blargh! [Closed]

[Samuraikoku]

I didn't say you have a infinite number of beliefs. I said that you have no belief on it. And if you believe there is no santa, you have a burden of proof as well as a person who does believe it.

Why do I need a burden of proof to NOT believe?

[Farnhamia]

Why not? It doesn't matter if you believe in the numerous holy scriptures about the existence of gods, why can't you study them? Then you wouldn't be so unknowlegable.

For the love of Sagan--
YOU CAN'T KNOW IF THEY EXIST. UNKNOWABLE. It doesn't matter if you know all about them and everything they taught, they are unknowables.

It's like the poet, Donald Rumsfeld wrote,

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

Raeyh, it's not about the information available about god or gods. Certainly you can learn that. An agnostic says, "The truth about whether these deities exit is unknown or unknowable, therefore I cannot say whether they exist or not." Nothing to do with scripture, which obviously does exist.

[DaWoad]

YOU CAN'T KNOW IF THEY EXIST. UNKNOWABLE. It doesn't matter if you know all about them and everything they taught, they are unknowables.

I'm fairly certain the aforementioned holy scriptures do exist and you can be knowledgeable about them.

sure, that doesn't give you any knowledge about the existence of god/gods however.

[Yahkima]

This is true, but sort of misses the point.

I mean, I don't believe in Santa Claus for the same reason, or fairies, or whatever other mythological thing you could think of.

Here is where it gets tricky though, suppose I had never heard of Santa (unthinkable I know, but suppose.) I would still lack belief in him, but obviously I would have no positive disbelief in his person either. You could still, I suppose, say that I believe there is no Santa, but then there are a potentially infinite number of similar mythological beings that I might not know about either, and how does it make sense that I have an infinite number of beliefs which are unknown to me?

I didn't say you have a infinite number of beliefs. I said that you have no belief on it. And if you believe there is no santa, you have a burden of proof as well as a person who does believe it.

I put it to you and to everyone else that the null hypothesis is the default position, and that the null hypothesis here is that there is no Santa.

It is unreasonable to demand of people that they prove a negative.

[The Cummunist State]

I didn't say you have a infinite number of beliefs. I said that you have no belief on it. And if you believe there is no santa, you have a burden of proof as well as a person who does believe it.

Why do I need a burden of proof to NOT believe?

You have a burden of proof if you believe something. If you believe something does not exist, you have a burden of proof just like the Theists claiming it does exist. Regular disbelief has no burden of proof, since it only represents the lack of you being convinced it does or does not.

[Yahkima]

YOU CAN'T KNOW IF THEY EXIST. UNKNOWABLE. It doesn't matter if you know all about them and everything they taught, they are unknowables.

I'm fairly certain the aforementioned holy scriptures do exist and you can be knowledgeable about them.

Only if they really exist, which, as per the agnostic position, you cannot know.

[The Cummunist State]

YOU CAN'T KNOW IF THEY EXIST. UNKNOWABLE. It doesn't matter if you know all about them and everything they taught, they are unknowables.

I'm fairly certain the aforementioned holy scriptures do exist and you can be knowledgeable about them.

You're either not listening or a troll.
We are talking about the existence of gods, not little fairytale books made by sand people.

[Raeyh]

We are talking about the existence of gods, not little fairytale books made by sand people.

You know about the existence of gods, though. Someone people obviously believe in them and you know of this belief. By examining these beliefs you learn more about the existence of the gods. How much more knowledge do you want, a personal interview with a god?

[The Cummunist State]

You know about the existence of gods, though. Someone people obviously believe in them and you know of this belief. By examining these beliefs you learn more about the existence of the gods. How much more knowledge do you want, a personal interview with a god?

That would be nice, yes.
And no matter how many people believe something, it has no effect on whether it is true.

[Ende]

You know about the existence of gods, though. Someone people obviously believe in them and you know of this belief. By examining these beliefs you learn more about the existence of the gods. How much more knowledge do you want, a personal interview with a god?

Not sure if troll or just confused.

[Samuraikoku]

You have a burden of proof if you believe something. If you believe something does not exist, you have a burden of proof just like the Theists claiming it does exist. Regular disbelief has no burden of proof, since it only represents the lack of you being convinced it does or does not.

I must disagree. I don't believe there's a God, it's up to someone to demonstrate me that they do exist.

[SD_Film Artists]

You know about the existence of gods, though. Someone people obviously believe in them and you know of this belief. By examining these beliefs you learn more about the existence of the gods. How much more knowledge do you want, a personal interview with a god?

Existence of the bible and other holy books =/= existence of gods. They're not the same thing.

[The Cummunist State]

You have a burden of proof if you believe something. If you believe something does not exist, you have a burden of proof just like the Theists claiming it does exist. Regular disbelief has no burden of proof, since it only represents the lack of you being convinced it does or does not.

I must disagree. I don't believe there's a God, it's up to someone to demonstrate me that they do exist.

You obviously don't understand. If you actively believe there is no god, it does not exist, you have a burden of proof. If you actively believe there is a god, it does exist, you have a burden of proof.
If you disbelieve he exists, you have no burden of proof.

