gistfile1.txt

As the video says, I think your position on the matter is intellectually dishonest. The very origins of the word
 atheism makes a positive assertion "without gods". Does Hitchens follow your line of reasoning? From what I know 
of his book, its not a single sentence (or more) requesting proof.

Like I've stated, the burden of proof in this case are on both parties because both an atheist and a christian 
are making claims. Trivial wordings aside. We should set this proof thing aside. I think we agree in theory 
that if you assert you have a burden of proof requirement.

Here a few more comments:

"What you believe in your own mind is obviously up to you... But what right do
you have to spread your beliefs as truths? ... and to create laws based on 
your beliefs?"

Response: I have as much right as you do. Are you not trying to spread your own truths? Laws are based on 
common thinking. We put into law what the majority wants. I don't think this is such a bad system. The 
majority, I believe does have a right to choose what rules... the majority of the time.

"Yet he claims that we can take no such position on God, simply because many
people believe in God."

Response: That is not what he claims. That's an obvious fallacy. His point is not that anyone should 
believe because the majority does. The context of his statements are not in regard response to the existence of a God.
His point was that its reasonable to require some proof when dealing 
with situations that are not black and white. The claim of no fairies is fairly black and white. 
The existence of a God is not. That is his point, I've heard him make it several times.

"Do you have proof for God? I mean scientific proof - not some dream you had -
and not something about God saving a relative who would have surely died...
for such an occurrence could be attributed to any number of medical phenomenon.
I mean, do _you_ have proof?"

Response: Truth, just like in a court of law, is not decided purely on scientific facts. What about 
circumstantial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence)? Or, is proof only 
acceptable to you in the form of scientific facts? We reason to what we believe to be true all the 
time with out scientific proof. Also, I've made no subjective claims myself I'm not sure why you 
are bringing up dreams.

Dear Wormwood,

... You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder, at a very early state. Now, this idea must be used by us to encourage once again the conception of a "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later "accretions and perversions" and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian tradition... We thus distract men’s minds from Who He is, and what He did. ...

Your Affectionate Uncle

SCREWTAPE

@cody, how exactly is my position that requires proof a "no proof" position?

At the end of the day, you can say all you want about how you came to the decision about God -- but you're kidding yourself if you say you weren't indoctrinated -- brain-washed into believing man-made stories of a God that you wish existed, simply because the void of knowledge is something you deem less sufficient than an erroneous assertion of God.

I try so hard to be civil in these conversations but you've continually missed the points that I've tried to put across -- and very little that Alex has said has registered with you. I don't know I'm right, but I do know that making up stories and trying to prove them through the "you can't prove otherwise" technique is intellectually, logically and humanely erroneous and dishonest.

And I have no idea what Matt is doing. Is that an attempt at trolling?

"And I have no idea what Matt is doing. Is that an attempt at trolling?"

You're exceptionally bright James; that's difficult for me to believe. I've never been a fan of dogpiling in public forums but I apologize if it just seems like I'm throwing mud over the fence. You've been a prince throughout this conversation and I don't want to lose that. I promise to give you some of my own assertions after you have exhausted your conversation with Cody and others. Until then, I'll restate my brother's question: You use circumstantial evidence everyday to make choices; choices if poorly decided could be your demise. Why are you not suspending judgement in these instances?

You use circumstantial evidence everyday to make choices; choices if poorly decided could be your demise. Why are you not suspending judgement in these instances?

I don't know. I'd say it's down to me experiencing things and determining truths from those experiences. Certain truths have been instilled into me by previous generations, thanks to education and parental care etc. (and I have no doubt that I was taught many things incorrectly) but generally, what provides truth (even if an agnostic's pseudo-truth) for me is simply my experiences -- my sensory perceptions of my surroundings, nothing more.

I realise that me saying that probably gave you plenty of ammo to fire at me, but if we recall, I did mention that the God assertion doesn't really interest me -- what does interest me, or rather challenge me, is religion. A Christian's assertion that their God exists, and all the other religions are wrong, simply baffles me! Along with all of freedom-eroding qualities I mentioned earlier. The God assertion is only significant because it is directly related to religion.

I see it like this -- if God really does exist, and I mean an all-knowing, all-powerful and ever-present God, then I find it utterly ridiculous that this God would create a universe with billions of galaxies and stars, and then give a damn about you, or me, or our marital/sexual status and whether or not we attend a building to worship this God. It really baffles me that such a God would care. I can only conclude that the God sold through various religions is man-made, for his imperfections are as obvious as mine or yours.

