Who is the one who must "prove"

[Aupmanyav]

I cannot grasp how someone who claims to be religious has no god at all.
Is yours the atheist's religion? Funny, I thought atheists didn't subscribe to religion....?

Yeah, I am a staunch Hindu and a strong atheist. Which means that I do not even subscribe to the possibility that there can be a God.
What do you know about religions other than your own? I am not surprised. You have been eating just one book all the time.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, I am a staunch Hindu and a strong atheist. Which means that I do not even subscribe to the possibility that there can be a God.
What do you know about religions other than your own? I am not surprised. You have been eating just one book all the time.

I really hope @Deeje isnt eating the scriptures thats not the right way to absorbe the wisdom

 

[Koldo]

A deistic philosophical first unmoved mover god has nothing to with a Christian God and says nothing about souls, morality, Heaven, prayer and so on.
This kind of God is a rationalistic attempt to answer where the universe comes from and in a sense could even be considered materialistic.

The deistic concept is nothing more than an offshot from the christian god. The black sheep of the family.

 

[wellwisher]

We have five sensory systems; sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. Science tends to limit proof to only one of these five senses, which is the sense of sight; seeing is believing. The proof expect by the atheists, has to be seen since the other four senses are less developed.

Spiritual things are easier to sense with senses other than sight. The other four sense, beyond sight, are also valid input devices but less used by science. For the most part, spiritual things require a modified sense of touch, connected to gut feelings and intuitions. These can trigger visuals within the frontal lobe.

These type of sensory signals are harder to transfer, than the sense of sight. One can not take a snap shot of a intuition; touch and inner sight, and give it to others to examine. This type of data requires something similar to a blue tooth connection, which is cut off in modern times for most people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The deistic concept is nothing more than an offshot from the christian god. The black sheep of the family.

No, the first unmoved mover predates Christianity. Could you learn to check your own biases?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I really hope @Deeje isnt eating the scriptures that's not the right way to absorb the wisdom

IMHO, that is the best way to internalize scriptures - eat them. They are immediately in your system.

.. hearing, smell, taste and touch. Science tends to limit ..

Science, I think has better equipment for hearing, smell, taste and touch than humans have.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We could inter-subjectively share beliefs

I wasn't meaning this in terms of just 2 particular individuals being able to match stories to one another. I meant that the evidence can be shared and verified by ANY two individuals - or, at least, any two individuals with the capacity to grasp or perceive the evidence that is. Meaning, particularly, that you DON'T have to be part of some club, or be expected to possess some esoteric level of knowledge in order to "get it."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't meaning this in terms of just 2 particular individuals being able to match stories to one another. I meant that the evidence can be shared and verified by ANY two individuals - or, at least, any two individuals with the capacity to grasp or perceive the evidence that is. Meaning, particularly, that you DON'T have to be part of some club, or be expected to possess some esoteric level of knowledge in order to "get it."

But tight now we are sharing a subjective story about what subjectively makes evidence evidence. All your reasoning in favor of evidence as you understand it is subjective. That is my point.
I accept that a part of the world is objective, but that this matters, which is in the end your point, is subjective. I get you, but I only get you subjectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMHO, that is the best way to internalize scriptures - eat them. They are immediately in your system. Science, I think has better equipment for hearing, smell, taste and touch than humans have.

But it doesn't have equipment for "better". That is subjective. It is telling that you write: "I think..." But that won't stop me for thinking differently.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But tight now we are sharing a subjective story about what subjectively makes evidence evidence. All your reasoning in favor of evidence as you understand it is subjective. That is my point.
I accept that a part of the world is objective, but that this matters, which is in the end your point, is subjective. I get you, but I only get you subjectively.

None of that matters. There simply exists a type and caliber of evidence that blows ANY religious-faith or belief-only based idea out of the water. There does. I suspect you know this, but just try to hide behind these "everything is subjective" shenanigans. No different than anyone else who pulls this same crap.

Let's say you had a subjectively different experience of gravity. Let's say somehow the balance mechanisms in your brain flip your interpretation, and you think up is down and down is up. Others are using their knowledge of gravity to craft rockets to blast them out of the atmosphere, with the appropriate thrust to overcome Earth's gravitational pull, and setting satellites into exacting orbits to take advantage of gravity and have the satellite sit in position for a good many years. YOU, with your subjective interpretation of gravity (which should be just fine and dandy, right?) decide you also want to launch a satellite into space like these other guys are doing. But your rockets keep crashing directly into the ground and exploding, and none of your calculations to deduce orbits are working. You are headstrong, however, and do not seek any help. You only keep insisting that your subjective experience must somehow be correct, and that all it will take is showing the others how things really are. Except you will always fail until you accept the models of gravity that ACTUALLY match to reality to enough of a degree that they produce results.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of that matters. There simply exists a type and caliber of evidence that blows ANY religious-faith or belief-only based idea out of the water. ...

That is subjective.

