggles' friends are all like that. If I say I don't believe God exists, they come back with "prove that he doesn't exist". And I can't seem to get it through their thick heads that one cannot prove a negative.

These are people who are also ignorant of their, there, and they're

Your statement 'I don't believe God exists' is not a claim of certainty - it is your personal conclusion.   No burden of proof.   They should read this article.

Exactly! But I'm not dealing with people with Mensa memberships

Well then maybe:  'Nothing to prove, I agree that God might exist   I am just not convinced God exists.   Do you have something that would convince me?'   

If I say I don't believe God exists, they come back with "prove that he doesn't exist".

The key word in there is "believe." You are not making a claim of certainty. But that doesn't stop some from utilizing logical fallacies as a response.

And I can't seem to get it through their thick heads that one cannot prove a negative.

And yet, they think that is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Go figure.

What??

You claim to have met illogical people on NewsTalkers???????

Unthinkable!

You claim to have met illogical people on NewsTalkers???????

I meet illogical people everyday. But then, when have people in general ever really been logical to begin with?

I think most of the problems are things being claimed that cannot be proven either way.

I can claim there are extra terrestrial beings yet it cannot be definitively proven one way or another.

I would argue that there are some things, can't think of any on the fly, that the proof is about 50/50. Then it is up to the individual to form an opinion either way.

Then I would say that it comes down to individual belief systems, in which the individual believes they are correct.

I can claim there are extra terrestrial beings yet it cannot be definitively proven one way or another.

Correct.   Until we have evidence of exolife, we cannot claim that exolife exists.   And there is no way to realistically falsify a claim that no exolife exists so that is also a fail.

I would argue that there are some things, can't think of any on the fly, that the proof is about 50/50. Then it is up to the individual to form an opinion either way.

The idea of a 50/50 proof does not compute with me.  I do not know what that would be.   How does one half prove something?   I can see the idea of evidence leaving one undecided one way or the other.   Is that what you mean?

Then I would say that it comes down to individual belief systems, in which the individual believes they are correct.

Yes, and if someone states 'I believe xxx' they do not bear the burden of proof (or even evidence) because they are not making a claim about general reality.   They are simply offering their opinion (conclusion).

 Is that what you mean?

I guess the best way I can describe it is the debate on voter fraud.

Some people think that one incident means the system is flawed and needs more restrictions while others see it as an anomaly. For some the burden of proof is very little while others will always demand more.

Where as both can be correct and at the same time both be wrong.

For some the burden of proof is very little while others will always demand more.

I see and agree.   We all have different thresholds before we hold something to be likely true.

The key point is that claims of truth carry the burden of proof.   So 'fraud in our voting system has allowed legitimate winners to lose' is a claim that bears the burden of proof.   However, 'I think our voting system leaves too much room for fraud' does not bear the burden of proof.

We all have different thresholds before we hold something to be likely true.

Very true and even such, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" reigns supreme in the exalted world of proof also.....

One persons proof is another's argument way to often to accept anything from a single source as the only valid position.....

I think most of the problems are things being claimed that cannot be proven either way.

I'm sure many here wish that were the case. The issue I have is with things being clearly proven, with links and references and it STILL no t being accepted as fact. 

There are some people I can debate with, then there are some that would argue with a lamp post.

I think the point Tig is making is that opinions and arguments do not make truth.

Therefore do not constitute proof of anything except the poster being particularly opinionated one way or the other.....

Most facts propagated online are oft repeated beliefs without a shred of provable fact.

Now that is an undeniable truth....

But I'm sure you will have an opinion that will represent a choice to argue with it.

I think what TiG is saying is that a claim carries with is a burden of proof, an opinion does not and just because you disagree with either doesn't mean you hold the opposite position. 

Therefore do not constitute proof of anything except the poster being particularly opinionated one way or the other.....

I agree that opinions do not constitute proof.

Most facts propagated online are oft repeated beliefs without a shred of provable fact.

I think you are correct there too.

Spot on!

Remarkably some cannot grasp this idea.    If an atheist (a gnostic atheist) (of which there are very few) were to claim 'there is no god' that claim bears the burden of proof.   It is also impossible to prove.   Every atheist that I know when asked the question:  'is it impossible for a god to exist' would acknowledge the possibility.   To not do so would be irrational (and/or intellectually dishonest).   Yet some seem to insist that atheism = certain claim that no god could possibly exist.   That is simply not paying attention (or stubbornly trying to push an intellectually dishonest agenda).

Good article.

Here's another proposition:

I believe that God exists.

Let me add that I don't expect you to do the same.

Is there any "burden of proof"?

No burden of proof.   You have simply offered your opinion (your belief).   You have not stated 'God exists' as a general truth - you have simply offered a personal 'truth'.

Agreed.

The same would be true, of course, for:

I don't think God exists.

... on condition of an understood clause, "but I don't expect you to agree..."

I agree.   'I don't think God exists' is simply a statement of opinion/conclusion.   There is no claim being made and thus no burden of proof.   Not even a burden of evidence.

Of course people can (and really should) inquire as to the reasons (out of curiosity).

Now if only people could discuss this objectively without getting all emotional we might be able to tease out something of value.

Now if only people could discuss this objectively without getting all emotional we might be able to tease out something of value.

Amen.

Now if only people could discuss this objectively without getting all emotional we might be able to tease out something of value.

Religious belief and faith are based on emotions, so that idea is extremely unlikely to occur.  I'd love to find a way to have a discussion with religious people that could bypass their emotions because it could be far more productive.  

For the most part as soon as these debates start getting interesting the religious side starts getting testy.    Questioning one's faith (which in effect is what happens in these debates) is tough to deal with.   But if there are no clear answers to the challenges I certainly can understand why the religious side of the debate gets frustrated.   I wish it were not the case but I get it.

Religious belief and faith are based on emotions...

I'm not sure that "emotions" is the right word, but I'm having trouble finding the right one.

Faith is internal. Possible terms would be "visceral" or "cerebral". It's "knowing without evidence".

"Emotion" has a connotation of "uncontrolled", which is not necessarily valid for faith.

Another word that seems to make sense is 'feelings'.

'Faith is based on feelings'.

Ultimately this is 'emotions' (in my opinion) but 'feelings' somewhat captures the religious concept of a sense of the Holy Spirit.   Most people do not even try to describe this, but the descriptions I have read seem be net down to 'feelings' or 'sensations'.

The Faithful should listen carefully to this article.

Their mistake in most conversations is to accept a challenge "to present proof". If all they say is, "I believe", they have no obligation to present proof.

Proselytizing, on the other hand... trying to convince others of the existence of God... does indeed require proof.

IMNAAHO, proselytizing is incoherent with faith. Faith comes from inside. Gut-feeling. Impossible to prove.

If all they say is, "I believe", they have no obligation to present proof.

Logically I fully agree.   There is no burden of proof on a belief.

But typically you will not find this to hold up in the discussion or debate.   For example, consider a follow-up question such as:  'Do you accept the possibility that your God does not exist?'.

If the answer is 'no' then the 'I believe ...' goes out the window because the true claim is 'It is true that my God exists'.   

Faith comes from inside. Gut-feeling. Impossible to prove.

And that is pretty much what is delivered.   Proof of course is impossible (short of delivering God) but even evidence is unavailable.   I think the lack of credible evidence is the worst part.   Without evidence, one can claim a 'internal feeling' of anything. 

Do you accept the possibility that your God does not exist?

The appropriate answer would be, "No, but I realize that you may believe that He doesn't exist, as you do not share my faith."

Without evidence, one can claim a 'internal feeling' of anything.

That's why it's called "faith".

"No, but I realize that you may believe that He doesn't exist, as you do not share my faith."

Interesting.

The 'no' part makes an affirmative claim that God exists.   That brings the burden of proof.

The 'but I realize ...' part acknowledges that others will disagree with the claim.   

But the burden of proof exists because of the 'no'.   The 'no' strips away the 'I believe' qualification and leaves a claim: 'my God exists'.

The 'no' strips away the 'I believe' qualification and leaves a claim: 'my God exists'.

I don't think so. It's a declaration, "God exists for me."

It's a declaration, "God exists for me."

'God exists for me' = 'I believe that God exists'.   No burden of proof - this is not a claim of reality but of personal opinion / conclusion.

However, when one states that there is no possibility that their God does not exist, that is a claim of certainty.   It is precisely the claim: 'God exists'.

Trying to combine these two notions yields something like this:  'I might be wrong, but I am 100% certain God exists'.    That is a direct contradiction.   One cannot be 100% certain and also have doubt (allowing for the possibility they are wrong).   

Logically, one holds that:

• 'God does exist'        or
• 'God does not exist'  or
• 'God might exist'  

'I do not know if God exists' = 'God might exist'.   ( and the degree of 'might' ranges from very unlikely to very likely )

I know God exists - I have no doubt - because I have faith. I cannot share my faith. It is within me.

I understand that if you - or anyone - do not have that faith, you may not believe that God exists.

As I cannot share my faith, I can do nothing to affect your belief/disbelief in God's existence.

I know God exists - I have no doubt - because I have faith.

You do not consider that equivalent to:  'My God exists - I cannot possibly be wrong about this'?

Faith is internal. Possible terms would be "visceral" or "cerebral". It's "knowing without evidence".

Faith is just a belief. One does not actually "know" something based on faith alone. They merely think they do. How can one "know" something is valid or true when there is no evidence or proof?

