On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

There is evidence for all sorts of things that are unproven. They're not necessarily true, but there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.

Well, then if the available evidence is not strong enough to prove something is true, then why believe that it IS true? Why not just say "I don't know"????

Why would "proof" be your standard for belief? I believe that tomorrow's Lotto numbers will not be 3, 6, 17, 20, 31, and 33. That's an unproven belief. Honestly, it's hard for me to believe that any rational person wouldn't share that belief.

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have thought impossible.

That's a myth, probably created by a bona fide atheist to try to maintain a one-sided "burden of proof."

It's been proven, for instance, that there is no largest prime number.

Of course, the statement itself is a negative ("There is no negative that can be proven,"), so even if we didn't have clear counterexamples (like the largest prime number thing), it would be at best unprovable, and at worst simply wrong (as it is). It's not a law of logic, or anything. It's just a cliche, and a false one at that.

What is a "bona fide atheist"? And what do you mean by a "one-sided burden of proof"?


Ron

The original definition of atheist - one who believes (and isn't afraid to admit to believing) that there is no God.

On Aug 3, 2016, TomBoleware wrote:
What is true is true. What then is the difference in believing something to be true, and proving something is true,
if indeed the belief is true. Proof doesn’t make something true; it only changes the belief of those that didn’t
believe it in the beginning.

The way I see it, all things in life don’t come with a guarantee, we must trust our belief. And if proof does come
along (for or against) so be it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was true (or untrue) the whole time.
What is true is true.

Tom

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have thought impossible.

That's a myth, probably created by a bona fide atheist to try to maintain a one-sided "burden of proof."

It's been proven, for instance, that there is no largest prime number.

Of course, the statement itself is a negative ("There is no negative that can be proven,"), so even if we didn't have clear counterexamples (like the largest prime number thing), it would be at best unprovable, and at worst simply wrong (as it is). It's not a law of logic, or anything. It's just a cliche, and a false one at that.

What is a "bona fide atheist"? And what do you mean by a "one-sided burden of proof"?


Ron

The original definition of atheist - one who believes (and isn't afraid to admit to believing) that there is no God.

What do you mean by “original definition”? And where (in ANY definition) does it say one who “isn't afraid to admit to believing”???
All atheists lack belief in gods. But a subset go a step further and make a positive claim that “there are no gods” (“strong” atheists). That’s all there is to it. It’s not complicated at all, but for some reason, some people like to obfuscate the issue in order to deflect attention from their inability to defend their own beliefs.


Ron

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

There is evidence for all sorts of things that are unproven. They're not necessarily true, but there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.

Well, then if the available evidence is not strong enough to prove something is true, then why believe that it IS true? Why not just say "I don't know"????

Why would "proof" be your standard for belief? I believe that tomorrow's Lotto numbers will not be 3, 6, 17, 20, 31, and 33. That's an unproven belief. Honestly, it's hard for me to believe that any rational person wouldn't share that belief.

First of all, nothing can be proven with 100% absolute certainty – not even that the sun will rise tomorrow, so let’s make that clear. And as I said before, I apportion my beliefs to the evidence. The stronger, more compelling, and more robust the evidence for something, the more likely I am to believe it. So what then would YOUR "standard" for belief be, if not proof /strong evidence of some sort?

Believing that tomorrow’s Lotto numbers will NOT be x, y, and z, is perfectly rational because we know that the odds of getting the correct numbers are incredibly slim. The “proof” in this case (if that’s what you want to call it), is the knowledge that a “290 million to 1 odds against bet” is a very safe bet. But what’s hard for ME to believe is that any rational person would believe in something simply because it hasn’t been disproven. Again, you said, “there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.” So for the third time now, is there proof that Leprechauns exist?


Ron

On Aug 4, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
I have thought impossible.

That's a myth, probably created by a bona fide atheist to try to maintain a one-sided "burden of proof."

It's been proven, for instance, that there is no largest prime number.

