Atheism

@rosborne979,

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Maybe the god botherers get hysterical about Dawkins because they think they can take him, so to speak.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

No because the Question would be if some one asked me about god(s)" where is the evidence for this god(s)?
let not shift the burden

What "burden," Arg? The burden of supplying empirical proof of things that are, by virtual definition, not susceptible of such proof? Anything that is "supernatural" is, by definition, not capable of being explained by naturalistic methodology.

The old "argument from ignorance" fallacy is often summarized as follows: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. To claim otherwise is to fall victim to fallacious thinking.

Neither side here, atheist or theist can "prove" his argument by resort to empirical evidence. If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, then the "atheist" belief falls by the same sword.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah. Pay me no mind when I speak out against trolling the thread. It's okay to be a bastard about it, because Ed's just a crank.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Ionus wrote:
Actually I am agnostic . Only foolish people claim to be an atheist because it means they can prove God doesnt exist .

This is utterly false, and something which has happened repeatedly in this thread, and which has been commented on repeatedly. There are many types of atheists, and many observers estimate (without knowing to a certainty) that the majority are implicit atheists. They don't know that there is no god, they just don't believe it. I suspect that many of them, like me, don't care, either. The overwhelming majority of atheists i have encountered in my life are in this category. They have no burden of proof.

The only ones with a burden of proof are people who make up gods and try to push them on others.

0 Replies

@argome321,

And what do you 'know' about the giant flying spaghetti monster?

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

You still haven't really addressed the question I tried to ask, Arg. Do you think there is any significant difference, anything at all worth acknowledging, between the views of a guy who is 99.9999999999% sure that THERE IS NO GOD, and those of a guy who is 99.9999999999% sure that THERE IS A GOD? I do.

But it has been answered, it was answered before you asked the question and after you asked the question, it is explicit in the definitions I gave you, You either don't understand or don't wan to understand. But hat's up to you, I would only be repeating myself .

As long as you treat believing and knowing as separate entities you have your answer...meaning any combination is viable to that person. They may be uncomfortable..but. the only time I can think that it is significant is how goes about his business. Is the guy who is 99. etc sure that there is a god preaching and trying to force his belief on others? is that what is belief teaches him? Does he fly a plane into a building?

Is it a question of morality? What's his out look on life...either one of them. I would say you would get your answers through their actions.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Maybe the god botherers get hysterical about Dawkins because they think they can take him, so to speak.

Dawkins is the kind of guy who says "you're wrong and here's why". Harris doesn't bother telling his opponents they're wrong, he just goes straight to making them look like fools. It's no wonder they would rather pick on Dawkins.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And what do you 'know' about the giant flying spaghetti monster?

I was going to comment on this hackneyed cliché too, but I wanted to wait until Arg answered Frank's question. To even make such a comparison between that and some sublime concept of "god" (like, perhaps, Jefferson, Newton, and Einstein had, for example) is simply silly. Caricatures are easy to argue against, but it's hardly persuasive when someone "defeats" it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

As I've said, I see it more as an attempt to create a false dichotomy in order to limit, rather than encourage, true discussion.

Exactly. The spiel is generally put like this here: "Since atheism is a lack of belief in god, atheists have no real (positive) commonalities and thus they don't need a thread such as this one to discuss any atheist stuff".

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

it was answered before you asked the question and after you asked the question, it is explicit in the definitions I gave you, You either don't understand or don't wan to understand...

I think I "understand" your definitions just fine, Arg. But you repeatedly fail to respond to my point. "Definitions," however novel and cunningly calculated, cannot extinguish valid concepts. But you just keep coming back to that, even going so far as to say no discussion can take place unless your definitions are accepted as the basis for discussion.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

What "burden," Arg? The burden of supplying empirical proof of things that are, by virtual definition, not susceptible of such proof? Anything that is "supernatural" is, by definition, not capable of being explained by naturalistic methodology.

The old "argument from ignorance" fallacy is often summarized as follows: Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. To claim otherwise is to fall victim to fallacious thinking.

Neither side here, atheist or theist can "prove" his argument by resort to empirical evidence. If absence of evidence is evidence of absence, then the "atheist" belief falls by the same sword.

Incorrect there's is always a burden of proof by the one making the assertion. you of all people know this. You know this better than most if you believe in the scientific method. Now you want special pleading for god(s)

And if there's none then there is less credence for belief.

Again, if you claim there's is such and such Prove it or I will dismiss it without some semblance of proof or good reason.

If I claim there was a flying spaghetti monster would you think it unfair to ask me to prove it?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And what do you 'know' about the giant flying spaghetti monster?

Nada

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

. You know this better than most if you believe in the scientific method.

The scientific method only applies to scientific matters, I'm afraid.

Quote:

Incorrect there's is always a burden of proof by the one making the assertion.

Really? You are effectively asserting, whether you deny it or not, that there is no god of any conceivable type. Prove it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Quote:
I think I "understand" your definitions just fine, Arg. But you repeatedly fail to respond to my point. "Definitions," however novel and cunningly calculated, cannot extinguish valid concepts. But you just keep coming back to that, even going so far as to say no discussion can take place unless your definitions are accepted as the basis for discussion.

You are right about one thing, this discussion ends here for me not because I want my definition to be accepted but because I have said anything but that, from the very onset I was just trying to find a common ground so the conversation would move on passed this for meaningful dialogue. I'm an atheist others aren't but we are still at the still stuck at the same juncture. So it becomes pointless from here and for me a waste of time.

I ask for evidence and none is given for the proof of god but none is given and the absence of evidence becomes a focal point...Really. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@argome321,

Let’s take this one step at a time…or we are going to get mired in words.

I want to handle this point until it is finally settled…and then move on to the next point.

You wrote:

Quote:

No because the Question would be if some one asked me about god(s)" where is the evidence for this god(s)?
let not shift the burden

The “burden of proof” for ANY assertion, Argome, is on the person who makes the assertion.

You asserted the following:

Quote:

the probability (that there ARE gods) seems minimal.

That is YOUR assertion.

You assume the burden of proof for that assertion. But I am not even asking you for proof…because you CANNOT prove it…I am asking for the evidence upon which you are making the assertion.

You should either acknowledge that the burden exists for you…or withdraw the assertion.

Which is it?

Do you understand that you have the obligation to provide evidence for your assertion?

Or are you going to withdraw the assertion?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Yeah. Pay me no mind when I speak out against trolling the thread. It's okay to be a bastard about it, because Ed's just a crank.

Ummm...that pretty much covers it, Edgar.

Yup.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

So it becomes pointless from here and for me a waste of time.

OK, Arg. Catch ya later. Thanks for the discussion.

1 Reply

@layman,

Don't go away, Layman.

Argome will be back.

This is too good and interesting a discussion for it to be abandoned for now.

2 Replies

@layman,

I said I don't believe in god. I never said there was no god but typically you passed right over that. I said it when I stated that I was an anostic atheist.

Do you want to be honest or be disingenuous... because you know I said that.

the only way to test anything is by the scientific method if you another way to test the natural world let me know. Which raises the question how would know if a supernatural world exist if it didn't react to the natural world and how would you prove that it was supernatural? And if you don't know anything about it isn't that tantamount to nothing since you can't prove it?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

This is too good and interesting a discussion for it to be abandoned for now.

Well, Frank, you and I can keep talking about it if you want, but we'd probably just boringly agree with each other.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know