blargh! [Closed]

[Ende]

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.

Strip and prove to me you have no wallet.

[Farnhamia]

? 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.

Really? Everything? *searches under clothes* Hmm ... seems pretty ... ooooh ... physical to me ... I ... I'll be right back.

[Ende]

? 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.

Not sure if troll or just very unfamiliar with religion.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Strip and prove to me you have no wallet.

To continue that line, when you do strip, the theists throw you in jail for public indecency, use it as proof you have no morals and dismiss your argument.

[Norstal]

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.

Strip and prove to me you have no wallet.

:<

[Raeyh]

Really? Everything? *searches under clothes* Hmm ... seems pretty ... ooooh ... physical to me ... I ... I'll be right back.

Wait, are you saying that you believe yourself to be God?

[The Cummunist State]

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?

Alright, using that same analogy, in the court, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, you can either believe they are guilty (theist), they are not guilty (strong atheist who asserts there are no gods) Or, believe it hasn't been proven they are guilty, and therefore, not guilty (weak Atheist who disbelieves.)

It's that simple.

[SD_Film Artists]

? 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.

So you think that a Christian believes that the Abrahamic God and Jesus are merely youthanisms, symbols of the morality that the Bible teaches rather than Jesus being a real person?

[Samuraikoku]

Alright, using that same analogy, in the court, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, you can either believe they are guilty (theist), they are not guilty (strong atheist who asserts there are no gods) Or, believe it hasn't been proven they are guilty, and therefore, not guilty (weak Atheist who disbelieves.)

It's that simple.

Two of those possibilities lead to "not guilty". Doesn't really make a difference.

[Norstal]

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?

Alright, using that same analogy, in the court, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, you can either believe they are guilty (theist), they are not guilty (strong atheist who asserts there are no gods) Or, believe it hasn't been proven they are guilty, and therefore, not guilty (weak Atheist who disbelieves.)

It's that simple.

...What that doesn't make sense. It just means that they're guilty, not guilty, and not guilty.

[Farnhamia]

Really? Everything? *searches under clothes* Hmm ... seems pretty ... ooooh ... physical to me ... I ... I'll be right back.

Wait, are you saying that you believe yourself to be God?

Who would want to be Yahweh?

No, I should have been more clear. You said, "Everything is esoteric and symbolic when you deal with religion." The Abrahamic religions claim to explain how the actual physical world and everything in it was created. I feel pretty physical to myself and yet you said, "Everything is esoteric and symbolic when you deal with religion."

[Aethyopea]

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?

Alright, using that same analogy, in the court, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, you can either believe they are guilty (theist), they are not guilty (strong atheist who asserts there are no gods) Or, believe it hasn't been proven they are guilty, and therefore, not guilty (weak Atheist who disbelieves.)

It's that simple.

Actually, using that analogy in court isn't even allowed. If a lawyer has to prove a negative about his client in court, he can claim Unfair Burden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_burden

[Raeyh]

So you think that a Christian believes that the Abrahamic God and Jesus are merely metaphors, symbols of the morality that the holy books teach rather than Jesus being a real person?

Jesus is a bit confusing because he was both a real person and a metaphor. Certain stories in the Bible actually happened and some are just stories for the sake of explaining. Like I said, it's esoteric.

[The Cummunist State]

Alright, using that same analogy, in the court, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, you can either believe they are guilty (theist), they are not guilty (strong atheist who asserts there are no gods) Or, believe it hasn't been proven they are guilty, and therefore, not guilty (weak Atheist who disbelieves.)

It's that simple.

Two of those possibilities lead to "not guilty". Doesn't really make a difference.

Ugh. You're hopeless.
They both lead to not believing a god exists, the difference is, one is asserting the god doesn't exist, and one disbelieves the god.

[Yahkima]

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.

Yes, but if people had been trying to prove for thousands of years that you do have a wallet without success, that might be fairly compelling evidence that you do not.

You're right that it is hard to prove a negative, and probably impossible when the thing you are disproving is clearly intended to be magical, but that too isn't nothing. Unsatisfiability is, rather than the proof of the strength of an idea, proof of its terrible, strenuous weakness.

