(October 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: burden of proof doesn't just apply to claim of "X" exists, but also "X" does not exist. to be more accurate, it would be proposition X is true. this includes not just positive existence claims, but also negative existence claims. a negating position such as "God doesn't exist" is not a default position. the default position is one of ignorance such as "God may or may not exist but I don't know."

There are 2 truth claims concerning the existence of a god.

1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist

Both truth claims have to be examined separately. Disbelieving the first claim, does not mean that an atheist believes the second by default.

(October 2, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: burden of proof doesn't just apply to claim of "X" exists, but also "X" does not exist. to be more accurate, it would be proposition X is true. this includes not just positive existence claims, but also negative existence claims. a negating position such as "God doesn't exist" is not a default position. the default position is one of ignorance such as "God may or may not exist but I don't know."

There are 2 truth claims concerning the existence of a god.

1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist

Both truth claims have to be examined separately. Disbelieving the first claim, does not mean that an atheist believes the second by default.

Um not so fast. I am an atheist and depending on time frame I DO CLAIM that a god does not exist.

As far as past and current claims I DO CALL BULLSHIT on them and rule them out as any they say " a snowball's chance in hell".

I am only and strictly semantically regarding the future "agnostic".

It all depends upon the individual atheist as to the degree of agnosticism. I am only "agnostic" about the future. I am dead certain that everything so far is way beyond worth saving from the trash can of bad claims. And even with my "agnosticism" about the future, even then, my "bets" are on it remaining all bullshit.

(October 2, 2013 at 11:53 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 11:49 am)LastPoet Wrote: Well, you could suck my dick for all eternity, it still wouldn't prove god. Hell, mabe.

the thread I posted doesn't aspire to prove God, it only asks what kind of evidence is acceptable and how much is adequate. unfortunately, you and everyone else all seem incapable of giving a minimum reasonable standard.

Provide some, and we'll see.

When we find something we can't demolish with common reason, or evidence to the contrary, or something that isn't based upon fallacious reasoning, then we might, just might, have something.

But that is to say , we might have nothing at all.

---

(October 2, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: burden of proof doesn't just apply to claim of "X" exists, but also "X" does not exist. to be more accurate, it would be proposition X is true. this includes not just positive existence claims, but also negative existence claims. a negating position such as "God doesn't exist" is not a default position. the default position is one of ignorance such as "God may or may not exist but I don't know."

There are 2 truth claims concerning the existence of a god.

1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist

Both truth claims have to be examined separately. Disbelieving the first claim, does not mean that an atheist believes the second by default.

100% this.

(October 2, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There are 2 truth claims concerning the existence of a god.

1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist

Both truth claims have to be examined separately. Disbelieving the first claim, does not mean that an atheist believes the second by default.

I never said it did. however, it should be noted that even if you don't necessarily believe there is no God if you believe the proposition of God is less rational than the proposition of no God, then you must have evidence to support this. even if there were no evidence for both sides, that only rationalizes neutral agnosticism.

(October 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 3:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote: "Whatever the atheist thinks is his minimum amount of evidence, if we provide it, they'll move the goalpost and make up a higher evidence requirement"... isn't that your corollary?

it's a suspicion of mine.

Why am I not surprised?.... -.-'

(October 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

Quote:For me,

---

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if an entity which is "a necessary being who created the universe, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." exists, I would only believe it does if it presented itself to me and, simultaneously (or with a bit of delay so he doesn't wake anyone up), to everyone else in the whole world. Spend some time with each and every one of us. Impart on us some of its infinite wisdom. Make all the magic tricks each one of us requires to accept that entity as a real magic man and creator of universes (how hard can it be to create a lump of gold?). And then, show up again with some periodicity, just to keep in touch and not get lost in past memories and provide the younger generations with the same level of experience.

---

even if all that happened, i'm sure you would prefer solipsism over theism.

I'm not one to withdraw what I have said.
When the time comes, we'll see.... until then, I won't hold my breath!

(October 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

Quote:Until the whole world provides accounts of the same experience, all gods are considered as man-made.

textbook Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Yes, because for a person to make up an extraordinary being is FAR FAR less likely than that being existing in reality...
Grow up!

(October 2, 2013 at 3:41 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

Quote:How did man get to acquire information about this god in which you all believe, while finding no physical interaction with said god?

the information did come from physical interaction with God, at least according to the bible. and no, i'm not begging the question. i'm answering yours which is structured to be an inside inquiry.

I have no idea what is this thing you call an "inside inquiry", but still...
You seem to think the bible is a trustworthy collection of tales about one particular extraordinary entity. Trustworthy in the sense that it portrays real events.
Why is it that you posit so much trust in that particular book, and not in another similar one, like the qu'ran, or the Vedas?
What event(s) in your life has lead you to accept that books tales as depictions of real events?

What I want to ask Irrational AKD is then what is the rational position to take when someone posits a god which is impossible to believe in and has zero evidence to support it? According to Mr. Irrational, it's irrational and fallacious to say, "no, I don't believe that god exists because no evidence has been shown to show that it does."

I don't think there is any argument that it is totally irrational to believe this god exists without evidence.

So then, what's the rational and non-fallacious stance?

---

(October 2, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: I never said it did. however, it should be noted that even if you don't necessarily believe there is no God if you believe the proposition of God is less rational than the proposition of no God, then you must have evidence to support this.

Why? Is it not more rational to not believe in anything that anyone imagines until evidence can show that it exists than to believe in everything anyone imagines until it's been proven to not exist?

You're just trying to twist logic to make a rational position into an irrational one and then labeling it as fallacious.

(October 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: What I want to ask Irrational AKD is then what is the rational position to take when someone posits a god which is impossible to believe in and has zero evidence to support it? According to Mr. Irrational, it's irrational and fallacious to say, "no, I don't believe that god exists because no evidence has been shown to show that it does."

I don't think there is any argument that it is totally irrational to believe this god exists without evidence.

So then, what's the rational and non-fallacious stance?

if it can be shown to be impossible, it would be most rational to accept that. but the problem is no one has done so. and if there is no evidence at all supporting it, then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.

(October 2, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: I never said it did. however, it should be noted that even if you don't necessarily believe there is no God if you believe the proposition of God is less rational than the proposition of no God, then you must have evidence to support this

No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

Quote: even if there were no evidence for both sides, that only rationalizes neutral agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.

Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.

There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.

It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.

To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.

(October 2, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.

And that's what I've been saying my beliefs are the whole fucking time, with you coming back telling me how irrational and fallacious I am for not believing in your god.

Quote:if it can be shown to be impossible, it would be most rational to accept that. but the problem is no one has done so. and if there is no evidence at all supporting it, then it is most rational to not accept God exists but also not rule it out. you can only rule out the impossible.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"If it can be shown that Allah is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Yawheh is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that Vishnu is impossible, it would be most rational to accept that"
"If it can be shown that I cant fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass, it would be most rational to accept that".

Filling a gap can be done with an infinite number of bullshit naked assertions. How much time do you waste trying to prove I cant fart and invisible Lamborghini out of my ass? Something says to me even before you read the first letter in this last sentence you rightfully dismissed that absurd claim, and did so without doing any work.


Point being you are shifting the burden of proof. You can make whatever naked assertion you want, but I am not going to swallow it simply because you can string words together.

I have absolutely no obligation to disprove your claims anymore than you would have to "disprove" farting an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass.

Any claim that starts with a naked assertion can only be propped up with crap.