Sorry for the tone of my reply I get carried away.
Yep I did read that he said he wasn't an atheist. I think he my have decided listening to the dribble on both sides of the argument is a waste of time. We have atheists, theists, agnostics and a 4th group of people who don't waste any of their time thinking about the subject, and therefore can be neither Atheist, Theist nor Agnostic. Maybe Einstein was in the 4th group of people. And when he thought about 'where did we come from' gods existence or non-existence never entered his mind.
Atheist websites would become very lonely places if we all joined this 4th group of people.
My point was to show that other people are moving the goalposts away from what is commonly referred to as god(s).
I specifically "copied" opinions about god(s) to show that the definitions for god(s) are as diverse as the people that belief.
Can you make a distinction between what is written by me and my opinions please?
When I talk about god, I am talking about God, the God of the bible and the Oxford dictionary. And if you wish, every other God. They are all the same God. That is who I am talking about. My point here was that you are participating in a discussion yet not coming up with your own opinions. You, as you said, are quoting others. This is mental laziness because you are avoiding any decision making in regards to the subject. I am pressing you to make a decision about God.
I cannot disproof the existence of a god without properties, and neither can I proof that "no god(s) exist" without making an assertion about the properties of "god(s)".
If you are an atheist, then just say you don't believe in God. But if you use the above phrase you are an agnostic. I find many atheists using the above phrase and then claiming themselves to be atheists.
Sorry for the tone of my reply I get carried away.
We all do from time to time, as of yet you did not offend me so I don't see the need for you to apologize to me, although I appreciate the gesture. I like exchanging ideas with other people and the tone is much less important to me then content. So I'd rather focus on the content of our discussion.
you are avoiding any decision making in regards to the subject. I am pressing you to make a decision about God.
God(s) does not exist, and I'm as certain of that as I am that the sun will "rise" in the east tomorrow. God is an utterly meaningless concept to me. I just don't care enough about all the different definitions of the term and all the different interpretations that people might have in regards to god(s) to say that I am certain that their god does not exist.
If people would hold to the definition from the dictionary it would of course be quite different, it would make it quite easy to say that there is no such thing as a god. Alas, people change the definition so much so that it suits their own fluffy woowoo belief.
Thanks for the reply.
I've decided to hold the Oxford dictionary definition of the word God as the only meaning of God. Otherwise games can be played.
When we see Dawkins or Hitchens in debate stating that the burden of proof is on the claimant, they are simply following the rules of protocol for proper debate and for scientific peer review. In their context, it is a reasonable position.
Correct. All the people involved in scientific peer review have all studied the topic at hand over many years, and have amazing knowledge in regards to the specific topic at hand. They also hope somebody can contribute more to the accumulated knowledge that exists. They all have opinions on the topic and are open to anything new which will enhance the topic at hand. There is knowledge and thinking on all sides. The person putting the proof forward and the people listen to the proof have all thought about the topic at hand in great detail already.
To use the 'burden of proof argument' in regards to god, where we are the referees about gods existence, when we have never thought about the subject of god and have no opinions about god would be considered wrong by the peer review process. The peer review process, in regards to god, would require us to be experts about god. But this is of course impossible. If we are going to use such a process, the minimum requirement would be at least having some thought about god's existence or non-existence and some kind of conclusion about god's existence or non-existence.
But most people who use the peer review method in their approach towards god have no thoughts about god at all. They are just quoting Dawkins verbatim, just like christians quote the bible.
As for my dogma about no god, it is a stance against god and his believers. And I could not find anyone else who had ever used it before, so I took it as my own.
If you understand fire we can understand why we could never burn in hell ;) So yes, it's an empty threat meant to prey on your fears.. it's purpose it to gain control, to induce a submissive psychological state.. A state they can take advantage of. So you are right, we aren't going to hell :)
20,000 thumbs up!
A very good lecture :)