You Have Nothing to Add
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2012, 12:46 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 11:59 PM)ddrew Wrote:  Eyegore!... What's up buddy!

Hey ... Ya know .. I almost missed ya.. almost but I searched long and hard into my black heart and didn't feel a damn thing.

[Image: harpoon-ipa.jpg]

What I've been feeling. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-02-2012, 12:47 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 11:59 PM)ddrew Wrote:  Eyegore!... What's up buddy!

Hey ... Ya know .. I almost missed ya.. almost but I searched long and hard into my black heart and didn't feel a damn thing.

Sup Dude? Long time no see your ugly mug around here!

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2012, 12:48 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(19-02-2012 12:47 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 11:59 PM)ddrew Wrote:  Eyegore!... What's up buddy!

Hey ... Ya know .. I almost missed ya.. almost but I searched long and hard into my black heart and didn't feel a damn thing.

Sup Dude? Long time no see your ugly mug around here!

We be clanging them bottles together, Drew be around. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-02-2012, 12:55 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(19-02-2012 12:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 12:47 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 11:59 PM)ddrew Wrote:  Eyegore!... What's up buddy!

Hey ... Ya know .. I almost missed ya.. almost but I searched long and hard into my black heart and didn't feel a damn thing.

Sup Dude? Long time no see your ugly mug around here!

We be clanging them bottles together, Drew be around. Wink





It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
19-02-2012, 01:38 AM
 
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(18-02-2012 11:49 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 09:49 PM)Egor Wrote:  You know, it dawned on me: If you all aren't going to flat out deny that God exists, you really don't have anything to talk about.

I just don't think you understand skepticism or the point of having it. We can't be absolutely certain that any God claim is untrue. Do you believe in Allah? If not, is it because you've disproven the Qur'an? Do you believe in Zeus? How about the Triple Goddess? There are literally too many religions existing now (not to mention possible Gods that can just be made up) to have to disprove them all in order to take a stand on what is likely to be the truth.

I know what skepticism is. You wait around for others to prove things to you so you don't have to think about them or take any intellectual stand. And that's my point.

The two idiots who said God doesn't exist--wouldn't even try to defend that claim. So, there's no point addressing them. But in fact, unless you can say God doesn't exist, you have no argument. You have no dog in the fight, so to speak.

Here's something we can agree on: Either God exists or God doesn't exist. All anyone cares about is proving one of those hypothesis to be true. The skeptic is just in the stands watching the game.

Quote:I just don't think you understand the burden of proof. A man accused of a crime does not have to prove that he didn't commit the crime, nor does the prosecution expect him to attempt it --- he is given the presumption of innocence, because that is where skepticism lies (it's much more probable, statistically, that a person did not commit a crime than did). Does it matter if he can prove that he's innocent? A judge would say "no", and would only care about if he can be proven guilty. Let me clarify this analogy --- you do not have to prove the other religions wrong to say that they are false, but you do have to prove that your own religion is right. The burden of proof is still yours, just as it is up to Wiccans to prove the existence of a goddess in nature or for a Muslim to prove that Islam is the one true religion.

But why do I have a burden of proof? To whom? Only to those who can say God doesn't exist. Then we each have a burden of proof. This isn't a criminal trial. If I wanted you to believe in God then I would have to meet your burden of proof. But you have already admitted you can't prove God doesn't exist. Great, then I've already made a step forward because now you are no longer an atheist--you are an agnostic. I'm not in combat against agnosticism, just atheism. Because I know that if you and I could have a rational, open minded debate, I could show you that it is most rational to believe in God.

Quote:You can live in denial and simply ignore the fact that you have the burden of proof, but you certainly won't convince us because we know better (and you haven't even made a case for us needing proof). Perhaps it is the case, because you want to shift the burden of proof instead of making a sound positive case for your religion, that you have nothing to add.

I can make a positive case for God, but if you're going to say you don't believe it, I can't force your mind. I have a burden of proof because I say God exists, but I don't have to meet a constantly moving desire for proof, which is what skeptics insist on.

And in fact, you are not the rational one, not as a skeptic. Because you refuse to take a stand in the truth. Either God exists or does not exist--we know that. But you won't move to either side, because you don't want to present an argument. That's not being intellectually honest and that's not consistent with a rational scientific approach to knowledge.

If you want to be scientific, you have to take one of those hypotheses and prove it true, which will make the other false, or prove it false, which will make the other true. And then you have to be willing to live with that truth. But this pseudo-atheism, which is really agnosticism, is just intellectual laziness.
Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2012, 06:44 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
I'd ask you why god doesn't heal amputees, stop cancer, feed the starving in Africa, stop global warming, save the polar bears, bring back extinct species, make us immortals, remind us that he exists other than providing us the rare double rainbows Dodgy, or just generally make life pleasurable for every single living creature on this planet. But I've seen so many silly responses, like "he's testing us", or "we don't deserve it".

If god was a factor, then mass prayer would work, and we wouldn't need missionaries. The churches would just announce on the news for everyone to pray. People would, for starters, spontaneously regrow missing limbs. Somebody will probably dick things up, and there would be Matt Dillahunty in a princess costume riding on the back of a Tyrannosaurus. Truth is, even if one person prays for it, it won't happen. The only upside to it is if a child prays, realizes it doesn't work, and understands at an early age that god does not exist.

