It might help if in your debates both people were actually arguing about the same concept. If you're arguing about 'first cause', there's not possible way for anyone to know right now. If you're talking about the gods of religions, then you can be just as certain that those gods are fake as any fictional character you can make up on the spot. There is no Christian god. No muslim god. No 2848 other gods on God Checker. These are fictions created by men. Poorly drafted fictions full of contradictions between themselves and other religions, and devoid of any intellectual integrity of their own.

That would be a perfectly fair assumption I would think. You could say, the god as defined exactly in the bible doesn't exist. But then what is to say that the bible isn't just wrong?

If you limit your scope, then you can start making statements of knowledge, but really, ZachsMind never really showed why saying outright "There is no god!" is a very bad position for an argument.

The way ZachsMind continued, it seemed like he was thinking it was a theist vs atheist debate, When it was a Gnostic vs Agnostic. He straw-manned a few times, and just seemed to be as dogmatic as you would expect a Gnostic to be.

I've always amused myself with the irony that to claim no god exists according to number 2 of your scenarios you yourself would be somewhat godlike in your knowledge and understanding of the universe.

I think this is a very important example that just because someone is an atheist, it does not mean that they are rational.

In general, I'm an 'agnostic' atheist, but on specific god definitions/concepts, I would definitely qualify as a gnostic. I am not omniscient. I can't know for sure whether every kind of god does not exist.

Take the deist (first cause) god, as an example. There really isn't much I can do to refute such a god other than say that an uncaused, eternally existing being such as this is paradoxical. Some people say that this god is timeless, changeless, and immaterial mind. What is timeless thought process like? If this god is changeless, did it have any choice in creation? Is an immaterial mind even possible? These things don't make any sense. For the record, the other possibilities (the universe caused itself, or the universe has always existed, etc) are also paradoxical, so again, there's nothing I can say about whether a god of the first cause being impossible. I don't know if such a god exists. I also don't care, as the deist god demands no worship, places no restrictions upon our behavior, and is indifferent to our existence. We have no reason or evidence to believe such a being exists, and any philosophical arguments to support this god are filled with fallacies, and almost always are arguments from ignorance.

Now for the Christian god. This god is the perfect creator of the universe. Right away, you have a contradiction. This god is also perfectly just and merciful. Another contradiction. The list goes on. Then you get to the problem of evil, since this being is occute (all of the omni's). Despite Plantinga and Swinburne's best efforts, the logical (deductive) problem of evil isn't dead. The evidential (inductive) problem of evil is absolutely devastating to such a god. No theodicy I've ever read or heard has come across as anything other than desperate ad hoc rationalizations. This god also wants a personal relationship with us, and there mere existence of rational nonbelievers (check out Drange's argument from nonbelief) says that this is impossible. Then you get to the historical basis for the Bible, and any serious, honest assessment of it makes it impossible for anyone with a shred of common sense to take seriously. I can comfortably say that the Christian god does not exist. I'm tempted to say something about fairies or chupacabras, but I honestly think fairies and chupacabras are far more likely. If Christians want to redefine their god in a way that is logically possible and supported by history and science, I'll take another look.

Every concept/definition of god needs to be dealt with separately. They are not all created equal. People like Zachsmind frustrate me. They give rational atheists a bad name. There ARE smart Christian apologists out there who look for things like this and use them against the rest of us. They bring these horrible caricatures of atheists back to the pews and spread inaccurate information. We should never be dogmatic. We should never make statements that we are not willing to defend with reason and/or evidence. More importantly, we should admit when we are wrong and abandon those ideas.

I apologize for the length. I've been having a long email discussion with an evangelical friend of my in-laws, and it took a few weeks for him to realize that one definition of 'atheist' from an old dictionary probably wasn't very accurate, not to mention running into many other theists and 'agnostics' who also think the same way. The situation is far more complex and nuanced than one of three choices.

Comments like this should be posts in their own right. Excellent!

You prove my position while maligning me, David. You refute the Deist god, then the Christian god, and agree with me that as Man has described them, filled with contradictions and fallacies, they can't realistically exist. We do not have to be gods ourselves to make this statement. We do not have to be omniscient. We do not have to look in every nook and cranny of the universe to accept the fact gods aren't there. Using Mankind's own description, we can say with confidence such things as gods not only don't exist but can't exist in the universe that we observe around us.

We are supposed to allow for the small percentage chance that we are wrong. I strongly disagree, and it is this presumption that belief and knowledge are intertwined according to ancient greek philosophers that has allowed theocracies to fluorish for millenia long after they have been proven wrong. This is damaging to everybody.

I don't care about the apologists, and I don't care to allow Believers to continue rewriting their descriptions of their gods until they think they can get it right. "Ooh I'm not religious anymore I'm just spiritual." What utter poppycock!

The very idea we now have to accept the ancient bible (since it's literal interpretation is outdated and dangerous) as it is interpreted in vague and constantly changing ways by modern day scholars is offensive on the face of it. You're apologizing for them by not taking a stand against this behavior.

You're saying we should stay in our seats and let them have their little magic show. I want them to show us the rabbit already. Otherwise, we should expose them for the charlatans and delusional lunatics that they are. I fell for their snake oil traveling show for forty years. It's time we put a stop to it.

It is NOT incumbent on us to prove them wrong. It is incumbent on them to present this god if they want us to even entertain the thought of its existence, much less worship it. If they can't prove their claims, that means they ARE wrong! Unless and until they can prove it!

I don't see where David refutes a deist god. He mentions that it is paradoxical, but so are other explanations, so you can't say it doesn't exist as fact.

Again, you seem to think that this rational concession gives theists a big enough crack to convince people they must believe in a god, where your position allows them a far bigger crack because they can just ask you to prove there is no god.

