"Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" | Talks At Google

[bhsmte]

He is saying that Christians accept every possible burden of proof with respect to the existence of deities. He's saying that no Christian would only affirm a lack of belief in other gods but in fact must affirm that no other gods exist. Thus, when you said that your position on other gods is equivalent to that of Christians, he inferred that you affirm the nonexistence of other deities.

So on this issue I'd begrudgingly award him the point. But I share your exasperation with him, as he is quite the acrobat when you try to ask him a question.

Guess you need to get those points where you can.

 

[bhsmte]

Lol, and *I'M* the "acrobat". Lmao, ok.

What parts of what he said do you disagree with?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What parts of what he said do you disagree with?

He doesn't disagree, he just doesn't understand.

 

[bhsmte]

He doesn't disagree, he just doesn't understand.

Or, doesn't want to understand.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Or, doesn't want to understand.

Very possible. He was fine with putting you through the wringer, but when it comes to him being wrong he must feign ignorance or else face the fact that he is wrong. I guess we see what kind of person he is.

 

[bhsmte]

Very possible. He was fine with putting you through the wringer, but when it comes to him being wrong he must feign ignorance or else face the fact that he is wrong. I guess we see what kind of person he is.

Have seen this before, quite predictable.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Have seen this before, quite predictable.

We've just seen him remove the speck from your eye while having a plank in his. Whether through feigned ignorance or genuine ignorance, it's a plank and it's there.

 

[bhsmte]

We've just seen him remove the speck from your eye while having a plank in his.

I love that one. Lot's of concerns about those specks by some, highly entertaining to watch and how they get into scramble mode.

 

[-V-]

Lmao, it's hilarious watching you two stroke each other's egos.

OK, great, so let's try it again.

If God has not interacted with reality, then when we discuss God we're not talking about, say, the guy who owns the barber shop on 5th and Main. There is nowhere I can go nor anything I can do to see or detect God. Yet I can abstractly discuss the notion of God.

Thus, God is an idea.

You said He's "nothing more than" an idea. That makes Him imaginary. Imaginary things don't actually exist. So, if you want to claim God is NOTHING MORE THAN an idea, you are claiming He doesn't actually exist.

 

[bhsmte]

Lmao, it's hilarious watching you two stroke each other's egos.


You said He's "nothing more than" an idea. That makes Him imaginary. Imaginary things don't actually exist. So, if you want to claim God is NOTHING MORE THAN an idea, you are claiming He doesn't actually exist.

It is an idea, until such time objective evidence can demonstrate existence.

It is the same way I look at alien abductions. Some people swear they have been abducted, but there is no evidence, besides their personal experience claims. It is possible that aliens may have abducted some people, but until such time reliable evidence demonstrates the same, I will not be included in the folks that believe this happened.

 

[-V-]

It is an idea, until such time objective evidence can demonstrate existence.

It is the same way I look at alien abductions. Some people swear they have been abducted, but there is no evidence, besides their personal experience claims. It is possible that aliens may have abducted some people, but until such time reliable evidence demonstrates the same, I will not be included in the folks that believe this happened.

Great. So instead of "atheists believe there is no god,", it's actually, "atheists believe there is no god until proven otherwise." Yeah, cuz that's totally a meaningful difference completely justifying all the straw man whining. Totally.

 

[bhsmte]

Great. So instead of "atheists believe there is no god,", it's actually, "atheists believe there is no god until proven otherwise." Yeah, cuz that's totally a meaningful difference completely justifying all the straw man whining. Totally.

Well, I believed in a God for most of my life, until I learned that I was likely wrong. You see, I have no problem accepting well evidenced reality that may change my views on things. I am not stuck in one set of beliefs or lack of beliefs and holding onto them no matter what evidence is out there that could change my mind.

My mind is open to learning and acknowledging well evidenced reality and I think that is quite healthy.

 

[radhead]

Okay, I listened to the entire video. But I am just not sure what his point is. He doesn't sound like someone who is trying to push or convert people to Christianity. I actually agree with most of what he said about God, so I don't even think anything he said was pro-religion. He basically said that religious and non-religious people share the same values. He even indicated that different religions were in agreement on important matters. Okay, that's fine. What else?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Lmao, it's hilarious watching you two stroke each other's egos.


You said He's "nothing more than" an idea. That makes Him imaginary. Imaginary things don't actually exist. So, if you want to claim God is NOTHING MORE THAN an idea, you are claiming He doesn't actually exist.

I said UNTIL HE INTERACTS WITH REALITY, he is nothing more than an idea. You kind of left that part out. Who's surprised you did this? Not me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Great. So instead of "atheists believe there is no god,", it's actually, "atheists believe there is no god until proven otherwise." Yeah, cuz that's totally a meaningful difference completely justifying all the straw man whining. Totally.

For the 12309242245th time, let me explain. Here's another analogy.

We're pretty sure we've found the Higgs Boson. Let's say for the sake of argument that we have indeed found it. This means that the Higgs Boson has been real since the beginning of time. And yet, when physicists were postulating its existence, the Higgs Boson was just an idea. It was just an idea because it wasn't known to exist.

Do you get it now, or do I need to throw my computer off a roof?

 

[-V-]

For the 12309242245th time, let me explain. Here's another analogy.

We're pretty sure we've found the Higgs Boson. Let's say for the sake of argument that we have indeed found it. This means that the Higgs Boson has been real since the beginning of time. And yet, when physicists were postulating its existence, the Higgs Boson was just an idea. It was just an idea because it wasn't known to exist.

Do you get it now, or do I need to throw my computer off a roof?