There are at least 3 models:

1. All is objective.
2. All is subjective.
3. All is a combination of subjective and objective.

I will defend the 3rd one:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Here is a test for you: If we do something different, one of us always die no matter the difference. Here is my answer: No! As long as I can understand what is objective versus subjective, I can subjectively believe in God without coming to my death.

You don't get that your argument is subjective as per the bold parts.
The fact is that I can subjectively believe in God and you are looking at it now. That you don't subjectively accept that is your subjective problem and not mine.
And no, I am not death.
And, yes, gravity is objective, but gravity is not all of the world/universe/reality/everything.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is subjective.

There are at least 3 models:

1. All is objective.
2. All is subjective.
3. All is a combination of subjective and objective.

I will defend the 3rd one:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Here is a test for you: If we do something different, one of us always die no matter the difference. Here is my answer: No! As long as I can understand what is objective versus subjective, I can subjectively believe in God without coming to my death.

You don't get that your argument is subjective as per the bold parts.
The fact is that I can subjectively believe in God and you are looking at it now. That you don't subjectively accept that is your subjective problem and not mine.
And no, I am not death.
And, yes, gravity is objective, but gravity is not all of the world/universe/reality/everything.

It is objective fact that some things exist and some other things do not. Start there, and work your way out, trying to discern which is which. You will come across things that definitely do seem to exist, based on the evidence that is available to anyone and everyone - all of whom report just about the same things about those items. You will come across some other things that either don't appear to exist or cannot be verified by anyone. Or, at least, cannot be verified by anyone ELSE besides the person making the claims. Are we all to start taking into consideration EVERYTHING that anyone has ever claimed is something real? Is this your prescription for humankind? If it is, you have a tough sell ahead of you. I say no... there are definitely things that can safely be ignored. God is one of those.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is objective fact that some things exist and some other things do not. Start there, and work your way out, trying to discern which is which. You will come across things that definitely do seem to exist, based on the evidence that is available to anyone and everyone - all of whom report just about the same things about those items. You will come across some other things that either don't appear to exist or cannot be verified by anyone. Or, at least, cannot be verified by anyone ELSE besides the person making the claims. Are we all to start taking into consideration EVERYTHING that anyone has ever claimed is something real? Is this your prescription for humankind? If it is, you have a tough sell ahead of you. I say no... there are definitely things that can safely be ignored. God is one of those.

There is no objective evidence that only things exist. Further existence is philosophy. So now, I am going to say: No! That No! is not a thing, yet it exists.
Now test a dog versus exist and real.
The dog is objective and would still be there, if there where no humans. Not exist and real. They are cognitive ideas in minds and have no objective existence, yet you use them.
It is real and it exists, that I believe in God.

So I start by questioning if things is everything and no, they are not. That I can do that, it is confirmation that everything is not things.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no objective evidence that only things exist. Further existence is philosophy. So now, I am going to say: No! That No! is not a thing, yet it exists.
Now test a dog versus exist and real.
The dog is objective and would still be there, if there where no humans. Not exist and real. They are cognitive ideas in minds and have no objective existence, yet you use them.
It is real and it exists, that I believe in God.

So I start by questioning if things is everything and no, they are not. That I can do that, it is confirmation that everything is not things.

Barely any sense was made in this post of yours. And yes, I understand that is my subjective experience of your words... and yet, there it is. I cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

In the end, within our subjective experience as humans, there are propositions that have a high caliber of evidence and correlation with reality, and there are those that do not. God does not. No idea of a god has a high caliber of evidence. None of them. If any of them did then this would be groundbreaking news and would change the world. The evidence for any god is garbage - of such a low caliber that it doesn't even make sense to present it to anyone else, honestly. If you have something different, and something that is of a high caliber, then please, by all means, PRESENT IT. I can just about guarantee it will not match my definitions of "high caliber." But there's the subjectivity rearing its head again, right?

And there you go... if everything subjective is "just fine and dandy" to be considered important and "real" in some way, then my denial of your claims of god, and my labeling them ridiculous and foolish and dumb is also just fine and dandy as a subjective part of the experience. Right? Your ideas are garbage to me, and your evidence is garbage to me. Please don't insist that I should revisit or care about your inane claims. By your own logic, my subjective assessment of your ideas as garbage is 100% cogent anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Barely any sense was made in this post of yours. And yes, I understand that is my subjective experience of your words... and yet, there it is. I cannot make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

In the end, within our subjective experience as humans, there are propositions that have a high caliber of evidence and correlation with reality, and there are those that do not.
...

What reality is, is a subjective definition. You use one where the objective is only real, but that you do so, is subjective. So where are the propositions, if in not in reality. If propositions correlate with reality, but are not a part of reality, where are they? How so they exist and how are they real, because you use them and you are apparently in reality, right?.
Further what is correlation? Please state only with science its physical properties and the scientific theory of correlation just like gravity. You are doing philosophy!