I agree, they are making the claim, so they should prove it, but the moment you make the claim, you're giving them a weapon against you.

It's better to say, I don't believe your god exists, and I will not believe until you prove it to me. Because you can't be wrong.

I feel the same way Zach does, maybe bc I’m in the south and we get god shoved down our throats hourly, but I think 99.9999999% can be safely rounded to 100% as that is a very high probability. Just because we do not understand something does not make it unexplainable, just as bc we don’t know what started the big bang does not mean we have to label it “god”. I’m sure one day they will have a rational explanation for that, then can we say “there is no god” without you saying we’re “irrational atheists”?

I know there is no god. That is a rational statement in my mind with 99.9999999% certainty. .0000001% is not enough to warrant that an irrational statement by any means! Like saying a ball will stay in a chair, we don’t know that it’ll never just fall through it bc we’ve never observed otherwise so we’re only 99.9999999% sure that’s true. Saying “the ball will not fall through the solid chair” is not an irrational statement bc we are 99.9999999% sure it’s a true statement, is there a possibility that ball will fall through the solid chair? Of course there is, anything is possible if you wanna be super technical about everything, but where would that leave us? Irrational chairists and rational chairists? Would you never sit in a chair again for fear of falling right through?

"I don't believe your god exists, and I will not believe until you prove it to me."

That only leaves 59 characters to say anything new in a tweet. Whereas "THERE IS NO GOD" leaves 125 characters and says exactly the same thing. In fact I hope to coin a new hashtag: #TING which would say the same thing in only 5 characters!

But it's not saying the same thing. And it's a world of difference in how you have to present your argument.

I agree, and understand what you're saying.

But I think saying "prove your god exists.", is a much better approach than saying "There is no god" as a fact.

Your chair example by the way: Reductio ad absurdum.

Hi Zach, glad you could make it. There are a few things I wish to clarify before we finalise this discussion"

1) We never defined what either of us meant by "god". As David points out, there are definitions of "god" which are contradictory and obviously ludicrous. I agree with you that such gods do not in fact exist, but of course this does hinge on the well established assumptions of logic. It is possible that the laws of logic are in reality not true (and why I mentioned them in the post), although to assume otherwise leaves us with the untenable position that the universe is completely chaotic, random, and nonsensical. As such, I do not hold to this view.

2) Since neither of us can claim total knowledge, it is honest and truthful to state that non-contradictory definitions of "god" may indeed exist – somewhere. We cannot honestly say that such a being categorically does not exist anywhere, ever. This is a claim to knowledge that cannot be defended unless you do have complete knowledge.

3) I don't care if allowing for the microscopic possibility that a god exists leaves believers with some kind of platform. If they accept this position, then they must reasonably accept that it is highly unlikely that their god exists and it is therefore irrational to do so. They cannot have their cake and eat it. On the same premise they must also conclude that they may be wrong, and given the complete lack of evidence in favour of their god must indeed conclude they are.

4) I am not apologising for their beliefs or behaviours. Can you see the web site you are on? Would you call this "not taking a stand against their behaviour"? Seriously?

5) I agree with your assessment of the burden of proof. As long as theists make claims to "gods" I will evaluate them. So far none have stood up to scrutiny, so the best I can say is that I do not believe them to be correct. However, if I make a claim of my own (god does not exist), then I bear the burden of proof for that claim and the believer has every right to sit back and ask how I can make such a claim. As you know, you cannot prove a negative, so I would find myself in an indefensible position.

What he said! I owe you a beer, Topher! We southern atheists gotta stick together against the fancy pancy cityfolk atheists! Here in Texas when someone says something is 99% we just blow it up to a hunderd! Cuz here in Texas everything is bigger! =)

Why didn't you say that from the beginning?

I can defend my argument that there is no god far better than any Believer can defend their argument that there is. Don't worry about me. I'll be fine. So far, I'm having more trouble with fellow nonbelievers, to be perfectly honest.

I can understand the linguistic shortcuts – we make them all the time in day to day language. However, these conversations are not typical, they are deeply philosophical and we should be exact in what we are saying or the opposition will use those cracks in our arguments against us (just as I use them against them).

We do seem to be concentrating on the wrong targets here, I agree.

It's just frustrating when you can't get your point of view across to someone else.

But seriously, it doesn't help when your position is straw-manned.

I just took it to the simple extreme your argument is the other extreme, and there is still a possibility that a ball might fall through a chair. One of my favorite professors used this in a lecture once when talking about the law of gravity and explaining why we use closed systems for proofs and hypothesizing because in an open system anything is possible technically.

I just took it to the simple extreme …

That's why it's a reductio ad absurdum.

Lol I know, I didn’t say it wasn’t I confirmed the definition

Thanks for the kind words, Andrew.

Zach, LuminousMonkey made the point I was going to make about a deist god. I certainly don't refute such a god, and I don't think that the concept of a first cause is contradictory. It leads to absurd, counter intuitive ideas, but so do the other ideas for the the origin of the universe (which I mentioned above). Look at science over the past 100+ years. We have discovered that reality is far more bizarre and counter intuitive that we ever could have thought (e.g. quantum mechanics and general relativity). In fact, our intuition/common sense downright sucks.

I also mentioned a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind. The only arguments I can make against such a being are based on our own experience. I can't imagine a timeless thought process, or an immaterial mind. Induction has its share of problems, and I don't think it's reasonable to just rule out the possibility of things that aren't intuitive. That being said, I think it's a mistake for theists to assert that their god is a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind. It does nothing to clarify what this being is. All it is is a litmus test for whether someone will accept one thing without evidence or reason in order to get them to accept more and more things without evidence or reason. We have no clue what is outside the expanding universe. For all I know, we're in a petri dish for some god teenager who made this universe as a science fair project (I like this god a hell of a lot more than any theistic god I've heard of), and time exists just as it does here.

