Big Think

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 8:04 PM

Ouch Bryan! touche mon amici.
To get serious on yer ass… some would argue that the burden of proof lies on those arguing in favour of ‘something’ where there is no evidence, rather than ‘nothing’ where there is no evidence.

If the evidence says there is nothing, then there is nothing.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and so the dance goes on.

Mike Robb on April 6, 2008, 8:10 PM

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so…also lets face it, belief in God is a faith based thing, one cannot find proof that God exists. Obviously many atheitsts are looking for the Truth though

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 8:20 PM

Dismiss..without evidence? People come up missing, with no evidence of foul play, at all. Should those cases be dismissed or left open. See, I would be more comfortable if you said..highly improbable but the case is still open. Instead of, no evidence, case dismissed.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 8:23 PM

Theekim, how can you say “one cannot find proof that God exists”? How do you know?

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 8:32 PM

Bryan… for you I will add the disclaimer..
‘current’ evidence points to nothing.
You nearly had me there!

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 8:46 PM

So, are you saying the case is still open????

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 9:30 PM

BC.. being the sum of what I do not know could fill a galactic black hole, it would be foolish to close off anything.
but… ask me about any of the nonsensical monotheistic versions of the ‘truth’ and you know my evil twin will bite!
I believe nothing implicitly except for some peoples almost infinite capacity for gulliblity….. whoops cynic-guy just showed up!

altogether now… All you need is love..
ahh… better now.

Faceless Atheist on April 6, 2008, 9:43 PM

In the case of the missing person there was a person who is now missing. There is evidence of that person existing, pervious to the disappearence. There has never been evidence for god. He is not a missing person, he never existed in the first place, but we are all still looking for him. And claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What if a person reported someone missing, but had no evidence that the missing person ever existed in the first place? No photos, no birth cirtificate, no parents or siblings? How long would the authorities keep searching? I doubt they would begin the search at all.

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 9:50 PM

FA to the rescue…
and just to get back on topic re evidence… the balance of probabilities says don’t hold your breath.
it would take something extraordinary to ‘convert’ an atheist like me.. whereas an open inquiring mind was all it took to lure me away from the Catholic theology I grew up with.

Tim Prather on April 6, 2008, 10:20 PM

In response to your question I would have to point out that not only is it a logical fallacy but that there’s quite a bit of evidence against the Christian God. Most of the book of Genesis can be scientifically proved false. A global flood, wheres the evidence? A 6000 year old Earth, what about the massive amount of evidence against such a scenario and the lack of evidence for one. If Genesis can be proved to be mostly incorrect, and indeed written by man in his ignorance, can we not assume the rest of the Bible was written in human ignorance.

If thats not enough for you I would ask the question back: Can you establish a proof for a creator (Don’t use irreducible complexity, the research behind it hasn’t even been conducted by its proponents) outside the human conscience. And then after that prove it to be the Christian God you refer to. Maybe it was Zeus, or Allah, FSM?

Lets look at this seriously, parts of Genesis can be definitively proven wrong, this is the step where most believers evolve from people of faith to people of blind ignorance.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 10:26 PM

Does anyone know the truth? Does anyone here on this Earth know everything? We are all talking about what we believe. Where is the truth?
Can we all just keep an open mind to the subject and agree that the truth has not been explained yet. We won’t even call it a belief or give it a name, except maybe ..open minded.
We’re hurlin through space on a planet with many names…we are on it, and we need to start taking care of each other. Opposing beliefs are going to have to come to an end for true peace to happen. That much is true. LOVE WILL SAVE US.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 10:33 PM

…and in response to the 3 before my last….bla bla bla. How do you KNOW there isn’t God?

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 10:39 PM

Bryan.. agreed my friend.
Notice the divide in these pages though? how the atheists seem to be accomodating of the ‘spiritual’ as opposed to the ‘religious’?
Do what you will, harm no one.
We get a bad rap, and I am not interested in shoving my version of the truth down your throat, but it’s bad ideas we dislike mainly I think.
And an open mind, and an open heart is not a bad idea.

dennis ilic on April 6, 2008, 11:00 PM

I love talking about God, even with atheists.
I don’t like arguing about God, with anyone.

And the one thing I will never do, is try to prove the existence of God, to anyone.

I have a better understanding of atheists now that I have had two exhausting debates with them (musycks and Faceless Atheist), thank you for clearing up some of my prejudices towards atheists.

