Atheism vs Theism

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Santa Claus: Not comparable, as his non-existence has been reasonably proven.

Well, dust1n may let this slide but I'm not going to. Have you searched every corner of the universe to MAKE SURE Santa doesn't exist?

By what method has he been disproven, and how does that method not apply to a god?

What qualitatively separates the claim 'santa exists' from the claim 'god exists' given the amount of evidence in support of each claim is exactly equal?

 

[Storm]

Well, dust1n may let this slide but I'm not going to. Have you searched every corner of the universe to MAKE SURE Santa doesn't exist?

Don't have to, that's not part of the myth.

By what method has he been disproven, and how does that method not apply to a god?

1) We can trace the origin of the myth. "Santa" died centuries ago.
2) We've been to the North Pole, no toy shop in sight.
3) We know that adults leave the presents, not some fat guy breaking and entering.
On and on.....

What qualitatively separates the claim 'santa exists' from the claim 'god exists' given the amount of evidence in support of each claim is exactly equal?

It's not exactly equal, but I expect you'll just ignore me again.

 

[logician]

The hard atheist doesn't just not believe. He believes there is no God. A completely unevidenced belief is a form of faith, is it not?

Not true, a hard atheist (which I am) claims there is no evidenciery proof that some god exists.

 

[Storm]

Not true, a hard atheist (which I am) claims there is no evidenciery proof that some god exists.

Sorry, but that's weak/ soft atheism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Faires: I believe in the Others.
Santa Claus: Not comparable, as his non-existence has been reasonably proven.

Well, dust1n may let this slide but I'm not going to. Have you searched every corner of the universe to MAKE SURE Santa doesn't exist?

By what method has he been disproven, and how does that method not apply to a god?

What qualitatively separates the claim 'santa exists' from the claim 'god exists' given the amount of evidence in support of each claim is exactly equal?

She did say reasonably.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

She did say reasonably.

So then I guess you would agree that god has also reasonably been disproven, as the criteria is identical?

 

[Storm]

So then I guess you would agree that god has also reasonably been disproven, as the criteria is identical?

No, because it's not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So then I guess you would agree that god has also reasonably been disproven, as the criteria is identical?

Like the "Prove there is no God" challenge, it is up to the person making a positive "God exists" claim, not the negative "no God", to provide evidence.

But one can reasonably assume, due to contrary evidence, that the literalistic Biblical God does not exist. Just as the Santa Clause that conforms with popular myth does not exist.
The evidence provided just does not match up with reality.

 

[Storm]

Like the "Prove there is no God" challenge, it is up to the person making a positive "God exists" claim, not the negative "no God", to provide evidence.

Not so. Positive claim is a statement of fact, as opposed to one of belief or opinion. "There is no God" is every bit as much positive claim as "God exists."

But one can reasonably assume, due to contrary evidence, that the literalistic Biblical God does not exist. Just as the Santa Clause that conforms with popular myth does not exist.
The evidence provided just does not match up with reality.

Agreed, but nowhere in this thread has anyone specified that God.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

1) We can trace the origin of the myth. "Santa" died centuries ago.
2) We've been to the North Pole, no toy shop in sight.
3) We know that adults leave the presents, not some fat guy breaking and entering.
On and on.....

Yes but this is the exact same case with deity/s! Everything that was once attributed to gods or God has been shown to have more rational explanations, from the making of the rain to the origin of the universe, all the things 'gods' are for have been steadily disappearing. This god of the gaps keeps getting pushed further and further back into obscurity, just as Santa does to the child learning what the world is really about. There is very little difference, if any. Just as Santa Clause, this god is running out of places to hide!

It's not exactly equal, but I expect you'll just ignore me again.

None is still equal to none last I checked.All it would take to falsify this claim would be one piece of evidence that points to a deity. I'll not be holding my breath.

And what exactly are you claiming I ignored? If you have made a point you think should be addressed that I have overlooked, please point me at it.

No, because it's not.

Bald assertions will move this discussion nowhere.

 

[Storm]

Yes but this is the exact same case with deity/s! Everything that was once attributed to gods or God has been shown to have more rational explanations, from the making of the rain to the origin of the universe, all the things 'gods' are for have been steadily disappearing. This god of the gaps keeps getting pushed further and further back into obscurity, just as Santa does to the child learning what the world is really about. There is very little difference, if any. Just as Santa Clause, this god is running out of places to hide!

The God of the Gaps, who exists only in the minds of its critics, has nothing to do with what I posted. Feel free to provide actual evidence of God's non-existence.

None is still equal to none last I checked.All it would take to falsify this claim would be one piece of evidence that points to a deity. I'll not be holding my breath.

And what exactly are you claiming I ignored? If you have made a point you think should be addressed that I have overlooked, please point me at it.

There's at least a page worth of posts on trance states, which I also mentioned in my first post here.

Bald assertions will move this discussion nowhere.

Stop making them, then.