I understand about making linguistic shortcuts. I make them all the time about all sorts of things, including god. In everyday normal conversation, they're fine. If you're having a serious philosophical discussion, as Andrew said, you MUST be precise. You must say exactly what you mean and nothing more. I'm not trying to pick on you, Zach, honestly. You're not the only atheist making that claim, but you are in the minority as a gnostic atheist. I imagine it's kind of like me saying to a Christian, "Christians say that the Bible is inerrant," and they respond with, "But I'm Episcopalian." When an atheist in such a discussion where being precise is necessary says "there is no god," the theist will look upon them as being just as dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians can be. I wouldn't want you or anyone to not be anything other than 100% honest in these discussions, so please say what you mean, even if some of us disagree. Just please understand why this can be frustrating to us when theists try to tell US what WE believe based on past interactions with atheists. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to say. The bigger problem is that other people have an idea in their head of exactly what an atheist is, and getting them to deal with you and your position instead of someone else's can drive you crazy.

There are some very good positive arguments to make against many theistic gods. I know of none for a deistic god other than being honest and pointing out that over the past couple of thousand years (and much moreso in the last few hundred), every time we've found the answer to something, it has been mindless natural causes, not magic or a magic being. Lighting? Not Zeus. Disease? Not demons. While I think it is far less likely that there is not some sort of intelligence that caused all this, and far more likely that the universe was caused by mindless natural forces, I cannot logically rule it out.

We're all on the same side. Expect more atheists disagreeing with you Zach, but it's only because we value truth and honesty. I'd hope other atheists would let me know if they thought I was wrong. Maybe I'd think they were all fucking crazy if they couldn't convince me, but that's how it goes.

Excellent post.

I am interested in 100% honesty. To that much we can agree, David. I'm not enthused by this idea of 99% certainty. It's nitpicking. Some atheists (not ALL mind you) speak of being precise and fear giving theists ammunition. Hate to break it to you guys, but they got ammo already. Beating around their burning bush is not putting it out.

I'm not a philosopher. Never pretended to be one. I'm not precise. In fact I'm proudly a slob. If you were in Vegas and someone told you they got a sure thing, would you check if it was 99% or 100% sure? Would that really make a difference? 50% means you're flipping a coin. 99% certainty in Vegas means you're getting lobster for dinner, unless of course you're getting scammed or the game is rigged.

Is your universe rigged? Awwww, poor baby.

NOTHING in this universe is 100% certain. Sure, Jehovah could stick his head out of a cloud tomorrow morning and tell everybody he's always been a fan of the Mets. Would that make the other teams stop playing? Actually, come to think of it the idiots probably would. That might be the best argument FOR that other 1% than anything anyone on either side of this fence could think up. God loves baseball. Wouldn't wanna be known to play favorites. Might ruin his fun when his team does win w/o his interference. Would make the celebration afterwards up in heaven all the more sweet. So God doesn't cure some amputees cuz if he cured some of them he'd eventually have to cure all of them, so he couldn't secretly play favorites anymore. And then there wouldn't BE any amputees and what good is a universe in which everyone has all their limbs? So keep on arguing for that 1% of godness. You earned it, by golly!

BTW I'm still not talking to the "retard" who started this thread, because he insulted a bunch of great people who happen to have developmental disabilities by comparing me to them. They deserve better. Compared to their determination and courage, I'm not worthy.

If you were in Vegas and someone told you they got a sure thing….

See what I mean about linguistic shortcuts?

NOTHING in this universe is 100% certain.

Thanks for proving my point all along.

BTW I'm still not talking to the "retard" who started this thread….

Zach simultaneously defends genuinely retarded people while committing the same crime against my good self. I have come to expect this contradictory behaviour from him. Whatever.

Lol too bad the people we are arguing with on a daily basis take the 20%(at best) of times when by pure chance their prayers are “answered” as confirmation of Jesus the mighty zombie in the sky’s love and “dedication” to them. These are people who use circular logic, false archaeology, myths, and blatant ancient fiction and put together sentences like:
“that there evolution lied about the age of a rabbit fossil in someone’s back yard that they mama and them dug up and said it was a kajillion years old, when we alls know that that bunny was named Skeeter and when our government cheese ran out, we asked jeebus to give is somethin’ to eat, sure ’nuff here came skeeter, Betty sue musta left his cage open ’cause skeeter came hoppin out righ after we said amen, so we cooked him on our Foreman grill and buried him 2 years ago… NASCAR!!!!”

Now I’m obviously taking a piss about this but that’s about as much as normal xians know about fossils and dating, they know nothing, except lies their preacher has told them. They think evolution says: the process by which a monkey gave birth to a human child… The End! So leaving in that one teensy little percent is like handing them a blank check at walmart and saying go but all the camo long johns and firecrackers you can grab and fill out the check, you get to celebrate bc atheists everywhere say that there IS a chance there’s a god! You sure showed those devil worshippers who’s boss!

So I’d rather them be intrigued and pissed at me when they ask me what church I go to everyday (I work at Baptist Hospital), and they get all wide eyed when I say, “I don’t go to church, I’m an atheist,” and all of their expectations are shattered about those satanic atheists who eat babies and murder people bc they have no morals because I’ve been taking care of them on their death bed. That’s a way to leave a positive impression on someone who is an everyday ignorant xian who “has a friend who once met an atheist.” See they think we are just believers who are angry at god and sheep gone astray! I don’t know how it is up north, but down here we are drowning in ignorance and blind stupidity. I’ve lost friends bc they found out I was an atheist! It’s insane! Sad really!

Not being able to understand twitter feeds, I didn't bother to look at the exchange. Now I think Andrew's assessment that started this post is much closer to the mark.

I said nothing about sitting in our seats and letting theists have their magic show. I didn't apologize on their behalf.

No, you're not a philosopher, and it shows. Don't be so hard on the ancient Greeks. If it weren't for them taking the first steps to rationality, we'd ALL be mired in superstition.

We ARE all mired in superstition. What are you talking about? "In God We Trust" is scribbled all over money. I can't sneeze in public without someone blessing me. I didn't realize when I was a Believer just how much Belief has corroded society. This corrosion is a growing risk to society. Iran may already have the capacity to bring Armageddon down. We've had that capacity for decades. It only takes a few fanatical zealots in high enough places to make the book of Revelation a reality. Can we afford to tolerate this any longer?

If it weren't for the ancient greeks teaching you 'philosopher types' how to think incorrectly, Yahweh & Allah would already be relegated over there with Zeus and Odin. Belief is not the same as knowledge. If belief has knowledge in it, that's coincidental. Belief and faith must be thrown to the curb if mankind hopes to survive. Or we can just wait and let them bomb each other cuz they pretend their gods told them to do it. That's another option.

I keep being accused of strawman tactics. My points are being belittled by minutiae. The fact remains you guys are arguing for a slim percentage chance that Believers might be right, and that is unacceptable behavior for people who CLAIM to not believe in gods.

How can you be an atheist if you still believe in the possibility of a god? Abandon belief. Remove faith from the equation, because these things are just as phony as gods.

I'm calling you out. Get down off your lofty perches and admit that we have already proven there are no gods. Yes you CAN prove by absence of proof! If a god actually existed we would have proof by now. We wouldn't need faith or belief because we would know! ANY TIME you need faith or belief to make something work, it ain't working. At best you'll get a placebo effect. At worst you're setting yourself up as a gullible mark for opportunistic charlatans that will pretend to believe anything you want long enough for them to get their proverbial fangs into you and suck you dry. We've all seen it happen.

Believers put god in the clouds until we could fly over them. Then they put god out in space until we touched the moon. Now he's inside each and every one of us. He's some kinda energy that we can't detect except with our feelings. God is spiritual, ethereal, and forever just out of reach. God hides from science and reason. You will never be able to prove he doesn't exist. THAT is proof enough. It's a con. It's three card Monte. It's a shell game. It's a lie.

You call yourselves atheists but you still defend an unimportant small percentage crack for Believers. Quit challenging my argument by pointing out your perceptions of flaws that don't matter. You either know I'm right, or you ain't atheists.

There are no gods. Shit or get off the pot.

I retract the “retard” comment – you’re an asshole. After repeatedly explaining our position using the smallest words and simpliest logic within our repertoire you still don’t get it.For the last fucking time, no one here is defending the irrational beliefs of theists. We are not secret illuminati atheists bent on destroying modern civilisation by undermining disbeleif, empiricism, scepticism, and science. If you pull your head out of your ass for long enough you might see the light of reason, but I doubt you could be bothered. You’ve made quite a little home for yourself within the cul-de-sac of your own cranium and if I were you I would live like a hermit and fucking stay there.

It appears to me that you have traded one fundamentalism for another. I can honestly say that I have never encountered a dogmatic atheist before, but I see one before me.

Are these your arguments for how you know there is no god?

"I don't want to say that there is any possibility of a god because it gives theists ammunition"? Despite what you may think, there are some smart apologists out there who know how to spot bullshit (they just can't or don't want to spot their own). Someone like William Lane Craig would push you until you admitted that nothing is 100% certain, as you have above. At that point, he would rip you apart. He would use you to prove to his audience that atheists don't use reason and logic to support their positions, but instead made an irrational leap of faith. I've got plenty of problems with how Craig does things, but he's a very smart guy who knows how to make much smarter people than all of us here put together look like fools. The average Christian isn't as smart as Craig, but keep this up long enough and you just may run into someone who will give you a run for your money.

What about the other argument I've seen you make? "There is no god because we haven't found it yet and new definitions keep being made"? Three words: problem of induction. It took philosophers 200 years to find any sort of solution, and even then, it's only good for making falsifiable claims (i.e. probabilities).

Are you omniscient? Can you disprove a nondescript god of the first cause who is indifferent to our existence as some deists believe? If you can answer "yes" to either of those, what are you doing wasting your time here? Write a book. Go on TV. Get famous. Become the 5th horseman. Get lots of groupies.

Do me a favor and check out The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. There's a great chapter about an invisible dragon pretty early in the book. Personally, I would like this book to be mandatory reading in all high schools. If I could pick one book to put in hotels like the Bible, this would be it.

You ARE strawmanning us. We are not arguing FOR the slim chance of a god, but FOR what is reasonable to claim. There is a difference. If you think I have strawmanned you above, I apologize in advance. It just really seems that THAT is what your arguments boil down to, and they suck.

I think that it doesn't only matter that our beliefs are true, but that we believe them for the right reasons. BTW, beliefs and faith are not the same thing, in much the same way beliefs and knowledge are not. They are related, but not synonymous. Beliefs are what you accept to be true. Faith is a belief not based on reason and/or evidence. Knowledge… well, let's just say it's a belief supported by reason and/or evidence (it's complex, but let's leave it at that).

Lastly. No True Scotsman? Really? Wow… I just.. i don't know what to say to that. Well, maybe there is one thing: Wow. Disparaging philosophy as a means of thinking "correctly" is one thing. In my opinion, anyone who uses the No True Scotsman is in another league altogether. I find it the most amusing of fallacies, mostly because it's absolutely hilarious when Christians use it against other Christians. Now, I get to witness what may be the first time it has ever been used by an atheist, on another atheist. If by that, you mean I am not an atheist like you, then I take it as a compliment. With that, good day, sir.

