Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 30, 2018 at 5:52 pm (This post was last modified: May 30, 2018 at 5:53 pm by Angrboda.)
(May 30, 2018 at 3:55 pm)Ybe Wrote:
(May 30, 2018 at 12:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: [....]
There is no such thing as an objectively "positive" property. Godel has erred. And his proof fails because his premising the existence of "positive" properties is unsound.
I wouldn't know that. Just posted it to say Ts give lots of reasons and not just a definition as their reason(s).
No, you claimed theists had evidence for God, not just "reasons." Faulty arguments are not evidence of anything.
(May 30, 2018 at 3:55 pm)Ybe Wrote: If you wish to point out errors point out the ones As are making in their so called proof or even better yet post your own.
I'm under no obligation to do either. That you would prefer that I would do so means fuckall to me.
(May 30, 2018 at 5:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Not really, it's sad it takes this long for you guys to understand, what you are providing is testimony and you haven't shown evidence that there is no evidence, you claimed it, but have not shown it.
Can't prove a negative. I've rejected all evidence provided, that's about the best I can do.
That's not true, you can show plenty of negatives but this is off-topic. Only sometimes you can't.
What he is asking is to show your analysis of the arguments/proofs/evidence for God and show why you are reasonable in dismissing them.
Simply rejecting them doesn't show you are rational to do so.
(May 30, 2018 at 4:58 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Not necessarily good, but I consider it better than any other theist/deist option.
What YBE is showing is that none of you are willing to articulate your analysis of evidence presented for God. So in that sense, none of you are providing proof there is lack of evidence, not even proof that there is lack of evidence in what you've seen so far.
I have analyzed the stories and memorized the book that I was told was the "word of god" and decided that it was all crap and I can't believe it. Simple as that. There is no way I'm going to list the thousands of things that some people think are "proof" that I don't accept as proof. You and Ybe have both been given clear definitions of what constitutes evidence, and nothing I ever saw or experience in over 40 years of calling myself a Christian qualifies as evidence.
I do not believe that any deities exist. Simple.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(May 30, 2018 at 5:22 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Burden of proof is on the individual making the assertion/statement.
I made the assertion that man made god. My evidence is that men wrote the bible, the quran, the book of mormon, ............
If there is a burden proof of the person making the claim, then there is a burden for the people to listen.
And if they are going to dismiss the evidence presented or argument, then, they ought to show good reasons themselves and the minimum of that is show proper understanding to the argument.
All OP is asking you to do is show the evidence that "the burdened with proof" are expected to show, and analyze why you think it's all wrong, and that your analysis as opposed to Theists, shows the evidence is false.
I do not have to explain my lack of belief to any theist, and for a theist to insist that I do so is very highly offensive and disrespectful. We do not go into mosques and churches and hold up parts of the texts and shout "why is it reasonable to believe this bullshit???" but people come here and do exactly that on a daily basis.
Then when we say that we simply don't believe that any gods exist, we're told that the burden of proof is on US and to explain ourselves. A primary law of logic is that the person making the claim (G is - what utter crap!) must provide proof for that claim, because it is impossible to prove that something (immaterial, supernatural) does NOT exist. And people wonder why some atheists seem to distrust all believers.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
May 30, 2018 at 6:02 pm (This post was last modified: May 30, 2018 at 6:04 pm by Mystic.)
If it's upon the people with burden of proof to bring proofs, it's upon others to listen.
If you want to show you are rational after the people burdened with proofs provide proofs, than you should show you understood and listened but then disagree for reasons, and then a discussion can be had.
If you don't want to, then don't, but then all you have is testimony, you don't have evidence that you are being rational about Atheism.
There is no reason for people to believe you guys are the only jury to asses the proofs and evidence of God.
(May 30, 2018 at 5:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: As long as you understand you guys are only providing testimony, but have no arguments to show why Atheism is rational, that's fine.
You and Ybe are stating that atheists are irrational. (Because we don't believe your imaginary friends exist.)
