Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 10:55 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 08:35 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Oh, no, I have heard all this! I just think you need to change the site name to The Thinking Agnostic and be honest...
Why?

There is no lack of honesty here.


"Agnostic" and "atheist" are not exclusive. Many people are both. Not all atheists are agnostic, and not all agnostics are atheists, so why is one name for the website better than the other? Seth is an atheist, regardless of whether he is also agnostic, he named the site, he preferred to call it The Thinking Atheist. Nothing needs to change.

What is dishonest about an agnostic atheist claiming to be an atheist? I'm also an American atheist, a male atheist, a blue-eyed atheist, a literate atheist, a human atheist, a chess-playing atheist, just to name a few. Is it dishonest of me not to call myself an American male blue-eyed literate human chess-playing agnostic atheist?

Of course not.

So quit being ridiculous and try being useful for a change.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
08-03-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Agnostic and Atheist are exclusive. One is a reasonable expectation based on evidence (Agnosticism) the other is firmly held belief system or religion. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 11:50 AM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 11:46 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Agnostic and Atheist are exclusive. One is a reasonable expectation based on evidence (Agnosticism) the other is firmly held belief system or religion. Smile
"gnostic" refers to what you know, "theism" refers to what you believe with regards to gods and religion.

A person is gnostic (toward a particular subject) when when they claim to KNOW something and agnostic when they claim not to know something. A person is a theist when they believe in a god and/or follow a religion and atheistic when they don't do those things.

Atheism is not a belief system and it's not a religion, but you know that; you're just being much more flagrant in your trolling than you usually are.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
08-03-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
The wall of closed minds is only penetrable from will, proving anything is always easier than opening a locked away mental concentration camp.

Leviticus does not justify stupidity, but it is more than enough to define corruption of the human mind.

[Image: 24851795.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matthew Laramore's post
08-03-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Quote:Atheism is not a belief system and it's not a religion, but you know that; you're just being much more flagrant in your trolling than you usually are.
Atheism is a belief without proof--isn't that both a non-empirical belief and the definition of religion that is pushed around here? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Hey, PJ.

PleaseJesus Wrote:Oh, no, I have heard all this! I just think you need to change the site name to The Thinking Agnostic and be honest...

Aw, hellz no! We Agnostics are sick and tired of the appropriation of our good name! Agnostic revolution now!

If these guys really wanna call themselves Agnostic Atheists, fine. Don't like it, but fine. But if they just full on say they're Agnostic, we're gonna have words!

As for the OP,

There are ways to prove a negative. The only reason it's even said that you can't is so Atheists can squirm out of the, "Well if you want us to prove God exists, then we want you to prove he doesn't," to which they reply, "Oh yeah, well you can't prove a negative and teapots and, shut up, you're stupid!"

The implication of "you can't prove a negative" is, "We are exempt from any responsibility in this discussion, but you still have to prove God exists."

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
08-03-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 01:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Atheism is not a belief system and it's not a religion, but you know that; you're just being much more flagrant in your trolling than you usually are.
Atheism is a belief without proof--isn't that both a non-empirical belief and the definition of religion that is pushed around here? Smile
Atheism isn't a belief. There is no school of atheism, no atheism manifesto, no atheism holy (or not-holy) book, no atheism guidelines, no atheism studies, no atheism rules, no atheism doctrines, no atheism anything.

Atheism is not a thing, it's not anything.

Atheism is the lack of one specific thing: the lack of believing in god. God is unproven, hence we don't believe in him/her/it/them. End of story. There is nothing more to it, no "belief" on top of not believing in god, no "system" on top of not believing in god, no "religion" on top of not believing in god - just simply not believing in god. That's all it is.

