standard of evidence

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well, you could suck my dick for all eternity, it still wouldn't prove god. Hell, mabe.

the thread I posted doesn't aspire to prove God, it only asks what kind of evidence is acceptable and how much is adequate. unfortunately, you and everyone else all seem incapable of giving a minimum reasonable standard.

If in fact, there is no God, there never will be evidence for God, will there? If after Plato's invention of natural theology, 2300 years later, theologians and philosophers of religion admit there is no real evidence for God, then that should be accounted as a strong clue from the Universe to us.

Cheerful Charlie

---

It just means "without belief in gods." That's all it means. It doesn't mean "someone who asserts there are no gods." I don't care what a lot of online definitions say, the basic definition is a- "without" theism "belief in a god."

So answer me this... do you believe in Zeus, yes or no?
If no, then have you proved completely that Zeus does not and never has ever existed as a deity?

If you haven't (and I assume you haven't because it's impossible) then why is it OK for you to commit the same fallacy you accuse us of committing?

Oboy! It's another online dictionary war! Just paw through the dictionaries until you find the definition you want. Or just pick the first definition that comes along and ignore the fact that many dictionaries are so simple minded about such things, they are mostly useless and misleading.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god. Whether with good reason, bad reason, no reason at all does not matter. Will there ever be an online dictionary thatt gets this right and is number 1 when googling for the defintion of atheist?

.

---

if it can be shown to be impossible, it would be most rational to accept that. but the problem is no one has done so. and if there is no evidence at all supporting it, then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"If it can be shown that Allah is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Yawheh is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Vishnu is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that I cant fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass, it would be most rational to accept that".

Filling a gap can be done with an infinite number of bullshit naked assertions. How much time do you waste trying to prove I cant fart and invisible Lamborghini out of my ass? Something says to me even before you read the first letter in this last sentence you rightfully dismissed that absurd claim, and did so without doing any work.


Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.

I have absolutely no obligation to disprove your claims anymore than you would have to "disprove" farting an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass.

Any claim that starts with a naked assertion can only be propped up with crap.

Any assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.


.

---

No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

then how do you show the proposition God doesn't exist is more rational than the proposition God does exist? let me guess... lack of evidence? do I have to say it?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.

Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.

There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.

It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.

To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.

any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.

If you tell me you have a herd of invisible elephants you keep in your garage, I can dismiss your claim. I am not obligated to disprove your ridiculous and impossible claim.

Now on atheism, the claims of revealed religions that God has certain attributes is easy to deal with. omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence all soon create self contradictions the eliminate such omni-everything creator gods.

The grand gods of grand theologies are impossible, and the greater and more maximalist you make them, the easier they are to demonstrate they are impossible.


.