I use a model of reality that is a combination of subjective and objective.
That I believe in God is a part of reality or you have proven the existence of non-reality, that doesn't really exist, yet is real, because I do in fact believe in God. Otherwise we couldn't have this debate, unless it is in fact true that some, but not all parts of reality are subjective.

Here are 3 models:
Reality is objective.
Reality is subjective.
Reality is a combination of subjective and objective.

I go with the last one.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I have often seen someone say.

You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.

But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

And no i have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?

I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area

Faith is personal and cannot be passed on.

It is possible - though never necessary - to prove one’s [degree of] faith to another/oneself, but it is nor possible or necessary to prove that one is right in matters of faith.

We do not ask another about their faith to get to any sort of “truth”; we do so, to better understand them.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have often seen someone say. You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief?

I have no interest in either. I know that you can't prove that your god exists,or even supply supporting evidence. And I have nothing that I need to convince you of.

How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?

You have no need to prove anything to me, unless you want to be believed. In that case, the rational skeptic requires convincing evidence

What do you care either way whether I believe in gods or not, and why do you think I need to support my rejection of unsupported god claims? I don't.

Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?

I have no interest in that - no need to prove that anybody's beliefs are false. Why would you think I do? I simply reject your unfounded claim. If you care to be believed, make a compelling case. If you can't or don't feel like trying,the discussion is over.

This is the position that you and many other theists mistake for the atheist asking for proof. I don't ask for proof or even evidence because I know you have none. I am merely telling you that without it, you aren't going to change the minds of critical thinkers.

So if a non believer I do not believe in a God exist, there will not be any proof that he/she ever will accept as the truth. Even if the God stood in front of him/her they would reject it, because God can not exist according to them.

Is that all you have is projection? You're projecting your faith-based thinking onto those who reject it. It is the faith-based thinker that is refractory to evidence. He doesn't use it to come to his faith-based position, and no evidence can move him from it.

Have Jesus or whatever else it is you claim is real come down from the heavens and make a convincing display of supernatural ability,and I'll say, "Oh look. There he is. My bad. Praise the lord."

Short of that,and offering no evidence in support of beliefs, you are consigned t complaining that the rational skeptic won't believe you because he is as closed-minded to the evidence you never produce as he is.

That is a better answer then to just say God do not exist

Most atheists don't make such a claim, but most theists never get that. You just continue to mistakenly insist that atheism is the position that no gods exist. It is not. Will you ever learn that? I've yet to see it.

I just read this comment on another thread: "But all this self-righteous blather and absurdly illogical "logic" claiming out of one side of their face that no gods exist because there's no evidence while claiming to be agnostics out the other, is just insulting and exhausting." What do you say to such a theist other than if you don't understand the atheist's position, why are you criticizing it, and what stock should I place in opinions based in his mischaracterization? He's insulted by his own delusions and exhausted by his own intellectual inefficiency. That's on him, not atheists.

its up to you and the path you are on in life to show you the personal answer you looking for ( if you looking for it, that is )

I'm not looking for a path, and haven't been in three decades, because I've found one. Fifteen years before that, I tried Christianity for a decade, and in the five years following my return to atheism, I explored a few other avenues of thought, culling what made sense from the fluff. I finally settled on a rational, empirical, and compassionate world view that has served me well since.

In a discussion forrum like RF it is clearly a reason why one will make known what God one believe in. In daily life i do not preach about Islam or Allah to others except when asked about my belief.

Why do you think others care what god you believe in? Are you recommend that they believe like you do? If so, you never give them a reason why they should, nor demonstrate any benefit that such beliefs have had for you in your thinking as an incentive.

If not, why are you posting unsolicited beliefs? I think I know, but I'd like your take on it.

The evidence a religioues person can use is in the teaching they follow. But when a non believer hear it, it seems like they do not accept 8t, because it is just a book to them.

Not good enough.

Text is evidence of nothing other than that one or more people had some ideas and wrote them down. The Christian Bible and the Quran, for example, are evidence that somebody wrote a book and nothing more. Nothing in either can be believed without corroborating evidence.

If either contain any truth, that can only be determined by looking elsewhere to empirical evidence to confirm it. If you want to know which parts of either are accurate, you need to turn to science, archeology, etc.. And if that's necessary to know what is true, why even read the book?

Begin and end with academia, and come to your own conclusions based on the evidence and arguments presented there. Don't follow others. Merely consider their ideas and judge those ideas on their merits and the strength of the accompanying argument supporting them, not what book they are found in.

 

[Koldo]

No, the first unmoved mover predates Christianity. Could you learn to check your own biases?

It does. But deism does not.
The reason as to why we have heard about the unmoved mover is because Aristotle's philosophy has been incorporated into christian theology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It does. But deism does not.
The reason as to why we have heard about the unmoved mover is because Aristotle's philosophy has been incorporated into christian theology.

And Jewish and Muslim philosophy. And Ayn Rand used Aristotle and she was an atheist.

 

[Koldo]

And Jewish and Muslim philosophy. And Ayn Rand used Aristotle and she was an atheist.

And, therefore...?