If all they say is, "I believe", they have no obligation to present proof.

Fair enough. But they often do not stop there. Some go on to imply or even claim their belief is factually true. They can believe, but that doesn't make the belief itself true. Belief does not equal fact.

Proselytizing, on the other hand... trying to convince others of the existence of God... does indeed require proof.

And they always fail to deliver valid proof. It usually takes the form of something subjective and anecdotal. In other words, feelings.

I know God exists - I have no doubt - because I have faith.

Do you accept the possibility that you (or your belief) may be wrong?

You do not consider that equivalent to:  'My God exists - I cannot possibly be wrong about this'?

Only if accompanied by "but I know that you may believe otherwise."

The fact that I cannot be wrong does not imply that I can prove anything in a scientific sense. I know God exists, but my knowledge is based on faith that cannot be shared.

If I were trying to convince you of God's existence, I would have to provide proof... which I cannot. As I said, proselytizing is incoherent with faith.

The fact that I cannot be wrong does not imply that I can prove anything in a scientific sense. 

I agree that claiming to be 100% correct does not imply that you can prove that scientifically.   So just stick with the logic (which is what I am focusing on).   If one claims 'X is true' then one bears the burden of proof.   Even if the burden cannot be met, the assertion 'X is true' bears the burden of proof all the same.

I know God exists, but my knowledge is based on faith that cannot be shared.

Understood.   One can be 100% convinced (privately 'know') that their God exists.   But if one makes a public assertion to that effect (e.g. 'My God exists'), it is a claim of certainty and the burden of proof (whether or not it can be met) is there.   If one instead asserts 'I believe my God exists' leaving open the door that one might be wrong, then no burden of proof.

One does not actually "know" something based on faith alone. They merely think they do.

Do you believe in atoms? You've never seen one.

We only know a very little, first hand. We have a certain understanding of our own lives, but even there, we make a lot of assumptions... "take a lot on faith". Everything outside our own lives is "known"... without proof...

Look up the definition of "knowledge". You'll find that evidence is not required. I know God exists. Period. Faith is self-sustaining. I cannot give you proof because I have none. I have faith... which cannot be shared.

Do you accept the possibility that you (or your belief) may be wrong?

Intellectually, perhaps... but not really, not deep down. OTOH, I realize that I cannot convince you, because I cannot share my faith.

Interesting.

Would you say that "God exists" requires proof, but "I know that God exists" does not?

Do you believe in atoms?

No. Atoms exist because they have actually been observed with electron microscopes and they are the basis of all matter and the foundation of chemistry. It's basic science with empirical evidence. No belief required or necessary.

We have a certain understanding of our own lives, but even there, we make a lot of assumptions... "take a lot on faith". Everything outside our own lives is "known"... without proof...

That's a little vague.

Look up the definition of "knowledge". You'll find that evidence is not required.

But when one purports that something is real or true, then evidence is required.

I know God exists. Period. Faith is self-sustaining. I cannot give you proof because I have none. I have faith... which cannot be shared.

All that means is you have convinced yourself of something.

Intellectually, perhaps... but not really, not deep down.

It's either a yes or no. 

God exists or 'X is true' bears the burden of proof.

'I know that God exists' is an opinion / conclusion - no burden of proof.

But tighten up 'know' in the above sentence to yield:

'I cannot possibly be wrong in my knowledge that God exists' is a claim of certainty.   Burden of proof.

But tighten up 'know' in the above sentence to yield: 'I cannot possibly be wrong in my knowledge that God exists' is a claim of certainty.   Burden of proof.

This is what's interesting. Humans are fallible. Everything we know may be wrong.

Saying "I cannot possibly be wrong... " is inhuman.

If I say "I don't know if God exists", am I doubting God's existence, or my own knowledge?

Assuming God exists, them His existence is beyond human understanding. How can my opinion be of the slightest importance?

Atoms exist because they have actually been observed...

... by someone else, and you have taken their word for it.

You're probably right about their existence, but their nature is still very mucj up for grabs. Whatever you "know" may be overturned tomorrow.

There was a time when everyone knew that the Earth was the center of the universe, and had high-powered math to prove it.

In fact, we take a great deal on faith.

All that means is you have convinced yourself of something.

That is a possibility, of course. I could equally well say that you are suppressing the faith that you should have. I don't actually hold to that... but it's the same level of "reasonable" as your blithe presumption concerning what I know.

You are presuming that you are right. That's pretty presumptuous.

This is what's interesting. Humans are fallible. Everything we know may be wrong.  Saying "I cannot possibly be wrong... " is inhuman.

Fully agree.

If I say "I don't know if God exists", am I doubting God's existence, or my own knowledge?

You are doubting your own knowledge.   And if you doubt your own knowledge then you are ipso facto not making a claim of certainty.   So if one states:  'I am confident God exists but I know I might be wrong' then there is no burden of proof.   If instead one claims: 'God exists' and leaves no room that this statement could be wrong then the claim bears the burden of proof.

Assuming God exists, them His existence is beyond human understanding. How can my opinion be of the slightest importance?

We are talking about debate.   If a fallible human being makes a claim of certainty then that fallible human being -in the debate- bears the burden of proof.

"I know that God exists."

"I know that all human knowledge is fallible."

"I know that the human mind is fallible."

All three are either claims of certainty or statements of opinion.

Depends upon what you mean by 'know'.

If 'know' = 'assert as truth' then all three statements bear the burden of proof.

If 'know' = 'am personally convinced' then all three statements simply communicate your opinion and do not bear the burden of proof.

It's all very interesting....

by someone else, and you have taken their word for it.

The difference is, the methodologies used can be, and often is, repeated by anyone to collaborate and validate the results. It's the scientific equivalent of "showing your work," as it were.

Whatever you "know" may be overturned tomorrow.

That's the beauty of science: it always seeks to expand on what is known and understand even more.

There was a time when everyone knew that the Earth was the center of the universe, and had high-powered math to prove it.

The earth being the center of the universe was a belief and the height of human ego. I suppose there is something appealing about thinking you're the center of the universe. Kind of gives you that high and mighty feel.

I could equally well say that you are suppressing the faith that you should have.

Why should I have faith?

I don't actually hold to that... but it's the same level of "reasonable" as your blithe presumption concerning what I know.

Saying you "know" something is a statement of certainty. But without evidence, how can you truly "know?" Like you said, "Whatever you "know" may be overturned tomorrow." Does that not also apply to what you know (or believe)? Convincing yourself that you know something negates that possibility.

You are presuming that you are right. That's pretty presumptuous.

I never make such a presumption-even when I know I'm right

But seriously, I go by what the evidence shows. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. For example, I will not say "I know there is no god," (as that is a claim of certainty). I simply am not convinced there is a god. Now, if valid evidence for a god was presented, then I would reconsider and say I was wrong in my position. The same applies to any other situation as well.

"I know that all human knowledge is fallible."

I think the term "incomplete" would be more apt than fallible." But I am an optimist too. 

"I know that the human mind is fallible."

Except for TiG's.

The difference is, the methodologies used can be, and often is, repeated by anyone to collaborate and validate the results. It's the scientific equivalent of "showing your work," as it were.

Of course. But unless you are personally an observer of the experiment, you are necessarily taking someone's word.

This is the problem of the "trusted source". For you, a scientific source is largely to be believed. For a Fundie, the Bible is to be strictly believed.

and the height of human ego.

Not really. Ptolemy did not have a telescope. The biggest object, apparently, was the Earth, so why would it not be the center? Only when the telescope revealed that there were lots of objects bigger than the Earth, did geocentrism become illogical.

Saying you "know" something is a statement of certainty.

Not exactly. Among intelligent people, there is always an unspoken "to the best that 'knowing' is possible for a human being". Very little is really said "absolutely".

Of course. But unless you are personally an observer of the experiment, you are necessarily taking someone's word.

Like I said, scientists will show off their work and produce their results and observations for others to examine. 

For you, a scientific source is largely to be believed. For a Fundie, the Bible is to be strictly believed.

The difference is, the scientific source backs its results and conclusions with empirical evidence. it doesn't ask me to believe anything at face value or simply because they say so. The fundie goes strictly by belief. Believing something the bible says because it's the bible or because the bible says so is circular logic.

Ptolemy did not have a telescope. The biggest object, apparently, was the Earth, so why would it not be the center?

Don't forget, religion also ruled society in those times. God being the "creator" of man would make it "reasonable" that he would place man at the center of the universe. 

Only when the telescope revealed that there were lots of objects bigger than the Earth, did geocentrism become illogical.

Attempts to discredit geocentrism was also met with hostility, despite any evidence produced. But like I said before: that's the beauty of science: it always seeks to expand on what is known and understand even more. It also revises itself when new information becomes available. That conspicuously doesn't happen in religion.

Among intelligent people, there is always an unspoken "to the best that 'knowing' is possible for a human being". Very little is really said "absolutely".

Until we learn a little more or something new. The quest and desire for knowledge should never stop.

Although I do not see it exactly that way, I agree with your basic premise.   I think it is more a fear of losing the comfort of the belief.  

That if you destroy their belief, in a sense you are destroying them.

I agree.

I was a Christian for over 5 decades of my life.  My life is far better as an atheist than it ever was as a Christian. 

