(October 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Why is it that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in God, but Christians don't have a burden of proof for not believing in Bigfoot, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, elves, fairies, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, etc? Nor do Christians seem to have a burden of proof for not believing in Thor, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, etc...

Simple. Once the truth is shown to be true (the Holy Bible) then the word of God can be used to establish all other truths.

Um, you haven't shown the Bible to be the word of Yahweh, so instead of keeping us in suspense, why don't you start a thread with your "evidence"? Then we can all move on with our lives.

Until then, you've demonstrated nothing, and skeptics are quite justified in not taking you seriously.

(October 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Simple. Once the truth is shown to be true (the Holy Bible) then the word of God can be used to establish all other truths.

CBTGH, seriously get the fuck off this forum. I have read every one of your threads and posts and it is clear that you are not interested in any form of discussion or debate. You have provided no evidence for your arguments, all you have done is spit out bare assertion after bare assertion coupled with countless logical fallacies. And whenever someone makes a point you just can't answer, instead of acknowledging that, you just fucking ignore it. Seriously, fuck off and come back when you know how to debate and discuss.

(September 30, 2013 at 6:44 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. ...

I could equally well say, "To be truly a theist is to claim with absolute certainty that there is a God. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute assertion."

One of the dictionary definitions of agnostic is "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic" and I understand that to hold in religious opinions. The agnostic refuses to commit to asserting either that there probably is a God or that there is probably no God.

Another way of looking at it is Dawkins' scale of atheism from 1 - 7. One is absolute certainty that there is a God, and in spite of some bullshit I believe few, if any, Christians fall into that category. Seven is absolute certainty that there is no God, and few atheists would claim that. A few years ago on the Friendly Atheist Forum we did a poll on that, and the vast majority rated themselves as a 6, for all practical purposes pretty sure that there is no God, because all the evidence points that way, but no amount of empirical evidence ever adds up to 100% certainty.

By definition an agnostic would occupy 4, the midpoint on the scale, equally uncertain that God exists or does not exist.

I find it silly to try to strip away the plain meaning of a useful and well-understood word like atheist. Pure sophistry.

(October 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Simple. Once the truth is shown to be true (the Holy Bible) then the word of God can be used to establish all other truths.

You've made many references to this book. Practically every single post of yours has hidden behind it. What makes you so certain that the book can be relied upon to be true?

"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If the universe, therefore God.
The universe.
Therefore, God.

This is equally as logical as:

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates. "
I bungled the above. It should have been:

If God, then the universe.
The universe.
Therefore, God.

This is equally as logical as:

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich.
Therefore, I am Bill Gates.

---

(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Please list all of the hundreds and the refutation.

Your Google finger is broke? Here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Pick the one you think is best and I'll have a crack at it.

Afterall, it's not like an irrefutable argument for God would make the news or anything.

(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: But even then an absolute negation is not proved by listing some and disproving.

There you are, going on about absolute negations again. What are you on about? Atheism doesn't require believing in an absolute negation. Not understanding the definition of atheism is forgivable. Being uneducable on the topic is not.

(October 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: You must disprove them all.

You must only prove one of them.

---

(October 1, 2013 at 3:49 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Actually I am trying to get atheists and agnostics to accept their burden of proof. Some in those camps are trying to escape their burden of proof.

I have already accepted mine.
That is coming in future topics.

What is our burden of proof, exactly? In every other situation, it's the person who says something exists who has the burden of proof. The only reason there seems to be to shift it in this case is because you don't want it.

It would be utterly ridiculous to expect people to believe everything that hasn't been disproven. Without strong evidence one way or the other, the null hypothesis holds. That's why I'm not obliged to believe in leprechauns, even if I can't prove they don't exist. If someone wants me to believe in leprechauns, they'll have to provide me with convincing evidence, or I won't buy it. It's as simple as that.

If you really accepted your burden of proof, you'd be showing us God is real instead of thinking it's some kind of victory if people who can't prove any made-up invisible insubstantial thing isn't real can't prove your favorite one isn't real either.

(October 1, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(October 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Simple. Once the truth is shown to be true (the Holy Bible) then the word of God can be used to establish all other truths.

You've made many references to this book. Practically every single post of yours has hidden behind it. What makes you so certain that the book can be relied upon to be true?

I will begin that with more topics.

---

(October 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm)xpastor Wrote:

(September 30, 2013 at 6:44 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. ...

I could equally well say, "To be truly a theist is to claim with absolute certainty that there is a God. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute assertion."

One of the dictionary definitions of agnostic is "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic" and I understand that to hold in religious opinions. The agnostic refuses to commit to asserting either that there probably is a God or that there is probably no God.

Another way of looking at it is Dawkins' scale of atheism from 1 - 7. One is absolute certainty that there is a God, and in spite of some bullshit I believe few, if any, Christians fall into that category. Seven is absolute certainty that there is no God, and few atheists would claim that. A few years ago on the Friendly Atheist Forum we did a poll on that, and the vast majority rated themselves as a 6, for all practical purposes pretty sure that there is no God, because all the evidence points that way, but no amount of empirical evidence ever adds up to 100% certainty.

By definition an agnostic would occupy 4, the midpoint on the scale, equally uncertain that God exists or does not exist.

I find it silly to try to strip away the plain meaning of a useful and well-understood word like atheist. Pure sophistry.

Thank you for the info. I was not aware of Dawkins scale.

(October 1, 2013 at 6:21 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I will begin that with more topics.

Thank you. Because until we can establish whether we can take the book seriously, everything else is in limbo.

(October 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm)Rationalman Wrote: CBTGH, seriously get the fuck off this forum. I have read every one of your threads and posts and it is clear that you are not interested in any form of discussion or debate. You have provided no evidence for your arguments, all you have done is spit out bare assertion after bare assertion coupled with countless logical fallacies. And whenever someone makes a point you just can't answer, instead of acknowledging that, you just fucking ignore it. Seriously, fuck off and come back when you know how to debate and discuss.

Now, now, I'm having a bit of fun reading his inane posts. Nothing confirms my atheism more than a theist making totally ridiculous and lame arguments.

It is pretty frustrating how he ignores the tough points, though. I'm still waiting on the Pascal's Wager thread for a reason as to why I should worship a god that threatens me with eternal torture.

Are we sure SavedByGraceThruFaith is male?

For some reason most of the posts come across as from a female to me.