Christian theists like Frodo aren't just talking about "a God" or any of the thousands Gods in mythology and other religions, but they assume all discussions will be about their specific version of the Christian God, with the specific attributes their particular sect has assigned to that version of their God.

This allows for a number of tricks like:

Atheist: "if God is omnibenevolent, why do terrible things happen to good or innocent people?"
Theist: "I've solved the traditional problem of good and evil! God isn't omnibenevolent."
Atheist: "But the Christian God is. That's the historical definition."
Theist: "Nope, my God's not omnibenevolent, and I'm Christian, so you can clearly see the Christian God is not omnibenevolent."

They can claim any attributes, change any rules they want without evidence, because they don't have to define God in any way, however you as the atheist are supposed to provide enough evidence to disprove something they never even had to define.

There's incredible dishonesty in simply establishing the plausibility if a supernatural being, so you can sneak your particular religious deity in through the back door.

Anyone who thinks that's reasonable has been so thoroughly indoctrinated into their belief system, they either can't actually tell the presuppositions they make are there, or are simply lying to get you to presuppose "their god" as devined by access to "Truth no non-believer can perceive."

(April 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 1:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm an atheist, because I saw what religion really is .

(April 17, 2014 at 7:46 pm)Aral Gamelon Wrote: Have any evidence for your 'unique' something?

Do you really have any room to talk about illogic?

What evidence do you have in mind?

Plenty room. Am I not allowed to talk about it then?

(April 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is if evidence is possible.

(April 17, 2014 at 9:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Christian theists like Frodo aren't just talking about "a God" or any of the thousands Gods in mythology and other religions, but they assume all discussions will be about their specific version of the Christian God, with the specific attributes their particular sect has assigned to that version of their God.

There's incredible dishonesty in establishing the plausibility if a supernatural being, so you can sneak your particular religious deity in through the back door.

Anyone who thinks that's reasonable has been so thoroughly indoctrinated into their belief system, they either can't actually tell the presuppositions they make are there, or are simply lying to get you to presuppose "their god" as devined by access to "Truth no non-believer can perceive."

Haha you chickened out again.

I'm actually talking about any creator God here. Refine it enough and we can specify a particular God if you like.

Religious endeavour all covers the same ground at the most basic.

(April 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

-Ahem-

Believer: Here's a logical proof for God's existence:

Quote:1) If God (a being who exists in all possible worlds) exists in some possible world, then God exists.

2) God exists in some possible world.

3) Therefore God exists.

Discussions on the burden of proof are often just trifling over nothing. There are definitely times it's useful, but typically only when an argument from ignorance or incredulity is being made. If a theist presents an argument to we atheists (and arguments are evidence), then if we are to be rational in our rejection of (or abstention from, if you prefer) theism, we must have good reason to reject said arguments. In such situations, talk of burden of proof just makes no sense. After all, consider this:

Believer: I believe in God.

Atheist: Why?

Believer: Because the fine-tuning of the universe for life is exponentially more likely on theism than on naturalism, and thus constitutes a strong probabilistic argument for theism. [This does in fact seem to be true]

Atheist: ...You have the burden of proof!

Clearly discussion of the burden of proof because a side issue once the evidence has been presented.

What you say it true for your example. My point is that saying something is wrong, false, or otherwise mistaken shifts the burden of proof. An atheists go beyond simple disbelief once they assert that their denial is the correct position.

But yes. Burden of proof arguments are trivial like you say. At the same time I think its disingenuous for some to rail against believers and hiding behind a facade of indifference. If they were simply nonbelievers then the appropriate position is agnosticism.

(April 17, 2014 at 9:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 9:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Christian theists like Frodo aren't just talking about "a God" or any of the thousands Gods in mythology and other religions, but they assume all discussions will be about their specific version of the Christian God, with the specific attributes their particular sect has assigned to that version of their God.

There's incredible dishonesty in establishing the plausibility if a supernatural being, so you can sneak your particular religious deity in through the back door.

Anyone who thinks that's reasonable has been so thoroughly indoctrinated into their belief system, they either can't actually tell the presuppositions they make are there, or are simply lying to get you to presuppose "their god" as devined by access to "Truth no non-believer can perceive."

Haha you chickened out again.

I'm actually talking about any creator God here. Refine it enough and we can specify a particular God if you like.

Religious endeavour all covers the same ground at the most basic.

So in your opinion, any Creator God can be substituted once you've established the plausibility of A Creator God?

I find the phrase "chickened out" funny coming from a theist who "has rational evidence for" but will not provide arguments or attributes of his specific God, other then "atheists are wrong about my God, they don't understand his special needs and feelings."

(April 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: The only real claim I'm making is that 'supernatural' and 'imaginary' are, by all appearances, synonymous terms. Not that it's definitely so, just that 100% of the evidence so far points that way. You are insisting this is not true, which places the burden squarely on you. Only, you think it doesn't, because you insist that the supernatural is a special category that gets a special exception to the rules every other claim has to follow. Why? Because fraudo said so.

What evidence Ryan? There you go making that absurd claim again. Let me see, what will your defence be again... Oh yes, that it's not absurd because I didn't say the opposite. FFS mate get a clue.

It must be hard being such a twat.

(April 17, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Maybe a topic for another thread, but there is a smidgen of evidence for one of the multiverse theories that explains this fine-tuning.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is a simpler and better supported explanation.

Ahh, here it is. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-universe/

Oh, you might've got the wrong impression. I'm not saying there aren't potential naturalistic explanations for cosmic fine-tuning (otherwise I wouldn't be a naturalist :p), but that such is more likely to occur if theism is true.

However, an even stronger fine-tuning argument can be made that goes beyond just fine-tuning of the universe, and it's probably the best argument for theism I've seen.

---

(April 17, 2014 at 9:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What you say it true for your example. My point is that saying something is wrong, false, or otherwise mistaken shifts the burden of proof. An atheists go beyond simple disbelief once they assert that their denial is the correct position.

But yes. Burden of proof arguments are trivial like you say. At the same time I think its disingenuous for some to rail against believers and hiding behind a facade of indifference. If they were simply nonbelievers then the appropriate position is agnosticism.

I think I pretty much said that (the bit where I talked about the need for a rational reason for rejecting evidence for theism). :p