My experience was as follows.  "They" included me as far as believing that all of life's events were directed by Yahweh.  After being orphaned as an infant, mentally & physically abused by adopted parents, raped by a biological family member as a teenager - I wasn't a fan of god's "plan" for my life.  I was never at peace with a god that would allow children to be treated as brutally as I was.  That is among the reasons why I am a very contented atheist.  

They seem to require a validation for their existence.  Their god created them for a purpose that fits within its divine plan of creating them for external existence after suffering through a mortal existence. 

They need a safety net.  They see every single event in their life (and all life) as being orchestrated by their god because of the divine plan.  They feel powerless.  Nothing can happen to them unless their god wants it to happen.  

They need a scapegoat to explain life's chaos.  They have a god to praise for the positive events and a devil/demon to blame for the negative events.

The most insidious human personalities need sheep to believe in religion for a variety of reasons - control, power and/or an excuse to justify actions that would otherwise be inexcusable and unforgivable without a supernatural being to blame.  

And this is why I have NO faith in any organized religion, they excuse/absolve way too many things....

100% agreement

they excuse/absolve way too many things...

It makes me question the personalities and actions of the man/men who created such barbaric gods and the people who believed them.

Man needs faith. Without it, mankind is relegated to asking why? What's the point of existence? We live, we die with nothing of any real value to the race in between.

The problem is that many argue that faith is tied to belief without belief you cannot have faith. A discerning person would ask why? and would be told that "Belief itself needs direction" Needs it's own point of existence or reason to be....

They can be very convincing of this ideal.....

They hate when people come to the conclusion that faith is independent of belief. This happens simply because of others beliefs being imparted to others as a requirement of faith. Faith requires belief in the manner prescribed.... Which is the definition of religion.

The belief that they have the only "Right" way to faith is the definition of ideology.

Ideology is nothing but a set of imposed rules intended to guide faith to it's own ideological ends.

Through long experience and insearching/introspecting of my own belief/faith, I have come to the conclusion that faith is completely separate and apart from belief. Faith is a requirement of man's condition on the planet in the societies we choose to live in..... Ideology is not.....

We must believe in something higher otherwise what is the point of our existence? And, having the capability to ask why, the ability to reason our own existence, is something that makes us rise above the common animals, cause without that ability to reason, we are nothing but animals......

WE think, so we are......

To me, believing in what someone else says we should believe in according to some esoteric ideological rules of belief that they cannot follow themselves is the height of an individuals failure of faith.

And without faith we are nothing but animals.....

So I look for people of faith and reject religion for religions sake. I see the worth in most even if their beliefs are completely different than mine. I can also see the evils of ideology and understand the dogmatic lengths others will go to impose their rule system upon my faith....

Sister, I see strong faith in you, and as potent a dislike of dogmatic religion as I have.

I emphasize with your hurts, wonder at your strength, and am proud to call you friend.....

Man needs faith. Without it, mankind is relegated to asking why? What's the point of existence? We live, we die with nothing of any real value to the race in between.

In a god?  In eternal existence as we are now?  Some people probably do.  I do not.  I believe that we are all part of the whole of existence - form does not matter and is constantly changing.  I do not fear death.  I am not going to either eternally rewarded or punished by a supernatural being.  I will return to where I was before I was born - as part of existence.

Also, because I believe that we are all connected, I am loathe to harm others because in doing so I harm everyone.  There is zero gain.  This is not to say that I do not believe in incarceration for those who harm others.  And some crimes are so heinous that I support the death penalty.  This is not to punish the criminal, it is to protect society from them.  

Belief in the supernatural may have began in order to explain earthquakes and other associated natural events that resulted in catastrophic destruction and death.  Because people died in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, it may have been assumed that the supernatural force could only be appeased through human sacrifice.  

Also, gods were worshipped as a community to bring about good harvests, fertility, rain as needed, etc.  Again, gods were conceived and then appeased to control nature.

The belief in one god that created everything and took a personal interest in every human evolved from religions that worshipped many gods.  This included the Abrahamic religions.  

I like to read and watch videos about the history of religion.  Tonight, I am watching one that explains the known origins and evolution of the Christian religion.  

Sister, I see strong faith in you, and as potent a dislike of dogmatic religion as I have. I emphasize with your hurts, wonder at your strength, and am proud to call you friend.....

I appreciate your kind words and thoughts.  It has been the friendship of people like you that has helped me to  learn how to look at life from differing perspectives.  

As far as strength, it is just who I am.  A century ago, I could easily have been one of the women locked up for demanding the right to vote.  And maybe not.  I am an introvert who is far happier writing letters and signing petitions than marching.

Man needs faith.

Speak for yourself.

Without it, mankind is relegated to asking why?

How is that a problem? Mankind should ask all sorts of questions, including why. That's how we expand our knowledge and understanding. Faith is an emotionally convenient answer that doesn't encourage asking questions. It answers questions with something that's emotionally appealing or comforting. Not necessarily what is factual or true.

What's the point of existence?

Whatever we make of it.

We live, we die with nothing of any real value to the race in between.

That's right. It's called reality.

The problem is that many argue that faith is tied to belief without belief you cannot have faith.

They're both wishful thinking.

Faith requires belief in the manner prescribed.... Which is the definition of religion.

See previous statement.

Faith is a requirement of man's condition on the planet in the societies we choose to live in

Faith is nothing but a societal contruct.

We must believe in something higher

Now that's a statement that deserves a "why" question.

otherwise what is the point of our existence?

Why do you need belief in something  higher for your existence to have meaning? 

the ability to reason our own existence, is something that makes us rise above the common animals, cause without that ability to reason, we are nothing but animals

Human are animals. We are (supposedly) intelligent and capable of concrete and abstract thought. But having a "need" for belief or faith in "something higher" just so you can have meaning in your existence is an intellectual cop-out. It's an emotionally satisfying answer that doesn't incorporate reason. If anything, it's a reasoning shortcut.

believing in what someone else says we should believe in according to some esoteric ideological rules of belief that they cannot follow themselves is the height of an individuals failure of faith.

Some of us prefer fact and evidence over mere belief.

And without faith we are nothing but animals

See first statement. I know I'm a member of the animal  kingdom, a member of homo sapiens. I understand that and I don't have a problem with it. Why would anyone?

So I look for people of faith

I prefer people of logic. That's when reasoning and critical thinking really shines.

So I look for people of faith

I prefer people of logic. That's when reasoning and critical thinking really shines.

So the conclusion to draw from this I guess is that Logic is the absence of Faith.....

Religion has thousand and thousands of testimonials of it's reality. Not one lick of actual proof mind you but many many unproven stories of it's particular deity's reality. So because there is no proof there is no god's reality. 

Would it surprise you to find that I agree with this?

Science is fact based understanding without the bastardization of belief. No needed faith at all..... pure unadulterated truth based upon provable fact.

Evolution, I know from the many arguments you've made supporting it you believe in it wholeheartedly....

Good, now prove it..... PROVE IT IS ACTUAL FACT!

But when doing it, you cannot use all the myriad little facts that point to it as a truth, reveal the ONE TRUE FACT that establishes it as absolute FACT!

You can't cause it hasn't been found yet..... But you argue like it is.... Scoff at people that refuse to recognize it as absolute fact.... Reject any argument that comes your way cause it is not based upon scientific fact....

YET, you can't provide one single fact that absolutely proves evolution to be in fact the truth....

So in conclusion, due to the myriad lesser facts that point to evolution as fact you believe it is fact and argue such....

Why, when you cannot prove the underlying ideal?

Faith.....

You have it, and use it every day in your purely logical, fact filled world...... 

Just like the religious argue that god is fact based upon thousands and thousands of testamentary statements, none of which can point to the one provable testament.

The scientist will argue that evolution is fact based upon thousands and thousands of little facts, none of which can by themselves prove that evolution IS fact....

All those little facts point to evolution being fact the same as all those testementaries point to God being fact.

So many testementaries say it is so, so many facts say it is so, but no one can establish the absolute truth of either of them.

Faith is belief when there is no fact to prove.....

You have faith sir, you believe in evolution when there is no direct fact that proves it, that is faith.....

• The same faith that Madam Curie demonstrated in her searches through the elements, a faith that eventually killed her.
• The same faith that Thomas Edison demonstrated with almost every invention his scientists created for him.....        
• The same faith that Albert Einstein demonstrated proposing his theory of relativity, he could mathematically represent it, but he could not physically prove it...
• Carl Sagan believed in a great creator could only be responsible for the absolute perfection as he saw it strewn about the galaxy, yet he couldn't prove it.....

You sir are not only a man of science, but a man of great faith, faith in the ideal that science will eventually prove the factual scientific truth of everything....

In a god?  In eternal existence as we are now?  Some people probably do.  I do not.  I believe that we are all part of the whole of existence - form does not matter and is constantly changing.  I do not fear death.  I am not going to either eternally rewarded or punished by a supernatural being.  I will return to where I was before I was born - as part of existence.

I agree sis, One does not need a "god" to believe in existence......

That is faith in it's purest/truest form......

So the conclusion to draw from this I guess is that Logic is the absence of Faith.....

Logic and faith/belief tend to be polar opposites.

Religion has thousand and thousands of testimonials of it's reality.

Subjective and anecdotal. Basically, it's people saying something is true because...they say so.

Not one lick of actual proof mind you but many many unproven stories of it's particular deity's reality. So because there is no proof there is no god's reality.