I'd just like to say that, for two apparent atheist, for a group of apparent atheist, you are all arguing as if you were theist of differing denominations and theological backgrounds arguing which of your gods is the right god.

Can I just say that you are acting like a bunch of fucking children. If such behaviour is to be allowed, it does in fact give ammunition to the theist with which they can then use against us at a later time.

Now I have included all parties above in my statement, however I will agree that the amount of logical fallacies and utter incompetence on your behalf Zach's is amazing. You are it seems, with all your big words and flawed rhetoric that you are unable to grasp certain views other than your own and as well are unable to understand certain logical absolutes as well.
It is one thing to say "I do not accept any claim to the existence of any and all gods without evidence", it is another thing to turn around and say "there is no god". Seriously you do understand this right? If not go back to studying big words and perhaps read up on their meanings as well. Take the first statement, then retire from the debate. That is all you need to do. You can't logically at all continue with your line of thinking whilst using the second statement.

But you know this I suspect and either you are being stubborn because you have dug yourself a hole so deep that you are finding even light has trouble getting to you or you are just a troll of magnificent proportions. I sincerely hope you are just misinformed.

Anyway I think it is time to finish this thread up. I see no reason to continue a debate based on one persons stubborn, illogical argument.

Of course feel free to stay on board and have fun on the kiddy train.

It's good to see you think you are the one who can define atheism.
Anyway, Andrew is correct, there is no way that you can logically claim that there are no gods without omniscience, so the claims you are making are deeply illogical. Personally I don't believe there is any good evidence for the existence of any deity/deities, but I cannot say for sure that there are none, just that I think it is highly unlikely that there are any.

This is all your fault, Ollie!

There is at least one way one can reasonably arrive at the conclusion that one particular god does not exist. First, one must elicit a sufficiently clear definition of what is meant by "god" in the first place. Using the widely accepted characteristics of the Christian god as an example, one can then demonstrate that the concept of this particular god is logically incoherent. By showing that this particularly god cannot exist, one is reasonable in believing with confidence that this particular god does not exist. This is essentially the argument George Smith lays out in Atheism: The Case Against God.

Of course, this process would have to be repeated for any particular god concept and falls apart if applied to all possible gods. Suppose one decided to worship an imperfect evil god. Demonstrating that such an entity was logically incoherent might not be possible.

The problem is that every atheist pretty much is their own denomination, and I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing. Herding cats and stacking marbles are pretty apt descriptions of the atheist movement.

This isn't an argument over tone. it's not about whether we should be nice or dicks. It's about what you can claim to know and what you can support with reason and evidence. There is no one right way to go about this, but there definitely are wrong ways. If this gives theists ammunition, good. If your friends and allies won't tell you that something is wrong, your enemies will. If our arguments can't stand up on their own, they aren't worth much to begin with. I want them to call us on our bullshit. It's too easy for us as human beings to ignore weaknesses in our own positions and communities. We are hard wired that way.

Thats ok every THEIST is also pretty much their own denomination :)

Excellent point.

If only they had the one book inspired by the all knowing creator of the universe who wished to give the most important information in the universe to a small tribe of iron age desert dwellers to write everything down (usually decades to centuries after the events happened), make copies (scribe error), and then translate it into other languages (more scribe error) so that one day EVERYONE in the world could receive the exact same information, then they could avoid that mess. Without that, I can see how every one of them has their own perception of what god is, and what god wants you to do.

I still say there is no god… Bc 99.9999999% is good enough to me. Stop nitpicking.

sorry, but after hearing about many gods, i will just go with the if one is unproven, they all are.

you are 100% correct. what all these people fighting zach are not understanding is that man thought up the whole concept of gods in the first place. So, with their logic, it follows that anything man can dream up in his head, could be true, or could exist. that is a ridiculous concept. they also like to think that atheists, who believe there is no god and could be no god, are not open to evidence. of course of someone bought their god out in the open and proved it, we'd know and the world would know. that has never happened since man came to exist. based on our history, i can, with confidence, say there is no god and am 100% sure. I am also 100% certain their is no god of underwear living in the sky who hates long johns and will force you to spend eternity in hell if you wear them. you so-called logical thinkers might say, that's absurd. i say, i thought it up, so NOW we all have to admit it "could be true". i thought it up the same way man thought up all gods and religions, with my imagination. to hide behind philosophy and say all things man can dream up could be reality, is absurd and illogical. zachsmind is a sound mind.

This blog kind of means there is no hope for atheism if one set of atheists belive there is no god and the other set think there could be a god. christians and other faiths are loving this! I thought atheists believed there was no god, now they think there might be one, we just have to come up with enough proof. Wow, ya learn something new every day. Ya hear that Christians, start studying, some atheists are waiting with baited breath for the proof. I see many converts on the horizon. Open-minded atheists are just Christians in the making. I thought you either believed there's a God or you didn't. I guess I was wrong. I guess these new fangled atheists are more reasonable and willing to believe in God. I knew they couldn't really not believe in God. I mean look at the beauty of the planet. Only God could do that. Duh.

This does not give theists ammunition. They have ammo enough against atheists, but nothing of substance. My stand puts their feet to the fire. I do not allow them to frolic and pretend they can be right. My stand challenges them. I CAN prove, based on the evidence we currently have, that there is no god present in this universe that we can observe. IF there were a god (there's not but IF there were), it would purposefully be hiding from us, at which point, what difference does it make? I challenge theists to present NEW evidence that proves me wrong, because everything they've presented thus far attempting to convince people they are right fails.

Any atheist who allows for a degree of possibility that the theist is right, is still believing in the possibility of a god. How can that be an atheist? You may say there is no god, and you may believe there is no god, but you claim to not know. Drop belief. Drop faith. How is this dogmatic? Prove to me that a god can exist, and I'll retire from the debate. Until then, I still say there is no god. Anyone who claims there CAN be a god, isn't really an atheist. However, we're NOT a church. anyone can go around claiming to not believe in a god and then in the next breath say there is one. It's not like we have a pope that will excommunicate you.

