Good luck, guys. We've got another "no, you!" merchant on our hands who pretends not to understand the burden of proof.

For someone interested in seeking truth, that's a very irrational if not downright dishonest position to take.

Go to, I'll no more on't; it hath made me hungry.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:50 am)Stimbo Wrote: Good luck, guys. We've got another "no, you!" merchant on our hands who pretends not to understand the burden of proof.

For someone interested in seeking truth, that's a very irrational if not downright dishonest position to take.

Go to, I'll no more on't; it hath made me hungry.

Ok, let's talk about the burden of proof.

In my opinion, the burden or proof is for:
1) Theist who claims to know that God exist
2) Atheist who claims to know that God does not exist

Do you agree with the above? Or you think that if there is an atheist that claims to know that God does not exist, the burden of proof is still on theist to proof him/her wrong?

An atheist who makes the claim that any god/s do not exist does indeed bear the burden of proof just as heavily as a theist who claims that god/s do exist.

Good luck finding an atheist who makes that claim around here.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:55 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Ok, let's talk about the burden of proof.

In my opinion, the burden or proof is for:
1) Theist who claims to know that God exist
2) Atheist who claims to know that God does not exist

Do you agree with the above?

No. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, for there is already zero evidence in support of god's existence. Claiming that the atheist is the one who must prove that something does not exist is shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy. Besides, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to prove the non-existence of something for which there is zero evidence. If there is no evidence, the logical assumption is that it does not exist.

That out of the way, it is up to the theist making the positive claim for which there is no evidence to prove the claim that god exists.

---

(August 10, 2013 at 8:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: An atheist who makes the claim that any god/s do not exist does indeed bear the burden of proof.

I am an anti-theist who makes the claim that god does not exist. I have no qualms making that claim. However, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, as I mentioned above.

I feel I ought to point out for the audience at home that an atheist is not necessarily an anti-theist, though by definition an anti-theist must be an atheist.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:43 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: No reason to support your argument. An irrational theist (similar to irrational atheist) can say/force the opposite thing without any reason:

"you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you don't believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational."

Are you kidding? There are plenty of things we don't know to exist, that's not a reason to believe they do. Doing what you're doing, and believing while shifting the burden of proof, logically puts you in the position of having to believe in every claim until it's disproven. And yet, you aren't a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian (protestant and catholic) and a scientologist...

Not having evidence that something doesn't exist is no reason to believe it does.

Quote:What are the risks of my belief even if in the future it's proven to be false?

You've spent a portion of your life believing something that is untrue. And there are attendant actions that go along with beliefs, too; how many of your actions are affected by your belief in god? Do you go to church? At its most harmless, that's time you've completely wasted.

Quote:Another straw man argument.

To be a straw man, I would have had to be misrepresenting your position. I never said a word about your position, I merely stated mine, and therefore did not construct a straw man argument.

Quote: You said above that I believe in anything that I find to be untrue? When did I ever said that? What I said is I don't know whether it's true or not (just like any other agnostic atheist).

I wasn't talking about your beliefs, I was talking about the nature of belief in general.

Quote:I again see no argument on your post, an irrational theist can say the opposite thing to you:

Then don't be an irrational theist.

Quote:"You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a *disbelief* system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize. "

You don't need to change the wording at all to make it apply to me. It applies to all of us. I wasn't just talking about you.

Quote:I also seek for evidence that God does not exist and also for a reason (other than evidence) to be atheist. But none so far.

Without evidence for god- and let's be honest, there isn't any- then there's no reason to believe in one. Why not suspend belief entirely until evidence one way or the other presents itself?

The "reason" to be an atheist is simply that there's no good reason to be a theist.

Quote:I can say the same thing to you: that you choose not to take challenges to your disbeliefs seriously.

You could, except that that's not true. Nor is it true for many of us here, who came to atheism by way of religion. I've spent plenty of time exposing myself to theist arguments. I just don't think they hold up.