There is also no evidence to support any god/s either. Therefore, there is no logical reason to assume the existence of any god/s.

Evolution, I know from the many arguments you've made supporting it you believe in it wholeheartedly....

No, "believe" is the wrong term. I accept evolution based on the available empirical evidence.

Good, now prove it..... PROVE IT IS ACTUAL FACT!

Let's see: the Fossil record, DNA comparisons between species, anatomical similarities between species, geographical location or distribution of similar types of species, ect.. Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, with nothing to discredit it (despite the best atempts of theists or other evolution deniers) and to such a high degree of probability, that is generally considered factual within scientific circles. it is also the best explanation for the biodiversity we see on the planet today and in the past.

But when doing it, you cannot use all the myriad little facts that point to it as a truth, reveal the ONE TRUE FACT that establishes it as absolute FACT!

Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the terms of how science operates. All those "little facts" support evolution and establish a degree of certainty.

Scoff at people that refuse to recognize it as absolute fact.

Those people tend to think "god did it" and made all species magically appear on the planet. They have absolutely zero empirical evidence to support such an assertion. Neither has anyone proposed a better theory. People can refuse to recognize or accept the validity of evolution. But they offer nothing to discredit it nor offer any better explanation. So they deserve to be "scoffed" at, or just simply dismissed.

reject any argument that comes your way cause it is not based upon scientific fact....

Such "arguments" contain no empirical evidence to either discredit evolution or establish an alternative explanation. They're just empty claims with no basis and are rightfully summarily rejected.

.So in conclusion, due to the myriad lesser facts that point to evolution as fact you believe it is fact and argue such.... Why, when you cannot prove the underlying ideal?

Once again, i do not believe it's fact. I accept it as such based on the evidence. No belief required or necessary. If someone needs to have a "belief" in something as true, especially a scientific theory, then they probably do not understand the science.

Faith..... You have it, and use it every day in your purely logical, fact filled world....

You presume too much.

Just like the religious argue that god is fact based upon thousands and thousands of testamentary statements, none of which can point to the one provable testament.

As I said, that is subjective and anecdotal.

The scientist will argue that evolution is fact based upon thousands and thousands of little facts, none of which can by themselves prove that evolution IS fact....

It seems you do not understand how the science works. Scientists use evidence to establish probability. When that probability is significantly large enough, it is generally considered to be fact. Of course, all it takes is one piece of evidence to discredit the whole thing. Science is tough on itself like that.

All those little facts point to evolution being fact the same as all those testementaries point to God being fact

Not even close. Evolution has objective, empirical evidence to support it. There is none to support any claim for god.

Faith is belief when there is no fact to prove...

Faith is just wishful thinking for something to be true.

You have faith sir, you believe in evolution when there is no direct fact that proves it, that is faith.....

And you are flat out wrong sir!

You sir are not only a man of science, but a man of great faith, faith in the ideal that science will eventually prove the factual scientific truth of everything....

Also wrong, and presumptuous of you to say. I never said science will prove the scientific "facts" of everything. That would be nice if it did. But that is an unrealistic expectation. However, science is the best way to expand our learning, knowledge, and understanding of everything, through actual evidence, observation, experimentation, ect., and not because "someone said so."

AWESOME! Stunningly AWESOME!!!

Thank you very very much....

I'll let some other person well versed in logic explain it to you.....

Thank you very much for your very typical programmatic response.....

Sometimes this is just too easy.....

What's the point of existence? We live, we die with nothing of any real value to the race in between.

Our purpose in life is hugely influenced by the society where we are born.  In societies controlled by belief in patriarchal religions, women are relegated to being household slaves, sex slaves and incubators.  In these restrictive societies, men don't necessarily fare much better because their education is limited to subjects that don't challenge the predominant religious belief.

The point of our existence is what we make it.  Our species has the unique ability to pass on and build on knowledge through written documentation.  We will never know how much of our history and scientific knowledge was destroyed because it undermined the power of the men who claimed to represent a god.

Knowledge is power.  It makes the difference between pursuing one's dreams or existing as a someone else's minion.

 If we are fortunate enough to be born in a society that prizes education and innovation, then we will find value in the pursuit of education and innovation. 

If we are unfortunate enough to be born in a society that is controlled by a belief in a barbaric, homophobic, racist, sexist god, then we will be relegated to believing that our point of existence is we were created by a god to be its slave.  Our only real value is to jump through hoops to appease, please and worship that deity.  Because I know that Yahweh was a figment of someone's imagination, I am relieved that I no longer have to agonize over trying to find value in being abused by his followers.

An interesting article about the rise and fall of intellectual pursuit in communities of the ancient world.  It is a rather long article, but I think it is worth the time if a person is interested in an overview of how the rise of religious power has been detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge.  

thenewatlantis

To anyone familiar with this Golden Age, roughly spanning the eighth through the thirteenth centuries  a.d. , the disparity between the intellectual achievements of the Middle East then and now — particularly relative to the rest of the world — is staggering indeed. In his 2002 book  What Went Wrong? , historian Bernard Lewis notes that “for many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilization and achievement.” “Nothing in Europe,”  notes Jamil Ragep , a professor of the history of science at the University of Oklahoma, “could hold a candle to what was going on in the Islamic world until about 1600.” Algebra, algorithm, alchemy, alcohol, alkali, nadir, zenith, coffee, and lemon: these words all derive from Arabic, reflecting Islam’s contribution to the West.

....

  by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science.

At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.

According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world. In his controversial 2006  University of Regensburg address , Pope Benedict XVI   described this idea by quoting the philosopher Ibn Hazm (died 1064) as saying, “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” It is not difficult to see how this doctrine could lead to dogma and eventually to the end of free inquiry in science and philosophy.

The greatest and most influential voice of the Ash’arites was the medieval theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (also known as Algazel; died 1111). In his book  The Incoherence of the Philosophers , al-Ghazali vigorously attacked philosophy and philosophers — both the Greek philosophers themselves and their followers in the Muslim world (such as al-Farabi and Avicenna). Al-Ghazali was worried that when people become favorably influenced by philosophical arguments, they will also come to trust the philosophers on matters of religion, thus making Muslims less pious. Reason, because it teaches us to discover, question, and innovate, was the enemy; al-Ghazali argued that in assuming necessity in nature, philosophy was incompatible with Islamic teaching, which recognizes that nature is entirely subject to God’s will: “Nothing in nature,” he wrote, “can act spontaneously and apart from God.” 

Reason, because it teaches us to discover, question, and innovate, was the enemy;

Gee, where have I heard that before?

Oh, that's right, in church.

That despicable tree of knowledge.

Let's see: the Fossil record, DNA comparisons between species, anatomical similarities between species, geographical location or distribution of similar types of species, ect.. Evolution is so strongly supported by evidence, with nothing to discredit it (despite the best atempts of theists or other evolution deniers) and to such a high degree of probability, that is generally considered factual within scientific circles. it is also the best explanation for the biodiversity we see on the planet today and in the past.

I am a high school drop-out who has spent my life being most appreciative of people with better educations.  Their innovations have made my life better and more productive and far more pleasurable.

As a non-scientist, I believe the scientists in the same way that I believe the engineers that designed my vehicle.  My vehicle exists and it works as long as it is maintained properly.  

Faith in scientists? This is an apples and elephants comparison to religious faith.  A ploy conceived most likely by the men who are fearful of losing their religious pedestal.  A ploy which has become the mantra of the people who are desperate to find a way to cling to a belief that their god poofed into existence and then felt the need to poof trillions of other things into existence, but then created them as a unique (but flawed) creature with a divine purpose for a divine plan that required animal sacrifice, human sacrifice and even god sacrifice.

Also, knowledge of science and technology are accessible to others.  If I don't accept the concept of inertia, I can roll a ball and see for myself whether it stops before another force is applied to it.

I can study engineering and understand the concepts behind the design of a car, and, given the motivation and resources, I could even build one myself.

But God always seems to reveal himself to a limited number of people, and the rest of us are just expected to take their word for it that they saw what they say they saw, and that they have no motivation for being dishonest about what they saw.  And we're expected to do so even when we don't really have any evidence that the people who said they saw God ever even existed, themselves.  There's not much evidence for the existence of Abraham or Moses.

I can study engineering and understand the concepts behind the design of a car, and, given the motivation and resources, I could even build one myself.

Exactly.

Religion is a ponzi scheme which would be illegal if it was not religion.

“Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.”

You know about that huh.....

When I read that I was wondering how Moses would react...... Probably break the tablets over the Popes head.....

That kind of belief isn't in my wheelhouse either....

But one of the things I'm seeing is people are moving to the opposite extreme.... any issue of faith is being rejected whether it is philosophical or religious being lumped into one worthless ideal..... because of the inanity of religion and it's seemingly ownership of the word faith....

When in reality faith is what drives the philosophies to even greater heights. The ideal that there HAS to be an explanation... I just haven't found it or understand it yet.....

I am in today, I have faith that there will be a tomorrow, and I know why there will be a tomorrow... But taking it to it's logical extreme I also understand scientifically that there might not be another tomorrow for many many proven reasons.......

Both are reasonable presumptions of knowledge but how does one differentiate the two possibilities without going insane....

Faith....

Tomorrow will most likely be just like today.... I can rationally believe this cause my rational brain can figure probability my past knowledge can separate what has happened from what might happen and which is more likely....