I do not accept any claim to the existence of any and all gods without evidence. Furthermore, based on the evidence we currently have on the subject, I can say unequivocally (big word there, huh?) that there is no god. Now later on, if someone else comes along and proves me wrong? Fine I'll happily eat crow and spend an eternity in that particular god's hell. That's not a condition, because I KNOW that's not gonna happen. I don't BELIEVE in the possibility. Based on the evidence we currently have, I'm confident I'm right.

One does not have to be a god to know they can't exist. One does not have to have absolute knowledge to realize an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent imaginary deity is complete and utter poppycock.

Atheists are without a belief in gods. Agnostics are not sure and awaiting proof. I know which one I am. And that’s a 100% fact! I will not waste my time defending my position with nitpicky “sorta atheists” bc that makes us seem wishy washy. Just as not knowing all the details on evolution doesn’t default to “god knows”, being 99.999999% certain there are no gods, and an uncertainty of .000001% uncertainty does not equal there could be. If we haven’t seen anything by now, there is nothing. We need to stick together and stop picking each other apart, we are making HUGE strides in changing the world to a more rational, superstition-free place! It’s getting so much better in America everyday! Im just glad im a part of this new humanist movement! Next stop: Atheists running for public office openly! I can’t wait!

sorry then your logic is flawed, you can not disprove many with just one. You have to test every possible claim that is made.

…what all these people fighting zach are not understanding is that man thought up the whole concept of gods in the first place.

That's irrelevant. People invent concepts all the time. They believe them. How we determine them to be true or not (knowledge) is by empirically testing them against reality. Some of these beliefs turn out to be true (such as "the Earth is round", "the universe was once incredibly dense and hot", or "we descended from common ancestors with every other living thing on the planet"). Those ideas which fail to meet these standards are NOT disproved – they merely lack evidence to support them – and THAT is a VERY important distinction to make. I think it's the error at the heart of your (and Zach's) thinking.

…they also like to think that atheists, who believe there is no god and could be no god, are not open to evidence

Isn't that the very definition of belong open minded? Aren't we meant to be fighting dogmatic thinking here?

…of course of someone bought their god out in the open and proved it, we'd know and the world would know. that has never happened since man came to exist. based on our history, i can, with confidence, say there is no god and am 100% sure

You just contradicted yourself.

Seriously? Because I an not so arrogant as to claim omniscience I am somehow being accommodationist? Give me a break!

Outside of the framework of the Bible and other religious text, there is no scientific, testable, repeatable evidence to support the theory of the existence of ANY god. If anyone HAS some, I'd love to see it. But thusfar, as far as anyone has been able to show (in the above criteria) there IS no god of any kind.

This does not give theists ammunition

Not really – they still have the burden of proof for their god claims. I wish them the best of luck, because they will certainly need it!

I CAN prove, based on the evidence we currently have, that there is no god present in this universe that we can observe

Theist: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You lose. Sit down".

They are right on this point. Stay away from the "no god" claim and you will not have this problem with them, or with us.

Any atheist who allows for a degree of possibility that the theist is right, is still believing in the possibility of a god. How can that be an atheist

Because atheism only requires the disbelief in a god, not to proof there is not one. Big difference!

Until then, I still say there is no god

Careful, your agnosticism is showing.

I do not accept any claim to the existence of any and all gods without evidence

Neither do I, but somehow that makes me a secret theist.

Furthermore, based on the evidence we currently have on the subject, I can say unequivocally (big word there, huh?) that there is no god

I almost completely agree with this statement, but you are extending what you have seen so far and applying to the the entire sphere of knowledge – this is an error you are best to keep away from when debating theists as they will call you on it.

One does not have to have absolute knowledge to realize an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent imaginary deity…

That definition is logically contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. Though, this still leaves many other god claims intact.

Yogiprema. He doesn't say that some think that there COULD be a god. They say only that "technically" it is possible.

It is however only possible in the very same way that the goblins under my pillow who make my garden grow are, or like unicorns who put the corn in cornfields are, or Zeus, or Ba'al, or even the flying spaghetti monster.

We can all safely agree that those things are not real. So in that same way we can agree, despite the technical philosophical possibility, that god isn't real too.

THAT is the kind of allowance he is speaking of.

Epistemilogical arguments are simply not useful in every day conversation.

If you can provide NO evidence of manifestation for an entity or for a claim, then we can all safely assume that it was posited from the imagination and through indoctrination.

As an aside, it makes no sense to say that there is no hope for the lack of something.

That is like saying, there is no hope for the bald hair colour, or there is no hope for non stamp collecting.

New fangled atheists are WILLING to believe, but because of a complete and total lack of evidence, they just see no reason to.

As for the beauty of the planet, despite the fact that sometimes it SEEMS magical in its scope, it didn't take magic to put it there.

Nature is good that way.

Peace

Yogiprema. He doesn't say that some think that there COULD be a god. They say only that "technically" it is possible.

It is however only possible in the very same way that the goblins under my pillow who make my garden grow are, or like unicorns who put the corn in cornfields are, or Zeus, or Ba'al, or even the flying spaghetti monster.

We can all safely agree that those things are not real. So in that same way we can agree, despite the technical philosophical possibility, that god isn't real too.

THAT is the kind of allowance he is speaking of.

Epistemilogical arguments are simply not useful in every day conversation.

If you can provide NO evidence of manifestation for an entity or for a claim, then we can all safely assume that it was posited from the imagination and through indoctrination.

As an aside, it makes no sense to say that there is no hope for the lack of something.

That is like saying, there is no hope for the bald hair colour, or there is no hope for non stamp collecting.

New fangled atheists are WILLING to believe, but because of a complete and total lack of evidence, they just see no reason to.

As for the beauty of the planet, despite the fact that sometimes it SEEMS magical in its scope, it didn't take magic to put it there.

Nature is good that way.

Peace

Thanks for rewording things. Maybe you'll be able to get through to Zach and his friends where I, Andrew, and the others have failed. I'm not very hopeful given their perseverance, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

BTW, I really like the article on your blog about definitions. Was it inspired by all this? I highly recommend it.
http://atheistevolution.blogspot.com/2010/05/defi...

Excellent article AtheistEvo, thanks for pointing it out Dave.

nope, not irrevelvent. you need to remember man before his conscious brain developed.

all eveidence we have points to no god. man made up the idea of god. it is different from nature. nature is real and it's there. god is made up. we don't have to consider than all made up concepts could be true.

All evidence we have, not ALL evidence. A seemingly small but crucial distinction which makes all the difference – it's why we cannot claim absolute claims about existence.

I thought this was done, but I guess not. Here we go again.

Let's take a look at the claim "reindeer can fly." I don't believe that, and I doubt you do either. In fact, I would feel comfortable saying "no reindeer can fly." Why is that? Is it based on our experience? Just because we have never seen reindeer fly is not justification for making that statement.

We could run an experiment testing out whether reindeer could fly. Let's say we got 20 of them, and took them up to the top of the Space Needle. We take one of them, and push them off. It falls, making whatever horrified sound reindeer make when scared, and it smashes upon the ground and splatters. Reindeer 1 did not fly. We then continue to push the rest of the reindeer off, and each time, they fall and splatter all over the people waiting in line to ride the elevator.

What can we say about our observations? That reindeer can't fly? Absolutely not. What we can say based on our observations is that on this day, at this time, at this location, under these conditions, 20 reindeer failed to fly.

How then can we justify stating that reindeer cannot fly? Look at their attributes. They do not have wings. Even with wings, their bodies are far too large and dense to be able to use them to achieve or maintain flight. They would need FAR bigger muscles, lighter bones. Their lung capacity is not sufficient either. THIS is how we can justify "no reindeer can fly."

The same things applies for "god." With the example above, we are looking at a very specific type of animal. Similarly, you can go through the attributes associated with certain types of gods, and determine whether they are contradictory, and therefore, impossible. Unfortunately, "god" is a very broad concept that encompasses everything from a wish granting invisible friend to a first cause (deism) to the universe itself (pantheism).

You're making a very broad statement that is not analogous to "no reindeer can fly." It's much more along the lines of "no mammal can fly," because let's say you grew up in a remote part of Alaska and never heard about bats, or were never presented with good, compelling evidence that they existed. People told you about bats, but the stories they told and evidence presented were not compelling. You were completely justified in not believing that bats existed based on both your experience AND the lack of compelling evidence. That would not mean that bats did not exist. It's just that our experience and limited understanding of reality are not sufficient in order to make absolute claims about existence, as Andrew said.

We are not saying that you need to consider that all god concepts could be true. Even if you have a consistently logical concept of a god, you still do not have to consider it to be true. You still need EVIDENCE in order to be justified in accepting the claim. The word "god" means many, MANY different things. What do YOU mean when you say "god"? Be specific.

I have to admit that I stole the "reindeer" thing from James Randi. You can see him presenting the original (and better) version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

knowing something is worth a thousand times more than having just faith, faith is for monkeys

There is the rub. Ultimately you cannot know anything for certain except that you are a thinking entity. From there we should make as few assumptions as possible. A decent theist can point this out and sink someones claim to know the non existence of an entity.

Dear askegg just read your section where yu said yu are an atheist but secretly believes there is a god. In fact yu are looking for evidence there is a god. I have a friend who was an atheist all his 5o years but daily he used to pray that if god existed that he would let him see him. Like yu my friend was logical rational and some years ago he had a damascus like experience where yes he was granted a manisfestation where he was left in no doubt of the certain existence of a creator god found in jesus of nazareth. So askegg yu are correct secretly feeling there is a god.maybe yu too should turn to the holy spirit and ask him to reveal the lord to you where yu wil know with certainty there is a god.

Sorry, I did not say I "secretly believe in god". That is an absurd statement.

What I said was that some people think that by not disallowing the *possibility* of a god existing turns atheists into self deceiving liars. This is yet another absurd claim.

It appears to me that you have traded one fundamentalism for another. I can honestly say that I have never encountered a dogmatic atheist before, but I see one before me.

I see them all the time.. and yep, it's normally the ones who've 'traded' as you say.
His statement about being hoodwinked for 40years explains a lot about his attitude.

@askegg: "You cannot prove a negative "

That's not entirely true. (Richard Carrier calls that idea a myth)
I can prove to you right now (sadly) that there is no money in my wallet! The issue is scope. It is very easy when the scope is small (like my wallet), but of course becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, when the scope is very large (e.g. the universe and beyond) – indeed, I think that's what you're getting at with your no. 2 scenario.
The other thing is that most ideas can be stated in both positive and negative forms..

Hi all all of us on this forum discussing the existence or non existence of god all of us are just a legend a fairytale a fairystory we dont exist either a question for askegg on may 12th under askegg it said i am an atheist who somehow secretly believes there is a god but wont admit it. Were those yur words or were yu quoting someone else. Ive a question for the rest if god arrives visibly at the end of the age where all of us get to see him and to see him forever wil yu all continue to say he surely does not exist. Then again we dont exist either . A legend thats what we all are.

Agreed.

See the word "somehow"? It indicates something you might want to ponder for a time.

I am asking the person making the accusation I "secretly believe in a deity" to draw me the logical connections. I can tell you I do NOT believe in a god, and I should know my own mind.

