Positive claims and atheists

[Jackalope]

So?

That something appears self-evident to you says nothing about it's status in reality. Claims of self-evidence are only convincing to those who also find said claims self-evident, unsurprisingly.

Which, incidentally, still leaves the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders.

You don't think it is self-evident that Santa does not exist? if not, what evidence do you base your belief on that there is no Santa?

I don't believe that the existence of Santa is under question here. Incidentally, I have plenty of non-self-evident reasons for not believing in Santa. Let's not muddy the waters here (or move the goalposts).

If you don't mind, would you address the statement at hand? That is, why should your personal self-evidence and personal certitude be convincing to anyone else? Because you say so?

A great many Hindus sincerely believe in the pantheon of Hindu deities. I have no doubt that their self-evidence and personal certitude is felt just as strongly as yours. Furthermore, I suspect that you don't find their claims compelling.

When you understand your reasons for disbelieving in the claims of Hindus, you may perhaps be closer to understanding why many of us don't believe your claims either.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Jeff, from reading everything you've been posting on this board, it seems you have very one dimensional beliefs in both what God is and in what Atheists are. The "God" you are arguing with us about is a character in the bible. It is a creation of man in a story written by man. It's this storybook God that we all refute unwaveringly. Now I can't speak for all of us, but I think you'll find a good deal of atheists don't deny that it is possible for there to be some form of higher being that could have created the universe. Truthfully, we can't know for sure either way. The difference is that we're willing to admit to what we don't know or fully understand, and people like you hold a steadfast belief in a tradition they've been indoctrinated with every Sunday since birth. It's your invented god of laws, destruction, submission and punishment we're denying. Know the difference.

[Skepsis]

So?

That something appears self-evident to you says nothing about it's status in reality. Claims of self-evidence are only convincing to those who also find said claims self-evident, unsurprisingly.

Which, incidentally, still leaves the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders.

You don't think it is self-evident that Santa does not exist? if not, what evidence do you base your belief on that there is no Santa?

The number of times I see you trotting out the same utter bullshit is staggering, but at least this time I can make the most of your terrible analysis.
Here we have Santa, whom you very likely don't believe in.

Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim, "Santa exists".

Long story short, this is typically the stance atheists take on your God.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

No proof for Batman, no proof for God. That is the similarity being pointed out in this comparison, they are on par plausibility wise.
Of course, you already knew this didn't you? So may I ask why you chose to waste everyones time by creating a thread that could easily be answered in a sentence and a half? Do you think the people who see this thread will bother to look at others you create considering just how tedious a standard you have just set?

There is also no proof that the external world exists and that you are not in the matrix, or that the world didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age--that there is a past. There are likewise no proof for basic logical principles because to argue for their truth would be to presuppose them and so be arguing in a circle.

Therefore, I believe I have shown that you are not justified in considering something absurdly fictional simply because you cannot prove that this something exists as I have given you things that we all rationally believe (the existence of the external world, the past, basic logical principles), yet we don't have evidence for their truth.

Look, you are being a disingenuous twat. Show us how the outside world doesn't exist: go jump. off a fucking skyscraper.

Thank you for admitting that your fairy tale monster is absurdly fictional. However, your rejection of logic, reason, and rationlity only betrays that you are illogical, unreasonable, and irrational.

---

There exists a five legged monkey that rides backwards on a unicorn through an enchanted forrest playing Mozart with cricket legs.

If you do not believe in such an entity, provide evidence for its non-existence.

This is not what I am claiming in this thread. It is evident to all that your example is fictional. However, it is not[b] evident[/] to all that God is fictional. There is therefore a significant difference between God and your example. Also, I am not sure you responded to my original post.

It is not at all "not EVIDENT" (ROOT: EVIDENCE) that your fairy tale monster id fictional.

Pretty fucking stupid for YOU to be referencing EVIDENCE.

---

So?

That something appears self-evident to you says nothing about it's status in reality. Claims of self-evidence are only convincing to those who also find said claims self-evident, unsurprisingly.

Which, incidentally, still leaves the burden of proof firmly on your shoulders.

You don't think it is self-evident that Santa does not exist? if not, what evidence do you base your belief on that there is no Santa?

Evident? I thought you didn't need no steenkin' evidence!

[

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims. They do want to claim that:


"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.


http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm

[Gambit]

There is also no proof that the external world exists and that you are not in the matrix, or that the world didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age--that there is a past. There are likewise no proof for basic logical principles because to argue for their truth would be to presuppose them and so be arguing in a circle.