Right. So, atheists can go on acting & arguing as if there is no god, they're just forbidden from saying the words "there is no god." I'm still waiting for the meaningful difference. But hey, by all means, throw your computer off the roof if it makes you feel better.

 

[-V-]

When Richard Dawkins started his “There’s Probably No God” ad campaign, he came right out and said that he would have rather not had the word “probably” in there - what he really wanted it to say was simply, “There’s No God.” So, there we have one prominent atheist who isn’t afraid to say he believes there is no God. Dawkins has bunches of awards from multiple atheist organizations. The Atheist Alliance International even gives out a “Richard Dawkins Award”. Clearly other atheists respect and share his views.

I have a Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. I think Webster's has more authority than the atheists here to define what words mean. “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.” And “atheist” is defined as “a person who believes that there is no God.”

So, you’ll just have to forgive me if I take Webster’s word over the atheists here. You’ll just have to forgive me for thinking this whole idea that “atheists don’t believe that there is no god - they only lack the belief that there is one” is pure bunk.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When Richard Dawkins started his “There’s Probably No God” ad campaign, he came right out and said that he would have rather not had the word “probably” in there - what he really wanted it to say was simply, “There’s No God.” So, there we have one prominent atheist who isn’t afraid to say he believes there is no God. Dawkins has bunches of awards from multiple atheist organizations. The Atheist Alliance International even gives out a “Richard Dawkins Award”. Clearly other atheists respect and share his views.

I have a Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. I think Webster's has more authority than the atheists here to define what words mean. “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.” And “atheist” is defined as “a person who believes that there is no God.”

So, you’ll just have to forgive me if I take Webster’s word over the atheists here. You’ll just have to forgive me for thinking this whole idea that “atheists don’t believe that there is no god - they only lack the belief that there is one” is pure bunk.

Dictionaries cannot even get the word "parallel" right. Two lines are parallel if and only if there exists a transversal of the two lines that forms a right angle on both lines. It seems that the consequence of this is that the lines never meet, but that cannot be proven and had to be taken as an axiom.

The dictionary improperly attests to the definition of "atheist" because Christians perpetuated the incorrect meaning, and common usage determines the dictionary definition. In common usage, among laymen, parallel lines are lines that don't cross.

But looking at the root words, theism is the belief in a god or gods, and atheism is the negation of that. It's not a difficult concept.

Right. So, atheists can go on acting & arguing as if there is no god, they're just forbidden from saying the words "there is no god." I'm still waiting for the meaningful difference. But hey, by all means, throw your computer off the roof if it makes you feel better.

If you believe there is no god, you lack a belief in any god, and hence you are an atheist. Most call this strong atheism. Weak atheism would be the lack of belief in any god but the acknowledgement that one could exist. Most atheists are weak atheists.

But to put it in proper terms, it is sufficient, but not necessary, to believe there is no god in order to be an atheist. Lack of belief suffices.

So now you should understand and are without excuse.

 

[-V-]

Dictionaries cannot even get the word "parallel" right. Two lines are parallel if and only if the transversal of the two lines forms a right angle on both lines. It seems that the consequence of this is that the lines never meet, but that cannot be proven and had to be taken as an axiom.

They got "parallel" wrong? Here's what it says: "Parallel: extending in the same direction and at the same distance apart at every point, so as never to meet, as lines, planes, etc."

And you're just plain wrong about the transversal being required to form a right angle. It *CAN* form a right angle, but a transversal does not have to form a right angle.
See:Parallel Lines, and Pairs of Angles

There's a couple of pictures demonstrating transversals that do NOT form right angles, yet the lines are still parallel. So, it seems you're the one giving less-than-accurate definitions.

If you believe there is no god, you lack a belief in any god, and hence you are an atheist. Most call this strong atheism. Weak atheism would be the lack of belief in any god but the acknowledgement that one could exist. Most atheists are weak atheists.

But to put it in proper terms, it is sufficient, but not necessary, to believe there is no god in order to be an atheist. Lack of belief suffices.

So now you should understand and are without excuse.

Lmao. I see. So, at first, "atheists believe there is no god" is a straw man fallacy. Now you're conceding that it is, in fact, the position of a lot of atheists.

I think what we all understand now is that you're the one running out of excuses.

It's clear that what has happened is that atheists started to get confronted more and more when they claimed there is no god. They realized they can't prove it, so suddenly they changed their tune to, "I don't claim there is no god, I just don't accept your claim that there is one." (Which didn't stop many of them from still making claims when they think no one is paying attention.) Once they got confronted more and more and realized that "I believe there is no god" is a faith position, and atheists are so terrified of being associated with "faith", that they started chickening out and changed their tune to, "I don't believe there is no god, I just lack belief that there is one."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's clear that what has happened is that atheists started to get confronted more and more when they claimed there is no god. They realized they can't prove it, so suddenly they changed their tune to, "I don't claim there is no god, I just don't accept your claim that there is one." (Which didn't stop many of them from still making claims when they think no one is paying attention.) Once they got confronted more and more and realized that "I believe there is no god" is a faith position, and atheists are so terrified of being associated with "faith", that they started chickening out and changed their tune to, "I don't believe there is no god, I just lack belief that there is one."

Entertaining conspiracy theory, but it doesn't ring true for any atheist I know, who would say "I don't believe in any of the god claims I've come across" and would never say "I believe no gods exist."

But, if it makes you feel better to believe in things that aren't true, be my guest. It definitely makes it easier to knock down your version of an atheist than my actual version of an atheist.

Hmmm, knock down...

Sure sounds like a straw man to me...