And there are still further reasons: Most definitions of gods are contradictory or internally inconsistent. The characteristics of the most popular gods clearly to not fit with the world we live in. And truth claims made by religion, when they can be tested at all, have a very low rate of dependability.

I could go on, but I trust you see my point.

[Norstal]

Two of those possibilities lead to "not guilty". Doesn't really make a difference.

Ugh. You're hopeless.
They both lead to not believing a god exists, the difference is, one is asserting the god doesn't exist, and one disbelieves the god.

See, that just means that they are either atheist or theist. The anti-theist (the one that is asserting that god doesn't exist) is then an atheist as well.

[Samuraikoku]

Ugh. You're hopeless.
They both lead to not believing a god exists, the difference is, one is asserting the god doesn't exist, and one disbelieves the god.

You're not the first one who's told me I'm hopeless.

[SD_Film Artists]

So you think that a Christian believes that the Abrahamic God and Jesus are merely metaphors, symbols of the morality that the holy books teach rather than Jesus being a real person?

Jesus is a bit confusing because he was both a real person and a metaphor. Certainly stories in the Bible actually happened and some are just stories for the sake of explaining. Like I said, it's esoteric.

It's a yes or no question. And if Jesus is too confusing, then lets just say "God". And if you're going to nitpick on "person", then lets just say "being".

[The Cummunist State]

Ugh. You're hopeless.
They both lead to not believing a god exists, the difference is, one is asserting the god doesn't exist, and one disbelieves the god.

See, that just means that they are either atheist or theist. The anti-theist (the one that is asserting that god doesn't exist) is then an atheist as well.

No, anti-theists believe religion shouldn't exist. People who believe there is no god are strong Atheists. The point is, I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of idiots who say they know that a unknowable does not exist. That's logically false and makes us no better than a theist who says "You can't PROVE god doesn't exist, therefore he does."

[Yahkima]

Jesus is a bit confusing because he was both a real person and a metaphor. Certainly stories in the Bible actually happened and some are just stories for the sake of explaining. Like I said, it's esoteric.

It's a yes or no question. And if Jesus is too confusing, then lets just say "God". And if you're going to nitpick on "person", then lets just say "being".

He's clearly trolling you mate, just move on.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's a yes or no question. And if Jesus is too confusing, then lets just say "God". And if you're going to nitpick on "person", then lets just say "being".

He's clearly trolling you mate, just move on.

Indeed.

[Raeyh]

It's a yes or no question. And if Jesus is too confusing, then lets just say "God". And if you're going to nitpick on "person", then lets just say "being".

If religion could be answered with a "yes" or a "no," it would be a science. God is a spirit. That's the only answer I can give you.

[Norstal]

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.

Yes, but if people had been trying to prove for thousands of years that you do have a wallet without success, that might be fairly compelling evidence that you do not.

You're right that it is hard to prove a negative, and probably impossible when the thing you are disproving is clearly intended to be magical, but that too isn't nothing. Unsatisfiability is, rather than the proof of the strength of an idea, proof of its terrible, strenuous weakness.

And there are still further reasons: Most definitions of gods are contradictory or internally inconsistent. The characteristics of the most popular gods clearly to not fit with the world we live in. And truth claims made by religion, when they can be tested at all, have a very low rate of dependability.

I could go on, but I trust you see my point.

I understand your point, but I'm just saying that those who are trying to prove that god doesn't exist is under the same camp as those who simply doesn't believe in a god. They just live in different tents. We're all on the same page here.

[Yahkima]

It's a yes or no question. And if Jesus is too confusing, then lets just say "God". And if you're going to nitpick on "person", then lets just say "being".

If religion could be answered with a "yes" or a "no," it would be a science. God is a spirit. That's the only answer I can give you.

And as I established at the onset of this thread, spirit is code for "doesn't exist."

[Samuraikoku]

No, anti-theists believe religion shouldn't exist. People who believe there is no god are strong Atheists. The point is, I don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of idiots who say they know that a unknowable does not exist. That's logically false and makes us no better than a theist who says "You can't PROVE god doesn't exist, therefore he does."

I don't see how the reasoning is logically false. It can get you acquitted in court.