So if I ever fall on the side of "there is a God", then I know with what certainty I can muster that it will not be the God sold by man -- it'll just be my little invented God -- one that I find perfect in every way. But, I will not let this invention rule me, -- that's my mind's job, and nor will I sell my God as the one true God, for that is an assertion that I cannot prove. Actually, I won't even tell anyone about it, unless they ask! :)

Sorry to leave you hanging here James. I've had a crazy week. Actually, I'm surprised no one responded after leaving yourself wide open. Ah, I won't take a cheap shot. So, let's move on. I'm leaving on the Snake River for the next few days but I thought I'd leave you something to chew on. There's only about 20 questions I'd like to explore with your right now but I'll only leave you with one. It's in response to your statement: "I see it like this -- if God really does exist, and I mean an all-knowing, all-powerful and ever-present God, then I find it utterly ridiculous that this God would create a universe with billions of galaxies and stars, and then give a damn about you, or me, or our marital/sexual status and whether or not we attend a building to worship this God. It really baffles me that such a God would care. I can only conclude that the God sold through various religions is man-made, for his imperfections are as obvious as mine or yours."

Hah! You're baffled and so am I! We're a fine pair. Okay, let me lay it down. Your statement about being perplexed about God/god (your choice) caring about us doesn't compute ... (within my thick skull). Why would God even make us if He didn't care? Certainly you'd grand God the ability to avoid contradicting Himself. Can God contradict Himself? I'm asking you about your God/god. Can you imagine having a child and not caring about it? (I know this happens... abortions, abandonment, neglect, etc.) But you honestly don't strike me as that kind of guy or the type of guy that would say that's okay. Why would God got through the motion of creating us and not care?

Have a good weekend.

I'll be back Tuesday. Out.

@matt, thanks for leaving food for thought :)

Well, the proposition that God would not abandon his creations is a direct corollary of the proposition that God exists, which is not provable, so I'm not totally convinced that exploring this question will actually yield any useful arguments or discoveries. That said, I will respond, just to humour the idea of a God.

I constantly hear theists attempting to personify God in order to make him/her/it more acceptable to the mind. I'm leaning to the side that -- if there was a God, it would be so stupendously unfathomable that our petty minds, that wage wars and discriminate unjustly, would literally not be capable of understanding that God's intent and perfection, let alone it's preferences and what it considers "immoral".

I can't help but think of the other religious dogma that I have to mentally lump in with each consideration I make. For example, if God created us, then I must be honest to the extent of what I know (or rather, "believe") to be true. Did God just create the universe and watch it all play out, or did he create man a few thousand years ago as the bible explains? I've got to know which God we're talking about.

If we're talking about my perception of what a God would be, then I maintain that this God would be unfathomable and would have no reason to care about us more or less than any other collection of atoms in the universe, for at the end of the day we are all simply collections of atoms (... stardust) -- and it just so happens that these atoms have formed in such a way that allows sentience.

"Well, the proposition that God would not abandon his creations is a direct corollary of the proposition that God exists, which is not provable, so I'm not totally convinced that exploring this question will actually yield any useful arguments or discoveries. That said, I will respond, just to humour the idea of a God."

Right, for the sake of continuing the conversation, we can understand that we are conversing through the lens of “if there is a god/God”. I promise no clever maneuvering, slight-of-hand or backdoor tactics here. At least on this issue. wink

"I constantly hear theists attempting to personify God in order to make him/her/it more acceptable to the mind. I'm leaning to the side that -- if there was a God, it would be so stupendously unfathomable that our petty minds, that wage wars and discriminate unjustly, would literally not be capable of understanding that God's intent and perfection, let alone it's preferences and what it considers "immoral"."

We are in agreement here, at least in part-- I too find it incomprehensible that the finite would presume to know the infinite. However, this doesn't remove the idea that god/God could have revealed some information about Himself either--since we're insisting that we really can't know-- and leaves the possibility of god/God communing with His Creation. Moreover, this leaves the possibility that man's nature is fallen, and not as god/God originally intended.

"I can't help but think of the other religious dogma that I have to mentally lump in with each consideration I make. For example, if God created us, then I must be honest to the extent of what I know (or rather, "believe") to be true. Did God just create the universe and watch it all play out, or did he create man a few thousand years ago as the bible explains? I've got to know which God we're talking about."

I'm asking you about you about your “little invented God”.

"If we're talking about my perception of what a God would be, then I maintain that this God would be unfathomable and would have no reason to care about us more or less than any other collection of atoms in the universe, for at the end of the day we are all simply collections of atoms (... stardust) -- and it just so happens that these atoms have formed in such a way that allows sentience."

You have noted that theists seem bent on personifying god/God. I've noticed that the other camp seems bent on depersonalizing god/God. Would you agree? My point being that theists and those who dare to speculate are still in the same boat since they both are ascribing divine attributes to the infinite.

Drinking Bacardi and listening to Nat King Cole. Perfect.

ML