Bryan, it is better to love an atheist, than it is to argue with one.

Love and Peace
FA if you are wondering about the argument, it was with HueJDowns, aka healingzero.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 11:06 PM

I don’t really like bad ideas either…I know what bad ideas you mean and I agree they don’t work. Love ya Michael. No hard feelings?

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 6, 2008, 11:12 PM

Hue, I didn’t really feel we were arguing. I can love people and have a debate. I think it actually brings us closer.
Peace and Love to you too brother.

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 11:12 PM

Bryan… keep rocking my friend.
a calming reasoned voice calling us all to love? you’re a Beatle tune incarnate.
keep it coming.

Musycks on April 6, 2008, 11:16 PM

HZ, I’ll agree that atheists are mis-understood (Oh Lord please don’t let me be…) and if I argue with anyone it’ll be the lazy and thoughtless, seeking to push their McReligion down everybodies throats.
can’t help myself there I’m afraid.
still, hate the sin not the sinner?
mea culpa

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 12:36 AM

There is endless evidence that God does not exist. At least the God that many people claim to believe in, (the God that created man, that created earth created everything). I’ll number them to keep it simple.

1. “God created man”. false. man evolved over a period of around four billion years. If you don’t believe in evolution, than I’m sorry, but it’s a pretty foolproof “theory”. There is overwhelming physical evidence, such as fossils, that support the theory of evolution. The only evidence that supports the theory that God created man is a book that was written by men some two thousand years ago. And physical evidence wins over stories.

2. “God created life” false. Science today has in fact created organic compounds from inorganic material by mimicking early earth conditions. look it up.

3. “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist”. false. The definition of “prove” is: demonstrate the truth by evidence or argument. If this argument is to be decided by evidence alone, than the evidence that God (again the God I assume your arguing for) does not exist would far outweigh the evidence that there is a god.
All proof is is evidence, nothing more. Theist like to use that argument all the time. you did.
“If any of the atheists can furnish one iota of proof that God doesn’t exist, then please reply”
“proof” to you seems to be irrefutable to the most extreme that it could possibly be. With that mindset you can’t prove that you have legs underneath your pants right now. Of course you cant lift up the trousers of existence and see what’s underneath. nobody ever will be able to. nobody. evidence is all we have. it’s the only way to validate an argument.
And therefore theists have no argument. Because you have no physical evidence. And atheists have a surplus.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 1:38 AM

AH, nicely stated.
You probably know that as you bang around this site you’ll encounter the god idea in many variants. The old-school mainstream style is only a small part of what I’ve found here, and because they are gun shy of atheists like me (well you try and justify that crap), then they probably stick to listening to Rick Warren and his wife..

Bryan et al, will be at the esoteric end of the continuum, and those questions will be like trying to bottle lightning…. fun trying but don’t get burned.

Nice work.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 1:41 AM

My definition of God is everything including nothing. Is that the God you “assumed” I am “arguing” for?

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 1:49 AM

ahughman, are you 100% sure there isn’t a god?

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 1:51 AM

That definition of God is hardly worth believing in at all. Thats like saying I believe in apples, but I’ll call them God instead of apples.

Call God whatever you want to call it, but the general consensus of what people believe in as God is absolutely able to be proven wrong.

If you want to hide behind your belief in God by trimming down your definition of him thats fine. I call everything including nothing “existence”. It works a lot better than giving it the same name that people use to describe an invisible conscious being in the sky that controls everything.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 1:53 AM

Im not 100% positive of anything at all. Nobody is. Nobody ever will be.

Nobody can be 100% positive that they actually have a butt.

What were talking about is proof. Which by definition is evidence. Which God does not have. Sorry.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 2:04 AM

How are you absolutely able to prove God doesn’t exist?.. and by God, this time I mean something that knows how life works, entirely.
Again are you 100%?

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 2:09 AM

I am 100% sure there is something else going on and you haven’t been shown yet. I’m sure not many people have.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 2:09 AM

You’re arguing in circles, how do you not realize that?

NOBODY is 100% positive of ANYTHING. You can’t say with 100% certainty that you have a liver. But you do. There is a lot of PHYSICAL evidence that you do.

and changing you definition isn’t going to validate your argument. So stop trying.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 2:12 AM

What does that mean?? Where is your argument? Where is your evidence? You have none. Just beliefs. Just empty beliefs.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 2:19 AM

I am 100% sure that I think I have a liver. I am 100% sure that I think something more that we are unaware of is going on. I should also mention I think everything we are experiencing, life itself, is thought.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 2:26 AM

Ok sure. You are 100% sure that you THINK there is a God. Awesome.

