Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 06:48 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  It boggles my mind that you still don't understand what the burden of proof is, pops. How many years have you been here?
Bout 1

I understand it, I just don't see how it applies in a theistic/ atheistic debate.

So positive claims need verification but negative claims need none... Right?



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 06:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 06:48 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  It boggles my mind that you still don't understand what the burden of proof is, pops. How many years have you been here?
Bout 1

I understand it, I just don't see how it applies in a theistic/ atheistic debate.

So positive claims need verification but negative claims need none... Right?



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt. Saying "prove your god exists" is not the same as "I don't believe a god exists."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
09-10-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 06:59 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 06:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Bout 1

I understand it, I just don't see how it applies in a theistic/ atheistic debate.

So positive claims need verification but negative claims need none... Right?



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt. Saying "prove your god exists" is not the same as "I don't believe a god exists."
I didn't say those were the same. Where did you get that?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:01 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 06:59 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt. Saying "prove your god exists" is not the same as "I don't believe a god exists."
I didn't say those were the same. Where did you get that?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

It's important to understand the difference because one of those statements has the burden of proof and the other doesn't. I'd say lack of any evidence of gods whatsover is sufficient evidence but i know some would disagree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:06 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:01 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I didn't say those were the same. Where did you get that?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

It's important to understand the difference because one of those statements has the burden of proof and the other doesn't. I'd say lack of any evidence of gods whatsover is sufficient evidence but i know some would disagree.
So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 07:23 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:12 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:06 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  It's important to understand the difference because one of those statements has the burden of proof and the other doesn't. I'd say lack of any evidence of gods whatsover is sufficient evidence but i know some would disagree.
So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.

Argumentum ad populum, Argument from popularity - what could possibly go wrong?

Drinking Beverage

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

[Image: bigfoot-625x440.jpg]

[Image: pdY6tpc7Qnum6iXGASIc_img-thing.jpg]

[Image: witch-riding-broomstick.jpg?interpolatio...de%7C660:*]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
09-10-2016, 07:27 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:12 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:06 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  It's important to understand the difference because one of those statements has the burden of proof and the other doesn't. I'd say lack of any evidence of gods whatsover is sufficient evidence but i know some would disagree.
So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Maybe circumstantial evidence, at best. I think its more telling that so many people have believed in gods and yet not a single person has produced any hard evidence. Which shows to me evidence that the human brain is easily deluded, not that gods exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
09-10-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:23 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:12 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.

Argumentum ad populum, Argument from popularity - what could possibly go wrong?

Drinking Beverage

[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

[Image: bigfoot-625x440.jpg]

[Image: pdY6tpc7Qnum6iXGASIc_img-thing.jpg]

[Image: witch-riding-broomstick.jpg?interpolatio...de%7C660:*]
Woe....I'm not saying that the belief of the masses makes a thing true by any means. I was simply asking if one considers the testimony of literally billions of people to be of no worth as any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 07:27 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 07:12 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Maybe circumstantial evidence, at best. I think its more telling that so many people have believed in gods and yet not a single person has produced any hard evidence. Which shows to me evidence that the human brain is easily deluded, not that gods exist.
Thank your for admitting that it does qualify as some sort of evidence on some level. Your honesty is greatly appreciated.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 07:42 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(09-10-2016 06:27 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  a·the·ism

ˈāTHēˌizəm/

noun

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

synonyms:nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion,skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; 

nihilism

Thank you for making my point. "Disbelief or lack of belief" is NOT a claim that gods do not exist. It is the claim that evidence FOR the existence of gods is insufficient to warrant belief.

(09-10-2016 06:30 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A debate is between two parties, both of which are equally burdened with the argument of their own point.

Even if I accept your interpretation (which I don't), you have a burden of proof to support your claim (there is a god) and I have the burden of supporting my claim (you haven't provided enough evidence for your claim to be believed). Since you have admitted that you can't demonstrate the truth of your claim in any way I think I've met my burden. It's time for you to put up or shut up.

(09-10-2016 06:53 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I understand it, I just don't see how it applies in a theistic/ atheistic debate.

So positive claims need verification but negative claims need none... Right?

You do not understand. Nobody is making a "negative claim" (even your terminology shows that you don't understand). Your are making a claim. We are saying we don't accept your claim without evidence. You say the only evidence you have is that (a) you had some sort of personal experience that can't be repeated or examined and (b) many others have reported similar beliefs. The first has no demonstrable cause and your assumption that you know the cause is unwarranted; the second is a fallacious argument to popularity. Your claim is dismissed as unsupported by evidence.

(09-10-2016 07:12 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So just curious; you consider the accounts of millions of people spanning from prehistory to now is not any form of evidence whatsoever?
Really it would be billions I suppose.

Your fallacy is... appeal to popularity

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: