The confusion about faith (Islamic, Vatican, difference, best)
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.
Well first off, belief is not a claim. So it would be unreasonable to demand substantiation of either claim ("there is a god" or "there isn't a god") if someone merely believes these things. But secondly, there are indeed plenty of atheists (especially anti-theists) who've expressed both belief and the claim that god is a delusion, doesn't exist, etc. And those people have just as much a burden of proof as any theist claiming the opposite. This is magnified when the person is intolerant of the opposite view, and actively opposing it. They'd better have good reasons for doing so. And so far, the anti-theist, like the religious extremist, hasn't been able to give any.
According to you, who has simply been denying everything. The two claims are different. The non -existence of something does not have to be proved. The claim that something exists requires validation. The burden of proof falls on the claim that something exists, every time. Your suggestion that expressing intolerance of a claim that something exists is quite irrelevant to the logic of the situation. I might just as well argue that the God -claim is rendered more illogical because of the hostility displayed by Christianity towards atheism. It's nothing to do with the argument.
Quote:
To me, the parody is only a bit more "ridiculous" than saying I'm a Christian because I defend theism against rabid internet anti-theists.
And I've had some experience with anti-theists who cannot refute my arguments and so launch personal attacks on me instead.
No, you just keep lying and ignoring when I do. I do not believe in any gods. There it is again, for your ignoring pleasure.
Lol, just as it meant "I do not believe in any gods" when I said "I'm an atheist"
What can I say, get off the internet every now and then and in the real world. Atheists are not typically anti-theists, nor do we typically agree with anti-theist views.
gain, your thinking is all askew. It was entirely reasonable to suppose that you were a Christian, because of your arguing methods, which are, I can assure you a perfect match for someone who is arguing for a Faith -based point of view. That you said specifically that you do not believe in any gods, puts the matter to bed. I'm still astonished at how well you mimic a theist apologist, and the supposition that you were was quite reasonable. Don't try to wangle any cheap points about confounding us with your declaration of unbelief in any gods.
Well first off, belief is not a claim. So it would be unreasonable to demand substantiation of either claim ("there is a god" or "there isn't a god") if someone merely believes these things. But secondly, there are indeed plenty of atheists (especially anti-theists) who've expressed both belief and the claim that god is a delusion, doesn't exist, etc. And those people have just as much a burden of proof as any theist claiming the opposite. This is magnified when the person is intolerant of the opposite view, and actively opposing it. They'd better have good reasons for doing so. And so far, the anti-theist, like the religious extremist, hasn't been able to give any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
According to you, who has simply been denying everything. The two claims are different. The non -existence of something does not have to be proved. The claim that something exists requires validation. The burden of proof falls on the claim that something exists, every time. Your suggestion that expressing intolerance of a claim that something exists is quite irrelevant to the logic of the situation. I might just as well argue that the God -claim is rendered more illogical because of the hostility displayed by Christianity towards atheism. It's nothing to do with the argument.
You deliberately ignored the assertion that they are NOT CLAIMS if they merely believe them. A CLAIM about the non-existence of something DOES have to be proved especially when "We truly do NOT know." When we truly do not know, it means there is a legitimate question about the existence that precludes a casual dismissal. But proof does NOT apply to a mere BELIEF in EITHER the non-existence or the existence of something. You and your cohort illegitimately try to hijack the default by presumption which essentially makes your belief a CLAIM that does require proof in the presence of genuine ignorance of the true state. Vic has tried numerous times to try to expose your presumptions about this and other issues but your philosophical naivete' seems to have prevented you and the others from even recognizing the presumptions.
You deliberately ignored the assertion that they are NOT CLAIMS if they merely believe them. A CLAIM about the non-existence of something DOES have to be proved especially when "We truly do NOT know." When we truly do not know, it means there is a legitimate question about the existence that precludes a casual dismissal. But proof does NOT apply to a mere BELIEF in EITHER the non-existence or the existence of something. You and your cohort illegitimately try to hijack the default by presumption which essentially makes your belief a CLAIM that does require proof in the presence of genuine ignorance of the true state. Vic has tried numerous times to try to expose your presumptions about this and other issues but your philosophical naivete' seems to have prevented you and the others from even recognizing the presumptions.
I agree. But the point about theistic Faith - and you surely know this as well as I do - that it is Gnostic Faith - they KNOW that a god exists, not merely sure on the evidence as is the case with atheists and their disbelief,
but an absolute knowledge that comes from a conviction that God hath put this knowledge into their heads.
Even short of that, seeing it as anb evidential probability, logically a claim for the existence of an entity requires demonstration. Not accepting the claim does not (at best, in fairness, reasons not to accept the claim). You ought to know this as basic logic, but apparently you do not.
All anyone can do is exercise all possible due diligence in deciding whether any God exists. I decide what constitutes the best evidence and arguments and then reason my way to a position, yes or no. Belief can be as informed and rational as unbelief, although the believer and unbeliever may strongly disagree. Belief can also be as uninformed and irrational as unbelief.
One form of due diligence is to find out if your faith makes you happy or not. Inspecting a ladder is a case of expecting the worst - to avoid falling and hurting yourself. Turn it around. Inspect the ladder to get a good job done.
