(October 13, 2015 at 11:31 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 10:57 am)jenny1972 Wrote: because measuring thoughts and detecting God with technology is not possible yet

Well, if you can't detect god in any objective sense then that's kind of the end of the idea of rationally believing in one.

"Cannot meet the burden of proof," is not the same thing as "does not need to meet the burden of proof," and I'm really very perplexed at how many religious people want to secretly substitute the former with the latter.

i agree if you cant detect God then its not rational to believe in God . im not sure what you mean however by religious people wanting to secretly substitute the former with the latter ( cannot / does not need to ) can you clarify that idea ?

It's explained well in easy to understand English... what's the problem?

He's saying that when theists fail to meet the burden of proof that isn't an excuse for them to not bother with meeting it at all. Just because they can't meet it doesn't mean they shouldn't bother with it and it's ridiculous when they confuse the two.

And I think that when you fail to live up to standards that means exactly that: you've failed to live up to standards - moving the goalposts and deciding that rationality isn't a requirement is deluded and and disingenuous.

(October 13, 2015 at 11:50 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 11:24 am)jenny1972 Wrote: i think the only convincing evidence could come from God or science and then only if the atheist is the more openminded type who is not convinced they know everything and rejects the idea of new discovery .

With all due respect, I think you have swallowed a lot of anti-atheist propaganda that is pushed constantly by the people who have an investment in organized religion (preachers, pundits, and adherents), and recognize the threat that questioners and skeptics like us represent.

If you really get to know us, you'll find that we're holding our breath every day, eagerly awaiting and consuming every new discovery.  Rather than thinking we "know everything", we are the ones who must constantly explain what the principles of science and what constitutes real evidence to those who DO think they know everything. Indeed, if you keep watching, here, you'll see how often we get Creationists here who tell us that since we openly admit we don't know everything, we must not be able to know anything about the world.

I have been an agnostic atheist for 17 years, now, and a semi-agnostic for five before that. In all that time, I don't think I've ever met a single atheist who says he knows everything. Yet I hear that accusation weekly from the devout, which tells me that it is being promulgated by the groups I listed, above. It simply isn't how 99.9% of us think.

I hope you are the type who is honest enough to throw away your preconceptions and learn from us who we really are.

my opinion is just based on my own very limited exposure to atheists , up until now , online and not any anti atheist propaganda from any theist folks and  yes there are most definately gnostic theists who believe they have it all figured out .

---

(October 13, 2015 at 11:58 am)Evie Wrote: It's explained well in easy to understand English... what's the problem?

He's saying that when theists fail to meet the burden of proof that isn't an excuse for them to not bother with meeting it at all. Just because they can't meet it doesn't mean they shouldn't bother with it and it's ridiculous when they confuse the two.

And I think that when you fail to live up to standards that means exactly that: you've failed to live up to standards - moving the goalposts and deciding that rationality isn't a requirement is deluded and and disingenuous.

i was asking him
and if they cant meet it then why should they bother with it at all ? thats illogical ...
so theyre confusing the inability to meet the burden of proof with the idea they should continue to bother trying to meet it ? thats an interesting theory.

(October 13, 2015 at 8:37 am)Hmmm? Wrote: did my sister happen to mention that this "god" that came to her said everyone was going to be saved?  

Convincing evidence from god?  Poor track record.  Convincing evidence from science...there already is, and that convincing evidence says that our fairy tales are not representative of reality. The wait is over, I guess?

(October 13, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 8:37 am)Hmmm? Wrote: did my sister happen to mention that this "god" that came to her said everyone was going to be saved?  

So, obviously, this "god" you're describing is not the Xtian one.  The meme is anti-christian.  (not complaining)  So what's the name of this "god" and what is this "god" going to save us from?   -- Oh wait, was that Jormungandr's meme? Sorry Jor. Cool pic. So maybe they're talking about Jeebus after all.

If he comes 'round, says "hi" and starts getting rid of poverty and child abuse and rape 'n' all sorts of that stuff, and shows us how to heal some diseases, cool.  I'm on board.  Maybe.  If there aren't any strings attached, like prayer and worship and slavish devotion and hell and all of that crap.

(October 13, 2015 at 11:54 am)jenny1972 Wrote: i agree if you cant detect God then its not rational to believe in God

And yet your religious views says "believe in god," so...

Quote:. im not sure what you mean however by religious people wanting to secretly substitute the former with the latter ( cannot / does not need to ) can you clarify that idea ?

Well, I hear a lot of theists essentially state that they don't need to fulfill the usual burden of proof because their god cannot be detected by the scientific method/mundane investigation. That's literally their justification: their god cannot be detected by science (because they said so) and therefore this god should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that we would give every other claim. It cannot be detected by normal methods, and therefore, instead of the conclusion that this being has failed to meet the burden of proof for existing, they want us to conclude that the normal methods are unsuitable for detecting it, and we should just believe anyway.

God can't shoulder the burden of proof, and so there's a certain stripe of theist who will argue that god doesn't need to be subjected to the burden of proof, because he would fail if we tried that.

" And yet your religious views says "believe in god," so... "

yes because i can detect God and so i believe.

Esquilax wrote: "God can't shoulder the burden of proof, and so there's a certain stripe of theist who will argue that god doesn't need to be subjected to the burden of proof, because he would fail if we tried that."

Then there are those theists who will say that God can shoulder the burden of proof (and why not, since he is allegedly all-powerful) but chooses not to because unambiguous, compelling evidence of his existence would somehow violate our alleged free will. But when pressed to explain why their god prefers unfounded belief in his existence instead of knowledge, they'll toss out a few Bible verses and then change the subject as quickly as possible.

" Well, I hear a lot of theists essentially state that they don't need to fulfill the usual burden of proof because their god cannot be detected by the scientific method/mundane investigation. That's literally their justification: their god cannot be detected by science (because they said so) and therefore this god should not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that we would give every other claim. It cannot be detected by normal methods, and therefore, instead of the conclusion that this being has failed to meet the burden of proof for existing, they want us to conclude that the normal methods are unsuitable for detecting it, and we should just believe anyway.

God can't shoulder the burden of proof, and so there's a certain stripe of theist who will argue that god doesn't need to be subjected to the burden of proof, because he would fail if we tried that. "

thank you that makes sense