Therefore, I believe I have shown that you are not justified in considering something absurdly fictional simply because you cannot prove that this something exists as I have given you things that we all rationally believe (the existence of the external world, the past, basic logical principles), yet we don't have evidence for their truth.

OK, let me get this straight. So you're arguing that we should believe that God exists because we don't know if what we perceive as being real actually is? Do you play Chess often? Because you just check-mated yourself. Think about it.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

There is also no proof that the external world exists and that you are not in the matrix, or that the world didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age--that there is a past. There are likewise no proof for basic logical principles because to argue for their truth would be to presuppose them and so be arguing in a circle.

Therefore, I believe I have shown that you are not justified in considering something absurdly fictional simply because you cannot prove that this something exists as I have given you things that we all rationally believe (the existence of the external world, the past, basic logical principles), yet we don't have evidence for their truth.

OK, let me get this straight. So you're arguing that we should believe that God exists because we don't know if what we perceive as being real actually is? Do you play Chess often? Because you just check-mated yourself. Think about it.

Indeed. Maintaining both "I believe it because I had/have this'personal experience' of it" and "you can'y prove we aren't in the Matrix' is self-refuting.

[Mister Agenda]

You don't think it is self-evident that Santa does not exist? if not, what evidence do you base your belief on that there is no Santa?

Santa has self-contradictory attributes. He is supposed to leave toys for all good girls and boys; but clearly there are many good boys and girls in the world who do not get toys for Christmas. In the case where toys are left, there are plausible alternative explanations for their presence. Santa is claimed to have supernatural powers of travel, cargo capacity, and breaking-and-entering; and there is no evidence that those feats are even possible.

Children are likely to believe Santa is real because they trust adults to know things they don't and tell the truth about them. When they reach a certain age, doubt about Santa is encouraged. It is likely that if adults made some effort to perpetuate continued belief in Santa, many people would believe all of their lives; just as people in a village where they believe the ghosts of their ancestors observe and intervene in matters of fortune believe all of their lives.

What differentiates the Santa myth is that the adults have to be complicit in the deception in order for the presents to be left, if they are never let in on the secret and continue to rely on Santa for presents as adults while preaching Santa, they would have very disappointed children. I suppose if they wanted to continue believing badly enough, they could blame the lack of presents on the misbehavior of the children, or reduce expectations for toy deliveries, perhaps claiming that they should thank Santa for the good things they already have, or credit Santa for giving them the means to provide toys to their children.

[The Grand Nudger]

Jeff, the God of Genesis does not exist, those events never occurred. The God of Exodus doesn't exist, those events never occurred. The God of the NT doesn't exist -see the above.

Those are positive, evidence based claims that have been re-hashed over and over here, and all over the internet. If it's important to you that the god described be connected in some way to reality, then you can go down the rabbit hole on any of those areas yourself. If it isn't important to you that these narratives are factual then it isn't important to me to explain why I don't give a shit. If your faith in these narratives rests on creative interpretations then it isn't important to me to explain why I don't give a shit.

I personally don't think that any literate human being has never encountered any of the problems in these narratives, and I suspect that you are simply asking for evidence that you have already been presented with many times (and is easily accessible to anyone interested). This question is asked and answered so goddamned often that I am no longer willing to extend the benefit of the doubt on this issue, personally. If you have some information which would drastically alter our current body of knowledge RE Geology, Biology, Cosmology, Anthropology, or Archaeology...by all means, share. Otherwise...meh.

[Strongbad]

A great many Hindus sincerely believe in the pantheon of Hindu deities. I have no doubt that their self-evidence and personal certitude is felt just as strongly as yours. Furthermore, I suspect that you don't find their claims compelling.

When you understand your reasons for disbelieving in the claims of Hindus, you may perhaps be closer to understanding why many of us don't believe your claims either.

He'll never understand, because his thought process runs like this: "I don't believe in [insert any other religion], because I believe in [my religion]". It's very simple, as long as you are a simpleton.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

And that's the problem with him and the others like him who are currently spamming this same line of shit across this forum. They are simply repeating the same assertons over ad nauseum, and refusing to concede or even respond to posts that destroy their arguments or even attempt to demonstrate to them why their approaches are so faulty.

There are other fora around who ban such willfully, belligerently disruptive, disingenuous and uncooperative posters,

I would recommend that the good folks on the staff here consider a similar policy as well.

Just my .02 Pfennig, anyway...