I was referring to the first reply.

I guess we will find out when we die.

Triumphantly concluding it must not therefore exist. Like a game of peek-a-boo with a toddler. "I don't see you!"

I agree there is no way to measure God.

Enough so, to build a working assumption.
But that could never reach the level of a guarantee or certainty.

Which is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you.

The source god of Abrahamic faiths has allegedly made itself 'measurable' in the past.

Today, it is, as you say; not.
I draw conclusions from that, even.

I was watching your favorite channel, EWTN, today and Scott Hahn was on. He's the conservative evangelical apologist who's now a conservative Catholic apologist. Say what you will but he does know the history and the scholarship behind the Bible. He was describing the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. One thing he said struck me. He said the God of the Old Testament revealed himself in material, hence finite, terms and in material images while the root of the New Testament is the deeper meaning of a relationship of love with an infinite God and with each other.

It's a series based on his book, Consuming the Word, which compares the Old and the New Testaments.

For instance, the claim of the smoking pillar of fire outside the Jewish encampment at Mt. Sinai.

I would consider that a measurable claim.

But note, debunking a specific claim does not debunk the notion of God.

I am an atheist. To me, scripture itself is proof that religions are man made.

But to your "deist/prime mover" position I do have to admit agnosticism. Because that person has no data about itself whatsoever.

However, the statement that many of faith make is that there is no evidence for or against the existence of a deity.

The thing is. Our world is filled with massive amounts of data. Factual, testable, peer reviewed evidence of biology, botany, cosmology, zoology, microbiology, pharmacology etc. etc.

All of it naturally occurring. Which is why over 90 percent of the national Academy of Sciences are atheist. I'm very comfortable with the acquaintances I keep.

I believe in God and an afterlife. My faith sustains me in good times and bad.

We all have different views on this and variety is the spice of life.

Faith is the psychological equivalent of delusion. Clinically.

As long as you are comfortable with that.

With all civility.

The DSM (diagnotic and statistical manual) defines faith as delusion. No one is locking up the religious because large groups, sharing a similar condition get a pass from psychiatrists, as long as they are not dangerous.

But it is the clinical definition. That just makes your faith stronger.

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.


This room is not designed for criticism of religion.

I and other posters in this room left the religion room because we are tired of being called deluded.

Pleaee self delete.

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I have no interest in the religious forums except the topics that pop up on the front page.

I don't want to debate or rain on parades.

I was a mod at secular web for years. I've had my fill.

Respectfully, if you can't handle the psychiatric definition of your condition, then I don't know what to do for you.

I mean seriously? Who doesn't want to know the truth?

But calling faith deluded is not appropriate here.

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I replied from the front page and do not frequent this group.

I had no idea of the statement of principals, nor of any members who frequent here.

If you delete your posts I will delete mine.

Last edited Fri Oct 17, 2014, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Is so much of an oversimplification as to constitute an untruth. The statement in the DSM is considerably more nuanced than that.

*Interfaith post

One scientific claim by itself (allegedly), let alone an estimate, does not disprove an entire body of cosmological theory. That man died before scientists precisely mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background, proving the inflation theory component of the Big Bang, which Fred Hoyle (the source of that alleged 10/40th power estimate) flatly rejected.

Hoyle was wrong, solidly proven about 13 years after his death, so the foundation of Mooney's premise resides in quicksand. That's how science works.

I would also call into question the claim of 'perfect functioning glory'. By what standard? Something like 99.9% of the observable universe is utterly inhospitable to life as we know it. I am completely unable to grok what this author means by 'perfectly functioning glory'.



This is an insidious rhetorical shell game, that holds ignorance of libraries full of evidence on equal footing to non-evidenced faith. We can, today, observe evidence, right down to gravitational echoes that confirm theories about how the universe ignited into reality. We can map it. We can measure the velocity, the distribution of matter, etc.

To make that claim, that faith, absent evidence (which the author acknowledges is his position, and fully embraces the irrationality thereof) is equal to the body of evidence physicists/cosmologists have compiled on the nature of the cosmos and its origins, is either deceptive, or ignorant. There is nothing irrational about combining a plethora of observable evidence that shows the universe is expanding, and cooling, to conclude the big bang was a real thing, whatever your opinion of how it came about.