I'm stating that all theists are irrational. (Because they believe in something for which no evidence has ever existed.)
Fine. We're all sick in the head. /thread
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
(May 30, 2018 at 5:54 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: As long as you understand you guys are only providing testimony, but have no arguments to show why Atheism is rational, that's fine.
You and Ybe are stating that atheists are irrational. (Because we don't believe your imaginary friends exist.)
I'm stating that all theists are irrational. (Because they believe in something for which no evidence has ever existed.)
Fine. We're all sick in the head. /thread
I think Ybe is showing something important. The discussion has to be two way. Not just one just denying the other without providing analysis.
Sure, I can review a book and call it crap. But really, I should provide reasons so if wrong can be corrected and if right, others can know.
(May 30, 2018 at 4:58 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Not necessarily good, but I consider it better than any other theist/deist option.
What YBE is showing is that none of you are willing to articulate your analysis of evidence presented for God. So in that sense, none of you are providing proof there is lack of evidence, not even proof that there is lack of evidence in what you've seen so far.
No. What he is showing is a complete lack of understanding, repetitive claims, and a lack of spelling and grammar skills that he is either too lazy or too ignorant to correct.
If he wants a serious answer, at least from me, he needs to stop using text speech.
Until then, all this crap is worthy of is ridicule.
We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.
You apparently think that a "G" exists.
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.
Good 4. Wow how long is it you have not read the first post.
B OR NOT 2B... Y B an A. Can U tell me Y B an A? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G = ... G found in the B"
B= Bible (My G's book)
A = Atheism, belief in the absence of any belief in G; "One who does not believe in G" is an A.
Belief= an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of the absence of a belief"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I mean, is there any logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A
(One that differs from, " I flipped a coin, so tails I am an atheist".)
Bad ex. reasons; I'm an A because there is no G or .
This thread is not about giving evidence for G or for the Bible. It is about As giving a logical. reasonable. rational reason for being an Atheist [b]
[/b]
(May 30, 2018 at 12:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
From the wikipedia article:
There is no such thing as an objectively "positive" property. Godel has erred. And his proof fails because his premising the existence of "positive" properties is unsound.
I wouldn't know that. Just posted it to say Ts give lots of reasons and not just a definition as their reason(s).
I have pointed out the error in saying:
If an A definition, then A definition is true,
A definition
so A definition is true
If you wish to point out errors point out the ones As are making in their so called proof or even better yet post your own.
(May 30, 2018 at 1:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:
I gave you one of my many reasons not believing, a god that directs/commands child killing I can't/won't believe in.
Valid logical reason.
I didn't ask for a valid reason for not believing in G, I asked for valid reason for believing one should be an A.
But perhaps we need to clarify your reason(s):
P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,
P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)
C. So, not true that I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)
But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like).
Now, one can like or not like G that is a choice one makes, but I do not recommend not liking G.
I have sincerely tried to represent your argument. If I misunderstood, my apologies.
I would be glad for your own clarification this is how your argument appears to me.
P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me, (No, I would probably choose a more logical deity AFTER proof of its existence and benevolence has been successfully presented.)
P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true) (I cannot dislike a fictitious character but I can dislike the stories made up about it.)
C. So, not true that I would be other than an A, or (I am an A) (This is true but it applies to ALL religions.)
"But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like)." How in the ever-loving ____ could any rational human being create such an enormous non-sequitur? What drugs are you on, troll? How does asserting that after years of comparative religion studies, I have never seen acceptable evidence of the existence of a deity means I just proved that a deity exists because I have never seen evidence of its existence?
HERE, LET ME FIX YOUR APPARENT INABILITY TO BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY NOT BELIEVE ANY DEITIES EXIST: P1 If I would be other than an A, then the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster would be liked by me,
However, I have no proof other than some fun stories that the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Therefore, I cannot be other than an atheist, because I cannot like something that does not exist. Like Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, KwanYin, Brahma, Spiderman, Vampires, Werewolves, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
![[Image: argue.gif]](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/argue.gif)
. 