"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.” -Siddhārtha Gautama
"I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures.” -Lao Tzu
"...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself..." -Jesus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinking about Myths's post
19-02-2012, 07:54 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
Well, as a skeptic, even though I do not agree with your beliefs in one way or another, I will in most times "shut up" and let the believers believe in what they believe in. Maintaining peace and harmony is important.

However, there are times I speak out, either out of curiosity of a person's beliefs (for instance, I inquired about your stance on abortion some time ago, as I was genuinely curious), or out of protection. As a student of science, I should protect those I know from false information and pseudo-science using my knowledge. This is done by simply telling the truth with regards to a certain issue, explaining how things work. Although it will indeed cause disagreement, I have to remain firm in my stance, to prevent unnecessary losses.

Happiness gained from ignorance is no different from the happiness gained from drunkenness.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(19-02-2012 01:38 AM)Egor Wrote:  I know what skepticism is. You wait around for others to prove things to you so you don't have to think about them or take any intellectual stand. And that's my point.

You claim that you understand skepticism, but you reveal your ignorance of it again in this next section.

Quote:But why do I have a burden of proof? To whom? Only to those who can say God doesn't exist. Then we each have a burden of proof. This isn't a criminal trial.

You literally don't understand who would be skeptical or under what circumstances. Burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. You are making a claim. Now you bring up those "two who claim that there is no God", and you're right --- that is also a claim that requires proof. But not all of us are making such a claim... the skeptic's position (like my own) simply assumes that there is no god or gods until one is proven to exist. Like the judge who sees that a defendant has not been proven guilty, this doesn't make the defendant innocent, just means that this crime has not been proven sufficiently. Do you see the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"? Do you see the line I'm drawing between "positive atheism" and "skepticism/negative atheism"?


Quote:I can make a positive case for God, but if you're going to say you don't believe it, I can't force your mind. I have a burden of proof because I say God exists, but I don't have to meet a constantly moving desire for proof, which is what skeptics insist on.

It's perfectly fair for us to ask for proof, and while it may be true that there are some whose minds can never be changed, some of us are reasonable and open-minded. Are you?

There's no "moving desire for proof". If God exists, then he is testable and falsifiable. Evidence for a God who is "everywhere" and controls "everything" should actually be very easy to prove, especially if He wants to convince people that He exists. What evidence would we require? Think about what evidence you'd use to prove that anyone, anywhere existed and use that. And make sure it only "proves" your religion exclusively --- many theists suggest "talking to God" and don't realize that many Muslims do this in the same manner that you do, and it doesn't bring them any closer to "finding God" than it does for you.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
19-02-2012, 08:13 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
(19-02-2012 01:38 AM)Egor Wrote:  I can make a positive case for God, but if you're going to say you don't believe it, I can't force your mind. I have a burden of proof because I say God exists, but I don't have to meet a constantly moving desire for proof, which is what skeptics insist on.

And in fact, you are not the rational one, not as a skeptic. Because you refuse to take a stand in the truth. Either God exists or does not exist--we know that. But you won't move to either side, because you don't want to present an argument. That's not being intellectually honest and that's not consistent with a rational scientific approach to knowledge.

If you want to be scientific, you have to take one of those hypotheses and prove it true, which will make the other false, or prove it false, which will make the other true. And then you have to be willing to live with that truth. But this pseudo-atheism, which is really agnosticism, is just intellectual laziness.

Nuh uh. About things which we do not know. Here's a thought. Let's talk about Erxomai's ability to play the piano.

I don't know Erxomai, so now when I am asked "can Erxomai play the piano" I must say "I don't know", not "Yes" or "No".

By insisting that we answer yes or no to a question which is unknown *you* are the one being irrational.

To extend the piano analogy, if I get a whole bunch of posters in the mail advertising a piano concert by Erxomai, then I have some evidence that he can probably play the piano - it's not proven for certain but it seems a lot more likely now.

For us, when we say we cannot prove that God does not exist, it does not mean that we abdicate any opinion on the matter - as far as we can tell, the evidence heavily favours a no God scenario. We have no *certainty* but we have a weight of evidence that seems to fit much more easily with a no God situation than with a God situation. For this evidence I refer you to the God Delusion, which I think you have already read and found wanting.

Why we say that the burden of proof is on you is simply because you want *us* to believe that the evidence is the other way around - that God is more likely than not - in fact, as far as you're concerned, God *is* certain. Because you want us to believe *your* point of view instead of our own, it's your responsibility to change our minds - to lay out the proof. If we find that proof insufficient, it's still up to *you* to do the proving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-02-2012, 08:24 AM
RE: You Have Nothing to Add
You know, it dawned on me: If you all aren't going to flat out deny that unicorns exist, you really don't have anything to talk about.

You can say you don't believe unicorns exist, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not they actually do exist. In other words, who cares what you believe?

The fact is you have no counter-argument. There is no a-unicornist argument, and you all know it. That's why you're so careful to not make the claim "Unicorns do not exist."

But unless you make that claim, there's nothing to debate. All you do is end up making ridiculous demands like: "Please show me two peer-reviewed documents that unicorns exist."

A skeptic just needs to go about living his or her life and shut up. They have nothing to add to any conversation about unicorns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Ben's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: