Just because you don't witness god doesn't mean he isn't there.

[seriously disabled]

It's not a fact.

Yes it is. Just because you are delusional and you can't see that is not my problem.

 

The fact is that Christians are delusional and will believe everything without evidence.

Edited September 25, 2016 by seriously disabled

[DrKrettin]

Yes it is. Just because you are delusional and you can't see that is not my problem.

 

The fact is that Christians are delusional and will believe everything without evidence.

 

I think you have the wrong idea about what is a fact. It makes no sense to say it is a fact that there is no god. All you can say is that there is no evidence that there is one, so until there is evidence, you assume there is none. That does not make it a fact.

 

Equally, would you say it is a fact that there is no alien life anywhere in the universe, simply because we have no evidence that there is? That isn't a fact either.

[Itoero]

Yes it is. Just because you are delusional and you can't see that is not my problem.

 

The fact is that Christians are delusional and will believe everything without evidence.

If you call the nonexistence of god or gods a fact then you must have evidence. Can you show some?

[koti]

If you call the nonexistence of god or gods a fact then you must have evidence. Can you show some?

As much as I agree on the discussion about the "fact" logic, I would also like to see you disprove the existence of unicorns.

 

Edit: Is it safe to say that you use an aproach where there is equal lack of evidence on existence of god, aliens and unicorns?

Edited September 25, 2016 by koti

[Itoero]

Edit: Is it safe to say that you use an aproach where there is equal lack of evidence on existence of god, aliens and unicorns?

Yes. The absence of evidence does not make a fact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Itoero

[koti]

Yes. The absence of evidence does not make a fact.

That is not an answer to a question I stated now is it.

 

To make it easier for both of us, I will state what I have to say and not drag you into a duel.

Firstly, Seriously Disabled stated some awful arguments but that does not necessarily mean that what he's trying to get across is false - would you agree ?

Secondly, there is exactly zero evidence on the existence of alien life and exactly zero evidence on the existence of God. In my opinion those two zero evidence non-facts are a "bit" different.

Thirdly, I asked you if you could disprove unicorns. The answer is you cannot.

Lastly...aplying 2+2=4 logic into these kinds of discussions will not give you the big picture and will most certainly drag you into a filthy ad hominem argument.

 

Edit: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is just plain silly.

Edited September 25, 2016 by koti

[zapatos]

That is not an answer to a question I stated now is it.

 

You asked a Yes/No question, to which Itoero responded "yes". So yes, it was an answer to a question you stated. As a bonus, he then went on to provide his reasoning.

 

To make it easier for both of us, I will state what I have to say and not drag you into a duel.

It seems like you are going to have a duel whether Itoero participates or not.

[koti]

 

 

You asked a Yes/No question, to which Itoero responded "yes". So yes, it was an answer to a question you stated. As a bonus, he then went on to provide his reasoning.

 

Sigh...you are right, he answered yes and I'm glad you made me realize that. There is no other conclusion to draw, than the fact that both of you are convinced that there is exactly equal argumentation against the existence of god, aliens and unicorns.

 

 

It seems like you are going to have a duel whether Itoero participates or not.

 

How fortunate for me that this is not for you to decide.

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by koti

[zapatos]

Sigh...you are right, he answered yes and I'm glad you made me realize that. There is no other conclusion to draw, than the fact that both of you are convinced that there is exactly equal argumentation against the existence of god, aliens and unicorns.

Not exactly. God, and presumably unicorns, would be supernatural whereas aliens would be natural. Therefore the arguments regarding aliens can at least be made from a scientific perspective while arguments about gods and unicorns cannot. You concluded correctly that there is (roughly) equivalent argumentation against both gods and unicorns.

 

Edit: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is just plain silly.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is valid. As an example, it is not reasonable to assume there are no aliens simply because we have no evidence of aliens.

Edited September 26, 2016 by zapatos

[iNow]

Seriously disabled was wrong when he said it's a fact that god doesn't exist. That's a fact. I don't believe in gods. Pretty sure they don't exist anywhere outside of people's imaginations, writings, and related culture, but he's simply wrong to assert nonexistence as a fact. It's not.