But how do I KNOW?

Faith.....

Faith is not bound to religion.... Scientifically nor Philosophically.

Faith is a human behavioral condition of the mind. It keeps us sane when all the facts pervert each other trying to be dominant. Consciousness is not science based although it is a manifestation of physical things. We know we can think cause we do but do we know how or why? No, we don't need to those specific details and I highly doubt we would understand them if we did..... But, by experience we know it works so we don't challenge that. And using man's capacity for faith we don't have to...

Faith is a state of mind. All humans have it even if they do not recognize it or in some cases outright reject it.... it is still there.

When we reject religion, we reject others manipulation of that innate faith we all possess. So they point the finger at us and accuse of being unbelievers... DAMNED STRAIGHT! I am an unbeliever....... in your mockery of morals designed to control my mind and limit my existence......

My faith is in the fact that knowledge is power, and I may not have all knowledge AND, I'm not going to waste my time waiting for the all powerful to share a little smidgen of his all powerful knowledge at his whims....

If there is a great creator of the universe, he/she gave me this brain and I'm sure he/she expects me to use it...

Otherwise why create it in the first place?

To be human is to have faith, faith in that we may not be there yet, but eventually we will get there......

And it is not inopposite of science, it is in spite of it.... What we do with it is the important thing.....

When I read that I was wondering how Moses would react...... Probably break the tablets over the Popes head.....

There is no proof that Moses ever existed.  Nor is there any evidence for the Exodus according to the researchers who responded to the question in the link below.  BTW, the construction projects were largely carried out by skilled and paid labor.  There is no evidence of a large slave work force that would have needed to escape from the Egyptians.

Biblical researchers have worked to find supporting evidence of their version of history and to date, it does not exist.  In fact, it is in opposition to the area's recorded history and even customs.  This is why the Bible is called a book of fables, distortions and fiction.

researchgate

Why is there no evidence of the Exodus?

Tomorrow will most likely be just like today.... I can rationally believe this cause my rational brain can figure probability my past knowledge can separate what has happened from what might happen and which is more likely....

I know that my world can change in an instant from forces completely beyond my control.  This planet is, and always has been, hostile to life.  On a large scale, there have been mass extinctions in the past and can be again.  On a smaller scale, just about anything can happen.  I take little for granted.

I accept and enjoy the here and now and live far more in the moment than I ever have.  It could be a side effect of age - one that I am finding intensely enjoyable.   I am still planning for the future in a short term manner.  I have already ordered and received my summer garden seed.  LOL!

To be human is to have faith, faith in that we may not be there yet, but eventually we will get there....

Where?  I admit that I am totally confused.

Well, I'm not going to go much farther with this...... I don't argue or debate religion cause my belief is all religions are inventions of man. Dogma use to control populations of people.

I said....

Faith is not bound to religion

And logically it can't be. Man's capacity to believe or accept thing he/she cannot explain has been there since the beginning. If god created man then he created the capacity to reason. I can't believe that we have this capacity and are not allowed to use it.

Yet we do not have all knowledge so some things have to be accepted as fact without the specific knowledge of them....

That is faith.... It can have a reasoned scientific base.

The reason I'm going to step out is in rejecting religion many reject the human condition and it's capacities as well.  probably cause man's capacity to faith has been abused so much and tied to and imbued into religious thought that is has become stand in for religion.

Man has the capacity for faith, it is not a religious dogma in and of itself. Point being don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.....

Faith is a huge driver of behavior and understanding..... Science is about understanding and knowledge, it's driver is faith that we will come to the answers even though we do not know when. But that we will eventually know. It is inevitable....

Faith propels discovery.

Without the capacity for faith we would still be living in the stone age....

So even though I reject all religious dogmas, rites and belief, I still have faith, and I've come to rely on it in life....

And logically realize that all peoples do, even if they can't see it or reject it.

Faith is not bound to religion.

Where?  I admit that I am totally confused.

Maybe if I expressed it this way.....

Faith can exist without Religion, but Religion cannot exist without Faith...

Logically reasoned out, faith is not inherently religious despite what the religions teach. In fact Religions teach a lie....

That all faith is religious in nature.... and that is a baldfaced lie......

Reject religion but accept your faith, it is one of the strongest of mans motivators and rational reasoning abilities

Reject religion but accept your faith, it is one of the strongest of mans motivators and rational reasoning abilities

My faith is in existence itself.  I believe that it is a happenstance occurrence that I experienced it as this type of life form.  I have the feeling that I am, always have been and always will be some part of existence itself.  

I have believed in pantheism without knowing what it was for the majority of my life (even when I was a Christian).  

Also, I don't have an issue with the belief in reincarnation in some form.  I suppose if I truly believed in possibility of returning as an animal that I would develop an aversion to eating bacon.  LOL!

Life is full of wonder and possibilities that the Abrahamic religions do their best to squash with a bunch of do nots and shall nots.  Again, I have to question the personalities and actions of the man/men responsible for such barbaric dogma.

I believe that we have at least somewhat of a similar viewpoint.  Thank you for the civil discussion.  Matters of personal belief are very personal and can be very difficult to discuss in any venue.  It can be treacherous to our self-esteem to venture onto internet forums and expose our beliefs to ridicule. 

Several years ago, I was the Christian who was reading comments from atheists that tore my religious beliefs into shreds.  I did not comment.  I researched so I could find information outside of the Bible to prove them wrong, wrong and wrong again.  Could not do it.  I spent months reconciling myself to the fact that I had wasted decades of my life trying to appease a being that did not exist.  In my world, the upside of losing my belief in the one true god has been far greater than my feeling of loss that there was a divine plan.  I realize that some people really do need a one true god, but I don't know that I consider it a good thing for them or anyone else.

en.wikipedia Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God). ^[13]

I think we have reached somewhat common ground sis.... Whether or not there is a great creator of the universe matters not the fact is that we are and we must make the best of it we can. What we individually name it is in the long run irrelevant....

I hold to christian teachings of what christ is supposedly actually to have taught, and never accept what someone else interprets that to be.....

Our relationship to our existence is personally ours and is no one else's.

Thank you for having a fairly deep conversation on this subject, I agree it is hard.....

Always yours,

NWM

Although I do not see it exactly that way

I said:

in a sense you are destroying them.

Which is a bit inaccurate, What I meant to say was:

If you attempt to destroy a person's strongly held belief, often they feel like you are trying to destroy them!

(Whether or not they are consciously aware that that's what they're feeling...)

Which is why many people are so attached to their belief system (even if you disprove it logically).

In fact, people have killed others who challenge their beliefs-- heck, wars have been fought over this...

If you attempt to destroy a person's strongly held belief, often they feel like you are trying to destroy them!

Understandably.

Problem is, logically challenging the factors of a belief system (as is done in debate) is routinely taken to be an attempt to destroy.   Not sure it is possible to have a serious debate or even discussion on religious beliefs (at least not one of any value) that does not involve raising challenging questions.

I'll let some other person well versed in logic explain it to you.....

Logic seems to elude you.

Thank you very much for your very typical programmatic response.

I addressed each of your points logically and factually. It's Not my problem if you don't like them.

I addressed each of your points logically and factually. It's Not my problem if you don't like them.

You expressed an opinion, one based upon your ideals, what you are doing is claiming that your ideals are not only facts but are the CORRECT ideals and that what I expressed is wrong.... Your telling me that your belief is the only true belief and that my beliefs are wrong.

This was a discussion about belief not about facts, so by rule it is about opinion.

By insisting that your learned ideals are the only correct ones, you are making my logic even more profound and valid.....

What you do not realize, the logical argument I posed excludes any absolutist position.....

Ideological rules are for absolutists, they destroy logical thinking....

But your from the scientific school of thought, and we all know there aren't any ideologues there.... {chuckle}

You expressed an opinion, one based upon your ideals,

No, I expressed actual facts.

Your telling me that your belief is the only true belief and that my beliefs are wrong.

I've made no mention of my beliefs.

This was a discussion about belief not about facts, so by rule it is about opinion.

That does not preclude injecting actual facts into a discussion, which I did in my previous reply.

By insisting that your learned ideals are the only correct ones, you are making my logic even more profound and valid

Do tell, what are my "ideals?"

the logical argument I posed

What logical argument? I have yet to see any. All you've posted is your own "ideals" and opinions. 

But your from the scientific school of thought,

The best thought there is for logic.

You need to recognize something, the more you make your absolutist argument, the more you validate the logic of my position....

I don't need to say a thing.

It's called digging yourself a deeper hole.

Enjoy yourself....

You need to recognize something, the more you make your absolutist argument, the more you validate the logic of my position

"Logic" is not the word I'd use to describe your position.

I don't need to say a thing.

Then don't.

It's called digging yourself a deeper hole.

Yeah, ok. Whatever you say >sarc<

I noticed you still haven't addressed, much less refuted any of the points I made.

Your "points" are irrelevant to the discussion that was being had with another, and as such, represent nothing but a distraction from that discussion......

They were logically disposed of as irrelevant.

Any continuance is still an attempt by you to impose your ideals of your ideological stance on Faith in an attempt to force me to agree.... or, insult my intelligence....

The only intelligence being insulted here is yours, in trying to ideologically breach an unassailable logical position.

The fact that your doing this to yourself is the entertainment..... (although it is sad to see)

Enjoy yourself....

I am...

