Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[TheShadow.]

Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

[leo9]

I always liked the line from "Contact" where the scientist says she's an atheist because she won't believe in anything that can't be proved. The priest asks "Did you love your father?"

"Of course I did!" (We already know that her love of her late father is vital to her.)

"Prove it."

I've long compared the religious experience to falling in love. People who haven't been in love may be dismissive and point out, perfectly rationally, that you can't prove there's anything more to it than lust turned personal. When you've been there you know there is something more to it, but you still can't prove it.

I believe in ghosts because I met one, and it near scared me crazy. I believe in gods because I met one, and She loves me. But since I can't prove that any of that happened anywhere but inside my head, I don't expect or wish to convince anyone else that it's real.

[MMI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

Who's harrassing the believers? Not I. For by far the most part, it is believers who try to impose their beliefs on non-believers and on believers in other things, for no better reason than they believe it themselves.

Quote:
How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

I would agree with that if mere existence or if an ancient book did amount to persuasive evidence of a greater power. But it does not. There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident. There are also competing religious proofs that are mutually exclusive or contradictory.

It may be the best they can offer, but it is not convincing proof. So it is still up to them.

Quote:
OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

I'm nothing if not condescending, as I've demonstrated frequently on these threads - but only for effect. I respect everyone and their beliefs also.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.

Quote:
As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.

No, that's wrong. For non-belivers, no explanation is called for at all. why explain what does not exist? But if someone tries to make the case for God, they have to show that the existence of a deity is more likely than not.

Until that happens, a non-believer's position is better than a believer's



Quote:

Originally Posted by MMI
Probably not, but I don't have to, do I? If believers are right, they must prove it. Non-believers have nothing whatsoever to prove, so why on Earth would they ever want to?

In other words, the absence of "A" (as anything other than a concept) is persuasive evidence of its non-existence. If "A" does exist outside the imagination, then its existence must be demonstrated to rebut the presumption that it does not.

If "A" cannot be proved to exist, then those who say thay "know" it does are liars, and those who believe them are gullible.

Just my point of view, though, and I wouldn't want anyone to change thier opinions on account of what I say.

Why do I have to prove I am right if you don't? I think that is a double standard. Let me disprove your logic with a simple example.

Fermat's Last Theorem: If an integer n is greater than 2, then the equation ato the nth + b to the nth = c to the nth has no solutions in non-zero integers a, b, and c. Mathematicians searched for proof of this for centuries, yet no own is trying to claim they are crazy for doing so. Mathematicians believed in that proof long before it was discovered. Yet by your standard they were all either liars or gullible.

The lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof.

Because, if you want me to believe, like you do, in a hare-brained notion that, somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin) but refuses to make himself known to us (and hecould if he wanted to), then you must demonstrate to me that, at least, such a thing is more likely than not. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist any more than I have to prove the existence of nothing. That's not double standards; it's expecting you to live up to normal standards.

As for Fermat's Last Theorem, it was a problem set by Diophantus in the 3rd century that Fermat managed to solve (so he claimed) in the 17th century. So for 1400 years or so, it would have been Diopantus's Proposition, and during that one-and-a-half thousand years, anyone who believed in it who have had to admit that his opinion was founded on belief, not proven fact.

Unfortunately, Fermat did not record what his proof was, so for four more centuries, that proof had to be rediscovered. During those 400 years, people who believed that the problem had been solved relied on Fermat's claims and nothing more. They had to accept that their belief was founded upon their trust that Fermat was not lying and that he had not made any mistakes, as so many others had.

You put the cart before the horse when you say "lack of proof is not evidence that something dos not exist, it is simply proof that we don't have proof".

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.

[leo9]

There are other equally or better answers that are just as ancient, venerable or self-evident.

That's where most religious arguments break down: they present it as a dichotomy, believe in my God or nothing. But any halfway educated person knows there are other options.