[Tampitump]

Seriously disabled was wrong when he said it's a fact that god doesn't exist. That's a fact. I don't believe in gods. Pretty sure they don't exist anywhere outside of people's imaginations, writings, and related culture, but he's simply wrong to assert nonexistence as a fact. It's not.

+1 but I have no problem saying it. I say it like I'd say "there are no fairies." Edited September 26, 2016 by Tampitump

[dimreepr]

Yeah, but then they figure out that the god is nothing more than a Charlatan behind a curtain with no powers, and that everything they they needed, that they sought for this god to give them, was already within them.

 

 

As an atheist I agree, but don't forget, they had to follow the path to find whats within.

[koti]

Not exactly. God, and presumably unicorns, would be supernatural whereas aliens would be natural. Therefore the arguments regarding aliens can at least be made from a scientific perspective while arguments about gods and unicorns cannot.

This is what I was trying to get across and I agree 100% with the above. I'm glad that you came up with this on your own.

 

I think that most of us here, including you, Itoero, Seriously Disabled and myself have similar views on the subject at hand.

 

 

[Itoero]

You asked a Yes/No question, to which Itoero responded "yes". So yes, it was an answer to a question you stated. As a bonus, he then went on to provide his reasoning.

That is what I meant.

 

@Koti

Your question concerning unicorns I did not answer since I thought you realized it was irrelevant.

There is no evidence to disprove the existence of unicorns so it's not a fact.

Something is a fact or it's not.

There is no evidence for alien life and god(s) but the existence of alien life is more likely then the existence of god(s).

There is no evidence to disprove the Yeti and for invisible flying donkeys but I consider the existence of the Yeti to be more likely.

[zapatos]

As an atheist I agree, but don't forget, they had to follow the path to find whats within.

Good point. Unfortunately too many forget that they themselves once followed that path, and are quick to ridicule those who have not, or cannot, complete the path themselves.

[dimreepr]

Good point. Unfortunately too many forget that they themselves once followed that path, and are quick to ridicule those who have not, or cannot, complete the path themselves.

 

 

Whilst that works and is a point I've often made, however, in this case the context is "the wizard of oz".

 

My point is, if we stop thinking about it in terms of "The Bible" and start to think in terms of a contemporary title, like "Contentment for Dummies"; god is just a teaching aid.

[zapatos]

Whilst that works and is a point I've often made, however, in this case the context is "the wizard of oz".

 

My point is, if we stop thinking about it in terms of "The Bible" and start to think in terms of a contemporary title, like "Contentment for Dummies"; god is just a teaching aid.

I'm confused. I thought you were using the Wizard of Oz as an analogy to the path followed to find the truth about God.

 

The wizard is supposed to be god and the rest is the path to find him.

[dimreepr]

'You don't need god to be content but it can help'.

 

You do however need to find it and a path is often essential, why care who forged the path if it's easy to follow?

Edited September 26, 2016 by dimreepr

[koti]

Dimreepr stop it. All this deep "Wizard of Oz" stuff is gonna make me cry.

[dimreepr]

Dimreepr stop it. All this deep "Wizard of Oz" stuff is gonna make me cry.

 

 

Why, in both senses?

[koti]

 

 

Why, in both senses?

 

If I answer do you promise I won't have to prove the superiority of Winnie the Pooh wisdom ?

[dimreepr]

Only if you promise not to condescend.

[koti]

Only if you promise not to condescend.

Sory dimreepr, this thread made me like this.

 

Edit: Plus I have some personal reasons...like the fact that I was throwing up with the wizard of oz when I was the "eastern europe kid" in school in the states back in the 80's. I wouldn't call my self condenscending in this case but rather - ironic. Peace

Edited September 26, 2016 by koti

[freekundli]

Teacher is trying to confuse student.

[Strange]

Teacher is trying to confuse student.

 

 

Which teacher? And who is the student? And how are they trying to confuse them?