(July 1, 2015 at 7:52 am)Randy Carson Wrote: "There is no god."

What evidence or argument do you have to offer in support of your belief?

There is no Zeus

What evidence or argument do I have to offer in support of that conclusion?

None, not really (Nor do you). So I should worship Zeus? Oh I could go through logic and probabilities but life is too short to waste on bad bronze age literature.

By the way, there's an open invitation given to my friend's supposed wife to come see me anytime, call any of my telephone numbers or email me.

I'm not going to spend the rest of my life chasing around randomly hoping to catch a glimpse of her if she clearly wants nothing to do with me, if she exists at all. Which, as I said, is extremely unlikely.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:03 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 7:58 am)Nope Wrote: The same evidence you have that there aren't invisible unicorns leaping around the world or that Thor isn't a real being.

So, you have nothing.

Thank you for representing atheism so well.

Actually, you are the one with nothing. You have no evidence at all for your beliefs except your own feelings. Nothing. At. All.

I can't disprove Loki and neither can you. You can't disprove the existence of any invisible creature.

It is interesting how you ignored the part of my first response to you that all your god's omni (insert traits) contradict one another and make it impossible for him to be real.

(June 27, 2015 at 10:03 am)PiousPaladin Wrote: Rather than respond to all the many threads that have appeared involving Catholicism, I have decided to follow an apparent trend here and set up my own thread.

I am a Traditional Catholic and member of the Society of Saint Pius X, a priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the fullness of truth abandoned by the new heretical protestant Church based in Rome masquerading as the Catholic Faith.

The basics of our activities and history can be found here for anyone interested http://sspx.org/en/about/history

If anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

Wait?! your view point says athiest. Did you lie to get on this forum. I probably should do the same to get on to christian forums. They dont respond back when i tell the truth about my religious views. I dont think they want logic in thier sites. None the less as they say logic does not lie.
Still i do have a serious question. part of my life is spent making sure that catholic rule NEVER happens again. If you know the history since Constitine (about 1700 years ago) then you can see why. If not i can explain that to you.
So the question is .... what if it does happen again in this country? What would my life be like? Would i have a life? Would it all happen again?
This thought keeps me on the forums. So now is my fear justified should your group be in command?

(July 1, 2015 at 8:37 am)loganonekenobi Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 10:03 am)PiousPaladin Wrote: Rather than respond to all the many threads that have appeared involving Catholicism, I have decided to follow an apparent trend here and set up my own thread.

I am a Traditional Catholic and member of the Society of Saint Pius X, a priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the fullness of truth abandoned by the new heretical protestant Church based in Rome masquerading as the Catholic Faith.

The basics of our activities and history can be found here for anyone interested http://sspx.org/en/about/history

If anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

Wait?! your view point says athiest. Did you lie to get on this forum. I probably should do the same to get on to christian forums. They dont respond back when i tell the truth about my religious views. I dont think they want logic in thier sites. None the less as they say logic does not lie.
Still i do have a serious question. part of my life is spent making sure that catholic rule NEVER happens again. If you know the history since Constitine (about 1700 years ago) then you can see why. If not i can explain that to you.
So the question is .... what if it does happen again in this country? What would my life be like? Would i have a life? Would it all happen again?
This thought keeps me on the forums. So now is my fear justified should your group be in command?

*Ahem*
http://atheistforums.org/thread-34272.html

PP was a poe, otherwise known as 'a pisstake'.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:20 am)Nope Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:03 am)Randy Carson Wrote: So, you have nothing.

Thank you for representing atheism so well.

Actually, you are the one with nothing. You have no evidence at all for your beliefs except your own feelings. Nothing. At. All.

I can't disprove Loki and neither can you. You can't disprove the existence of any invisible creature.

It is interesting how you ignored the part of my first response to you that all your god's omni (insert traits) contradict one another and make it impossible for him to be real.

If you're going to posit that God does not exist, you're assuming the burden of proof.

Evidence is normally provided at this point.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:20 am)Nope Wrote: Actually, you are the one with nothing. You have no evidence at all for your beliefs except your own feelings. Nothing. At. All.

I can't disprove Loki and neither can you. You can't disprove the existence of any invisible creature.

It is interesting how you ignored the part of my first response to you that all your god's omni (insert traits) contradict one another and make it impossible for him to be real.

If you're going to posit that God does not exist, you're assuming the burden of proof.

Evidence is normally provided at this point.

Actually, you sidling off the stage in acknowledgement of humiliation is the only thing that might save a small amount of you dignity at this point.     

Evidence of non-existence need never be given when there is no worthwhile evidence for existence.     This is for the the simple reason that the set of things that can be conceptualized is infinite, while the set of thing that actually exist is finite

 Therefore any random concept is infinitely more likely to correspond to no existent thing, than to something that actually Exists.   So the default position that maximizes the probability of correctness, buy an essentially infinite margin over any alternative, is anything that can be conceptualized can be presumed to not exist unless proven otherwise.   

Therefore it is always mandatory to supply evidence if one attempts to claim a concept corresponds to reality.   It never requires evidence to assert that some concept not evidenced to correspond to reality in fact does not in fact correspond to any reality.

It is infinitely more probable that your God does not exist, then he exists.  

Now fuck off.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If you're going to posit that God does not exist, you're assuming the burden of proof.

Evidence is normally provided at this point.

Actually, you sidling off the stage in ambarassement now is what might save a small amount of you dignity at this point.     Evidence of non existence need never be given, for the simple reason that the set of things that can be conceptualized is infinite, and the set of thing that actually exists is finite.   Therefore any random concept is infinitely more likely to correspond to no existent thing, than to something that actually existt..   So it always mandatory to supply proof that a concept claimed to exist actually exist.   It never requires proof to assert something not proven to exist does not in fact exist.

Now fuck off.

Grow up.

(July 1, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If you're going to posit that God does not exist, you're assuming the burden of proof.

Evidence is normally provided at this point.

So if you posit unicorns, invisible purples nothings, godzilla, Allah, Joseph Smith's golden tablets, Zeus, Thor, Nessy, cold fusion, the City of Atlanta, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, do not exist the burden of proof is on you Randy.

Seriously, none of those things can be proven not to exist.  We (at least I hope it's we) don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence for them.  If you don't believe in them, then you understand why I don't believe in your tri-god Yahweh/Jesus/Vague-Spirit-Thingy who is both three separate things and yet only one thing despite 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 /= 1

(July 1, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If you're going to posit that God does not exist, you're assuming the burden of proof.

Evidence is normally provided at this point.

So if you posit unicorns, invisible purples nothings, godzilla, Allah, Joseph Smith's golden tablets, Zeus, Thor, Nessy, cold fusion, the City of Atlanta, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, do not exist the burden of proof is on you Randy.

Exactly. Which is why I don't go to unicorn forums, Jenny. I don't want to have to get into all that in order to prove my point of view. (Especially since I am agnostic about Nessie!). However, I have been to the City of Atlanta (note the avatar).

In return, I expect that anyone who waltzes into a Christianity subforum (even in an Atheist Forum) and says, "God does not exist" has assumed the burden of proof. That's simply how debates are structured. I didn't make that rule.

Quote:Seriously, none of those things can be proven not to exist.  We (at least I hope it's we) don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence for them.  If you don't believe in them, then you understand why I don't believe in your tri-god Yahweh/Jesus/Vague-Spirit-Thingy who is both three separate things and yet only one thing despite 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 /= 1

Jenny, are you seriously suggesting that the evidence for the historical Jesus is on par with the evidence for pots of gold or unicorns?