Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

No...I never ever have said that. You are free to check the thousands of posts here and at the other sites where I post...and you will never see that said by me.

I have said: If you make a negative assertion...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you.

If you choose to make a negative assertion...then, YES, the burden of proof falls on you. You are not required to make the negative assertion...and you should not make the negative assertion if you cannot assume the burden of proof.

That is why I stay away from negative assertions.

You really are easy, Jimmy. You gotta work on your game.

Now...let's see if you have the spine to acknowledge that you are wrong.

You are incorrect.

It is YOUR job to prove that god DOES exist. It's not my job to disprove his existence.

Quote:

No...I never ever have said that. You are free to check the thousands of posts here and at the other sites where I post...and you will never see that said by me.

I have said: If you make a negative assertion...the burden of proof for that assertion falls on you.

If you choose to make a negative assertion...then, YES, the burden of proof falls on you. You are not required to make the negative assertion...and you should not make the negative assertion if you cannot assume the burden of proof.

That is why I stay away from negative assertions.

You really are easy, Jimmy. You gotta work on your game.

Now...let's see if you have the spine to acknowledge that you are wrong.

There is no burden of proof on a negative assertion (as I've demonstrated for you with countless ridiculous assertions in which you could not disprove, such as the unicorns).

Why you're not even willing to accept that I've clearly shown that you're ridiculous is beyond me. I thought you elderly were supposed to be full of wisdom.

But if you are going to assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are...the burden of proof does fall on you, Jimmy.

C'mon...give it a try. Let's hear your numbers.

Oh...so all you have to do is make a statement sound like it is in negative form...and it has to be accepted.

So if a theists said to you: There can be no universe without a GOD to create it"...

...you would just accept it?

C'mon, Jimmy. You are making this way too easy.

Slow down...and think things through...or you are going to look even sillier than you are now.

Quote:

But if you are going to assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are...the burden of proof does fall on you, Jimmy.

C'mon...give it a try. Let's hear your numbers.

Incorrect again. Burden of proof does not fall on me any more than it would fall on me if I said that the flying noodle monster doesn't exist.

Do you think the flying noodle monster exists?

Quote:

Oh...so all you have to do is make a statement sound like it is in negative form...and it has to be accepted.

So if a theists said to you: There can be no universe without a GOD to create it"...

...you would just accept it?

C'mon, Jimmy. You are making this way too easy.

Slow down...and think things through...or you are going to look even sillier than you are now.

There is no such thing as a "negative form". It's either positive or negative. If it's negative, the job is on the positive end of discussion to prove it.

The only person thinking I look silly is you (hence why you don't have any support on any of these threads). Your point of view is just ridiculous. I mean, I can do this all year, but you should really consider bettering yourself by learning a thing or two.

If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

You may not want to bear that burden...but it is there.

Here is a quote from Richard Carrier...an atheist and a blogger on philosophy:

As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum).

So I think you are wrong in that assertion up above.

I will be here for as long as you are. You will not tire me. Golf or Poker may intrude...but I will be here.

Quote:

If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

You may not want to bear that burden...but it is there.

Incorrect. Answer the question please.

Quote:

Here is a quote from Richard Carrier...an atheist and a blogger on philosophy:

As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa. Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum).

So I think you are wrong in that assertion up above.

"no things" is something?
That's absurd. You act as though because an atheist said it that I will somehow accept something that is completely ridiculous. lol

Quote:

I will be here for as long as you are. You will not tire me. Golf or Poker may intrude...but I will be here.

Really? I'm pretty sure you'll be dead long before I am (and I have no good reason to believe you'll be alive in any form after your death. Satisfied, Fil Albuquerque?)

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

You may not want to bear that burden...but it is there.


Incorrect. Answer the question please.


If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

If you are not ethical enough to acknowledge that...you've got major problems.

Quote:

JimmyJ wrote:

Quote:
If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

You may not want to bear that burden...but it is there.


Incorrect. Answer the question please.


If you make an assertion...the burden of proof for the assertion falls on you.

If you are not ethical enough to acknowledge that...you've got major problems.

Burden of proof does not fall upon the negative.
Answer the question. This is maybe the 4th question I've asked that you've avoided and refused to answer.

I've already answered the question.

And the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the assertion.

Quote:

I've already answered the question.

And the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the assertion.

The question was: Do you believe the flying noodle monster exists?

You never answered that question. Answer it please.

And no, that's only if the assertion is positive.

No, I do not "believe" the flying noodle monster exists.

Quote:

No, I do not "believe" the flying noodle monster exists.

Your evidence?