Smple Challenge
Posted on: January 13, 2007 - 9:44am
Offline
Smple Challenge
As a "newbie" here, I really find it funny when posters - on both sides of the issue - toss around words like "proof" (as if we were discussing an episode of CSI.!).
If I have 3 apples and I add another 4 apples to my collection, I have 7 apples. That's a point we can all agree on.
I'm a Catholic - but if somebody challenged me to prove my belief in God, I couldn't. You're self-professed athiests - could you prove that you don't believe in God..??
I'm a father of 3 young daughters - do I love my daughters ?? Yes - of course, I do - but could I prove it..??
Of course not.
But here's a simple challenge - prove to me that you're an athiest..!!
Good luck.
- Login to post comments
If you tell me you're a catholic then I believe you. The reason being is that I know catholics exist and it's not an absurd claim for you to say you're catholic. I also can't fathom any motives you would have for lying to me about such a thing.
People normally use the word 'proof' around here when unfounded assertions are made. That just happens to be somewhere between fairly often and constantly.
I double and triple checked and, yes, your math is correct.
Of course, it is impossible to prove such a thing. You could provide evidence that would lead a rational person to a rational conclusion, but you could never prove it. If you go to church, write G-d in correspondence, pray, tithe, that kind of stuff, it would be evidence that you believed, but you could just be pretending. If I say that the concept of god is meaningless to me, I don't go to church, don't pray, burn bibles instead of firewood, that would be evidence I did not believe in a god.
You could provide very strong evidence that could lead one to that conclusion. Providing for your children is evidence. If, say, you gave your life for them, then that would be evidence that you loved them. Proof? No, you could have simply wanted to die and seized the opportunity, but the evidence would lead a rational person to believe you loved them.
Why did you write a post in which you state that its impossible to prove such a thing and then challenge people to prove such a thing. Don't you agree with yourself?
Anyway, I don't think you will see any atheists here asking theists to prove they believe in god unless they have first been asked to prove that they do not have a belief. Some theists think they are being clever when they say to atheists that god is in everyone and therefor it is impossible not to believe. I, for one, know this to be factually false. Whether anyone chooses to agree with me or not is of no consequence.
What you will find people asking for proof of is the existence of a god (or non-existence from people who don't understand its impossible to prove non-existence). This is different than proving that one believes in a god (which is wholly unimportant). It seems to many rational people that the concept (if it is even well enough formulated to call it that) of the existence of an infinite entity should be just as subject to the burden of proof as the existence of anything else we treat as if it exists. Especially if people want to lobby congress on its behalf and presidents consult it to make policy.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
So you'll believe anything somebody says as long as it's not "absurd"..!!
OK - now I know where you're coming from.
Can I prove to myself that I'm an atheist? Yea. That's enough for me. Booya.
that smug summation shows just how little you know where we're coming from. you think you're real clever for coming up with a "challenge" that has no solution?
drill this into your head and make sure you understand it before you shoot back some asinine strawman assumption.
there is a huge difference between giving a pass to a totally inconsequential claim or idea and believing based on blind faith.
proof is based on the collection and analysis of evidence. your outward actions are evidence of your inner thought and feeling. engaging in catholic practices and being in possession of catholic charms and talismans is evidence that you are in fact a catholic. this evidence can be taken as proof that you are in fact a catholic.
however, proven facts are always subject to disproving. if you come out at some time and say "tit tit, everyone, 'twas but a ruse! i have been lying to you about being a catholic, ha ha!", then that is evidence that casts the prior evidence into doubt.
as it stands, nobody here gives a shit whether or not you're a catholic, or whether or not you love your kids, so sure, we'll take your word for it.
any questions?
Fear is the mindkiller.
The fMRI scan will also prove I have no belief that any god exists.
It sounds like you are asserting I really do believe there’s a god but I am lying about it or I am not aware of it. In that case, it is you who needs to prove that I do have a belief that there’s a god.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Dr Fear:
Judging by your response, I can see that you certainly chose your name well. I suspect fear is something you're very familiar with.
AiiA:
Firstly, why do I need to PROVE that there is a GOD..??
So that you can sleep easier at night, for example..??
I don't need to prove anything to you or anybody.
Secondly, you state that "why would I lie about not having any belief in any God".?
I have no idea why you would lie about something - people lie about millions of things for millions of reasons.