And you think that “everything we are experiencing, life itself, is thought”

But were not talking about your fantasies, were talking about what you can prove!

And in NO way does you “thinking that god exists” give one SHRED of evidence that god exists.

are you understanding any of this? or am I speaking to a brick wall?

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 2:38 AM

AHughman you seem to tell my friend Bryan here that he is talking in circles while every single post you write is the exact same. Perhaps you should listen to him, he is not talking about the Christian God that you are talking about. Many people are awakening now, they are taking on eastern religious philosophy and melding it with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. The true teachings of Jesus, not the bible, the bible is a book of propaganda for political power and control of the masses.

I see that you are a person trying to grasp spirituality yet you still want to stick to your “physical evidence”. My friend you must know that this world we live in is all an illusion of perceptions and different realities. If you think you and I see the world the exact same way then you are wrong, therefore how can we ever talk about the same world? Of course there is physical objects that have been manifested that you and I both can identify with, so now you can get some evidence that we are kind of the same, but how many different situations will there be and can there be?? An infinite amount maybe? Making us both finite consciousnesses of the infinite consciousness that makes up our universe?

You see eastern religious philosophy mixed with a western mind can make great leaps and bounds through spirituality. If you don’t understand a thing that I’m talking about then maybe you should meditate on it and reread it again and maybe things will clique in your mind.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 2:43 AM

“Nobody is 100% positive of anything” “Ok you’re 100% sure you THINK”

I just wanted to be sure that you are aware that You changed your mind. I don’t get the impression that happens often.

Like I said before, if there is a God he sure doesn’t want atheists to know about him.

Chill brother. I’m not a brick wall. Don’t get all huffy puffy. I’m just pointing out that you can’t prove for sure that God doesn’t exist. I hope you find the truth. What ever it is.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 2:50 AM

Bryan, depends on your standards of proof?
You and Jeff will be lining up differently to me on that one.
AH makes perfect impirical sense, and that’s enough for some. It will never be enough for you, for reasons that make this debate circular.
Does it ease your questing mind? maybe not.. but you go and argue with the monotheists and see how you go about open minds!
peace boys.

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 2:58 AM

Hahaha open minded monotheists, isn’t that an oxy-moron?? You say the funniest things musycks ;)

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 2:59 AM

Jeff,
I had to repeat my argument about 7 thousand times because Bryan could not grasp it. maybe I should have just said it once and told him to read it again when he didn’t get it like you did. The difference between arguing in circles and what I did was that I was making the same point the entire time. Which I now have to do again because you don’t seem to grasp it either.
I’m familiar with human perceptions vs. reality. Read some some my ideas thats basically my entire philosophy. But thats not the argument here.

To quote another member on this site: God is the name of the christian god, the one that created Adam and Eve, gave birth to Jesus (as you mentioned).

Just like the Muslim God is “Allah” and one of the greek Gods is “Zeus”, Christians (which I assume you are because you mentioned Jesus) call their God, “God”.

So when you say “prove that god doesn’t exist” thats what I assume you’re talking about.

Taking the name “God” and slapping it on to all remaining questions in the universe does not make God exist. You could call all remaining questions about the universe “Allah” then I assume because you have to affiliation to the christian religion.

Or do what everyone else in the world does and call it “the unknown”. That I would be fine with. Or call it “spirituality”. But its not a conscious creator who created the universe in 7 days! Science CAN prove that wrong.

read that a few times before commenting back.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:00 AM

I hear you mysckus…and so you know and for the record. 10-15 years ago you could have labeled me an atheist. Things happen.

Also, I don’t mean to seem like I’m arguing. Some of the time I’m really only asking if you are sure and testing to see if you really are.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 3:01 AM

and yes I realize that Im arguing strongly, so I apologize if I’m not being passive enough for this argument. I have complete respect for everyone in this argument. I just think your wrong. so I’m arguing.