Your "points" are irrelevant to the discussion that was being had with another,

My points were in response to your reply to me.

They were logically disposed of as irrelevant.

In other words, you can't offer any rebuttal. Got it.

Any continuance is still an attempt by you to impose your ideals of your ideological stance on Faith in an attempt to force me to agree

You're really grasping there. I'm not forcing you to do anything.

The only intelligence being insulted here is yours, in trying to ideologically breach an unassailable logical position.

As I said, logic seems to elude you.

The fact that your doing this to yourself is the entertainment..... (although it is sad to see)

You must be projecting.

So in essence you have nothing but irrational declarations of your righteousness, complaints that I'm being irrational, and finally, insults.

You know how many time I gotten to this point with ideologues?

This is the point, you are blindly defending something out of insistence that your right and I am wrong. You have no faith, and reject the ideal of faith as to science.....

What I see, is in your faith of the truthfulness of your ideology you are in absolute defense mode, you have no faith.

Your actions in defense of your proposition belies your position.

Actually proves the opposite of your contention, and makes my statement......

You sir are not only a man of science, but a man of great faith......

To be absolutely proven true.

My opinion of your views of science ......

.....faith in the ideal that science will eventually prove the factual scientific truth of everything....

Is exactly that, my opinion, which you deny, but now have gone on to defend.

This is the basis of our difference here.... Your ideological belief in science and your great faith in your belief that you are absolutely correct.... Hence I MUST be wrong..... but you haven't in any way controverted my proposition that you are a man of great faith, your strident defense says the opposite, and since you cannot break that logical position you are falling into the trap of being less than honestly appraising of the situation. This is represented by the slow descent the conversation is taking from your side into mere personal declarations and insults of my position.

At this point there is no argument that you can make to win this debate.... Your actions/statements in several posts have repetitively, I feel, proven my contention beyond any reasonable doubt.

You ARE a man of great faith, you may not like that, but it is the truth.

You have proven it beyond all debate.

Man needs faith.

A perfect example of a claim that bears the burden of proof.

Got any? 

Why? every man/woman has it already....

It's innate to humans, part of what makes us human....

Faith in what?

Part of what makes us human?

What the what?

Why? every man/woman has it already.... It's innate to humans, part of what makes us human....

Your statement of proof is ANOTHER claim that bears the burden of proof? Hilarious. 

It's innate to humans, part of what makes us human....

It seems you're trying to make the point that belief in science requires faith just as religion does, and that's the point others here are rejecting. I do accept that belief in science does require what some would define as "faith" but I feel it is a very different animal than religious faith.

For example, if I hold a tennis ball out and let go, I technically have "faith" it will drop to the ground, and I'd bet my life savings on that belief. But what if you have a man in the space station, a man standing on the earth and a man 30 feet underwater in a scuba suit, and each had a tennis ball in their right hand, what will happen when they open their hands? Well, our study of physics, along with numerous tests and a thorough testing of gravity and its effects on our universe show that the ball will float weightless in the air on the space station, drop to the ground on earth, or float to the surface under water. But I still have faith that the ball will react to its environment in a predictable way, it's not going to turn into a rabbit when I let go just because a magic book told me it might. And it won't turn into a rabbit in space, underwater or anywhere else for that matter.

So through testing, study and rigorous review, I believe in gravity and its effects, I have faith based on known repeated occurrence. And I can reliably predict how a tennis ball would react in multiple scenarios.

Religion however, is a reliance on a gravity science cannot test, cannot quantify, cannot in any way interact with as we can with the rest of the known universe. We can't capture its light, we can't measure a speed, we can't see any actual effect of some hoped for spirit realm on anything physical. The faith required to invest time and energy in something completely imperceptible is different that having faith in gravity, that while invisible, is measurable and predictable.

So to me, while I will accept the use of faith in regards to science in the strictest sense, to claim it's the same as religious faith is to be intentionally obtuse.

It's like claiming that "religious theory" and "scientific theory" are equals. On the surface, stupid people might say "Hey, they both use the word theory, that means they're the same, right?". But of course they would be woefully incorrect.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

A religious theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that cannot be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method. There are no accepted protocols of observation, measurement, or evaluation of results. Religious theories are never tested under controlled conditions in an experiment and have yet to present any physical evidence of any spirit beings, God/gods, heaven, hell, nirvana, purgatory, nothing.

I believe scientific faith (if you demand I call it that) is the reasonable expectation that certain aspects of the natural world will perform in a predictable way that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

I believe religious faith is an unreasonable expectation that certain aspects of the natural world will perform in an unusual way that has never been experienced, tested, or verified with any method, and relies on an individuals personal belief in ancient stories they have been told. The only difference between fiction and fact in regards to religious faith is the authors claim of divine inspiration. We have one book about a talking Donkey called "Shrek" that everyone regards as fiction, but the other book about a talking Donkey called "the bible" which millions of people accept as fact with nothing more than the books authors telling them as they read it that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16

What is hilarious?

Absolutists claiming they don't have any faith....

You posting is the proof.....

What is hilarious?

Your comment

Absolutists claiming they don't have any faith....

Who would they be? 

You posting is the proof.....

Of what?  

Religious faith is belief in that which one cannot prove....

Scientific faith is belief in what is proven......

Yes I agree they are opposites....

But faith in either instance manifests itself identically....

You talk about expectations, I say faith is mans way of justifying. An emotional tool so to speak used when confronted with something that appears to disagree with something you fiercely agree with.....

Rather than rationally exploring the differences, faith allow one to dismiss the other side as irrational. Kind of a pre-dismissal of opposing viewpoints....

This is why faith usually creates argument.

One of the most hilarious things is people showing their great faith in their efforts at dismissing faith.....

People tend to bind themselves to their faiths, and when they do, they lose all perspective to any thing that doesn't fit in their ideal faith....

I know this isn't going to clarify for some, in fact it will cause more ridicule, but that is just another expression of their faith in their absolute correctness.

Everyone has faith in what they believe, what they choose as real for them.

Allows them to dispense with that which they disagree with much much easier....

What is hilarious?

Your comment

Absolutists claiming they don't have any faith....

Who would they be? 

You posting is the proof.....

Of what?  

If all you have is your typical ridicule, go away.

If all you have is your typical ridicule, go away.

Tissue? 

Tissue? 

Sorry, don't have none to give ya, But I'm sure you can find some at the store down the street...

Dulay and Nowhere Man 

I suspect you both agree that your discussion has devolved to the point of no value.   Maybe a good time to break?

I suspect you both agree that your discussion has devolved to the point of no value.   

Had no actual value when he started it, just trolling...

Maybe a good time to break?

Sure....

Our society has great faith in the scientific method. People reflexively search for the causes of the effects they see.

We also have a lot of Believers... who haven't really thought very deeply about their religion.

A Venn diagram would show overlap of these two populations. Those are people who try to offer proof of God's existence.

Pulling in Oxford:    Faith

Our society has great faith in the scientific method.

Sometimes I wonder about that, especially when there is hostility toward or the rejection of science. But the scientific method does not require faith. it is a process to establish the validity of a hypothesis or idea.

Instead of constantly telling the believers to "prove it" we should ask them why they believe God exists.

If someone says 'I believe God exists', I agree that a perfect response is 'Why?'.    If, however, someone claims 'God exists', a valid response is 'prove it'.

We should even ask that of someone who claims "God exists". Why not ask them why they claim "God exists"?

Agreed.   Maybe someone will offer something more than 'I just believe'.

Agreed.   Maybe someone will offer something more than 'I just believe'.

"Because the Bible tells them so" is the usual circular logic response.

True.   That is why I focus on the Bible.   The idea of believing in a higher supreme entity is defensible and certainly possible.  But simply adopting the words of ancient men as truth while ignoring biblical errors and contradictions and disregarding contrary available knowledge?  

True.   That is why I focus on the Bible.   The idea of believing in a higher supreme entity is defensible and certainly possible.  But simply adopting the words of ancient men as truth while ignoring biblical errors and contradictions and disregarding contrary available knowledge?  

Exactly correct. You can no more prove that the Abrahamic God exists by citing the Bible than you can prove that Superman exists by citing Marvel Comics. The Abrahamic god only exists because of the Bible/Torah so it cannot be proof of god without creating a circular logic fallacy. Objective proof must come from a verifiable 3rd party source that cannot be based on religious belief or faith. 

a valid response is 'prove it'.

You forgot the "that's nice" part

If, however, someone claims 'God exists', a valid response is 'prove it'.

The irony is that all too many of those who claim 'God exists' will demand that non-believers prove that 'God doesn't exist' even though, as you cited earlier, their belief that 'God exists' is based on 'faith' not fact. 

In short, they can support their claim with 'faith, we have to support our claim with facts. They want to fix the  'game' from the start. 

"Superman exists by citing Marvel Comics"

Remember that, I must

Remember that, I must

I paraphrased that, but I wish I had thought of it.

goo.gl

I've asked.  Some of them have fantastic claims of miracle cures (remember Truett?).  Others claim because the bible says so.  Others claim the universe is too complex for there NOT to be a god.  And others claim this supernatural being talks to them, apparently.  Few of them admit the truth, that if they were born in India they'd likely be Hindu, if they grew up in Pakistan they'd likely be Muslim, etc.