*Keep in mind, this is a critique of his grasp/analysis of what he thinks is secular/scientific knowledge about the universe, not a critique of his faith, which I am not quibbling with at this time. I accept his claims of his faith on face value. It is his attempt to paint science as being somehow on the same non-evidenced faith-based level with which I am arguing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but while it would be unacceptable to ream that author for believing in a god, it should not be unacceptable in this venue to point out what he thinks he knows about what science reveals about the nature of the universe, is highly flawed.

Is something I have been saying for years. To say, "God does not exist" is EVERY BIT AS MUCH AN ACT OF FAITH as saying "God does exist". But the atheists refuse to admit this clear and obvious fact, I suppose because they don't want to admit that faith has anything to do with their beliefs.

That would carry the weight of burden of proof. That's why I don't use it (except in the colloquial sense, when embroiled in a monkey-shit-flinging argument.)

When I say "I don't believe your god exists", that doesn't move the burden to me. Any more than it moves the burden to you, to say 'I believe in Jesus, not Odin.'. Or substitute any one of tens of thousands of natural, personal, polytheistic, etc, god(s).


I fully accept that I cannot DISPROVE the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being that does not wish to be directly perceived. Would kinda invalidate the omnipotent thing if I could perceive it against its will.

But what I and others can, and are trying to do, is the next closest thing; positively prove that no such entity is required to explain the universe or our place in it. That, coupled with a complete lack of perception of any such being, gives me a working answer to the question, until and unless such a being wishes to make itself known.

(This makes me an Agnostic Atheist.)

You can pretend that saying "there is no God" is not a positive claim. In fact, it is just as much a positive claim as saying "there is a God". Atheists try to weasel out of having to provide evidence for their claim that God does not exist, while insisting that believers must support their claim that God does exist.

When I say "I don't believe your god exists", that doesn't move the burden to me. Any more than it moves the burden to you, to say 'I believe in Jesus, not Odin.'. Or substitute any one of tens of thousands of natural, personal, polytheistic, etc, god(s).

Except that "I believe in Jesus, not Odin" is most certainly a positive claim. No, you are simply trying to dodge the fact that your "there is no God" does put a burden of proof on you. The only stance that does not would be an agnostic one.

As I CORRECTLY said, both "there is a God" and "there is not a God" are positive claims, and both require faith on the part of the person making the claim, and both require some sort of evidence if one is making either claim.

Even where you copy/pasted it.

I don't see how I can say it any differently to help you.

"I don't believe your god exists"
"Your god does not exist."

These two sentences are very different. The first says what I think about a claim (god exists). It says I don't believe the claim. It doesn't say your god doesn't exist. It says I don't believe your claim that said god exists.

The second statement is a positive claim. It isn't a statement about what you said or what you believe, it is a statement about your god itself, in the negative. That second claim carries burden of proof. It IS equal to the positive claim 'XYZ god(s) exist'.

As I said, that's why I don't use it. (keeping in mind the exceptions I mentioned.)


"I don't believe your god exists" is absolutely not equal in burden to "god exists".

"God does not exist". So what are you nattering about?

Anyway, there are plenty of atheists who do say, regularly, "God does not exist" -- YOU may not (except that you do), but THEY do. Thus, you actually agree with my argument.

Not all. That's why I disagree with the article premise, as I originally said. The original article makes no allowance for the fact that not all atheists make a positive claim in that regard. It doesn't even recognize the possibility.


I only make that 'positive claim' in the form of an offensive barb, when decorum/friendly debate has already gone out the window. It's not actually my position. It's a thing I might say if you piss me off.

While I don't believe in organized religion, I do believe in God, and I do have faith in the narrative of Jesus, but I can openly accept the irrationality of it and how it is a matter of faith, not facts or rationality, that cause me to believe it. I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to change anyone's belief or non-belief, but merely trying to explain why I think it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religious believer. I don't point to the Bible to prove this, but rather to the universe.

Some believe they have learned from experience and graduated. They will never learn anything else or read a link.