One form of due diligence is to find out if your faith makes you happy or not. Inspecting a ladder is a case of expecting the worst - to avoid falling and hurting yourself. Turn it around. Inspect the ladder to get a good job done.
I suppose that anyone's faith - or confidence in their own rightness - can make them 'Happy'. That in itself is well enough and I'm happy to hear that someone is 'Happy' in where they have ended up. But that in itself does not provide the Due Diligence of working out whether they are right. Sometimes that requires them to drop cosy beliefs that they have held, because they no longer seem true.
It's the choice before us all: keep believing what you like to believe, or question it, even if the result dismays.
But secondly, there are indeed plenty of atheists (especially anti-theists) who've expressed both belief and the claim that god is a delusion, doesn't exist, etc. And those people have just as much a burden of proof as any theist claiming the opposite. This is magnified when the person is intolerant of the opposite view, and actively opposing it. They'd better have good reasons for doing so. And so far, the anti-theist, like the religious extremist, hasn't been able to give any.
More rubbish. No, atheists (which includes anti-theists) do not have the burden of proof, because we have already met the burden of proof.
When we go outside, we do not see gods with elephant heads, or monkeys flying on clouds, or people walking on water.
When we look at science, we always find it was never a god that did it. We keep on finding that we do not need a god to explain things.
The fact that there are thousands of god beliefs is evidence that people invent gods.
The fact that those who are desperate to defend their beliefs have to lie, or use fallacies is evidence they have no evidence for their claims.
We have a whole universe of evidence that atheism is most probably true (whether it is or not).
This background knowledge is the evidence for atheism whether an atheist realizes this or not.
THIS is the evidence you assert we do not have.
So the burden of proof IS on the theists for their extraordinary claims. Not lies, not icr.org, not scripture, not repeating refuted arguments over and over, not moving on from refuted arguments as if they have not been refuted, not William Lane Craig and his misrepresentation of cosmology, not fallacies, not inventing excuses about things the theist does not now, not contradictory personal experience, actual credible evidence.
And so far it is the theist who has not been able to give any.
More rubbish. No, atheists (which includes anti-theists) do not have the burden of proof, because we have already met the burden of proof.
When we go outside, we do not see gods with elephant heads, or monkeys flying on clouds, or people walking on water.
When we look at science, we always find it was never a god that did it. We keep on finding that we do not need a god to explain things.
The fact that there are thousands of god beliefs is evidence that people invent gods.
The fact that those who are desperate to defend their beliefs have to lie, or use fallacies is evidence they have no evidence for their claims.
We have a whole universe of evidence that atheism is most probably true (whether it is or not).
This background knowledge is the evidence for atheism whether an atheist realizes this or not.
THIS is the evidence you assert we do not have.
So the burden of proof IS on the theists for their extraordinary claims. Not lies, not icr.org, not scripture, not repeating refuted arguments over and over, not moving on from refuted arguments as if they have not been refuted, not William Lane Craig and his misrepresentation of cosmology, not fallacies, not inventing excuses about things the theist does not now, not contradictory personal experience, actual credible evidence.
And so far it is the theist who has not been able to give any.
You make the same tired claims that other skeptics are doing over and over. You haven't proven anything, but you keep insisting that you have! Do you know how you sound? If you are still arguing over these things, then you haven't done a very good job of doing what you have claimed to have done. This is really old.
You make the same tired claims that other skeptics are doing over and over. You haven't proven anything, but you keep insisting that you have! Do you know how you sound? If you are still arguing over these things, then you haven't done a very good job of doing what you have claimed to have done. This is really old.
You do yourself no favours whatsoever by failing to address our points, but just deny, deprecate and dismiss. Those looking in (that are still capable of rational thought) will not fail to notice that. Nor that the 'atheists denying God are making a 'claim' too' ploy is donkey's years old as is the refutation and also the wearily frequent restatement of the debunked claim.
I might in addition point out to them that, (like all these "Atheism is a Faith" arguments, even if that was the case, it would still be a Faith supported by the better case, while the God -claim is a faith -claim supported by nothing valid.
You make the same tired claims that other skeptics are doing over and over. You haven't proven anything, but you keep insisting that you have! Do you know how you sound? If you are still arguing over these things, then you haven't done a very good job of doing what you have claimed to have done. This is really old.
I know you love your straw men, but straw manning the whole universe?
I am sorry that if you even come close to reality, you will explode in a shower of bovine ordure, but your allergy to uncomfortable facts is your problem, not ours.
I know you love your straw men, but straw manning the whole universe?
I am sorry that if you even come close to reality, you will explode in a shower of bovine ordure, but your allergy to uncomfortable facts is your problem, not ours.
I had another look at the op. The argument was donkey's years old. 'You put faith that a ladder will not collapse'. Ok, these arguments (you have faith that your car will start) may be new to some. So we must be patient. Faith in what is evidenced by repeated experience and reports of reliability (for example, airliners) not to mention some idea of what's the mechanism is a world away from believing something simply because you were told by some religious spokesbod who was told it himself.
Ok, I know that most of our 'knowledge' is secondhand report, so that comes down to how reliable is the Book?
That really is the point of the debate - not the 'philosophy' of belief, which has its' adherents because they think they can bamboozle people by semantic fiddling into doubting that they can rely on anything and thus hope this will make Theistic claims more credible.
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.