Hello in the bible christ said happy are those who can believe without seeing. One of his own apostles thomas doubted christ rose from the dead and thomas said unless i put my hands into the holes in his hands and side i refuse to believe. So we are in good company .

What is your point here?

My point here is that it is perfectly ok not to believe in gods existence. It doesnt matter. What does matter is the difference we make to humanity while we are here . Wil we leave the world a better place because we were here. Did we use our talents to help others .thats what matters

Except the Bible is also pretty explicit in it's position that good works alone are not sufficient to gain entry to heaven (and thus avoid hell).

While I agree with your sentiment I do so with a mode of thinking that is not dependent on the existence of a god or even Christian notions on theology.

Greetings to you all. In the story of the last judgement in bible christ said he wil say to all of us when he comes again i was hungry thirsty naked sick a prisoner and you either fed me clothed me visited me or you failed to do those things. I have thought a lot about the existence or non existence of a supernatural being. I conclude yes there must be a creator but god is a spirit so we cant see a spirit unless by some unusual experience . Many people have had unusual experiences say for examples people who dabbled with ouija boards or spiritism where evil spirits manifested themselves leaving the seer or person in no doubt at all of the existence of a spirit realm that is diferent to the human realm a realm with good and evil. So if evil spirits exist which they do according to the terrible experiences of good people then god has to exist. I think our question should be what sort of a god is he has he power to help us or not

Ouija boards are nothing more than a child's toy. All movement is due to the participants moving the marker to the letters, this has been shown many a time to be the case; Ouija boards are most definitely NOT evidence of any kind of supernatural realm, only the ability of circumstance and expectation to subconsciously affect people.

I agree with you that not believing in a god is perfectly acceptable, but the flip side is not benign.

People who are convinced they have god on their side, and who worry about eternal consequences, can be motivated to great evils. Bad thinking leading one to unshakable dogmas results in persecution, discrimination, suffering, violence, and death.

If your measure of humanity is the effect we have on others and how we leave the world for the next generation, then religions are inhuman. This issues DOES matter.

So if you think the world is beautiful, it probably because you haven't been mutilated, tortured, sodomized, or physically/emotionally destroyed by this world. And if you haven't, it's purely by chance. It's mostly totally random if you have a "good" or "evil" experience here. Because the universe is both and evil. We are actually little Gods as well who can create our experience because we hold the necessary information and experience to do so (or at least try to do so). For example if as a whole at a higher level TRULY BELIEVE AND FELT that a karma system should exist, than BAM it exists. If we want to partake in it then that shall be our future. The world is filled with pleasures, family, friends, joy, fun, laughter, excitement, ABUNDANCE but its also filled with torture, rape, sodomy, disease, illness, and LACK. You cannot deny these things, you most likely block them out.
We are "PERSONAL" enough to say "WOW we really shouldn't rape/sodomize/torture eachother" but the universe (the first biggest ball of energy and subsequent massive balls of energy) did not have the "PERSONAL" effect to stop rape/torture/sodomy. We are the personal aspect of God that decides the value if any of those experiences.

The universe is the ultimate "THRILL JUNKY"… however we are the ones who feel the suffering and pleasures.

You and I have the right to HATE God and its Gods. I personally cannot accept and excuse even one instance of torture or extreme physical/emotional pain. I personally cannot even excuse the physical universe is which humans live and die or experience discomfort. Dieing is a really really really really sick thing any way you slice it. Liberate yourself and euthanize whenever you're ready. Whenever you're finished with the scum of this earth leave whenever you want. We are only as good as our "Gods" and if our higher dimensional ancestors claim "LAW OF NON-INTERFERENCE" and allow torture and atrocities, then we have ever right to hate them and hate what we know of life. I certainly do. I to the maximum EXTREME feel the pain of the victims on this planet and know that I did not ask for or PLAN this life of torture and watching others tortured/suffering. Do we have a soul? Unfortunately YES. The brain is complex and so is our feelings, our different dimensional "bodies" are different energy fields. We were actually planted here in these physical bodies by a larger vast energy field, an oversoul, and massive energy holding tons of information and experience. We are planted here and grow like branches from this oversoul. In our natural state without the use of psychedelics, WE ARE TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM OUR SOUL, hence we cannot access soul information but we can access our ABC's, our earthly memories and experience, and limited knowledge. When we have those things, we access our souls. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE OUTLAWED, THEY WANT TO KEEP YOU DUMBED DOWN AND SEPARATED FROM YOUR SOUL.

Can anyone tell me what the fuck this person just said 0_0.

"We were actually planted here in these physical bodies by a larger vast energy field, an oversoul, and massive energy holding tons of information and experience." Soooooooo kind of like the Matrix….

This is the weirdest comment I have ever received. The only response I have is not my own:

Dear Sir,

Your letter is an insoluble puzzle to me. The handwriting is good and exhibits considerable character, and there are even traces of intelligence in what you say, yet the letter and the accompanying advertisements profess to be the work of the same hand. The person who wrote the advertisements is without doubt the most ignorant person now alive on the planet; also without doubt he is an idiot, an idiot of the 33rd degree, and scion of an ancestral procession of idiots stretching back to the Missing Link. It puzzles me to make out how the same hand could have constructed your letter and your advertisements. Puzzles fret me, puzzles annoy me, puzzles exasperate me; and always, for a moment, they arouse in me an unkind state of mind toward the person who has puzzled me. A few moments from now my resentment will have faded and passed and I shall probably even be praying for you; but while there is yet time I hasten to wish that you may take a dose of your own poison by mistake, and enter swiftly into the damnation which you and all other patent medicine assassins have so remorselessly earned and do so richly deserve.

Adieu, adieu, adieu!

Mark Twain

I don't think that anyone can. Ever. Not even the author.