Faceless Atheist on April 7, 2008, 3:04 AM

The number of things you can’t prove don’t exist is infinite (whole lotta negatives in that one). You can’t prove there aren’t WMD’s in Iraq, you can’t prove theres not a small teapot floating in orbit around the sun between mars and earth, your can’t prove there isn’t a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Bertrand Russell (favorite philosopher) was the first to develop the teapot theory with the church of the FSM being a recent recurrence of the idea. He said

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”

You are talking nonesense. In order to prove anything to the world today, including people on this site, you have to use the scientific method. For a new theory (lets just say the god hypothesis is a new one)you have to form a hypothesis about the issue and look for evidence that the hypothesis is true. If possible you can set up tests. For the god issue there are many theories. None (not even yours, though you are just changing the definition of everything to god) have been able to produce proof, though they have formed many hypothesises (spelling?). By the nature of the theory there are no tests you can run. There is no more reason for us to believe in your god then there is for us to believe in the FSM. Proving that it can’t be disproved doesn’t prove anything.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 3:15 AM

All,
Bryan was being mischievous and disingenuos (two things I identify with)when phrasing the question, which was the inverse of one of my posts. He did it in a playful spirit I think, that may have played against the enormity of the proposition.
It’s clear that this ethereal god of nothing, attracts a lot of support because it does not pin the types of people attracted to it down to the same burdens of proof the monotheists want to dodge.
But just it’s ethereal does not mean it should be exempt from inquiry….
and so it goes.

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 3:18 AM

Oh I hate labels and even if I did like them I would never want to be called a Christian. If you wish to label me though, you can call me a practicer of the law of one, please. Now as a practicer of the law of one our one infinite creator created us. The infinite creator, or infinite intelligence is not something I can describe to anybody else though, I discovered it on my own and is only known to myself by me. I do believe that others have discovered it for themselves as well so maybe you have a chance to understand what I’m talking about there buddy. Therefore my evidence is already known to myself and others who are at the same stage of spiritual development know it themselves. My best advice is come to understanding yourself and with yourself on your own terms, forgiveness is key, and love everyone unconditionally.

Though I do accept Jesus’ teachings as the truth, I am no Christian, he never resurrected like the bible says. Many things in the bible I don’t believe. Jesus taught loving unconditionally for everything, and that we are all divine, and that’s what I believe from his teachings.

So to sum it up, one person can not prove or disprove that God, in any form of religion, is real or not. The individual must find it on their own, maybe with some help, but never have information crammed down their throat that was never asked for(Vatican). It’s called the path of service to others, and even though I don’t think you want any help spiritually I’m always here to help for anyone that asks.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:24 AM

None of this proves anything. You aren’t proving there isn’t a God, or presenting a good enough argument to close someones mind to the possibility….and you’re right I did change the word everything to God. I believe in everything. I’m trying to define everything for myself. I know, good luck with that one….ok ok ok, you win, there isn’t a God I BELIEVE you. My mind is officially closed to the subject.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:24 AM

None of this proves anything. You aren’t proving there isn’t a God, or presenting a good enough argument to close someones mind to the possibility….and you’re right I did change the word everything to God. I believe in everything. I’m trying to define everything for myself. I know, good luck with that one….ok ok ok, you win, there isn’t a God I BELIEVE you. My mind is officially closed to the subject.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:27 AM

I need to learn to type faster. Two fingers don’t cut it.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:32 AM

Mysckus and jeff were done and sent by the time I got that thing sent.

Norman McDowell on April 7, 2008, 3:32 AM

Jeff,
You said “one person can not prove or disprove that God, in any form of religion, is real or not”

Yes you can. Even though I’m repeating myself yet again. Proof is: demonstrating the truth or existence of something by evidence or argument. (thats the definition).

There is endless, irrefutable evidence that many of the Gods men have created over the years does not exist. physical evidence. and that, by definition, is proof. because all proof is is evidence.

Im not attacking you, Jeff, peace be with you, we all have our own takes on spirituality, which is wonderful. I’m glad you decided to defend Bryan. But I wasn’t attacking him either. I’m attacking the idea of “god”.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:39 AM

I’m not saying I believe any hokus pokus either.

Faceless Atheist on April 7, 2008, 3:41 AM

AH is attacking the standerd monotheistic definition, BC and JD are defending a more pantheistic or, i dont know everyone so hates labels on this site, infinite universe interconectedness theory. Hence some of the confusion. While the more typical christian god can be disproed, the “god” of BC and JD cannot. But just because it can’t be disproved doesn’t mean we should believe it, but those who do believe are not easy to sway.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:45 AM

Nor are atheists easy to sway.

Faceless Atheist on April 7, 2008, 3:46 AM

for the same reasons

Faceless Atheist on April 7, 2008, 3:48 AM

50 comments in a day. Wow! new record?

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 3:53 AM

My bad, I forgot to add “to another person”, so it would be “one person can not prove or disprove that God, in any form of religion, is real or not to another person”.

All these defenses and attacks claiming to be made, this is just a website, nothing can harm anyone over a website, unless the person’s mind is sensitive and gets easily offended by simple arguments. But that would be a drastic exception (you see what I do, I get side tracked by talking about various outcomes to what I’m talking about originally haha). Back to what I was getting at, I would gladly help you attack the Christian God and all of the false jargon found in the bible. I would never claim to be an atheist or even an agnostic because I am an American that doesn’t follow the church (the situation for most Atheists I know), I am still spiritual by far because I understand that there is more than just my physical vehicle (body) and decider of infinite choices (mind), there is something in me that already knows all and is infinite to the infinite power (spirit), and by infinite I mean everything. Also it’s not just limited to humans, no my friend, the spirit is attached to everything, and the spirit is infinite. So now I hope you get the meaning of spirit is everything, which is infinite to the infinite power, which means once we get to our next stage of evolution everything we create will be infinite as well. Which means even though we created it it is our equal because it is capable of just as much as we are, just like we are equal to whatever created us.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 3:55 AM

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 7, 2008, 4:05 AM

Special thanks to Jeff for jumping in and not leaving me hanging alone with the pack. That was fun. Peace, I love you all. Must sleep and work.

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 4:41 AM

Of course I’m here to help you buddy ;)

Mike Robb on April 7, 2008, 11:16 AM

You can’t prove that something does not exist. Radiation existed before we learned to measure it, but scientists would not have accepted that it did.

dennis ilic on April 7, 2008, 11:43 AM

Sorry I couldn’t have helped you out there Bryan, I was sleeping. Thank God, I was sleeping.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 5:00 PM

Geez, I go to sleep on this side of the world and all hell breaks out! haha

Jeff.. one point. Jesus was not a champion for unconditional love, that is a furphy put out by snake oil salesman touting amongst the gullible.
Jesus said, worship and believe in dad, or rot in hell. Not in so many words I grant you, but that was the poison pill at the heart of the empty Xtian noodling.
Not so unconditional I think.

Theekim, scientists are the ones open to evidence and peer review. Once someone posited radiation, they would have said,
show me. The Xtians would have said.. but it isn’t in the bible!

You all did great! and it leads me to another question I will now post about the creator thing. please respond if so moved.

thanks Bryan, sleep well my friend.

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 6:25 PM

musycks you gotta know by now that the bible was written to keep the sheep easily herded. John, Paul, and all the gospels who supposedly wrote the bible were long dead when the bible was put together. I know there isn’t physical proof that the bible was made up, but I have learned from outside sources that the bible was put together by an organization that still exists today through itself, The Brotherhood, and it’s lower counterparts, the Illuminati and the Freemasons. This whole new world order and Zeitgeist that Bush Sr. and the Rockefellers and Rothschilds talk about was all set to go in motion ever since the Brotherhood made their “Holy” book 1800 years ago.

It’s manipulation at it’s finest, I thought you would know by now that I know the bible is all a fraud, but Jesus and his teachings were not.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 6:51 PM

Jeff, people do go on a lot about the Gospel of John and Paul… but imagine how George and Ringo feel!? I think their Gospels are sadly neglected!

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 7:59 PM

Don’t we all live in a yellow submarine at some point or another in our life? St. John and Paul speak from the heart!

dennis ilic on April 7, 2008, 8:00 PM

The Gospel of Ringo? Please.

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 8:02 PM

HZ! alright … but Don’t Pass me By is a cracker? and a tasty drummer at least…

Jeff Delano on April 7, 2008, 8:12 PM

I’m not sure if you guys watch Family Guy but they did one of their little cut scenes once making fun of Ringo. It was funny because Ringo was so stoked that he wrote a song and Paul was totally patronizing him and he stuck it on the fridge, “So now every time we go to the refrigerator we can see your song Ringo.”

Musycks on April 7, 2008, 8:25 PM

Family Guy is great… but Simpsons are still No 1!!

