Atheism or No Intelligence Allowed

[lewisnotmiller]

Programmers need a working knowledge of logic even if it's not formally presented:

If wishes were horses
then God is a tree
else God is a giraffe
end if

Real programmers would vomit to hear me described as a programmer...lol.

But otherwise yes.
And I could rustle up a couple of for...next loop jokes if we're going full geek.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honesty.

Made me chuckle. Well played.

 

[Link]

God cannot be proven by the intellect. The heart's proof of God is beyond logic.

This is getting to unnecessary semantics. Whether it's the heart or intellect realizes we exist in God's vision and can't exist anywhere else, it doesn't matter, it's a reminder that proves God exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When an atheist says: "I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists", he says a lie.
The same illogical level: "I am atheist because the sky is blue."

You need to work on the difference between honest ignorance, lying, and simply being wrong.

These are all different things. I wouldn't suggest calling atheists 'liars' is in any way holistically accurate, nevermind that it appears pretty ironically judgey to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would say that he is a "soft atheist". Atheists include those with just a lack of belief in a god. They do not have to say "there is no god".

Yup. Dawkins makes the point from time to time that certainty on questions of God are problematic. But he is pretty sure, and that makes him a weak/soft/implicit/agnostic atheist (like me). Not agnostic.

 

[We Never Know]

This is not quite right. One can prove some negatives, but not all.

Here is an example. You are in Chicago to meet a friend of yours. You get a frantic call from him saying that the Sear's building just blew up (sorry, I don't know what they call it today). You are just a block or two away and drive by it. It is still there unharmed. You just proved that an event did not happen.

Thats not really disapproving a negative. Its dispelling a rumor.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

There is no proof via reason or science that God exists OR that he does not exist.

Anyone that moves out of a place of absolute agnosticism is opting for a faith position, either atheism or theism.

 

[We Never Know]

What a completely ridiculous claim. Do you not believe in invisible magical pixies because you have proof they don't exist or is it because there is no verffiable evidence to suggest that they do exist?

Do yiu believe in them? If yes what its your testable evidence?

 

[We Never Know]

Well, there are proofs in math.



God cannot be proven by the intellect. The heart's proof of God is beyond logic.

A god cannot be proven or disproven with belief, science, want, need, thought, etc.
Anyone seeking prove or disproof of a god just as well be chasing unicorns

 

[blü 2]

Dr. Richard Dawkins ...: ``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."

As I read him, that's only part of it, but it is indeed part of it.

Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

No, that's not right. Dawkins is not obliged to prove a negative. If someone says "God exists" then they carry the can for showing God exists.

Dawkins is however a long way ahead of me. He apparently understands the claim "a real God exists" well enough to deny it.

I don't. I have no idea what real thing the word "God" is intended to denote, and I've never heard a definition of "God" sufficient to let us determine whether any real candidate, any real suspect, is God or not.

And without such a definition, as far as I can tell anyone who speaks of a real God has no coherent concept of what they're actually talking about ─ whether the speaker be the Pope, a Grand Mufti, Richard Dawkins or anyone else.

Instead, they're talking about an idea, a concept, an imaginary entity; and ideas, concepts, imaginary entities have the advantage of being anything the speaker would like them to be.

 

[sun rise]

unicorns

How many here are virgins so might chase and catch one. Very few if any I suspect.

 

[We Never Know]

How many here are virgins so might chase and catch one. Very few if any I suspect.

Virgin unicorns? I would say they are rare lol

 

[QuestioningMind]

Do yiu believe in them? If yes what its your testable evidence?

No, I lack any belief in invisible magical pixies, due to the lack of any verifiable evidence for their existence. This also holds true for any god claim that's ever been presented to me.

 

[viole]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

To quote Clarence Darrow again: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.

Meaning: since God and MG have exactly the same evidence of existing, there is no rational reason to think one is more plausible than the other, once we remove preconditioning, cultural influence, emotions, wishful thinking, and other extra rational arguments.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Well, there are proofs in math.



God cannot be proven by the intellect. The heart's proof of God is beyond logic.

Mathematics is not science.

It is a sort of system of quantitative logic, with no necessary relation to the physical world.

 

[firedragon]

Dawkins, by his own words is not atheist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...doesnt-exist/2012/02/24/gIQA7496XR_story.html


However he is correct in saying that "there is no proof that god exists". If you think that statement is incorrect then please provide evidence

Are you asking for proof or evidence?

Though this thread is not really related to this topic, maybe a new thread could be opened on this.

 

[stvdv]

However he is correct in saying that "there is no proof that god exists". If you think that statement is incorrect then please provide evidence

The above statement is not correct

More accurate would be: "There is no proof that god exists, as far as I am aware of"

 

[firedragon]

There is no proof via reason or science that God exists OR that he does not exist.

You mean to say no one has every given you any proof for the existence of God? Or you are saying "No proof whatsoever"?

If someone could provide you proof would you say "No Proof"? You won't accept any proof of course, that's a given, and that's no problem. But you must say you won't accept them, not that there is "no proof". Because people do offer proof, though you won't accept any of them.

 

[PureX]

It's a fool, indeed, that thinks God's existence depends on "proof". And that goes for theists as well as atheists. What you or I "believe" has no bearing at all on the nature or existence of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

Another day, another fallacious OP filled with strawmen, unsupported assumption and references to an exposed intellectually dishonest "documentary".