People who curiously play around with Ouija boards or dabble in spiritism you will soon find out it is NOT a benign active nor is it only circumstance and expectation affecting the subconscious. It opens up spiritual door ways and predisposes people to demonic harassment.

Always making claims, never providing evidence to support them.

The ideomotor effect is well documented: http://www.skepdic.com/ideomotor.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect

Take a piece of cotton and tie it to a washer or a nut, or something with a similar mass. Hold this pendulum out at arms length in front of you with one hand. Watch the pendulum. It will begin to circle. Please try this little experiment, it is a brilliant example of the ideomotor effect.

Sorry, WAY more evidence is required for each of these claims if we are to take you seriously.

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

"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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.

…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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.