Jesse Akers on April 8, 2008, 9:18 AM

bryan- i feel sorry for your thread has turned into another conversation blog, it seems what these people need are friends to talk to, I will create a post for that later, facelss said something about their being no birth certificate or proof of God, well i can look at a childs birth certificate or I.D and just say," oh well that just a piece of laminated paper with a face and name attached to it" so the only proof you ll ever get of the person being real is expirecning them yourself and believing that they are who everyone say they are, God could manifest himself again and you could still say a lot of things to say it isnt true,

going to hell isnt because of anything other than mans choice to make it on their own, God only warns that our own will can only lead us to that place… heaven and hell are VERY estoric concepts, so much so that the only real thing we can interpert form scriptures is that believers and non will be seperated, but in somuch as they are still able to even speak to one another, but the believer cannot do anything to help the unbeliever—-see the story of Abraham and the rich man… just as much as their is no literal concept for us to understand of heaven the same applies to hell, all we know is we dont want to go to one place, and we do want to go to another…that we only can get their cause God has made a way and not that we can make one for ourselves

Jesse Akers on April 8, 2008, 9:20 AM

it applies to this world to, that there is nothing a believer can do to really help a unbeliever, we can show them love, give them food and shelter, but we can never quench there thirst spiritoully…thats between them and God, or the big nothing

Jeff Delano on April 8, 2008, 5:50 PM

First of all Jesseakers how dare you try and make a pathetic attempt at trying to poke fun at my social life. Oh I have no friends to talk to so I make “conversation blogs” and talk to my only friends that I will ever know. Your stupid, no wonder you are a Christian and you wear those goofy glasses and then post that as your default picture on a website so the entire community of bigthink can see it. Seriously, what made you even think you should post something as ignorant as what you just said? I’m posting ignorant things because I know it’s the only thing that can go down to your level so you can understand what I’m saying, most of the time I go way above your head with my normal conversational skills. Second of all, I forgive you.

Faceless Atheist on April 8, 2008, 6:21 PM

No need to sink to that JD. Everyone but Jesse knows that these threads are meant to inspire conversation, and if one results in more natural, friendly conversation, it isn’t because those who engage in it are friendless. Keep up the good, let the bad go. Lets continue the friendly conversations that have been going on and not sink into bickering.

Jesse Akers on April 8, 2008, 6:26 PM

sorry if i offended you jeff… i shouldnt judge i got frustrated that it seemed like it was just instant messaging going on back and forth and in no way a delibrate attack on any one person, just the idea that we should focused on some task, however here i am posting back and forth to you, I admit i am an ahole sometimes…ok a lotta times

but the point stands that there is a lot of “messaging” going on in place of serious conversation

Jeff Delano on April 8, 2008, 6:49 PM

Yeah for sure this website needs a messaging system, and I’m sorry for what I said. But when I’m having an argument I usually go to extremes like that because I want it to end right there and then, it’s not like I really think you are stupid for being Christian and I really don’t care about the glasses you wear on your default picture haha. But anyways I’m sorry bud ;)

Jesse Akers on April 8, 2008, 6:53 PM

i always get crap about my glasses and i love to use it as a metaphor as to how people do not agree with the lenses thru which i see the world….however i m not in iraq anymore, but i managed to get some transistionns lenses to maintain the integrity of the “lenses”

Jeff Delano on April 8, 2008, 7:01 PM

Haha nice, I like the metaphor. I’m confused about one thing though, you are a Christian, something that the majority of the world follows so how could you see the world differently than the rest of the Christians? Are you just trying to show that you are at the upper echelon of faith among Christians? Kind of like St. Augustine and Mother Theresa? (to me those are the 2 greatest followers of Jesus, even though I don’t like to put 1 person ahead of the other those 2 are my favorites.)

Musycks on April 8, 2008, 9:00 PM

Jeff… re Mother Theresa.. maybe it’s the idea you like more than the reality? she died an atheist if her OWN words can be believed. To burst that bubble please read Chris Hitchens.. The Missionary Position.

Jess.. relating to other humans is what this site is about. In all our forms, serious to funny…. and you are funny.
That stuff about believers and non-believers still being able to talk to each other after (the rapture I guess?)dying and being in hell.. whatever.. I mean.. fanatstic! who writes your stuff?

sciencesaves on April 8, 2008, 10:25 PM

No God? Answer: Correct

Evidence: Not necessary, as there is no need to disprove something that has never been proven.

