Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're joking right? Read a grammar book, there is your evidence. Also, I am yet to receive any evidence at all from any atheist.
Yeah, as I thought. You expect atheists to provide airtight 100% certain proof otherwise they;re just speculating but you can't do the same about anything you're claiming. That's because your hyper-skeptical standards are crazy ... no one uses them and it's just a ruse to try and make it seem as if atheists are doing something strange by not believing in something when there's absolutely no reason to believe. All of this "it's faith" is just special pleading - apply the same standards to anything other than god and you think it's a joke. No, the joke is that believers think that god is so fragile that he needs special rules since he can't live up to the standards of evidence which real stuff has no problem reaching.
Indeed given there is no evidence on the subject to discuss at all, we are ALL "just speculating". The difference is that one group wants their speculations pandered to as if real while the other sees no reason to treat them as real, valid, admissible or even credible.
Conversations about who has 100% proof or who is speculating and who is not simply obfuscates the real issue which is that in a world FULL of unsubstantiated claims people want THEIR unsubstantiated claims pandered to and not those of others. Based on what, I simply do not know.
But I also say that claims that are entirely devoid of evidence should not be used in our halls of power and should in fact be resisted there.
I agree with you on this.
Quote:
"The idea there is a non human intelligence responsible for the creation and / or maintenance of our universe is entirely unsubstantiated and so the idea is dismissed and I proceed entirely without it".
And that is fine. But you expect others to do the same. People have the right to believe or not, you have no say in it. Belief is not a sign of weakness or level of intelligence. This is when faith steps in, you do not have faith, so you don't believe. Cool, leave it at that. Some people do have faith, so they believe, no harm done here. The only time anyone should fight against the application of faith is when it is in schools, and halls of power. If you want to shout your belief or non-belief from a rooftop, I could care less. I start caring when you start throwing things, or people off that rooftop. In my book, if you aren't doing harm, or endorsing it, you are doing good. Good is the default position.
Yeah, as I thought. You expect atheists to provide airtight 100% certain proof otherwise they;re just speculating but you can't do the same about anything you're claiming.
Whomever makes the first claim, must provide the proof. Nozz, says people don't do good because of religion, as people can also do good without it. Then says any harm done, therefore makes it overall bad. This statement is pointless and without evidence. If it can't be cause for good, then it can't be cause for harm, as people cause harm without it. I ask for proof of this and I get circular arguments. A few other posters have made the same argument, but for some reason cannot provide any data to support their claim.
Quote:
And what are you expecting evidence of?
Of any and all claims that religion has no purpose. That it does not do good and only harm, that it is not a neurological function of the brain used to cope with.
Quote:
Do unicorns exist?
I don't know. And this is what I mean. You avoid the question because any way you answer it would be on faith. You can't answer it with a simple yes, no, or I don't know(maybe). You either A) avoid answering the question by posing another question. B) Point out a character flaw of the person asking the question. C) Just ignore it completely. I will ask again.
Without explanation of your answer, Does God exist?
...To say, "God does not exist." even if you actually mean you aren't 100% sure god does not exist. Is making up a claim based on nothing. So the onus is on you to substantiate the claim. So without evidence you claim can be dismissed without evidence...
Again, this is what kills me about most theists. Can you explain why the belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator should be the default position of ANY logical person, where there is no evidence to indicate such a being?
I can't *prove* the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist either. However, with no evidence to indicate that it does, in fact, exist - I certainly won't assume that it does. Fractured, would agree with this? If so, why would this not also apply to gods?
No theist on this forum, at least as far as I've seen, has attempted to explain this apparent contradiction.
Whomever makes the first claim, must provide the proof. Nozz, says people don't do good because of religion, as people can also do good without it. Then says any harm done, therefore makes it overall bad. This statement is pointless and without evidence. If it can't be cause for good, then it can't be cause for harm, as people cause harm without it. I ask for proof of this and I get circular arguments. A few other posters have made the same argument, but for some reason cannot provide any data to support their claim...
Wrong. The person making the *positive* claim needs to evidence it. Being "first" has nothing, whatever, to do with it.
Again, this is what kills me about most theists. Can you explain why the belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator should be the default position of ANY logical person, where there is no evidence to indicate such a being?
I can't *prove* the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist either. However, with no evidence to indicate that it does, in fact, exist - I certainly won't assume that it does. Fractured, would agree with this? If so, why would this not also apply to gods?
No theist on this forum, at least as far as I've seen, has attempted to explain this apparent contradiction.
Care to give it a try?
I am not saying it is the default position. The default position would be to say, "I don't know."
Wrong. The person making the *positive* claim needs to evidence it. Being "first" has nothing, whatever, to do with it.
The default position is agnosticism or to say, I don't know. So if you tip the scale in either direction, the onus is on you to prove why you tipped the scale.
So to say something doesn't exist is also making a positive claim. The only standpoint that does is not required to prove anything is the default position of "I don't know."
Indeed given there is no evidence on the subject to discuss at all, we are ALL "just speculating". The difference is that one group wants their speculations pandered to as if real while the other sees no reason to treat them as real, valid, admissible or even credible.
Conversations about who has 100% proof or who is speculating and who is not simply obfuscates the real issue which is that in a world FULL of unsubstantiated claims people want THEIR unsubstantiated claims pandered to and not those of others. Based on what, I simply do not know.
Atheists and theists both want their speculations pandered to as if real, both are without evidence to prove either standpoint. Atheism(in the argument of god) is not the standpoint of "I don't know." It is the standpoint of "NO." agnosticism is the standpoint of "I don't know." Theism is the standpoint of, "Yes."
The default position is agnosticism or to say, I don't know. So if you tip the scale in either direction, the onus is on you to prove why you tipped the scale.
So to say something doesn't exist is also making a positive claim. The only standpoint that does is not required to prove anything is the default position of "I don't know."
You can say it as many times as you like, but, in real life, the person making the positive assertion has to provide the proof. It's well known that you can't prove a negative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