Some of them have fantastic claims of miracle cures

Even if "miracle cures" are real, that does not necessarily prove the existence of God. (It merely proves that there are phenomena 

that are indeed real but which we still don't have an explanation for).

Yet.  

BTW, I have witnessed "miracle cures" with my own eyes. In fact, I have learned how to do them (still on a relatively low level). I do not know fully how or why they work-- but can do them. (I have learned how to channel healing energy in my hands).

I came across this video recently. While its not exactly "miracle cures" it might be seen as similar. e(It get's more and more amazing as it goes on-- but I recommend watching at least the first 3 minutes or so).

But does it prove that God exists? IMO-- no!

There are ways to channel energies that can be learned.....

I am learning to  do some of what the girl in the video does-- but I'm no where near that advanced. 

"The Sacred Rianna" on Asia's Got Talent"

`

Throughout history human beings have deemed the unexplained to be the work of god(s).   It is what we do. 

But how does one get faith? That's my question

I would literally have to have God appear in front of me and say "I do exist".

I'm not a full blown atheist because I really don't know, but the complexity of the universe is not that hard to understand. It's simply a matter of chemicals that came together under the power of physics and BANG!....the universe appears.

I certainly don't believe in miracle cures. Never saw anybody I know completely cured of cancer.

     "have to have God appear in front of me and say "I do exist".

that's about what it would take for me, I started questioning church stuff very early 

so are we now on the fence about agnostic about all fair tales, as you cannot say for certain they do not exist as there is no proof of their non existence?  That sounds dumb.

Leprechauns, Dragons, Unicorns, Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Thor, Medusa, Aphrodite, Shiva, and 100s of other mystical deities and creatures of the fantasy realm, All might exist because we cannot prove the don't. Nothing exists until proven it does, not the other way around, I don't sit around wondering if God exists or not, i firmly believe he/it does not has not and never will as there is as much credibility of God as there is the ability to create "magic". Magic in the real world is an optical illusion, God in the real world is a mental illusion.

This article does not address the reasonableness of a statement.  It is about whether the statement bears the burden of proof.

Someone can state:  'I believe in Odin'.   That is an unreasonable thing to believe, but the statement itself bears no burden of proof since it expresses opinion.   However, if the Odin believer claimed instead:  'Odin lives!' then we have a claim of certainty and with it the burden of proof.

So on the issue of God's existence, God will either exist or will not exist.   Given the lack of evidence, the opinions run the gamut.   But the key factor - that which is the topic of this article - is the logical soundness of a statement.

'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are both logically unsound since both are claims of universal truth.   To be sound these claims of truth need to be proved true.   Burden of proof.

'I firmly do not believe God exists' is a personal opinion / conclusion that makes no claim of universal truth.  The claim is simply that the speaker does not believe.  Similarly, 'I believe in God with all my heart', is a personal opinion.

Bottom line, we can state anything we wish as personal opinion.   But when we make claims of certainty, we need to back that up with proof (or at least sound evidence).

That's a cop out. Can you to tell me with affirmation that Zeus does not exist? Can you say with Affirmation Leprechauns do not exist?

My answer is yes to both, they do not exist. Yet we are walking the fence on this Christian "God"? saying "God does not exist" is not a logically unsound position, it is the most mentally and logically sound,  as there is nothing...NOTHING, in the realm of reality that suggests supernatural or magical realms are even plausible. This is not the Marvel or DC universe.

In order for Agnostics to work, they have to admit everything is plausible and everything ever imagined "might" exist.  That is mental gymnastics at its finest.

Which is not to be confused with an open mind, i have an open mind to all evidence but until that evidence is presented its all bullshit.

When bacteria or the atom was first hypothesized, people were like that's ridiculous, they don't exist, yet once "Proven" to exist everyone was able to go, oh yea, good job they do exist. Same with god, today you have to say he does not exist, until proven otherwise. Saying he might is just dumb and a way to cover your ass so you cant be told you were wrong, screw that, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but i doubt i am...

Given your analogy with the atom, they were hypothesized and some accepted that they might exist. Poof! Prove provided that they do exist. So those that accepted that atoms might exist are shall I dare say...agnostics?

That's a cop out. Can you to tell me with affirmation that Zeus does not exist? Can you say with Affirmation Leprechauns do not exist?

I can tell you that I am convinced that Zeus and Leprechauns do not exist.   But, given I am not omniscient, I cannot assert 100% certainty.   

My answer is yes to both, they do not exist.

If you state that as your opinion / conclusion then you bear no burden of proof.   If you claim that Zeus does not exist as a statement of truth then you bear the burden of proof.   And unless you are omniscient, there is no way you can prove Zeus does not exist.   So, rationally, you must allow for the possibility (no matter how unlikely) that you might be wrong.

Yet we are walking the fence on this Christian "God"? saying "God does not exist" is not a logically unsound position, it is the most mentally and logically sound,  as there is nothing...NOTHING, in the realm of reality that suggests supernatural or magical realms are even plausible. This is not the Marvel or DC universe.

'God does not exist' is a statement of certainty.   Explain how you know - as a position of absolute truth - that it is impossible for a sentient creator to exist.

In order for Agnostics to work, they have to admit everything is plausible and everything ever imagined "might" exist.  That is mental gymnastics at its finest.

That is actually being entirely honest and rational.   Agnostic atheists and agnostic theists can hold extremely strong views - be 99.99999% confident - and have all sorts of good arguments backing up their positions.   All good.   But to declare that one has the handle on absolute truth regarding the existence of a god is to not understand the concept of absolute truth.

Which is not to be confused with an open mind, i have an open mind to all evidence but until that evidence is presented its all bullshit.

Indeed.  I agree.   So if someone claims:  'God exists' they need to deliver evidence (burden of proof).   Similarly if someone claims:  'No god exists' they need to deliver evidence that 'god' is impossible.   Stating 'I am convinced no god exists' is profoundly different from claiming 'no god exists'.

Same with god, today you have to say he does not exist, until proven otherwise. Saying he might is just dumb and a way to cover your ass so you cant be told you were wrong, screw that, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but i doubt i am...

Accepting the possibility that an unproven assertion might be right is simply being rational, logical and honest.   Note how you ended:  'if I'm wrong, I'm wrong'.  You tacitly admit that you hold the possibility that you could be wrong.   That is rational.   What would not be rational is to claim: 'no possible way for me to be wrong'.   Being honest and rational is not a 'cop out'.

Following this, when the atom was first hypothesized it was rational to accept the possibility that atoms do indeed exist.   On what grounds would one deny even the possibility that they exist?    That would be irrational.

I agree when you don't know you don't know and there is a lot we don't know but are pretty sure of, religion should not be one of them. Religion is brainwashing of the masses and I wont even give them .0000000000001% probability of existence.

When discussing religion it sounds like a game of semantics to people like to play to me. If you don't believe then you don't believe, hence it does not exist no matter how you try to slice it.

I am not going to preface with he might exist or I don't know if he does. That is not my position, my position is God is fake as much as all the gods and religions before and after are/will be fake, made up, and absolutely do not exist, never have, never will. I welcome someone to prove me wrong, otherwise I will remain 100% convinced, to waste time otherwise is just being disingenuous.

It was easier to "believe" one way or another in the past, as humans knew little to nothing about the galaxy, universe, or science. God/religion was created to  explain the unexplainable, he has outlived his usefulness.

I think as humans we are led to mystery and mysticism, legends, "magic", fantasy...whatever, because it is exciting and strange and "that would be so cool" feelings. This is the basis of religion, but we have to realize it is just good entertainment and none of it is real.

That is not my position, my position is God is fake as much as all the gods and religions before and after are/will be fake, made up, and absolutely do not exist, never have, never will. I welcome someone to prove me wrong, otherwise I will remain 100% convinced, to waste time otherwise is just being disingenuous.

That is my position too.   But, note, the purpose of this article was to clarify when the burden of proof applies because this concept is oft confused in debate.   I am good with side topics as long as we recognize that we are talking about something other than the point of the article.

It was easier to "believe" one way or another in the past, as humans knew little to nothing about the galaxy, universe, or science. God/religion was created to  explain the unexplainable, he has outlived his usefulness.

Agreed.   Given we understand volcanoes, thunder, lightning, floods, disease, etc. we have no reason to fill in the gaps with god x or god y.   God (in particular religion) is not so much an explanation for the unknown but now a comfort mechanism.   Religion brings comfort and that is why it remains.  IMO.

So on the issue of God's existence, God will either exist or will not exist.

I am of the opinion (and yes, its an just an opinion-- I am open to the possibility that I may someday be proven wrong) that the existence of a God cannot be proven. Nor can it be disproven. 

Where I probably differ from many people is that its not important to me to know whether or not God exists.

That being said, often when someone expresses a strong opinion, "my ears perk up" (figuratively speaking)-- and often I am challenged to find the flaw (if any) in their belief.

I am open to the possibility that I may someday be proven wrong) that the existence of a God cannot be proven. Nor can it be disproven. 

I see no way to disprove the existence of a creator entity.   The hypothesized existence of a creator is unfalsifiable.

However, logically, the non-existence of God is falsifiable — it can be proved to be false.   First, we must define God in very specific terms (not necessarily detailed, but with enough specificity to design an experiment).   For example, we could define God as a sentient entity who created our universe.