Musycks on April 8, 2008, 10:35 PM

sciencesaves…thanks.. eloquent AND brief.

haha.. I need to do more of that.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 8, 2008, 11:52 PM

You guys have great ways of saying there is proof, or no proof, of what ever you want.
No God? Answer: How the hell should I know?…..
should be the answer

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 8, 2008, 11:54 PM

elopresumptuous AND brief.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 8, 2008, 11:54 PM

elopresumptuous AND brief.

Musycks on April 9, 2008, 12:31 AM

Brizer… yes, good answer, how the hell should I know.
and the following I fear will not be brief, so it had better be eloquent.
Yes, we don’t know, but evidence will lead us to reasonable conclusions and we can argue the toss, and there’s value in that exchange I’m sure… but..

I am here because the religious can’t keep there noses out of public business. If the most powerful country in the world still has candidates for top office who don’t ‘believe’ in evolution, then that is unacceptable. If they want their stories of creation taught as science in schools, that is unacceptable. If they want to blur the lines between church and state by hounding an atheist out of public debate, screaming at him ‘children should not be allowed to even know of your philosphy’, as happened in Chicago the other day, that is unacceptable.
If Americans had known 30 years ago that atheists were normal people and not the spawn of satan, maybe the rise of the religious right as a political lobby group would not have happened as it did.
If the rabid neo-cons were not whispering in the ears of your current commander-in-thief, that his military incursion into Iraq is biblically supported, then maybe your boys would not be dying in sickening numbers.
And the faults of the fundie Muslim variation hardly need listing here.

BC, I’m hoping that if some kid in Kansas (hi Toto) stumbles across these posts and has their synapses stimulated they may discover a world view that they don’t really know much about, and it might not be that scary after all. Wouldn’t that be something.
Love on ya brother and sorry about the length! but feel the width!

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 9, 2008, 12:39 AM

I would replace the word ‘evidence’ with ‘something’, but other than that I agree…totally, I think.

sciencesaves on April 9, 2008, 8:58 AM

bryanc, Good point. Yes it sounds presumptuous, but then again, so is presuming that there IS a god, right? I’m not the one who made this stuff up, there are several of them, but they’re all dead and gone. Let’s put their fiction to rest as well and move on, shall we?

sciencesaves on April 9, 2008, 9:07 AM

musycks, If I have to leave my homeland, would you help me get citizenship in yours? I always thought it would be a great place to live, although I have heard that non-natives are not particularly welcomed. Is this true? It sure has become that way over here lately with all the immigration from the south. Give me your tired, poor, and victims of a corrupted government…

sorry to digress, I didn’t want to get away from the premise of the original idea. We may as well have a chat room at that point.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 9, 2008, 11:56 AM

I think it is safe to say that claiming for ‘sure’ there is, or isn’t a God, is an assumption. Yes, put the fiction to rest. Keep an open mind. Defining the truth may take the knowledge musycks mentioned filling a black hole with…..and I say chat if you like, it’s not hurting anything.

Musycks on April 10, 2008, 1:40 AM

BC… saying there is not a ‘god’ that is seperate and outside of us is no great leap in my book, and given there is zero evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to run with that, certainly with the creator/interventionist type. As for the esoteric/poetic everything god of the ether, I agree with you.

ssaves, come on down brother. we are a very open and welcoming people, and even though we just had a 10 year political lurch to the right, the country has wised up and voted in a left-ish party of the people, whose first act was to officially apologise to our indigenous Aboriginal people who have suffered terribly under 220 years of white rule. A great day to be sure.
We still have right wing shock jocks who try to stir up hatred with division, as you do, but mostly people are very laid back and easy going.

re your immigration from the south.. what amazes me is you have an instant ‘control’ group with which to assess the problem. ie.. do you have the same problem in the north? are Canadians spewing over barbed wire fences, eager for menial work, for their slice of the American dream? and why not? because their standard of living is good enough. Help raise Mexican living standards by including them economically in your orbit, and viola, problem gone.
love your work… rock on.

Gilbert Feinberg on April 12, 2008, 12:23 PM

God? Evidence please.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 12, 2008, 1:03 PM

Maude? Eloquent sneeze….

Nathanial Krueger on May 4, 2008, 12:00 PM

“God” is an unfalsifiable concept. That means that it is, in principle, impossible test or disprove. It fails to provide a testable prediction and therefore, no one should believe it.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on June 21, 2008, 5:54 PM

You’re going to have to bring more than that Bud.

Brad Strong on October 27, 2008, 12:08 AM

The burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of. Cheers to gsfesq…