[The Blaatschapen]

For the love of Sagan--
YOU CAN'T KNOW IF THEY EXIST. UNKNOWABLE. It doesn't matter if you know all about them and everything they taught, they are unknowables.

It's like the poet, Donald Rumsfeld wrote,

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

Raeyh, it's not about the information available about god or gods. Certainly you can learn that. An agnostic says, "The truth about whether these deities exit is unknown or unknowable, therefore I cannot say whether they exist or not." Nothing to do with scripture, which obviously does exist.

I wonder if there are Agnostics out there who pray sometimes. Or go to church(or synagogue, mosque, etc.) sometimes, because according to them the possibility exists that God exists. Or if they pretty much just live like Atheists.

[The Cummunist State]

It's like the poet, Donald Rumsfeld wrote,



Raeyh, it's not about the information available about god or gods. Certainly you can learn that. An agnostic says, "The truth about whether these deities exit is unknown or unknowable, therefore I cannot say whether they exist or not." Nothing to do with scripture, which obviously does exist.

I wonder if there are Agnostics out there who pray sometimes. Or go to church(or synagogue, mosque, etc.) sometimes, because according to them the possibility exists that God exists. Or if they pretty much just live like Atheists.

Depends on whether they are a Agnostic Theist or a Agnostic Atheist.

[Raeyh]

And no matter how many people believe something, it has no effect on whether it is true.

If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth. History is based on lies.

If you don't accept that, how can you learn anything? I can just see you second guessing whether the numbers in math problems really exist or not.

[The Cummunist State]

And no matter how many people believe something, it has no effect on whether it is true.

If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth. History is based on lies.

If you don't accept that, how can you learn anything? I can just see you second guessing whether the numbers in math problems really exist or not.

Okay. I'll take your logic then.
Goddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texist.

God now does not exist. Any more questions?
Yeah, no. No matter how many people believe something, no matter how strongly, it has no effect on the truth.

[Raeyh]

Okay. I'll take your logic then.
Goddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texist.

God now does not exist. Any more questions?
Yeah, no. No matter how many people believe something, no matter how strongly, it has no effect on the truth.

You didn't repeat it enough times. You need to do it for at least one generation for it to have any effect.

[Ende]

And no matter how many people believe something, it has no effect on whether it is true.

If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth. History is based on lies.

If you don't accept that, how can you learn anything? I can just see you second guessing whether the numbers in math problems really exist or not.

If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth.

Ahem.

I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post I did not just post.

No. That doesn't mean I didn't post. I posted, and that is a FACT. <facepalm>

Even if a whole generation said that I didn't post, the truth is that I posted.

[Samuraikoku]

I must disagree. I don't believe there's a God, it's up to someone to demonstrate me that they do exist.

You obviously don't understand. If you actively believe there is no god, it does not exist, you have a burden of proof. If you actively believe there is a god, it does exist, you have a burden of proof.
If you disbelieve he exists, you have no burden of proof.

And what's the difference in believing it doesn't exist and disbelieving it exists?

[Yahkima]

And no matter how many people believe something, it has no effect on whether it is true.

If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth. History is based on lies.

I'm a Historian. This is a real problem, but it is very hard to get away with lying. We have ways of catching you.

Anyone can say, for instance, that an army of 600,000 armed men and their families wandered for 40 years in the Sinai all they like, but when archaeological evidence says that this did not and could not have happened, we know fairly quickly who is telling the truth.

[SD_Film Artists]

Okay. I'll take your logic then.
Goddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texist.

God now does not exist. Any more questions?
Yeah, no. No matter how many people believe something, no matter how strongly, it has no effect on the truth.

You didn't repeat it enough times. You need to do it for at least one generation for it to have any effect.

We're not talking about politics (which I think your qoute was a commentary on- the use and abuse of lies on the masses). We're talking about religion. The fact that a bible exists doesn't necessarily mean that god exists. You seem to be pretty hung-up on this "learnt vs unlearnt" thing; it's causing you to miss the point entirely.

[The Cummunist State]

Okay. I'll take your logic then.
Goddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texistGoddoesn'texist.

God now does not exist. Any more questions?
Yeah, no. No matter how many people believe something, no matter how strongly, it has no effect on the truth.

You didn't repeat it enough times. You need to do it for at least one generation for it to have any effect.

[Yahkima]

I must disagree. I don't believe there's a God, it's up to someone to demonstrate me that they do exist.

You obviously don't understand. If you actively believe there is no god, it does not exist, you have a burden of proof. If you actively believe there is a god, it does exist, you have a burden of proof.
If you disbelieve he exists, you have no burden of proof.

Ah, then I agree.

Sorry about all that.

[The Cummunist State]

You obviously don't understand. If you actively believe there is no god, it does not exist, you have a burden of proof. If you actively believe there is a god, it does exist, you have a burden of proof.
If you disbelieve he exists, you have no burden of proof.

And what's the difference in believing it doesn't exist and disbelieving it exists?

The difference is that believing it doesn't exist is asserting something, and disbelieving is just showing you are not convinced it does.