Of course, the statement itself is a negative ("There is no negative that can be proven,"), so even if we didn't have clear counterexamples (like the largest prime number thing), it would be at best unprovable, and at worst simply wrong (as it is). It's not a law of logic, or anything. It's just a cliche, and a false one at that.

What is a "bona fide atheist"? And what do you mean by a "one-sided burden of proof"?


Ron

The original definition of atheist - one who believes (and isn't afraid to admit to believing) that there is no God.

What do you mean by “original definition”? And where (in ANY definition) does it say one who “isn't afraid to admit to believing”???
All atheists lack belief in gods. But a subset go a step further and make a positive claim that “there are no gods” (“strong” atheists). That’s all there is to it. It’s not complicated at all, but for some reason, some people like to obfuscate the issue in order to deflect attention from their inability to defend their own beliefs.


Ron

The parenthetical was my own personal aside.
You really need me to define the word "original" for you? "All there is to it" is that originally an atheist, by definition, was one who believed that there is no God. It's not complicated at all.

On Aug 4, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 3, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

There is evidence for all sorts of things that are unproven. They're not necessarily true, but there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.

Well, then if the available evidence is not strong enough to prove something is true, then why believe that it IS true? Why not just say "I don't know"????

Why would "proof" be your standard for belief? I believe that tomorrow's Lotto numbers will not be 3, 6, 17, 20, 31, and 33. That's an unproven belief. Honestly, it's hard for me to believe that any rational person wouldn't share that belief.

First of all, nothing can be proven with 100% absolute certainty – not even that the sun will rise tomorrow, so let’s make that clear. And as I said before, I apportion my beliefs to the evidence. The stronger, more compelling, and more robust the evidence for something, the more likely I am to believe it. So what then would YOUR "standard" for belief be, if not proof /strong evidence of some sort?

Believing that tomorrow’s Lotto numbers will NOT be x, y, and z, is perfectly rational because we know that the odds of getting the correct numbers are incredibly slim. The “proof” in this case (if that’s what you want to call it), is the knowledge that a “290 million to 1 odds against bet” is a very safe bet. But what’s hard for ME to believe is that any rational person would believe in something simply because it hasn’t been disproven. Again, you said, “there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.” So for the third time now, is there proof that Leprechauns exist?


Ron

Lots of things can be proven with 100% certainty, unless you want too just play the "Maybe we're suffering from the same mental delusion" or "Maybe we're just in the matrix and somebody is manipulating out thoughts and there really is no Lotto" games.

I also find it hard to believe that any rational person would believe in something simply because it hasn't been disproven. In fact, offhand, I don't know anyone who does.

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2016, RNK wrote:
Http://www.near-death.com/science/eviden......ays.html

Many stories as the one above. Yes. How credible are the people making the claims? Don't know. But I do know I, myself, would rather follow and believe in something that is truly loving and all caring. And not in just "existing" then it's over.

For me, God is like the wind- you can feel it (HIM) but you can't see it (Wind & HIM) even though it is there. No other creature can feel or has emotions as strong and deep as humans. We are to complex of a being to be started from water and an explosion.

There are also many stories of alien abductions – does that make them true? And if you don’t know how credible the people are, then why believe them to begin with? Also, don’t forget what the N in NDE stands for. There is really no such thing as an NDE without the N. By definition, once you’re dead, there’s no coming back. It is also commonly known that test pilots experience hypoxia – a condition very similar to what’s reported in NDEs. It happens when the brain is deprived of blood and oxygen. Pilots report tunnel vision, bright lights, feelings of bliss, etc. So it’s likely that this is the sort of phenomenon that manifests in “NDEs”, when sick/injured/traumatized patients go unconscious. When they are revived, they may recall those things, and then innocently (or not so innocently) embellish the details to align with a religious/spiritual narrative. At any rate, NDEs come down to personal anecdotes, and as such, we should treat them as any other extraordinary personal anecdote – with caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.

