War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

Atheism is simply a complete lack of religious faith, a state of non-belief in gods.

That's all. Atheism doesn't have commandments or advocate for a specific way of living.

We just don't think God exists. That's it.

I beg to differ. You claimed here that God does not exist.

Not a claim, an absence.

[Jamiet99uk]

Let us suppose that I claim God has bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass.

You might respond to say "that's ridiculous, I don't believe you".

"Okay", I could say, "prove your claim! You have made a claim that God has not bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass. Prove that claim!"

This is analogous to you demanding I validate my disbelief in God by providing proof that God does not exist.

[Octavious]

We could provide several billion witnesses ready to swear that he exists? How many witnesses to something do you need before you start to find it convincing? I am confident that far more people will honestly claim to have experienced God than will claim to have experienced Australia, and I'm fairly sure that you are confident that Australia is real

[CaptainFritz28]

Let us suppose that I claim God has bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass.

You might respond to say "that's ridiculous, I don't believe you".

"Okay", I could say, "prove your claim! You have made a claim that God has not bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass. Prove that claim!"

This is analogous to you demanding I validate my disbelief in God by providing proof that God does not exist.

And I would say that I cannot evidentially prove that claim.
However, I know that it is not a natural thing for that to occur, and I know that thus it would require an act of God. Since you believe that God does not exist, you do not believe your own claim, so why should I? Also, it is not consistent with the character of the God I believe in.

You see? I have a logical reason not to believe you. You have not given a logical reason not to believe in God, despite making that claim.

[CaptainFritz28]

Atheism is simply a complete lack of religious faith, a state of non-belief in gods.

That's all. Atheism doesn't have commandments or advocate for a specific way of living.

We just don't think God exists. That's it.

I beg to differ. You claimed here that God does not exist.

Not a claim, an absence.

You claim that God does not exist. Either God exists or He doesn't, and you believe that He doesn't.

Also, you conveniently ignored the other quote I gave, in which you directly state "There's no God."

If you said that there is a President of the United States, and I said I don't believe you, you would ask me what reason I have for not believing you. "It is simply an absence of belief," I would reply, "and thus I don't have to provide any logic or support for it." You would call me ridiculous.

I am calling you ridiculous. Support your beliefs or they haven't an ounce of respect or backing, and are simply unfounded claims.

[Jamiet99uk]

Let us suppose that I claim God has bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass.

You might respond to say "that's ridiculous, I don't believe you".

"Okay", I could say, "prove your claim! You have made a claim that God has not bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass. Prove that claim!"

This is analogous to you demanding I validate my disbelief in God by providing proof that God does not exist.

And I would say that I cannot evidentially prove that claim.
However, I know that it is not a natural thing for that to occur, and I know that thus it would require an act of God. Since you believe that God does not exist, you do not believe your own claim, so why should I? Also, it is not consistent with the character of the God I believe in.

You see? I have a logical reason not to believe you. You have not given a logical reason not to believe in God, despite making that claim.

Yes I have.

[Jamiet99uk]

We are going around in increasingly stupid circles. I should find something better to do with my life.

[Jamiet99uk]

We could provide several billion witnesses ready to swear that he exists? How many witnesses to something do you need before you start to find it convincing? I am confident that far more people will honestly claim to have experienced God than will claim to have experienced Australia, and I'm fairly sure that you are confident that Australia is real

Large numbers of Greeks used to believe in the existence of Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter, Aphrodite, etcetera.

Do you accept that as evidence that the Gods of the Greek pantheon are real?

[Octavious]

You are aware there's a difference between the first hand evidence of billions of real people and the imagined opinions of a massively smaller number of the long dead?

[Jamiet99uk]

You are aware there's a difference between the first hand evidence of billions of real people and the imagined opinions of a massively smaller number of the long dead?

Numerically there is a difference, conceptually I hardly think there is.

If the "long dead" part of it matters to you, how about the fact that over a billion people currently alive today believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, and their various divine pals? Does this prove the existence of those deities?

[Octavious]

Tell you what, next time you're in court base your defence on your best guess of what dead people may have believed to be true, and let us know how you get on. It's chalk and cheese, mate.

[Jamiet99uk]

Tell you what, next time you're in court base your defence on your best guess of what dead people may have believed to be true, and let us know how you get on. It's chalk and cheese, mate.

I have never needed to defend myself in court, nor do I intend to be in such a situation in the future.

Again, over a billion people currently alive today believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, and their various divine pals. Does this prove the existence of those deities?

[Jamiet99uk]

I would also be fascinated to know the basis of Octavious's implied claim that the ancient Greeks did not believe in their own gods.

[Octavious]

Tell you what, next time you're in court base your defence on your best guess of what dead people may have believed to be true, and let us know how you get on. It's chalk and cheese, mate.

I have never needed to defend myself in court, nor do I intend to be in such a situation in the future.

Again, over a billion people currently alive today believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, and their various divine pals. Does this prove the existence of those deities?

It very much adds to the evidence of a devine presence, yes

[Jamiet99uk]

Tell you what, next time you're in court base your defence on your best guess of what dead people may have believed to be true, and let us know how you get on. It's chalk and cheese, mate.

I have never needed to defend myself in court, nor do I intend to be in such a situation in the future.

Again, over a billion people currently alive today believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, and their various divine pals. Does this prove the existence of those deities?

It very much adds to the evidence of a devine presence, yes

But they believe in different Gods than the one you believe in.

[Octavious]

I would also be fascinated to know the basis of Octavious's implied claim that the ancient Greeks did not believe in their own gods.