Quote: How? By embracing a dogmatic "default" that the theist is the one who should give the evidence or reason.

Not just theists. Anyone who makes a positive claim about the existence of something is required to justify it. It's how the burden of proof works.

Quote:Again there is no argument/reason from you why it's a pity.

Is it not self evident? I wouldn't want to believe untrue things.

Quote:Almost all of the things in the world may be untrue. Even theory in science may be untrue. So it's a pity to believe in scientific theory?

I'm not talking about absolute knowledge, because that's a useless concept. But you do need to apportion your level of belief to the evidence; scientific theories fit all the available evidence at the time they are postulated, and change according to new information. So should it be for all of us.

Quote:You don't answer my question. Please answer with "yes" or "no" first.

It's not really a yes or no question, but fine.

Quote:Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Yes or no?

No. Nobody does.

Quote:Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue? Yes or no?

No. Nobody does.

There. Are you happy with an incomplete statement like that, or would you like to know why?

(August 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 8:27 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Now I'm repeating myself, I *never* claim that I know God exists.

Then you should be able to adhere to the logical claim that he does not exist.

What a fucking twat

seriously

---

(August 10, 2013 at 8:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: An atheist who makes the claim that any god/s do not exist does indeed bear the burden of proof just as heavily as a theist who claims that god/s do exist.

Good luck finding an atheist who makes that claim around here.

Stimbo, meet the fucking idiot maelstrom, and see yourself supporting him.

(August 10, 2013 at 9:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 8:31 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Then you should be able to adhere to the logical claim that he does not exist.

What a fucking twat

*looks down at his lap*

Nope, I still have a penis.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: An atheist who makes the claim that any god/s do not exist does indeed bear the burden of proof just as heavily as a theist who claims that god/s do exist.

Good luck finding an atheist who makes that claim around here.

Either there is an atheist who make the claim around here (e.g. Maelstrom) or there is none is irrelevant.

Ok, so we're agree about the burden of proof above.
Let's continue. We seem to agree that there is no evidence of God existence/non-existence. I don't claim to know that God exists and you don't claim to know that God does not exists. So we both agnostic.

Despite there is no evidence either way, I choose to be a theist (agnostic theist) because there is a reason for that (I've mentioned the reason before).

Despite there is no evidence either way, you choose to be an atheist. If this is true, what's your reason? If you said that "by default" (no evidence either way) the rational position is disbelief, then why you embrace this "default" view? If you have no reason, than I can say that this "default view" of yours is a dogmatic position. What will you say to theist who embrace the opposite dogmatic "default" view?

(August 10, 2013 at 9:02 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 8:55 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Ok, let's talk about the burden of proof.

In my opinion, the burden or proof is for:
1) Theist who claims to know that God exist
2) Atheist who claims to know that God does not exist

Do you agree with the above?

No. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, for there is already zero evidence in support of god's existence. Claiming that the atheist is the one who must prove that something does not exist is shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy. Besides, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to prove the non-existence of something for which there is zero evidence. If there is no evidence, the logical assumption is that it does not exist.

Any reference for you logical assumption above?
I found a reference that said the opposite. Just search on Google for "argument from ignorance".
Remember that for me the burden of proof is to both theist and atheist (who make the claims to know something). Your view is burden of proof is on theist only (even for atheist who makes claim to know something).
It sounds to me that you're the one who shift the burden of proof from both theist & atheist to theist only.

(August 10, 2013 at 9:02 am)Maelstrom Wrote: That out of the way, it is up to the theist making the positive claim for which there is no evidence to prove the claim that god exists.

An irrational theist can say/force the opposite thing to you without any reason:

"That out of the way, it is up to the atheist making the negative claim for which there is no evidence to prove the claim that God does not exist."

Please backup any statement with argument/reason or I will keep making the same response.

I have never made the claim that I support Maelstrom in his position. In fact, just scroll up a couple of posts for a perfect illustration of the exact opposite.

Now, are you prepared to quit being dishonest so we can have a proper grownup discussion here?