blargh! [Closed]

[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.

Ah, then I agree.

Sorry about all that.

'T's all good!

[Farnhamia]

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.

I suppose. Sacred music is very nice and I would have no problem going to a church to hear a good performance of Mozart's Requiem, for instance. And prayer, well, it's like meditation, except believers think there's someone on the other end taking notes.

[Raeyh]

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.

I just made a fictional character named Chuck Trieo. That character now exists. You now know about Chuck Trieo. You now about the existence of the fictional character named Chuck Trieo.

[The Cummunist State]

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.

I just made a fictional character named Chuck Trieo. That character now exists. You now know about Chuck Trieo. You now about the existence of the fictional character named Chuck Trieo.

Yeeeah, troll.

[Samuraikoku]

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

I think that's just complicating one's existence. Unless I have evidence that a god exists, then I say it doesn't. I'm an atheist.

[Yahkima]

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.

I'm sure there are, but as we have no way of knowing which religion is the correct one even if one is correct, this would be a fools errand.

I mean, for all we know we ought to be making blood-sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca.

[SD_Film Artists]

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.

I just made a fictional character named Chuck Trieo. That character now exists. You now know about Chuck Trieo. You now about the existence of the fictional character named Chuck Trieo.

When people talk about the existance of God, I don't think they mean a fictional character.

[Raeyh]

When people talk about the existance of God, I don't think they mean a fictional character.

Does it matter? Both fictional characters, dead people, and deities exist only in spirit.

[SD_Film Artists]

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.

I'm sure there are, but as we have no way of knowing which religion is the correct one even if one is correct, this would be a fools errand.

I mean, for all we know we ought to be making blood-sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca.

Well, more a lucky-dip than a fool's errand...

[The Cummunist State]

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

I think that's just complicating one's existence. Unless I have evidence that a god exists, then I say it doesn't. I'm an atheist.

It is simple. There are three positions. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. You believe god doesn't exist, you are asserting that. Assertions need proof. Therefore, you have a burden of proof.

[SD_Film Artists]

When people talk about the existance of God, I don't think they mean a fictional character.

Does it matter? Both fictional characters, dead people, and deities exist only in spirit.

What's your main point? Do you really expect me to explain the difference between a movie character and a worshipped deity?

[Samuraikoku]

It is simple. There are three positions. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. You believe god doesn't exist, you are asserting that. Assertions need proof. Therefore, you have a burden of proof.

I think it's a binary. Either you believe it exists, or you don't believe. I don't believe.

[Yahkima]

I think that's just complicating one's existence. Unless I have evidence that a god exists, then I say it doesn't. I'm an atheist.

It is simple. There are three positions. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. You believe god doesn't exist, you are asserting that. Assertions need proof. Therefore, you have a burden of proof.

Well there are, technically, more positions than that.

I mean, when I think I can get away with it without seeming like I'm being evasive, I like to call myself an Igtheist. Because I don't think it is possible to answer the question without a clear definition.

[The Cummunist State]

It is simple. There are three positions. I'm not sure why you can't understand that. You believe god doesn't exist, you are asserting that. Assertions need proof. Therefore, you have a burden of proof.

I think it's a binary. Either you believe it exists, or you don't believe. I don't believe.

You believe it exists, you disbelieve it, or you believe it doesn't. Are you actually saying no one on earth believes that gods don't exist? I know a few.

[Raeyh]

What's your main point? Do you really expect me to explain the difference between a movie character and a worshipped deity?

The difference being that one is worshiped and one isn't?

[Samuraikoku]

You believe it exists, you disbelieve it, or you believe it doesn't. Are you actually saying no one on earth believes that gods don't exist? I know a few.

I'm one of them, as a matter of fact. Same as Farnhamia explained, until I see and test evidence that a god exists, I'll believe it doesn't.

[The Cummunist State]

You believe it exists, you disbelieve it, or you believe it doesn't. Are you actually saying no one on earth believes that gods don't exist? I know a few.

I'm one of them, as a matter of fact. Same as Farnhamia explained, until I see and test evidence that a god exists, I'll believe it doesn't.

Then you have a burden of proof. You aren't just asserting you don't believe he exists, you are asserting that there is no god or gods.

[Samuraikoku]

Then you have a burden of proof. You aren't just asserting you don't believe he exists, you are asserting that there is no god or gods.

The position's been established, but I still don't believe I have a burden of proof. What is the purpose of proving a God doesn't exist?

[The Cummunist State]

Then you have a burden of proof. You aren't just asserting you don't believe he exists, you are asserting that there is no god or gods.

The position's been established, but I still don't believe I have a burden of proof. What is the purpose of proving a God doesn't exist?

You assert that a god does not exist. You have a burden of proof. You are ASSERTING something, and something asserted requires proof.

[SD_Film Artists]

What's your main point? Do you really expect me to explain the difference between a movie character and a worshipped deity?

The difference being that one is worshiped and one isn't?

? Can you please stick to the topic?

[Yahkima]

I don't think atheists should be so afraid of the burden of proof.

I don't believe fairies exist (the magic kind, not the other kind), this is a positive belief, and I make no apologies for it. Now, as it happens, I'm not sure if I could prove that if for no other reason then it is really hard to prove negatives, but I'm not afraid of being intellectually eviscerated by fairy enthusiasts because at a certain point the persistant lack of evidence on their side becomes a sort of evidence against them; and I think this evidence is compelling.

[The Cummunist State]

I don't think atheists should be so afraid of the burden of proof.

I don't believe fairies exist (the magic kind, not the other kind), this is a positive belief, and I make no apologies for it. Now, as it happens, I'm not sure if I could prove that if for no other reason then it is really hard to prove negatives, but I'm not afraid of being intellectually eviscerated by fairy enthusiasts because at a certain point the persistant lack of evidence on their side becomes a sort of evidence against them; and I think this evidence is compelling.

My problem is, why can us Atheists use "You can't prove your side, so it doesn't exist and I'm right" when Theists can't? It seems like a double standard.

[Norstal]

I don't think atheists should be so afraid of the burden of proof.

I don't believe fairies exist (the magic kind, not the other kind), this is a positive belief, and I make no apologies for it. Now, as it happens, I'm not sure if I could prove that if for no other reason then it is really hard to prove negatives, but I'm not afraid of being intellectually eviscerated by fairy enthusiasts because at a certain point the persistant lack of evidence on their side becomes a sort of evidence against them; and I think this evidence is compelling.

My problem is, why can us Atheists use "You can't prove your side, so it doesn't exist and I'm right" when Theists can't? It seems like a double standard.

Because it logically makes no sense?

If I claim I have no wallet, how the hell am I going to prove to you I have no wallet? I like stripping my clothes down in front of women, but really? That's unreasonable.

[Raeyh]

The difference being that one is worshiped and one isn't?

? Can you please stick to the topic? etc.

That's how spiritualism works, yes. There isn't literally a physical, tangible god in the sky who will do bodily harm to you if you are bad. I don't think anyone believes that to be the case. Everything is esoteric and symbolic when you deal with religion.

[Samuraikoku]

My problem is, why can us Atheists use "You can't prove your side, so it doesn't exist and I'm right" when Theists can't? It seems like a double standard.

Suppose you're in court on a murder charge. The prosecutor doesn't have proof that you were even in the crime scene, should you get convicted?

That's my problem with burden of proof in atheism. How can you prove that something DOESN'T exist?