Given that definition, we could devise an experiment to prove the existence of God.   For example we could ask God to create a second sun so that our solar system orbits two suns which orbit each other at the center.   The experiment would be a feat that, if accomplished, would be incredibly supportive of the claim of sentience and the ability to create our universe.   (Another experiment could involve causing a specifically chosen point in space to super nova at a specifically chosen time in the future.)   You get the idea.

Of course we cannot effect this experiment at our choosing.   First God has to show up and be willing to play.   Given God does not seem to be interested in making him/herself known it is actually true that nobody can prove the existence of God even though it is logically possible.

 First God has to show up and be willing to play.

Yup-- that's the problem with that approach. 

Even if God did exist, the success of that experiment pre-supposes that if God would really care to prove her existence to us mere mortals.

What if God really did exist-- but did't feel the need to prove that to us? 

Apparently many religions seem to contain the belief that God wants us to worship her. That a God would really care about what humans thought about her. That a God would really have an emotional attachment to how her creations (which include humans) act, how her creations feel about her. (For some people that belief even extends to believing that God is sitting up there on a cloud looking down on us and really, really hoping that humankind will consistantly choose good over evil).

That is a case of projecting human traits onto our view of what God is like.

[For those fans of big words, that tendency is called "Anthropomorphism"

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. ^[1]  It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.]                     

This article strikes me as simply another attempt by atheists to claim the default. 

Holding the "default" position in a debate about the existence of God is extremely valuable. Because it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, whoever can claim the default position, in other words put the burden of proof on the other side, cannot lose the debate. 

Atheists often (so often as to make it a constant) try and claim the default position. We have all heard an atheist say "the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist", but that is not really true. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.

I believe there is a God, but I don't claim to be able to prove it. It is a matter of faith. 

This article strikes me as simply another attempt by atheists to claim the default. 

Then you missed the point.  This article is about the burden of proof in an argument.   I thought the quote I chose made that super clear:

Article Quote:  When someone declares something to be true one must now show it is so.   That is the burden of proof.

If you declare 'X is true' then you have the burden of proof.   The person who is not convinced that 'X is true' does not have the burden of proof.   If, however, the unconvinced person were to state 'X is false' then that person has the burden of proof for that claim.

Holding the "default" position in a debate about the existence of God is extremely valuable. Because it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, whoever can claim the default position, in other words put the burden of proof on the other side, cannot lose the debate. 

Now, since you are turning this to God, the default position is indeed valuable.   But if the default position is not true then that is simply dishonesty - not valuable.   The default position, in the case of the existence of God, just happens to be true.   By default, we have no proof of God.   Thus if someone claims: 'God exists' that person bears the burden of proof.   The person who states 'I am not convinced that God exists' bears no burden.   However, the person who claims: 'No god exists' bears the same burden of proof as the person claiming: 'God exists'.

Atheists often (so often as to make it a constant) try and claim the default position. We have all heard an atheist say "the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist", but that is not really true. The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.

You write this and apparently understand the concept:  "The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim" yet oddly you seem to not understand the concept of atheism.   Apparently you equate atheism with gnostic atheism.  That is, you hold that an atheist makes the claim: 'No god exists'.   Atheists who make that claim are gnostic atheists - a small minority.   Atheists are typically agnostic atheists who opine: 'I am not convinced a god exists'.   No burden of proof.   

Gnostic theists make the claim 'God exists' while agnostic theists opine: 'I believe my God exists'.   The gnostic theist bears the burden of proof while the agnostic theist does not.   So to be precise, here is how I would rephrase your statement as two statements:

• the burden of proof is on the gnostic-theist,   not the agnostic-atheist
• the burden of proof is on the gnostic-atheist, not the agnostic-theist

Both of the above are correct (having just demonstrated this).

I believe there is a God, but I don't claim to be able to prove it.  It is a matter of faith. 

Not the point of this article - not even close.   Save that for a different article.

Then you missed the point.  This article is about the burden of proof in an argument.   I thought the quote I chose made that super clear:

Article Quote:  When someone declares something to be true one must now show it is so.   That is the burden of proof.

Your article is about the burden of proof as it relates to debates about God. Or it least that is what the majority of it relates to. I don't think it is inappropriate at all to suggest the article is an argument for the default.

Atheists are typically agnostic atheists who opine: 'I am not convinced a god exists'.   No burden of proof.   

People regularly tell you "I BELIEVE in God" , and you often ask them for proof, don't you?  I have seen many of you atheists continue to ask for "proof" from people who say they operate from belief.

Your article is about the burden of proof as it relates to debates about God. 

The source of obvious example is debates about God.   The article, however, focuses on the concept of 'burden of proof'.   In other words, that is the concept I was focused on clarifying.   I fully agree that most application is on God debates, but that is not the purpose of the article.

That said, what would be more interesting than you arguing with me as to why I wrote this article is to address the content of my comment.   Your 'rebuttal' ignored everything I wrote.

Does that mean you agree with what I wrote?

People regularly tell you "I BELIEVE in God" , and you often ask them for proof, don't you? 

No, John, I never ask someone to prove their belief.   (It gets old dealing with people who imagine what others write.)   I will ask for logic and evidence supporting a belief.   But there is no burden of proof on a belief and I never ask for proof. 

I have seen many of you atheists continue to ask for "proof" from people who say they operate from belief.

'You atheists'.   So clearly you have a stereotype in mind which you apply to every atheist.   Try to not do that.   Read what a person actually writes and try to avoid presuming (or inventing) facts.

'You atheists'.   So clearly you have a stereotype in mind which you apply to every atheist.   Try to not do that.   Read what a person actually writes and try to avoid presuming (or inventing) facts.

I think many (most?) people tend to stereotype people who have belief systems that are opposed to theirs. And not only religious people vs Atheists. 

Of course a case could be made that religion is much cooler than Atheism (at least in regards to the music!)

(I realize this post is totally off-topic-- but what the heck ..

(at least in regards to the music!)

Atheists have rock and roll!   If it has a beat and you can dance to it -what more does a person need?  LOL!

Apocalyptica - I'm Not Jesus.  And that's just one atheist song!

Should you what?

Dick Clark-- wow!

How times have changed! (Or have they????)

I have no belief in a god or gods.  I have friends who believe in god.  I have friends who believe in the tarot or astrology or reading palms, and that's cool.  As long as they don't demand that I believe it or respect anything beyond their right to believe what they like. 

Now, for me to believe in a god, specifically the Judea-Christian god would require 4 things:

1. Prove that a god exists.

2. And I think this would be harder than 1, prove that ONLY ONE god exists.

3. Prove that this one and only god is male.  Because that's the big one isn't it?  A lot of my feminist friends worship the goddess, but really the same thing applies to them.  How do they know?

4. Prove that this one and only male god is the same one that been worshiped for millennia and not some other male god like Odin, Anansi, or some other male deity from the depths of time.

Now let's discuss what proof really means.  If tomorrow, all of the human race woke up with no knowledge of science, math, physics, chemistry and religion there would be massive, massive dying.  But some would live and they or their children would discover the same sets of laws for science and math and physics and chemistry.  Laws that are subject to testing, laws that would be the same for anyone, anywhere on the Earth, and they would be the exact same as the ones we know now.  The reason I know this is because those laws have been tested, over and over, and they have been shown to be written into the fabric of the universe.  But, while I'm sure the notion of deities would arise as well, I'm doubtful they would come to the exact same conclusions as the religions we currently endure, but if someone claims that they would, then I would ask them to prove that too.

But some would live and they or their children would discover the same sets of laws for science and math and physics and chemistry.  Laws that are subject to testing, laws that would be the same for anyone, anywhere on the Earth, and they would be the exact same as the ones we know now.

But-- maybe not.

Science has evolved over centuries-- so we thought we had it all figured out. Then Einstein came along and a lot of what Scietists had "proved" about physics was changed:

A Century Ago, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Changed Everything

And there's little doubt in my mind that eventually as science progresses someone else will come along and discover some facts that replace Einstein's discoveries. Science is not static-- what we think we know now will be disproven...

You mean like the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth? Yeah, that's what I meant by testable.  And when different tests came around science changed to reflect the new knowledge.  Religions don't do that.

As for what we know being dis proven, if and when it happens, it well be done scientifically.

Did I miss it, or is there really no discussion here of definition of terms? Before there can even be a rational discussion about proof, there should be a consensus on the definition of terms.

Good point.  Some seem to be equating religious faith (acceptance of the existence of God, regardless of the lack of evidence) with acceptance of empirical evidence.  They're not the same, but acting like they are is a pretty good way to stir up a fight.

They're not the same, but acting like they are is a pretty good way to stir up a fight.

Unfortunately, IMHO, that is based on being willfully obtuse. They don't want to acknowledge their own responsibility to make a evidence based cogent argument so they just insist that we take their word for it. 

Years ago one of my friends was decrying the fact that he put his 6  year old daughter into a Montessori school. I asked him why and he said: Now, when I tell her 'Because I said so', she says, 'Because is not an answer'. I told him that I thought that the challenge of trying to keep up with her would do him good...

The article itself focuses on when the burden of proof applies; what constitutes proof was not addressed in the article.   

Discussion did take us into various areas where we touched on definitions of proof.   My comments along this line basically stated that if there is a burden of proof then we must define the criteria for what constitutes proof (in the specific circumstance).   At the time we were talking about the claim 'God exists'.   For this claim we must define what we mean by 'God' and then define the criteria that, if met, would constitute proof that 'God' as defined exists.