Atheism

@Jasper10,

Jasper10 wrote:

Why shouldn’t either assertion be made? No proof needs to be given either way.As an individual can only ever hope that there is or isn’t a God no burden of proof is required in any scenario.Everything cancels out in dualistic reasoning.

And you, are an idiot, or acting like one on purpose.

Men.
I've had it with all of you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ok to avoid confusion.I will use the word HOPE in the future.Hope is all anyone has anyway.Hope comes out of the neutralisation of dualistic debates.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I’m trying to explain things to you Frank but you just don’t get it.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Forget proof if you want to know truth.It doesn’t work that way.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Evidence?

The assertion that there is none is a specious argument.
We exist. We know that.
You may say that our existence has been fully explained by science, but you would be stating a simple lie, one that has been repeated so many times that it is now taken as fact. I’d be happy to debate it if any are willing.

How this obvious 'scientific myth' is so easily accepted is totally baffling to me. This Does not prove the existence of God, but to ignore our existence as possible evidence for one smacks of zealotry.

I picked on Edgar here but he is probably the least guilty party.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

The assertion that there is none(evidence) is a specious argument.

.
No, its based on the very rules of evidence because everything you present is pure "hearsay" and inadmissible .

Opposable thumbies
desertification creates adapting to savannh life
walking upright and cursory language
controlling fire weapons and hunting in teams
cooking food and encampments of groups
gathering becomes settlements and ag
art of animals
art of deities
along with the art,(early Mousterian) we make up stories explaining our existence , we seem to start with animism and then proceed toward more complex stories finally creating a pay grade for shaman and priests.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

There is no burden on anyone to provide proof.Why bother putting the burden of proof on a believer or an unbeliever to provide evidence that God exists or not when you know that they can’t provide that evidence .When we look within there is a similar battle going on if agreement either way has not been made.We can only hope that there is or isn’t a God.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

Given that you believe that everything in the bible is literally true do you agree it's providential you don't require any evidence.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

No, its based on the very rules of evidence because everything you present is pure "hearsay" and inadmissible .

All I’ve asserted in this sub-thread is that I, and presumably you, exist, without a full explanation . No one had to tell me or anyone else the truth of that and no real scientist would disagree (at least Not on scientific grounds).

And, we all get to form our own rules of evidence on this subject. We're not on trial here. This is not the Salem witch trials. Yet.

Quote:

we seem to start with animism and then proceed toward more complex stories finally creating a pay grade for shaman and priests.

Don’t forget the stories of our emerging from 'warm puddles or undersea hydrothermal vents'. Not to mention all those 'scientists' who will tell you with a straight face that they are certain that life exists elsewhere in the universe, a claim which is totally devoid of any kind of evidence. (Amino acids from space is not evidence of life)

But please clarify. I asserted that science has not fully explained our existence and any claim to the contrary is a simple lie. Do you or do you not refute that assertion?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

if you first try to sound serious and then get flippant, its nothing gained on my behalf. Youve already made your point of evasion and denial.
It actually IS a trial because much of the stuff you profess to be real, stands ready to supplant good science.

Science will probably remain incomplete in our understandings of lots of data and evidence, but its done with rules and precedent. I dont see anything but attempts at word and quote mining and baseless mottos that dress the other sides views.
For example, how does the "complexity" of the world have anything to do with anything. We see the results of biological changes in our own lifetimes and yet the religious "Scientists" only deny the interrelationships of life to the worlds environments , climate, and human interactions in order to keep their hypotheses "untouched" by facts

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

If you assert there may be gods you need proof. Accepting the invisible as real puts the burden of proof on the ones on the side of invisibility.

The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion.

My assertion essentially is actually twofold: The reality MAY BE that there is at least one god...and, the reality MAY BE that there are no gods.

How can you ask for proof of that?

You, on the other hand, assert THERE ARE NO GODS.

And you are denying that you bear a burden of proof?

I am suggest that the assertion THERE ARE NO GODS bears as much a burden of proof as the assertion THERE IS A GOD.

What are you thinking about, Edgar. You are more intelligent than this?

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I certainly do not want this conversation with Edgar or Farmerman.

I want the conversation to be reasonable and courteous.

So then ******* stop addressing people you don't want to have a conversation with.

The ship as sailed for any of this to be reasonable and courteous.

If you were either, you'd just STFU about it already, and stop subjecting everyone to this crap.

You're all like a bunch of little boys.

The bottom line is, if you didn't have this record on repeat going, you'd have nothing to say at all.

Christ.

With a post like this, Chai, you show that you have as much right to lecture me on how to be courteous as Chris Christie has of lecturing me on staying slim.

If you do not like what I have to say...don't read my posts.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

My question to you required only a simple yes or no answer.
Anything else is just evasion.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Your assertion is that I ought to consider the possibility there are these invisible things. You crouch it in weael language like a kid setting a rabbit trap, but the meaning is transparent to any who read. There =fore, your assertion requires some proof.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Your assertion is that I ought to consider the possibility there are these invisible things. You crouch it in weael language like a kid setting a rabbit trap, but the meaning is transparent to any who read. There =fore, your assertion requires some proof.

NO, Edgar.

Your assertion bear the burden of proof.

My assertion is that either exists or doesn't...does not.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You say nothing may be something, while I maintain that nothing is nothing. Which makes you liable to put up or shut up.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

You say nothing may be something, while I maintain that nothing is nothing. Which makes you liable to put up or shut up.

Edgar...your argument fails on two points.

One...to suppose that the only things that exist are things that humans** can perceive...is an absurdity.

Two...if I were to say, "Either there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...or there are not....

...and you were saying, "There are no sentient beings living on any of those planets"....

...which would bear a burden of proof?

C'mon. By this time you have to realize you are wrong on this issue.

Don't even concede it if it bothers you too much to do so...but don't pursue it.

***Humans: The currently dominant life species on this nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a relatively nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies of which we humans are aware.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Stick to the subject, dude. We both acknowledge that neither of us is all-knowing. Now, how about addressing, is nothing nothing or is it not? If it is not I rest my case.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Now that that is straightened out, I will back off from these fruitless conversations, unless you directly address me. If you do, not having evidence from you will disqualify the post from an answer.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Stick to the subject, dude. We both acknowledge that neither of us is all-knowing. Now, how about addressing, is nothing nothing or is it not? If it is not I rest my case.

If there is a god...one of two possibilities...it is not nothing.

If things exist that humans cannot perceive...they still exist.

Stop this nonsense, Edgar.

You know you are wrong here.

There is nothing whatever wrong with being an atheist...or a theist for that matter.

But what you are arguing here...is nonsense.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know