What "proof" do you think we should have? Do you expect atheists to prove that we don't believe in your god? Belief is entirely subjective. I don't ask you to prove that you believe in your god; I take your word for it - you say it so it must be so. You cannot do the same for atheists? Do you really think we must prove that we don't believe in your god? Is our stating our lack of belief not sufficient to convince you that we don't believe?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
08-03-2013, 03:05 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
(08-03-2013 01:58 PM)Ghost Wrote:  As for the OP,

There are ways to prove a negative. The only reason it's even said that you can't is so Atheists can squirm out of the, "Well if you want us to prove God exists, then we want you to prove he doesn't," to which they reply, "Oh yeah, well you can't prove a negative and teapots and, shut up, you're stupid!"

The implication of "you can't prove a negative" is, "We are exempt from any responsibility in this discussion, but you still have to prove God exists."

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
That's not entirely accurate, Matt.

In a discussion that we've (collective "we") had a couple of months ago, I argued that while it is certainly possible to prove a negative, one cannot possibly prove a universal negative.

(24-07-2012 02:29 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Actually, you can prove a negative. For example:

A human is not a fish.
The earth does not revolve around the sun.
Our earth is not 6.000 years old.

What you can't prove is a universal negative, such as

There are no Gods.
There is no life other than the life on earth in the universe.
Aliens/Bigfoot/Nessy/etc. do not exist.

I'm inclined to think that you share my point of view on this matter since you wrote the following in response to my argument:

(24-07-2012 04:28 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

Good catch on the universal negative.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I don't know whom you are criticizing when you say that atheists use the "you can't prove a negative" argument as a cop-out so that they don't have to prove the non-existence of god, since neither I, nor anyone else I know on this forum does that.

Another thing, the reason why we ask theists to prove the existence of their deity is not purely arbitrary; we do it because theists who make the claim that their god exists (read: not all of them do) have the burden of proof and need to substantiate their assertion. This, of course, also means that if an atheist claims that no supernatural deities exist, he has the burden of proof to show that his claim is true.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
I liked this article. On first read, it strengthened the Atheist position regarding proving a universal negative but it also proposes the reasonable balance between negatives and positives lacking evidence:
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: Has anything ever been proven NOT to exist?
Hey, Vosur.

The link is, "We can't disprove God. We also can't disprove the teapot. But we don't believe in the teapot. There's no teapot religion. Therefore we shouldn't believe in God."

It's an end run.

I can't prove my thing THEREFORE your thing is wrong. That's some twisted logic right there.

(And for the record, Dawkins does exactly that in The God Delusion.)

The dodge is, "You can't prove a universal negative, so even if I wanted to disprove God, I can't. BUT, YOU can still prove that he exists if you wanted, so it's actually all on you."

We can say that the onus is on whoever makes the claim either way, but if someone says that and then, in the next breath, states, "But I'm exempt, so really, it's just you," then that's wonky.

I think that this is in fact the source of the violent reaction I encounter when I say that God cannot be tested scientifically (which I maintain), because that statement, more than anything else, levels the playing field. Now NEITHER side can prove their claim, not even if they wanted to. But if people argue that you CAN prove God exists, AND they maintain that they cannot prove God doesn't exist, then the advantage goes to them, DOUBLY SO if one cannot in fact prove God exists; because then they're the only ones expected to do the impossible.

If we like the idea that the onus is on whoever makes the claim and the fact is that they cannot, even if they wanted to, that means that we should not accept their claim. Plain and simple.

If you make the statement, "there is no God," and you can't prove it because you can't prove a universal negative, then it's the statement, "there is no God," that should be thrown out, not the idea that there is a God.

Can't prove a universal negative? Tough shit. Not my problem. Life's a bitch Cool

Like, whatever, anyone who knows me knows that I'm not out to prove there is a God. I just recognise this argument for what it is.

Just to be nit picky about your universal negative quote, we CAN prove that the statement, "There is no life on other planets," is false simply by finding life on other planets.

But the "good catch" kudos was exactly because people weren't making the differentiation between negative and universal negative and you brought the knowledge. Re-kudos Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: