God

[ironyak]

DF - I think you guys are assuming he’s denying the existence of all gods in general, which could be the case but it’s not exactly what he said.
Agreed that the specific wording is important and clarifications are useful.

TomK - Seriously? I need to prove a negative?
Yep, you know how this works - you're the one that made the claim, not me. If you can't prove that assertion, why did you make it?

[TomK]

Ok, we will wait for his response.
The “no such god exists” comment was directly following his wish for a god that didn’t do bad things, just made people happy and healthy.  If you know of such a god, please advise. Pele certainly wouldn’t qualify.

I think you guys are assuming he’s denying the existence of all gods in general, which could be the case but it’s not exactly what he said.

I'm an atheist, I think that's clear to everyone, I'm not hiding it. What's disappointing, but expected, is that neither ironyak nor MyManao, nor anyone else, has shown any evidence that there is a god, or in the alternative, a bunch of gods and goddesses. For instance, the evidence about Pele's background comes from a chant, which isn't very convincing. Ironyak keeps arguing that maybe nature is evil, but if it's controlled by omnipotent gods, surely they can prevent natural disasters - unless they don't want to. Logically, if gods exist and they let horrible things happen on Earth and make people suffer, then they are either evil, irelevant or don't exist 

If there is a god out there that just wants everyone to be happy and healthy, well, they either don't seem to exist or are completely incapable of stopping horrific things from happening to humanity. One person is saved, it's a miracle, yet others burn to death, get poisoned, blown apart, or shot by religious zealots. Some religions involve beheading those who don't believe, another says that you'll burn in hell forever. Some people on the island thought it was worth leaving gifts for Pele so their property wouldn't be overrun by lava. What good did that do?

[MyManao]

Seriously? I need to prove a negative?

Obfuscation
Can be fun
Join the holy orgy
Kama Sutra
Everyone!

[TomK]

DF - I think you guys are assuming he’s denying the existence of all gods in general, which could be the case but it’s not exactly what he said.
Agreed that the specific wording is important and clarifications are useful.

TomK - Seriously? I need to prove a negative?
Yep, you know how this works - you're the one that made the claim, not me. If you can't prove that assertion, why did you make it?

No, you're asking me to prove a negative. I think there is no god because there is no evidence that shows one exists. If scientific evidence exists supporting the existence of a god, I'll look at it. Your logic is muddled.

[MyManao]

No, you're asking me to prove a negative. I think there is no god because there is no evidence that shows one exists. If scientific evidence exists supporting the existence of a god, I'll look at it. Your logic is muddled.

I think it's interesting to note that in the many replies you have made about god, who you adamantly don't believe in, and yet you cling to a central tenet that if god were to exist it must adhere to some religious dogma, must be aware of and answerable to humans and our prayers etc. Whereas in my OP I stated my beliefs differently when I wrote:

For me this is all very simple. I am a card carrying member of the Church of One. There ain't no church, building, there ain't no leader, or followers, and I assume every last one of you are members. Mine is just the clear and unshakable belief that the universe exists and every single thing in it is a part of it, and it is harmonious, it has order, and it works. In other words, there is only one god. And he/she/it.. if anyone needs a deity.. is in all and everything. Period. I have faith, but find trying to define what I have faith in to be futile. And more work than it is worth.

But you, rather than giving what I wrote any room to exist at all, rather than comprehending it, answered as if to insist god and religion are inseparable. Whereas all I said was there is only one god. And he/she/it.. if anyone needs a deity.. is in all and everything. That's it. I gave no form, no limits, and certainly no system by which to define god. Only to say there is no thing that is not god. I am a part of god, you are a part of god. And, you know, knowing it, not knowing, doesn't change a thing.

It's just a word, and it implies a system, an order, but it doesn't imply a guy waiting to answer anyone's prayers and all that. Although I think there's a lot of power in prayer, as much as there is a lot of power in placebos. They both work, probably about the same. The power of the mind, I believe, is so far more than we are aware of. And that is the trick... to open our minds. Not to say another is wrong, or that we are right, but to open our minds to the possibilities..

As to Pele verses volcanology. All science, by my measure, is but the study of god. Scientists are religious fanatics that study aspects of creation. And, as I said, creation is god. You study the vibrations emitted by, or bouncing off of, celestial bodies. Volcanologists study structures made by volcanic processes. And both are creations we find in the universe. A universe in which every last grain of sand, as I have said, is made by, is made up of, god.

The Hawaiians studied their surroundings as well, and left a vast volume of knowledge of how they found them. But for them, who passed their observations on in the spoken word, they gave those processes different names.. and what to them might be called Pele, to modern man is volcanology. Why are you so hung up on making it about good and evil?

And, I have to ask, why is there any confusion? Isn’t it far better to find the common ground, rather than to insist you are right and all others are wrong? Isn’t it better to listen to and appreciate? Arguing about this stuff is so childish, and so clearly represents so much insecurity. Whereas anyone secure in their own has a massive amount of space in themselves to listen to and consider others. Just like Yak, who doesn’t insist like you insist. He listens, he doesn’t insist he is right and all others are wrong. Seriously TomK, only the insecure resist foreign ideas because they view them as threats to their own. As you have done for reams and reams of posts.. ad nauseam. Why?

[ironyak]

TomK - I'm an atheist, I think that's clear to everyone, I'm not hiding it. What's disappointing, but expected, is that neither ironyak nor MyManao, nor anyone else, has shown any evidence that there is a god, or in the alternative, a bunch of gods and goddesses.

That's shifting the burden of proof as you well know. You've made the claims so you are required to provide the proof. I'm agnostic, I do my best to not claim to know what I don't know, and so aren't responsible for proving or disproving the existence of gods.

You're the atheist so you have to disprove the existence of god(s).

TomK - Ironyak keeps arguing that maybe nature is evil
I never argued that nature is evil - I asked you if it is, as it also causes destruction and suffering, which is why you're claiming some gods and goddess are evil. If that's all it takes to be evil then much of the known world is evil which seems like a strange view point coming from a scientist.

TomK - but if it's controlled by omnipotent gods, surely they can prevent natural disasters - unless they don't want to.
I don't pretend to know the minds of gods or presume to know what they can or can't do.

TomK - Logically, if gods exist and they let horrible things happen on Earth and make people suffer, then they are either evil, irelevant or don't exist.
Which is it? Are you hanging up your "gods don't exist atheism" and adopting a new "all gods suck cynical polytheism"? ;)

[TomK]

You're the atheist so you have to disprove the existence of god(s).

That ends the conversation for me. I thought you claimed you have scientific training? That is not part of the scientific method, never has been and never will. It's medieval logic at best. Do I also need to prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?

[ironyak]

TomK - I think there is no god because there is no evidence that shows one exists.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan

You might want to go back and read his books and notice how careful Sagan was with his language to avoid making claims he could not support or prove.

TomK - Do I also need to prove that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?
If you claim it doesn't exist, then you would need to prove that claim. Maybe best to just say you don't know if it does or does not exist as that seems to be the truth.

You might want to spend some time and think about MyManao's post and try to answer why you insist on making claims you can't support or prove, going on and on "for reams and reams of posts.. ad nauseam. Why?" The Why part seems particularly interesting as to coming to an understanding of why people might choose to believe the things they do and the roles those beliefs play in their lives.

[TomK]

Proof is for mathematicians and courts. It's not part of the scientific method.

[MyManao]

Proof is for mathematicians and courts. It's not part of the scientific method.

Obfuscation

And to think, it was your ridiculous picking on Rob that started it all. You asked for it and you can't take it when it's handed to you on a silver platter. You're not a scientist, you're a joke.