 

[ChristineES]

The answer I would choose would be : "Theism because I have faith that God exists."

 

[TheKnight]

I think your statement is a bit broad. If X implies the existence (or likely existence) of something else, then the absence of that "something else" is evidence of the absence of X.

So in essence you are saying:

If there was a God then X would be happening.
X is not happening.
Therefore there is no God?

Is that, in essence, what your position is?

Also, the absence of evidence can imply absence of knowledge, which means that there's no valid basis to suggest the truth of X in the first place.

Except that there is a valid basis to suggest the truth of X. Existence itself.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The God of the Gaps, who exists only in the minds of its critics, has nothing to do with what I posted.

The god of the gaps has everything to do with what you posted. You claimed santa had been reasonably disproven because it can be shown that all the places he should be he isn't, and all the things he should do have more reasonable explanations. As is with santa, as is with a deity.

Feel free to provide actual evidence of God's non-existence.

Do you understand why this question is nonsense? If not provide me with some actual evidence of Zeus's nonexistence.

There's at least a page worth of posts on trance states, which I also mentioned in my first post here.

Nothing you have written shows any sort of correlation, much less causation, between trance states and a deity.

Stop making them, then.

Oh come on now Storm. If you feel I have made an unqualified statement, present it and show where it fails and why, rather than making disingenuous statements such as this.

 

[Storm]

The god of the gaps has everything to do with what you posted. You claimed santa had been reasonably disproven because it can be shown that all the places he should be he isn't, and all the things he should do have more reasonable explanations. As is with santa, as is with a deity.
Do you understand why this question is nonsense? If not provide me with some actual evidence of Zeus's nonexistence.
Nothing you have written shows any sort of correlation, much less causation, between trance states and a deity.

Oh come on now Storm. If you feel I have made an unqualified statement, present it and show where it fails and why, rather than making disingenuous statements such as this.

If, as you say, God and Santa are comparable ideas, then it should be as easy for you to provide evidence as it was for me.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Nothing you posted was evidence of a deity. That human beings seem to be 'wired' for belief would only be evidence of 'god' if the belief systems caused by this weren't so widely variable and mostly mutually exclusive. There are perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for the 'god part of the brain'. Pseudoscientific interpretations of things like brain science, quantum mechanics, et al is not evidence of magical deities.

 

[Storm]

Nothing you posted was evidence of a deity.

No, I posted evidence that there is no Santa. YOU said they share the same criteria, therefore YOU should be able to provide evidence that there is no God. I'm waiting.

I rather suspect you knew exactly what I meant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So in essence you are saying:

If there was a God then X would be happening.
X is not happening.
Therefore there is no God?

Is that, in essence, what your position is?

It's my position for certain god-concepts, yes.

Except that there is a valid basis to suggest the truth of X. Existence itself.

To take that sort of position, you have to assume quite a bit, IMO.

 

[footprints]

Just wanted to get a feel for the claims out there. If desired, explain your answer.

You left agnosticism out of the vote. Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

For most part one piece of evidence cancels another out.

Evolution (which isn't even part of the deity debate, but many will include it anyway) is cancelled out by Creationism with or without ID.

All deities were alledgedly witnessed by ancient cultures, we have no way in knowing what they seen, we can't possibly see what they seen in their time, as they couldn't see what we see in our time.

Unless the human brain can relate to something, it cannot make an association connection. Ancient cultures related to something to make the association connections they did. Certainly the path of enlightenments left, are testimony to what they related to.

The bible has truths and fallacies in it. It has vast associations and many power of suggestions. Sorting fact from fiction can be a virtual nighmare. Albeit, one cannot rationally and logically throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You left agnosticism out of the vote.

No they didn't. Both answers 2 and 4 are agnostic positions.

Just for the record, when I calculate probablity of a deity or deity postion, the probability is 50:50.

Probability does not matter, you either believe the supposition to be true or you do not hold the supposition to be true.

For most part one piece of evidence cancels another out.

Evolution (which isn't even part of the deity debate, but many will include it anyway) is cancelled out by Creationism with or without ID.

Hold on, what?

1) Evolution has nothing to do with either atheism or theism.
2) Two contrary views do not mean that they "cancel each other out". In the case of evolution/creationism, one is right and the other is wrong (the right one being evolution).

All deities were alledgedly witnessed by ancient cultures, we have no way in knowing what they seen, we can't possibly see what they seen in their time, as they couldn't see what we see in our time.

Unless the human brain can relate to something, it cannot make an association connection. Ancient cultures related to something to make the association connections they did. Certainly the path of enlightenments left, are testimony to what they related to.

The bible has truths and fallacies in it. It has vast associations and many power of suggestions. Sorting fact from fiction can be a virtual nighmare. Albeit, one cannot rationally and logically throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You don't have to, but you can't both believe a supposition and not believe a supposition at the same time. Nor can you make no claim either way. You can be an agnostic, but you cannot be an agnostic without also being either a theist or an atheist.