(December 25, 2015 at 4:00 am)Delicate Wrote: You have to be kidding me with this bullshit.

Oh, you mean the same bullshit that which mirrors what you provide?

The irony.

I have walked down the street a lot.

Therefor by episostomologicaliality*, streets are real. At least real to me.

*It's Christmas, and that means I can say whatever I like.

(December 24, 2015 at 5:01 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 4:53 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: BZZZ You do receive the consolation prize of Rice-a-Roni The San Francisco treat

That response captures so beautifully the persona of a schizophrenic behind the keyboard. It has no relation to the post it responds to, indicates no comprehension of the point. 

Thanks, that was amusing.

You're welcome. I hope for christmas you got reading comprehension.

(December 24, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Delicate Wrote: The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.

Careful now, Impugning posts that don't cater to delicates special pleading are liable to get you labeled as a skitzo.

(December 25, 2015 at 1:28 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Completely laughable.

You are the one making an existential claim. the Burden is all yours.

We both, I assume, accept the existence of the universe exists. You are the one that is adding an entity to explain the existence of said universe.

Again, you have he burden of proof.

What putative evidence are you referring to? Please present it and convince me.

Careful now, Impugning posts that don't cater to delicate's special pleading are liable to get you labeled as a skitzo.

(December 24, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Sal Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 7:38 pm)Delicate Wrote: Your atheism can only be based on blind incompetence, as you admit.

Here's the definition for bland atheism: The lack of belief in god(s).

To the uninitiated and sorely brainwashed, which I'm sure you are (do you see how that passive-aggressive bullshit plays out?), then it becomes quite clear that atheism is merely a single statement. It is not an ideology. It is not a belief. It's not even a defining factor; since "god(s)" isn't even defined properly. But of course, I might as well be talking to a wall.

Atheism is at most a default position. If you examine the above definition it should be apparent that having a lack of some undefined entity is entirely empty saying. It's like saying I lack any conviction that X is true, where X is undefined. It's dividing with zero. It's splitting infinities.

Now, about burden of proof; atheists claim nothing, present no argument or entity, the word "atheism" is the intelligible sound people say when there's no position to be had, like being a non-stamp collector or a bald man having a hair color. The only reason we even have the word "atheism" is because there are theists. If there at some point in histories past there was a movement or belief about elves with all the same grandeur of supremacy as theism has influenced through the ages in all its flavors, there would be also people who simply never heard of elves or simply didn't believe in them, in which case they'd be a-elvefists. How difficult is this to grasp?

I reject this whole redefinition of atheism.

If you believe God exists you're a theist. If you believe God does not exist you're an atheist. If you don't know either way you're an agnostic.

Your asserted redefinitions are not persuasive. Lack of belief does not constitute a worldview or a philosophical position or a stance on the existence of God.

It's empty rhetoric designed to dodge the burden of proof. And it's dishonest.

(December 25, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Sal Wrote: Here's the definition for bland atheism: The lack of belief in god(s).

To the uninitiated and sorely brainwashed, which I'm sure you are (do you see how that passive-aggressive bullshit plays out?), then it becomes quite clear that atheism is merely a single statement. It is not an ideology. It is not a belief. It's not even a defining factor; since "god(s)" isn't even defined properly. But of course, I might as well be talking to a wall.

Atheism is at most a default position. If you examine the above definition it should be apparent that having a lack of some undefined entity is entirely empty saying. It's like saying I lack any conviction that X is true, where X is undefined. It's dividing with zero. It's splitting infinities.

Now, about burden of proof; atheists claim nothing, present no argument or entity, the word "atheism" is the intelligible sound people say when there's no position to be had, like being a non-stamp collector or a bald man having a hair color. The only reason we even have the word "atheism" is because there are theists. If there at some point in histories past there was a movement or belief about elves with all the same grandeur of supremacy as theism has influenced through the ages in all its flavors, there would be also people who simply never heard of elves or simply didn't believe in them, in which case they'd be a-elvefists. How difficult is this to grasp?

I reject this whole redefinition of atheism.

If you believe God exists you're a theist. If you believe God does not exist you're an atheist. If you don't know either way you're an agnostic.

Your asserted redefinitions are not persuasive. Lack of belief does not constitute a worldview or a philosophical position or a stance on the existence of God.

It's empty rhetoric designed to dodge the burden of proof. And it's dishonest.

 I don't think this thread really needs any more replies does it? Delicate rejects any definitions besides his own.

In which case I define Atheists as people who wear socks, I reject any other definition, Ergo Atheists are validated in their label.

(December 24, 2015 at 10:38 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Delicate Wrote: The burden of proof is on the atheist who claims to have assessed the evidence and have good reasons to reject putative evidence, to provide their reasons.

Otherwise they are charlatans.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.  By attacking our stance that we do not see enough evidence to cause us to believe in a deity, you are claiming the existence of said deity.   Therefore, the burden of proof requires that you provide the evidence that you claim to have, which (according to you) we either cannot see or have foolishly dismissed.  The only evidence that most atheists will accept is quantitative, verifiable, empirical scientific data.  If you have that data, then provide it.   If you cannot provide it, and keep posting deflections and strawmen and insults and non sequiturs . . . then we should all stop responding, because you have already proven that you are a lying troll.

I'm beginning to think your degree was in homeopathy because you make such elementary mistakes.

[Quote] By attacking our stance that we do not see enough evidence to cause us to believe in a deity, you are claiming the existence of said deity.[Quote]

I'm conceding that claim.

What I'm attacking is the claim that one's perceived lack of evidence is the result of competence.

If it is the result of competence, that means the atheist has studied the alleged evidence for God's existence and found them lacking.

Do you claim your atheism is competent? Then you believe you have looked at evidence for God and refuted it.

Read that last bit a dozen or so times till you get it.

So in your view of things, if every person here simply stopped identifying as atheist and forthwith began calling themselves simply agnostic, would that then constitute an acceptable way for a group of people to say, "We think the theists have utterly failed to shoulder their burden of evidence for the existence of a god and that they are full of shit"?

Would you then stop dodging your burden of proof, or would you just find other excuses to play your childish game of gotcha?

(December 25, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Delicate Wrote: Then you believe you have looked at evidence for God and refuted it.

Once again, what evidence?

If there was valid evidence, there would be no need for atheism.