What do you mean when you say you can “feel God”? How do you know that whatever you’re feeling is something external to you and not just your own emotions welling up inside you? How do you know that “no other creature can feel or has emotions as strong and deep as humans”? Elephants, for one, show great concern and appear to mourn extensively over the loss of one of their group.
Where does it say that we were “started from water and an explosion”?


Ron

On Aug 4, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I can't speak to ERW (ever-reliable-Wikipedia), but I'm very familiar with the history and the etymology of the term. The original definition of the word "atheist" is what you would call a "strong atheist." I guess back then, atheists weren't generally weak.

I don't know any theists or desists who make any sort of fuss over the definition. I assume that atheists don't because they've effectively changed the definition for rhetorical purposes. Some agnostics do, because in their effort to seize a rhetorical advantage (that of not having to defend their true position), atheists have effectively co-opted agnosticism.

On Aug 4, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
BTW, you can ask until you're blue in the face, but you're going to have to do your own Leprechaun research.

On Aug 5, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 5, 2016, RNK wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 4, 2016, RNK wrote:
Http://www.near-death.com/science/eviden......ays.html

Many stories as the one above. Yes. How credible are the people making the claims? Don't know. But I do know I, myself, would rather follow and believe in something that is truly loving and all caring. And not in just "existing" then it's over.

For me, God is like the wind- you can feel it (HIM) but you can't see it (Wind & HIM) even though it is there. No other creature can feel or has emotions as strong and deep as humans. We are to complex of a being to be started from water and an explosion.

There are also many stories of alien abductions – does that make them true? And if you don’t know how credible the people are, then why believe them to begin with? Also, don’t forget what the N in NDE stands for. There is really no such thing as an NDE without the N. By definition, once you’re dead, there’s no coming back. It is also commonly known that test pilots experience hypoxia – a condition very similar to what’s reported in NDEs. It happens when the brain is deprived of blood and oxygen. Pilots report tunnel vision, bright lights, feelings of bliss, etc. So it’s likely that this is the sort of phenomenon that manifests in “NDEs”, when sick/injured/traumatized patients go unconscious. When they are revived, they may recall those things, and then innocently (or not so innocently) embellish the details to align with a religious/spiritual narrative. At any rate, NDEs come down to personal anecdotes, and as such, we should treat them as any other extraordinary personal anecdote – with caution and a healthy dose of skepticism.

What do you mean when you say you can “feel God”? How do you know that whatever you’re feeling is something external to you and not just your own emotions welling up inside you? How do you know that “no other creature can feel or has emotions as strong and deep as humans”? Elephants, for one, show great concern and appear to mourn extensively over the loss of one of their group.
Where does it say that we were “started from water and an explosion”?


Ron

Not so. There are documented cases where the persons heart WAS not beating anymore for a period of time. No signs of life and then their heart started again and in this time the NDE occurred.

You mean, no signs of life that we could detect. The human body can be remarkably resilient in some cases. And it’s always much more plausible to ascribe known natural explanations (like hypoxia, or the human tendency to embellish in this case) to a phenomenon than to ascribe unknown supernatural explanations. Anyway, by definition, death is FINAL. That being said, the NDE cases are necessarily anecdotal and prove nothing.

Anyway, do you believe the numerous stories of the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

And aren’t you going to respond to this?:

What do you mean when you say you can “feel God”? How do you know that whatever you’re feeling is something external to you and not just your own emotions welling up inside you? How do you know that “no other creature can feel or has emotions as strong and deep as humans”? Elephants, for one, show great concern and appear to mourn extensively over the loss of one of their group.
Where does it say that we were “started from water and an explosion”?

Thanks.


Ron

On Aug 4, 2016, R.S. wrote:
So what then would YOUR "standard" for belief be, if not proof /strong evidence of some sort?

But what’s hard for ME to believe is that any rational person would believe in something simply because it hasn’t been disproven. Again, you said, “there's no reason to withhold belief on something simply because it's unproven.”
Ron

On Aug 5, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote:
Interesting how aggressive you get with this subject. Not saying it in a bad way mind you. And not saying you are doing something wrong.