I'm simply saying that I don't know the extent and nature of ancient Greek belief. I have no idea whether the temples were attended by everyone, or half the population, or a small minority. I have no idea whether they believed the God's walked amongst them or whether they believed the Gods used to walk amongst them in a previous age, but now largely stuck to the mountain, or whether they saw them primarily as metaphors. I don't know. I wasn't there, and I've heard many differing views from others more interested in the field.

I am fascinated to know how it is that you have such confidence in your understanding of this ancient time.

[Octavious]

I have never needed to defend myself in court, nor do I intend to be in such a situation in the future.

Again, over a billion people currently alive today believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati, and their various divine pals. Does this prove the existence of those deities?

It very much adds to the evidence of a devine presence, yes

But they believe in different Gods than the one you believe in.

Brahman is not especially different to God. I see no reason to believe that Brahman is anything other than God speaking with a voice that resonates better with that population. God doesn't speak with one voice. Someone reading the Bible in London today will take from it a very different message to someone reading it in London 1000 years ago. The message is tailored to the man. When God speaks to you it is highly unlikely to be the same experience as when he speaks to me

[CaptainFritz28]

Let us suppose that I claim God has bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass.

You might respond to say "that's ridiculous, I don't believe you".

"Okay", I could say, "prove your claim! You have made a claim that God has not bestowed upon me the special power to shoot laser beams out of my ass. Prove that claim!"

This is analogous to you demanding I validate my disbelief in God by providing proof that God does not exist.

And I would say that I cannot evidentially prove that claim.
However, I know that it is not a natural thing for that to occur, and I know that thus it would require an act of God. Since you believe that God does not exist, you do not believe your own claim, so why should I? Also, it is not consistent with the character of the God I believe in.

You see? I have a logical reason not to believe you. You have not given a logical reason not to believe in God, despite making that claim.

Yes I have.

Well, then, would it be so terrible to repeat it? What I have asked repeatedly is for you to give me a reason why your claim that God doesn't exist is true. If you already have stated one, obviously I missed it, so I ask you to repeat it.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

What you've described is simply human nature. People do evil because it is to their advantage, and when it is no longer to their advantage, they stop doing it. I agree that that is why people do evil.

However... that doesn't explain where evil comes from, or why it exists. If it is simply a consequence of nature, why are some things bad and others good?

I suppose I see what you have said as an answer to "why do people do evil," and I agree with your analysis. That all fits with my view as well. So I suppose my question is: if there is an objective moral standard, as you claimed in the other forum (unless I misunderstand what you said there), then there is evil and there is good which are unchangeable. People do evil because it is naturally advantageous to them. But if evil is simply a product of nature, then what makes it evil, and why does it exist as such?

Maybe responding to this will help to derail the profoundly silly exchange of non-evidence above re: the existence of God lol.

I have the strong intuition that morality is at least partly discoverable, like mathematics. In the same way that I can conclude that having four boxes of five apples really is the same as having twenty apples, I believe it's possible to deduce at least some moral principles with certainty. My favourite of these, which I keep repeating, is the Golden Rule, because it strikes me as not only intuitively Just but also literally True: I can't consistently argue to treat another being how I would not want to be treated in their same condition. This is a logical fact discovered independently many times over in different human societies. It discovers the wrongness of selfishness in the inconsistency of promoting selfish actions. It underscores how, absent a mutually-agreed upon source of special pleading, it's not possible to put the wellbeing of ourselves over others. And it would be hard to produce conclusive evidence for this claim, but I also strongly suspect most observers would find that adherence to the Golden Rule really does produce more "good" outcomes than other approaches, even if they can't quite agree exactly on how to define "good" (absence of suffering, promotion of Justice, etc.).

The Golden Rule is one standard by which to call human evil truly immoral. Recall I'm not awaiting God to tell us exactly what "good and evil" are and I'm skeptical that we could know and apply God's sense of morality even if it turned out that one of the world's religions were literally true.

The real logic of the Golden Rule exists alongside human nature, which produces all sorts of behaviours that both do and don't align with the Golden Rule. I judge these behaviours against this benchmark and find some to be more immoral than others. The Golden Rule moral standard is objective but, like the Bible's morality, its real world application will always contain a heavy dose of subjectivity wherein debate is useful but doesn't ever reach a conclusive answer.

Natural "evils" (say fire, disease, etc.) are not really evil in my worldview, because I suspect there is no agent causing them. But if there is an all-powerful and heavily-involved God, then I think the Golden Rule would also apply to it. This invites the possibility of natural evil (e.g., God *could* kill folks with floods when He himself would not accept that fate in their place), but since the concept of God is so loose there will always be some get-out-of-jail free argument to exonerate Him (e.g., God really does have a good case for special pleading to exempt Him from the Golden Rule, God actually would willingly change places with the people he kills with earthquakes because the afterlife is so good, etc.)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It very much adds to the evidence of a devine presence, yes

But they believe in different Gods than the one you believe in.

Brahman is not especially different to God. I see no reason to believe that Brahman is anything other than God speaking with a voice that resonates better with that population. God doesn't speak with one voice. Someone reading the Bible in London today will take from it a very different message to someone reading it in London 1000 years ago. The message is tailored to the man. When God speaks to you it is highly unlikely to be the same experience as when he speaks to me

I would love if the theists could respond to one another on this one lol.

I don't think Fritz is quite so loose with the Bible.

If this is what religion is, then Jamie's atheism must also be the tailored message he received from God, equal in value to believers' contention that there is a God.