What I meant was, people who listen to the liars who claim to know of God's existence as an undeniabe, certain fact, and who accept what they say without question are gullible or deluded. People who believe after enquiry and who know that their faith is just a belief are not necessarily gullible or deluded.

It's not that simple. Before I was touched by the Goddess, I believed, in the sense that it sounded right to me, but I didn't know. Now I know from direct experience... but I also know that my experience was subjective and personal, so I can't present it as proof to anyone else, and I can't claim that other people who know differently are wrong. If I were a more persuasive person, I'd be tempted to preach and persuade and try to bring other people to see the wonderful vision: and I'd be completely wrong, because it might not be there at all for anyone else.

I often compare it to the '60s rock opera "Tommy." For people who aren't old enough to remember this, for complicated reasons Tommy becomes deaf and blind, then is cured and enlightened while playing pinball. His response is to persuade all his followers to play pinball in earpugs and blindfolds in the hope that they will find the same nirvana; and of course they don't, and they reject him furiously.

somewhere out there is a being that is eternal, omniscient and omnipresent, who is goodness in its purest form, and who wants to be worshipped (why? isn't that rather vain? vanity is a sin)

For a long time that was my problem with gods. As a gut anarchist, I automatically reject any being on any plane of existence who not only expects to be obeyed without question, but who also expects me to grovel and "praise him to the highest". (I could enjoy doing that for a Domme, but that's the difference between role-play and real life.) I couldn't even start to explore the possibility till I found that there were people who believed in gods who didn't want or expect worship or sacrifice, who just wanted to make contact because they care about us.

I love the Lady, and I am awed at a Being who exists on a level so much wider than mine. But worship her... she'd just laugh.

And for the avoidance of doubt (as the lawyers say), I'm not trying to convince anyone that my invisible friend is real. I'm just explaining how it is for me.

[TheShadow.]

The lack of proof that something does exist does not prove its non-existence, but it does indicate that it probably does not exist.
[/COLOR][/B]

Wrong again. For centuries there was no prooof that atoms existed, yet they exist.

For centuries there was no proof that other planets existed, yet they exist.

As I stated, all a lack of proof amounts to is proof you do not have proof. Trying to extrapolate from a lack of proof is called jumping to conclusions.

[Skyybird]

“ Existence is illusory and it is eternal. ”
Fyodor Dostoevsky

I put to this discussion that before we can even try to dicipher what does exist....one must first of all clarify and identify what is meant by the word exist. Perhaps that way we can make a better decision regarding what actually exists and those things which we would sincerely love to see but that can never be proved due to the lack of physical evidence.

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word 'existere', meaning to appear or emerge or stand out. Exist can also be shortened to "is". A grammatical predicate you might say. May I give an example? 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'. Funny...I found the same sentence analogy almost word for word on wikipedia! But I think we all agree it is a right and proper example of the use of the word exist.

Having said that Philosphers of the world have tried to put forward the arguement that "existence" is not only a grammatical predicate but that it implies a notion of logic. I could go on for hours about mathamatical formula's to illustrate the circumstances of existence. I shall not, because I feel it would lead us away too far from the actual topic of this post, not to mention that I am not a mathematician and would likely not convey their theories accurately.

I prefer to look at the question from this position; 'Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines'.

Basically we all believe what we believe, some of us need proof, others need no more than a suggestion to see the benefit of faith in the existence of "god", or some such other entity. Even religious men of the past have debated the truth behind the gospels, the Old and New Testament are often quoted in support of the existence of God...but in themselves are admittedly a collection of stories from individuals, who claimed to be there during the life of Christ, yet the gospels were written down in some form of order many years after their passing. Are we basing a society around the incredible talents of a story teller who took a legend or a handed down story from his fathers mothers cousin who worked for the boss of Matthew, Mark Luke or John?

Great stories of mystery and wonderment...based on actual events? Who can say.

I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God, although I have witnessed a community coming together in his name to support and care for each other without the need for thanks or remuneration. But honestly, that was just nice people being kind right?