Lastly, I'll be waiting for these MRI scans with bated breath - I'm sure there must be millions of men and women around the planet who are wondering if their husbands / wives / boyfriends / girlfriends / dogs/ cats REALLY love them. Thanks to science - we'll now be able to PROVE it.
Vessel:
"You could provide evidence"
I think you're exactly right - at BEST, we can provide EVIDENCE to back up our beliefs.
Atheists see absolutely NO evidence to support the existence of God.
Christians, for example, point ot the existence of Christ who they say was executed by the Romans and then was witnessed alive several days later by many people as their EVIDENCE.
You're absolutely right about the "trick question" - there is NO way for anybody to prove that they LOVE their children - there's only incredibly strong evidence that would lead any rational person to accept that conclusion - but proof..??
Nope - you would have an easier time drawing a 5 sided triangle.!!
"Why did you write a post in which you state that its impossible to prove such a thing and then challenge people to prove such a thing. Don't you agree with yourself? "
Well, I don't believe that it's possible to prove - but perhaps I'm wrong.
The point of my post was that something as commonplace as the love between a father and daughter or a person's belief or non-belief in God can't be proven - and yet we ALL know that love exists and we all know that (some) people have very strong points of views / opinions.
So if these things - which we all know to be true and exist - can't be proven, how could anybody possibly PROVE the existence or non-existence of God..??
We're not asking for evidence that you believe something, we're asking for evidence of what you believe in.
Do you require evidence that one does not believe in Bigfoot?
If you do, how, exactly, does this affect the existence of Bigfoot?
I don't believe teapots orbit Pluto. Do you require me to prove those teapots are not there?
I also believe you don't have six nipples. Am I wrong? Do you require me to prove I don't believe you have six nipples for some strange reason?
I fail to see the point of your inquiry or how it weighs upon the question of god, on the question of any particular god, or the process of belief in general.
So you claim to love your daughters. I have no doubt you can provide evidence to that effect. I claim to not believe in god, this website is testimony to that effect. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Does this prove beyond all shadow of doubt that you love your daughters or that I'm an atheist - no. Would it be fucking good evidence that such is the case? - yes.
Welcome to inductive reasoning.
Can we discuss something of importance now?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Its pretty easy to "prove" that I am lacking a belief. One, it would the "default" as in people don't have a reason to think I hold a belief until I show that I do. Two, I can counter proof for god. Three, I can put forth arguments against ideas of god . Four, what reasons would I have for telling a lie about my theologic position? What do I have to gain? Am I planing on stealing your soul? Wait damn I'm not suppose to talk about that till I get you to commit blasphemy... I hope Pastor Sapient forgives me...
Oh for more on the whole prove I'm not follower your sky daddy. Please note any post I make here, my myspace, my xanga, papers I have written, most of the things I have put on the internet, and the life I lead.
You admit in this initial post that you have no proof of your god. FINE....But dont expect us to buy it.
Prove to us Allah doesnt exist.
Prove to us Yahwey doesnt exist.
Prove to us Vishnu doesnt exist.
OH MY THOR THIS ONE HAS GOT US ATHEISTS DEAD TO RIGHTS WE NEVER THOUGHT OF THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE~!
QUICK EVERYONE CONVERT, JESUS IS WATCHING! MARY TOO!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think this is a really good question for atheists and theists, and rational people in general to think about and discuss. I see no reason for hostility among rational responders. Instead of transforming this into the same question addressed a million times over on this website, instead of saying "you got me there" perhaps we can have an interesting, even fruitful discussion about the nature of belief in humans.
Here are some follow up questions/things to think about.
What constitutes a belief? How much of what one believes is due to his experience of the world? How much of a belief is truly a decision made by an entity?
What kinds of things make people decide to change their beliefs? How much capacity does one have to make that change or consider that change? What does a capacity for change even mean?
no, instead, how about we all shut up and ackknowledge my posting, which was so succinctly brushed off with a ridiculous, nonsensical reply.
why don't we address the FACT that evidence is the primary evaluative factor for proof, and that THAT proof always remains in a state of falsifiability. why don't we discontinue all this bullshit bickering in light of the exposition of the FACTUAL central issue here? huh?
i'm familiar with fear? what is that supposed to imply? seems like a convenient brush-off to me. you should examine how scared you are to face the truth. denial owns you.
Fear is the mindkiller.
How is that not proof then? How did you ever know your husband loved you or even your children? You know because there are actions, moments in your life that you experience that support your belief that these people love you. Its empirical. Based on your own idea of what love is, these people in your life have met the criteria necessary to convey to you their love.