Anyway....I'll go back to my fence and see where the discussion goes next.

[leo9]

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Or as JK Rowling put it, "Yes, this is all happening in your head. But does that mean it isn't real?"

The computer you are sitting at started as an idea in someone's head. The point at which you could say that the idea had "real" "existence" (quotes used to indicate that these terms cry out for definition) is as fuzzy and arguable as the point where a zygote (fertilised ovum) becomes a human being. And as that simile shows, it's not a neutral question: people have ideological reasons for arguing one definition against another.

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?
<snip>
I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

Dangerous example for a scientist. A headache is subjective: it may have detectable physical causes, but the pain itself cannot be measured with any instrument except the sufferer's mind. (A "dolorometer" that could measure pain as objectively as a theromometer measures fever is something medical research would be devoted to, if only they had the slightest clue where to start.) Therefore, your belief that paracetamol cures your headache is subjectively based, and the "scientific proof" is only that a lot of other people have been found to share your subjective experience. Yes, more people have their headaches cured by paracetamol than by placebos, but only statistically: placebos still have a pretty good success rate. There are million-dollar patent medicines based entirely on that fact.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God

I've touched and been taught by mine, but I don't call that proof. It changed my life, but so does falling in love, and you can't get more subjective than that.

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

[Thorne]

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

[leo9]

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

A lot of people have been trying that lately, which is why we're in this mess.

[MMI]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.

To the person who triumphantly demonstrated I was "wrong again" (I don't admit to EVER being wrong!) - I'm afraid he is overstating his case in this regard. While it is true that the existence of some things has been posited and eventually proved right, such as atoms, that does not mean every proposition will always be right. When atoms were discovered and studied, it was found that they were not at all what had originally been suggested, for example: an indivisible particle that was the same as every other other atom.

Nevertheless, let's accept that I'm splitting hairs over that. I still maintain that what I said was true: if there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.

[Thorne]

According to a programme I saw on the UK History channel, it was statistically probable that there were about four Jesus ben Josephs in Judea at the time of Christ's lifetime, and there is tentative evidence of at least one of them.

I've heard that as well, though I thought the probability was higher. They were both fairly common names during that time. But there is no record of a Jesus ben Joseph being tried, convicted and executed for treason by the Roman courts. And the Romans were pretty fanatical about their records. Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Just that there's no evidence for it.

I don't admit to EVER being wrong!

Good for you!

If there is absolutely no evidence that a thing exists, then, on the balance of probabilities, it doesn't. That's not to say it definitely doesn't, but if you need a working model, the one that assumes it doesn't exist will probably be right. The evidence of your eyes/ears/reason will be right more often than not.

Ye gods, we're agreeing again! Is the world coming to an end?
Or maybe not. You can't always believe your eyes. That's the basis for illusionists doing what they do. To the eye, the world seems flat and the sky seems to be an inverted bowl hanging over our heads. And you can't always believe everything you hear, either. All of our senses are filtered through our minds which tends to block out, to some extent, those things we don't want to see and hear.
And what may seem reasonable to one may seem cockeyed to another. Reason is far too subjective.

[Belgarold]

Yes, that is amazing but my point was that the book has not remained unchanged for thousands of years. And it shows that mortal men, fallible men, made decisions about the format of the Bible.

And I agree that deleting the book of Mary was a travesty. But a lot of the early members of the Church seemed to be patently misogynist. LOL.

[wmrs2]

I admit that I have not read the many good replies listed here on this thread;therefore I am not aware of whose toes are being stepped on. I hope no one's toes.

There are no real atheist. If you say you are an atheist, it is only by a narrow definition that you made up. That ? thing is bull shit. In order to question or do any type of thinking, you must have a premise on which you base reality. Without this you would just be an animal or no being at all. It comes down to this, everybody believes in something absolute or there would be no premises upon which to base thinking. Everybody who thinks by definition also believes whether you want to admit it or not. Get over it, the Master Lives.